Skip to content

References: Utility Trees and Scenario Prioritization

Curated sources for deeper study of utility tree structure, importance and difficulty ratings, HH scenario identification, workshop facilitation, priority negotiation, and tree validation.

Books

  • Bass, Len, Paul Clements, and Rick Kazman. (2021). Software Architecture in Practice (4th ed.). Addison-Wesley. The authoritative SEI reference for the utility tree structure, the importance-difficulty rating scheme, and the role of the utility tree in driving ATAM's architectural approach analysis — the primary source for this chapter's content.

  • Clements, Paul, Rick Kazman, and Mark Klein. (2001). Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies. Addison-Wesley. Provides detailed case studies of utility tree construction in real ATAM evaluations, showing how importance and difficulty ratings are negotiated in practice across different system domains.

  • Hohmann, Luke. (2006). Innovation Games: Creating Breakthrough Products Through Collaborative Play. Addison-Wesley. Covers dot voting and other collaborative prioritization techniques used in utility tree workshops, providing facilitation guidance for the priority negotiation and stakeholder alignment processes described in this chapter.

Articles and Papers

  • Kazman, Rick, et al. (2000). "ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation." CMU/SEI-2000-TR-004. Software Engineering Institute. The canonical ATAM technical report's treatment of utility trees, including the construction process, the HH scenario identification, and the role of the utility tree as the pivot artifact between stakeholder priorities and architectural approach analysis.

  • Barbacci, Mario, et al. (2003). "Quality Attribute Workshops (QAWs)." CMU/SEI-2003-TR-016. Software Engineering Institute. The SEI's QAW report covers the facilitated stakeholder prioritization process that feeds the utility tree — directly relevant to the workshop facilitation and importance-rating assignment described in this chapter.

  • Kazman, Rick, and James Tomayko. (2004). "ATAM Evaluation of a Large-Scale Enterprise System." CMU/SEI-2004-TR-001. Software Engineering Institute. Case study of a full ATAM evaluation on a complex enterprise system, illustrating how utility trees are built and validated at scale — informative context for the validation checklist in this chapter.

Online Resources

  • ATAM Technical Report — Utility Tree Section — Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute. The freely available SEI technical report containing the original description of the utility tree structure and its role in ATAM — the primary source for this chapter's structural definitions.

  • Prioritization Techniques for Product Managers — Atlassian. Practical overview of dot voting and priority matrix techniques used in stakeholder workshops, complementing this chapter's facilitation guidance with accessible process descriptions.

  • MoSCoW Prioritization Method — Wikipedia. Background on the MoSCoW prioritization scheme (Must Have, Should Have, Could Have, Won't Have) — a useful alternative or complement to the H/M/L importance rating used in utility trees, for practitioners who need to explain the rating concept to new stakeholders.

  • Dot Voting in Agile Teams — Mountain Goat Software. Practical guidance on conducting dot voting sessions — the primary scenario prioritization technique described in Chapters 6 and 7 — including facilitation tips for managing group dynamics.

Videos

  • "Architecture Risk Analysis and the Utility Tree." Software Engineering Institute. Carnegie Mellon University. https://www.youtube.com. SEI educational video covering the utility tree's role in ATAM risk analysis, including how HH scenarios are identified and used to drive the architectural approach analysis — direct complement to this chapter's construction and validation content.