Team Situational Awareness and Architectural Decision Making with the Software Architecture Warehouse

Nowak, Marcin; Pautasso, Cesare

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39031-9_13

Cited by 25 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In larger teams and organizations, wikis and collaborative decision-making support may make sense. In larger teams, support for reaching a consensus among the team members is required (see also [37]), for example, to prevent the dominant people of a team from monopolizing a discussion.…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An expert survey on kinds, influence factors and documentation of design decisions in practice

Weinreich

Groher

Miesbauer

2015

Future Generation Computer Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An expert survey on kinds, influence factors and documentation of design decisions in practice

Weinreich

Groher

Miesbauer

2015

Future Generation Computer Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nowak and Pautasso analyze situational awareness in group architectural decision making [46]. Gaubatz et al propose automatic enforcements of constraints in group architectural decisions [47].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Tofan

Galster

Lytra

et al. 2016

Information and Software Technology

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

“…Software Architecture Warehouse (SAW) supports collaborative architectural decision making and enhances situational awareness by providing an environment for real-time synchronization of design spaces, voting, and discussion for software architects [30]. The purpose of the wiki-based tool AD kwik is also to support collaboration in decision making through sharing of knowledge about ADDs across project boundaries [31].…”

Section: Tools For Architectural Decision Making and Documentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of the proposals have been evaluated either in case studies (e.g., [6,26]), in industrial projects [25], or focus groups [30], and in a few cases no evaluation is reported. None of the tools has been empirically validated and only little feedback has been gathered by the users.…”

Section: Tools For Architectural Decision Making and Documentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two controlled experiments on model-based architectural decision making

Lytra

Gaubatz

Zdun

2015

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Team Situational Awareness and Architectural Decision Making with the Software Architecture Warehouse

Cited by 25 publications

References 19 publications

An expert survey on kinds, influence factors and documentation of design decisions in practice

An expert survey on kinds, influence factors and documentation of design decisions in practice

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

Two controlled experiments on model-based architectural decision making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About