Pay for essay cheap
If we accept this notion of transferability, then transferring the results of a case study requires not only an understanding of the context of the case study itself, but also an understanding of the context to which the results are to be transferred. In the second camp are methodologists who espouse some notion of theoretical generalization. However, some methodologists have research papers help criticized theoretical notions of generalizability due to the difficulty of deriving broad theoretical results from individual cases. But it is useful to keep these schools of thought in mind when considering how this work might be generalizable. Ill 5 Case study: Architecture evolution at Costco coordination, and integration difficulties, but still there are significant challenges. Thus, we might reasonably say that our result on the prominence of communication, coordination, and integration challenges is more analytically generalizable than that on dealing with legacy systems. Of particular interest is the generalizability of our results on the applicability of our approach to modeling a real-world evolution. Generalizability is a particularly crucial question here, because not only does this result emerge from a study at a single company, but it emerges from a study of just a single software system. Again, it is important to keep in mind how generalization works for case studies. There are some aspects of the case under study that do limit generalization in certain respects. For example, the point-of-sale system is one that can be understood fairly well from a component-and-connector architectural perspective. Our coding frame and modeling approach took advantage of this fact. The categories of the coding frame are based on the assumption of a component-and-connector model, and we produced only a component-and-connector view during the modeling process. In a different system where alternate architectural view types are important, the coding frame and the modeling procedures would have to be revised accordingly. But the overall result—that our approach can capture the main elements of a real- world evolution—seems to have a good deal of generalizability.
There was no a priori theoretical reason to believe that the point-of-sale evolution would be particularly easy to model using our approach. We picked that evolution because it was of a reasonable size for the purposes of the case study, and because it was easy to get access to key personnel involved with architecting the system, not good essay writing services because of any special properties that would render it more amenable to our approach. Thus, the main evaluative result seems to have fairly strong external validity. For example, it would be questionable to transfer this result to evolutions of a very different scale (extremely large and complex evolutions, or small code-level evolutions), or to evolutions with special properties that we have theoretical reasons to believe might be difficult to model (e. This is not to say that such evolutions could not be modeled using our approach—only that this case study does not clearly demonstrate that they can be.
Ultimately, case study generalization involves a clear understanding of relevant theory, careful attention to the specifics of both the case being generalized and the case to which the result is to be transferred, and a good deal of judgment.
But on the whole, the results of the case study are pay for essay cheap consistent with the premise that the challenges that motivate our research are genuine challenges faced by practicing architects in (at least some) real software organizations. How well can our modeling framework capture the concerns that arise in a real-world architecture evolution? This case study research question is the one that is of clearest relevance to the thesis claims in section 1. The fact that we were able to easily and directly model nearly all of the architectural concerns in the point-of-sale evolution provides strong support for the applicability claim.
The preceding discussion clarifies how the case study described in this pay for essay cheap chapter relates to the thesis as a whole.
But how does this case study relate to the JPL case study in chapter 4? After all, both case studies evaluate the applicability of our modeling approach to real-world architecture evolution scenarios.
That is, both case studies directly address thesis claim 1 in section 1. Why did we carry out two case studies addressing the same topic? One answer is that two case studies are much stronger than one. Critics can dismiss the result of a single case study as a fluke attributable to the unique characteristics of the case studied rather pay for essay cheap than evidence of any broader truth.
When two different case studies converge on similar findings, the results are harder to pay for essay cheap dispute. This kind of replication logic or triangulation can be quite powerful, especially when the two case studies were carried out in particularly dissimilar organizations. The two cases studied here are very different indeed: an aerospace laboratory and a retailer.