Performance Testing of Distributed Component Architectures

Performance characteristics, such as response time, throughput andscalability, are key quality attributes of distributed applications. Current practice,however, rarely applies systematic techniques to evaluate performance characteristics.We argue that evaluation of performance is particularly crucial in early developmentstages, when important architectural choices are made. At first glance, thiscontradicts the use of testing techniques, which are usually applied towards the endof a project. In this chapter, we assume that many distributed systems are builtwith middleware technologies, such as the Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) or theCommon Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA). These provide servicesand facilities whose implementations are available when architectures are defined.We also note that it is the middleware functionality, such as transaction and persistenceservices, remote communication primitives and threading policy primitives,that dominates distributed system performance. Drawing on these observations, thischapter presents a novel approach to performance testing of distributed applications.We propose to derive application-specific test cases from architecture designs so thatthe performance of a distributed application can be tested based on the middlewaresoftware at early stages of a development process. We report empirical results thatsupport the viability of the approach

Advancing Alternative Analysis: Integration of Decision Science.

Decision analysis-a systematic approach to solving complex problems-offers tools and frameworks to support decision making that are increasingly being applied to environmental challenges. Alternatives analysis is a method used in regulation and product design to identify, compare, and evaluate the safety and viability of potential substitutes for hazardous chemicals.Assess whether decision science may assist the alternatives analysis decision maker in comparing alternatives across a range of metrics.A workshop was convened that included representatives from government, academia, business, and civil society and included experts in toxicology, decision science, alternatives assessment, engineering, and law and policy. Participants were divided into two groups and prompted with targeted questions. Throughout the workshop, the groups periodically came together in plenary sessions to reflect on other groups' findings.We conclude the further incorporation of decision science into alternatives analysis would advance the ability of companies and regulators to select alternatives to harmful ingredients, and would also advance the science of decision analysis.We advance four recommendations: (1) engaging the systematic development and evaluation of decision approaches and tools; (2) using case studies to advance the integration of decision analysis into alternatives analysis; (3) supporting transdisciplinary research; and (4) supporting education and outreach efforts

Crossing the death valley to transfer environmental decision support systems to the water market

Environmental decision support systems (EDSSs) are attractive tools to cope with the complexity of environmental global challenges. Several thoughtful reviews have analyzed EDSSs to identify the key challenges and best practices for their development. One of the major criticisms is that a wide and generalized use of deployed EDSSs has not been observed. The paper briefly describes and compares four case studies of EDSSs applied to the water domain, where the key aspects involved in the initial conception and the use and transfer evolution that determine the final success or failure of these tools (i.e., market uptake) are identified. Those aspects that contribute to bridging the gap between the EDSS science and the EDSS market are highlighted in the manuscript. Experience suggests that the construction of a successful EDSS should focus significant efforts on crossing the death-valley toward a general use implementation by society (the market) rather than on development.The authors would like to thank the Catalan Water Agency (Agència Catalana de l’Aigua), Besòs River Basin Regional Administration (Consorci per la Defensa de la Conca del Riu Besòs), SISLtech, and Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation for providing funding (CTM2012-38314-C02-01 and CTM2015-66892-R). LEQUIA, KEMLG, and ICRA were recognized as consolidated research groups by the Catalan Government under the codes 2014-SGR-1168, 2013-SGR-1304 and 2014-SGR-291.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Managing knowledge management tools: a systematic classification and comparison

Knowledge management (KM) is playing an important role in commercial and academic activities, and people are usually armed with effective KM tools for implementation. On one hand, KM tools can facilitate KM activities; however, on the other hand, with the “explosion” of KM tools development, people may feel confused about which to choose or which is more suitable. As a result, KM tools should be managed, so this paper aims at making a systematic classification and comparison research and proposes a KM tools selection strategy based on a point of view on knowledge lifecycle