@Article{Boeckle1996a, author = {Böckle, Günter and Hellwagner, Hermann and Lepold, Roland and Sandweg, Gerd and Schallenberger, Burghardt and Thudt, Raimar and and Wallstab, Stefan}, journal = {IEEE Computer Society}, title = {Structured Evaluation of Computer Systems}, year = {1996}, issn = {0018-9162}, month = jun, number = {No 6}, pages = {45-51}, volume = {Vol. 29}, abstract = {Evaluating computers and other systems is difficult for a couple of reasons. First, the goal of evaluation is typically ill-defined: customers, sometimes even designers, either don't know or can't specify exactly what result they expect. Often, they don't specify the architectural variants to consider, and often the metrics and workload they expect you to use are ill-defined. Second, they rarely clarify which kind of model and evaluation method best suit the evaluation problem. These problems have consequences. For one thing, the decision-maker may not trust the evaluation. For another, poor planning means the evaluation cannot be reproduced if any of the parameters are changed slightly. Finally, the evaluation documentation is usually inadequate, and so some time after the evaluation you might ask yourself, how did I come to that conclusion? An approach developed at Siemens makes decisions explicit and the process reproducible}, address = {N, A}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/2.507631}, language = {EN}, pdf = {https://www.itec.aau.at/bib/files/00507631.pdf}, publisher = {N, A} }