The GRADE Decision Canvas for Classification and Reflection on Architecture Decisions

Abstract

Abstract:This paper introduces a decision canvas for capturing architecture decisions in software and systems engineering. The canvas leverages a dedicated taxonomy, denoted GRADE, meant for establishing the basics of the vocabulary for assessing and choosing architectural assets in the development of software-intensive systems.The canvas serves as a template for practitioners to discuss and document architecture decisions, i.e., capture, understand and communicate decisions among decision-makers and to others. It also serves as a way to reflect on past decision-making activities devoted to both tentative and concluding decisions in the development of software-intensive systems. The canvas has been assessed by means of preliminary internal and external evaluations with four scenarios. The results are promising as the canvas fulfills its intended objectives while satisfying most of the needs of the subjects participating in the evaluation.

Selecting component sourcing options: A survey of software engineering’s broader make-or-buy decisions

“…In the Orion project, we will continue our research on efficient and effective decision making in component-based software engineering. First, we aim to help organizations improve their decisions-making processes by collecting data or evidence relevant to their architectural decisions with the GRADE taxonomy [37] and canvas [81] , possibly through direct interaction with partner companies during agile retrospective meetings in the field, or through focus groups in more controlled settings. Second, we will continue developing COACH [82] , with a particular focus on creating a lightweight decision support tool that can be easily integrated into a decision process dominated by expert judgment.…”

Towards evidence‐based decision‐making for identification and usage of assets in composite software: A research roadmap

“…The collaboration has resulted in a mutual understanding and terminology of the research area, including creating a joint taxonomy for the area 21 and a canvas for its usage. 20,46 Hence, the concrete activities resulting in the roadmap is the closure of the project and documentation of the further research needed in the area. In particular, the systematic literature review, 50 the case survey, 20 and the survey 28 provided essential input to formulate the roadmap.…”

“…The study by Borg et al 28 highlighted the importance of considering decision context and thus tailor decision-making methods to specific needs. Furthermore, the research has been focused on developing and proposing solutions, such as processes (e.g., Badampudi et al 32 and Alégroth et al 33 ), a taxonomy (e.g., Papatheocharous et al 21 ), methods, models and tools (e.g., Axelsson et al, 39 Sentilles et al, 36 Papatheocharous et al, 46 and Cicchetti et al 38 ), as well as their empirical evaluation (e.g., Olsson et al 47 ). In addition to the three studies described above (cf.…”