Identifying and quantifying architectural debt

ABSTRACT

Our prior work showed that the majority of error-prone source files in a software system are architecturally connected. Flawed architectural relations propagate defects among these files and accumulate high maintenance costs over time, just like debts accumulate interest. We model groups of architecturally connected files that accumulate high maintenance costs as architectural debts. To quantify such debts, we formally define architectural debt, and show how to automatically identify debts, quantify their maintenance costs, and model these costs over time. We describe a novel history coupling probability matrix for this purpose, and identify architecture debts using 4 patterns of architectural flaws shown to correlate with reduced software quality. We evaluate our approach on 7 large-scale open source projects, and show that a significant portion of total project maintenance effort is consumed by paying interest on architectural debts. The top 5 architectural debts, covering a small portion (8% to 25%) of each project's error-prone files, capture a significant portion (20% to 61%) of each project's maintenance effort. Finally, we show that our approach reveals how architectural issues evolve into debts over time.

References

1. N. S. Alves, L. F. Ribeiro, V. Caires, T. S. Mendes, and R. O. Spinola. Towards an ontology of terms on technical debt. In Managing Technical Debt (MTD), 2014 Sixth International Workshop on, pages 1--7. IEEE, 2014.
2. C. Y. Baldwin and K. B. Clark. Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press, 2000.
3. L. Bass, P. Clements, and R. Kazman. Software Architecture in Practice. Addison-Wesley, 3rd edition, 2012.
4. F. Beck and S. Diehl. Evaluating the impact of software evolution on software clustering. In Proc. 17th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, pages 99--108, Oct. 2010.
5. J. Brondum and L. Zhu. Visualising architectural dependencies. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt, MTD '12, pages 7--14, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012. IEEE Press.
6. N. Brown, Y. Cai, Y. Guo, R. Kazman, M. Kim, P. Kruchten, E. Lim, A. MacCormack, R. Nord, I. Ozkaya, R. Sangwan, C. Seaman, K. Sullivan, and N. Zazworka. Managing technical debt in software-reliant systems. pages 47--52, 2010.
7. W. Cunningham. The WyCash portfolio management system. In Addendum to Proc. 7th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, pages 29--30, Oct. 1992.
8. B. Curtis, J. Sappidi, and A. Szynkarski. Estimating the principal of an application's technical debt. IEEE Software, 29(6):34--42, 2012.
9. E. da S. Maldonado and E. Shihab. Detecting and quantifying different types of self-admitted technical debt. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, Apr. 2015.
10. D. Falessi, P. Kruchten, R. L. Nord, and I. Ozkaya. Technical debt at the crossroads of research and practice: report on the fifth international workshop on managing technical debt. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 39(2):31--33, 2014.
11. M. Gethers, B. Dit, H. Kagdi, and D. Poshyvanyk. Integrated impact analysis for managing software changes. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE '12, pages 430--440, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012. IEEE Press.
12. T. Gîrba, S. Ducasse, A. Kuhn, R. Marinescu, and R. Daniel. Using concept analysis to detect co-change patterns. In Ninth International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution: In Conjunction with the 6th ESEC/FSE Joint Meeting, IWPSE '07, pages 83--89, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
13. I. Griffith and C. Izurieta. Design pattern decay: The case for class grime. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM '14, pages 39:1--39:4, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.
14. H. Kagdi, M. Gethers, D. Poshyvanyk, and M. L. Collard. Blending conceptual and evolutionary couplings to support change impact analysis in source code. In Proc. 17th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, pages 119--128, Oct. 2010.
15. R. Kazman, Y. Cai, R. Mo, Q. Feng, L. Xiao, S. Haziyevy, V. Fedaky, and A. Shapochkay. A case study in locating the architectural roots of technical debt. In Proc. 37th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2015.
16. R. Kazman and S. J. Carriere. Playing detective: Reconstructing software architecture from available evidence. Automated Software Engineering, 6(2):107--138, Apr. 1999.
17. E. Kouroshfar. Studying the effect of co-change dispersion on software quality. In Software Engineering (ICSE), 2013 35th International Conference on, pages 1450--1452, May 2013.
18. E. Kouroshfar, M. Mirakhorli, H. Bagheri, L. Xiao, S. Malek, and Y. Cai. A study on the role of software architecture in the evolution and quality of software. In Proceedings of the 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR '15, pages 246--257, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015. IEEE Press.
19. Z. Li, P. Avgeriou, and P. Liang. A systematic mapping study on technical debt and its management. J. Syst. Softw., 101(C):193--220, Mar. 2015.
20. A. Martini and J. Bosch. The danger of architectural technical debt: Contagious debt and vicious circles. In Software Architecture (WICSA), 2015 12th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on, pages 1--10, May 2015.
21. R. Mo, Y. Cai, R. Kazman, and L. Xiao. Hotspot patterns: The formal definition and automatic detection of architecture smells. In Proc. 15th Working IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Software Architecture, May 2015.
22. R. Mo, J. Garcia, Y. Cai, and N. Medvidovic. Mapping architectural decay instances to dependency models, 2013.
23. M. Naedele, H.-M. Chen, R. Kazman, Y. Cai, L. Xiao, and C. A. Silva. Manufacturing execution systems: A vision for managing software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 101:59--68, Mar. 2015.
24. L. Peters. Technical debt: The ultimate antipattern - the biggest costs may be hidden, widespread, and long term, 2014.
25. F. Shull, D. Falessi, C. Seaman, M. Diep, and L. Layman. Technical debt: Showing the way for better transfer of empirical results. In J. Münch and K. Schmid, editors, Perspectives on the Future of Software Engineering, pages 179--190. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.
26. L. Xiao, Y. Cai, and R. Kazman. Design rule spaces: A new form of architecture insight. In Proc. 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2014.
27. N. Zazworka, A. Vetro, C. Izurieta, S. Wong, Y. Cai, C. Seaman, and F. Shull. Comparing four approaches for technical debt identification. Software Quality Journal, pages 1--24, 2013.
28. T. Zimmermann, P. Weißgerber, S. Diehl, and A. Zeller. Mining version histories to guide software changes. In Proc. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 563--572, May 2004.

Index Terms

• Software and its engineering

  • Software organization and properties

    • Software system structures

      • Software architectures