ATRAF-driven IMRaD Methodology: Tradeoff and Risk Analysis of Software Architectures Across Abstraction Levels

TL;DR

This paper introduces an IMRaD-aligned methodology for ATRAF, enhancing transparency and systematic reporting in software architecture evaluation across abstraction levels.

Contribution

It adapts ATRAF into an IMRaD format, improving rigor and reproducibility in software architecture research reporting.

Findings

Enhanced transparency in architecture evaluation reports

Systematic alignment of ATRAF phases with IMRaD sections

Improved reproducibility and clarity in software architecture studies

Abstract

Software architecture research relies on key architectural artifacts -- Software Architectures, Reference Architectures, and Architectural Frameworks -- that underpin the design and analysis of complex systems. Evaluating these artifacts is essential to assess tradeoffs and risks affecting quality attributes such as performance, modifiability, and security. Although methodologies like the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) support software architecture evaluation, their industrial focus misaligns with the IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) format prevalent in academic research, impeding transparency and reproducibility. Our prior work introduced the Architecture Tradeoff and Risk Analysis Framework (ATRAF), extending ATAM through three methods -- ATRAM, RATRAM, and AFTRAM, addressing all abstraction levels, using a unified, iterative four-phase spiral model. These phases -- Scenario and Requirements Gathering, Architectural Views and Scenario Realization, Attribute-Specific Analyses, and Sensitivity, Tradeoff, and Risk Analysis -- ensure traceability and coherence. This paper presents the ATRAF-driven IMRaD Methodology, a concise method to align ATRAF's phases with IMRaD sections. This methodology enhances the rigor, transparency, and accessibility of software architecture research, enabling systematic reporting of complex evaluations.