Capturing tacit architectural knowledge using the repertory grid technique (NIER track)

Tofan, Dan; Galster, Matthias; Avgeriou, Paris

doi:10.1145/1985793.1985944

Cited by 21 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consensus is conceptualized in terms of its two main components: general agreement and mutual understanding. GADGET is based on the Delphi technique and our previous work on using the Repertory Grid technique to make and capture architectural decisions [8][9][10]. GADGET was evaluated with students and practitioners, in a case study and an experiment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…GADGET extends our previous work on making and capturing architectural decisions with the Repertory Grid technique [8][9][10], with the idea of group evaluations and feedback from the Delphi technique [11].…”

Section: Gadget Rootsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our previous work, we adapted the Repertory Grid technique for architectural knowledge acquisition [8][9][10], and presented evidence about advantages and disadvantages of using the Repertory Grid technique for making and capturing architectural decisions. For example, the Repertory Grid technique provides systematic architectural decision making support, concise documentation, and reduces architectural knowledge vaporization.…”

Section: Gadget Rootsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6. Analyze the matrix of alternatives, concerns, and ratings to indicate the most preferable alternative (for detailed examples, see [8][9][10]12]). …”

Section: Gadget Rootsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Empirical evaluation of a process to increase consensus in group architectural decision making

Tofan

Galster

Lytra

et al. 2016

Information and Software Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Many software architectural decisions are group decisions rather than decisions made by individuals. Consensus in a group of decision makers increases the acceptance of a decision among decision makers and their confidence in that decision. Furthermore, going through the process of reaching consensus means that decision makers understand better the decision (including the decision topic, decision options, rationales, and potential outcomes). Little guidance exists on how to increase consensus in group architectural decision making.Objective: We evaluate how a newly proposed process (named GADGET) helps architects increase consensus when making group architectural decisions. Specifically, we investigate how well GADGET increases consensus in group architectural decision making, by understanding its practical applicability, and by comparing GADGET against group architectural decision making without using any prescribed approach.Method: We conducted two empirical studies. First, we conducted an exploratory case study to understand the practical applicability of GADGET in industry. We investigated whether there is a need to increase consensus, the effort and benefits of GADGET, and potential improvements for GADGET. Second, we conducted an experiment with 113 students from three universities to compare GADGET against group architectural decision making without using any prescribed approach.Results: GADGET helps decision makers increase their consensus, captures knowledge on architectural decisions, clarifies the different points of view of different decision makers on the decision, and increases the focus of the group discussions about a decision. From the experiment, we obtained causal evidence that GADGET increases consensus better than group architectural decision making without using any prescribed approach.Conclusions: There is a need to increase consensus in group architectural decisions. GADGET helps inexperienced architects increase consensus in group architectural decision making, and provides additional benefits, such as capturing rationale of decisions. Future work is needed to understand and improve other aspects of group architectural decision making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Gadget Rootsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Gadget Rootsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6. Analyze the matrix of alternatives, concerns, and ratings to indicate the most preferable alternative (for detailed examples, see [8][9][10]12]). …”

Section: Gadget Rootsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Empirical evaluation of a process to increase consensus in group architectural decision making

Tofan

Galster

Lytra

et al. 2016

Information and Software Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Answering this question requires us to first understand how the practitioners make these decisions. Although an architect may not be able to precisely quantify the impact of decisions on the system's properties, surely she must have some intuition or rough estimate of their impact, as no successful system comes to existence through random decisions [20]. This intuition may be based on the data available from similar designs in other systems, architect's prior knowledge, manufacturer specification, scientific publication, expert judgment, etc.…”

Section: Motivation and Research Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

GuideArch: Guiding the exploration of architectural solution space under uncertainty

Esfahani

Malek

Razavi

2013

2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-A system's early architectural decisions impact its properties (e.g., scalability, dependability) as well as stakeholder concerns (e.g., cost, time to delivery). Choices made early on are both difficult and costly to change, and thus it is paramount that the engineer gets them "right". This leads to a paradox, as in early design, the engineer is often forced to make these decisions under uncertainty, i.e., not knowing the precise impact of those decisions on the various concerns. How could the engineer make the "right" choices in such circumstances? This is precisely the question we have tackled in this paper. We present GuideArch, a framework aimed at quantitative exploration of the architectural solution space under uncertainty. It provides techniques founded on fuzzy math that help the engineer with making informed decisions.

show abstract

Suitability of Software Architecture Decision Making Methods for Group Decisions

Rekha

Muccini

2014

Software Architecture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Capturing tacit architectural knowledge using the repertory grid technique (NIER track)

Cited by 21 publications

References 6 publications

Empirical evaluation of a process to increase consensus in group architectural decision making

Empirical evaluation of a process to increase consensus in group architectural decision making

GuideArch: Guiding the exploration of architectural solution space under uncertainty

Suitability of Software Architecture Decision Making Methods for Group Decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About