Automatic enforcement of constraints in real-time collaborative architectural decision making

Gaubatz, Patrick; Lytra, Ioanna; Zdun, Uwe

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2015.01.056

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 46 publications

(71 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Concerning the decision-making process, Malavolta et al [13] state that group decision-making is the best choice, i.e., the more people participating in the process, the better it is. Many authors highlight the importance of collaborative decision-making on producing accurate and complete architecture related decisions [29,30].…”

Section: Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insights on the relationship between decision-making style and personality in software engineering

Mendes

Salleh

et al. 2021

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software development involves many activities, and decision making is an essential one. Various factors can impact a decision-making process, and by understanding such factors, one can improve the process. Since people are the ones making decisions, some human-related aspects are amongst those influencing factors. One such aspect is the decision maker's personality.Objective: This research investigates the relationship between decision-making style and personality within the context of software project development. Method: We conducted a survey in a population of Brazilian software engineers to gather data on their personality and decision-making style. Results: Data from 63 participants was gathered and resulted in the identification of seven statistically significant correlations between decision-making style and personality (personality factor and personality facets). Furthermore, we built a regression model in which decision-making style (DMS) was the response variable and personality factors the independent variables. The backward elimination procedure selected only agreeableness to explain 4.2% of DMS variation. The model accuracy was evaluated and deemed good enough. Regarding the moderation effect of demographic variables (age, educational level, experience, and role) on the relationship between DMS and Agreeableness, the analysis showed that only software engineers' role has such effect. Conclusion:This paper contributes toward understanding the relationship between DMS and personality. Results show that the personality variable agreeableness can explain the variation in decision-making style. Furthermore, someone's role in a software development project can impact the strength of the relationship between DMS and agreeableness.

show abstract

Section: Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insights on the relationship between decision-making style and personality in software engineering

Mendes

Salleh

et al. 2021

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several works address AKM in software engineering [28][29][30][31][32] , in GSD [33][34][35][36][37] , and even in ASD [6,38,39] ; however, these works do not cover AGSD environments. We, therefore, conducted a systematic mapping review (reported elsewhere [40] ), in which we identified nine approaches used to manage AK that were grouped into three areas: (1) artifact-based, (2) communication-based, and (3) methodology-based.…”

Section: Architectural Knowledge Management In Agile and Global Software Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a reduction in architectural knowledge vaporization during agile global software development

Borrego

Morán

Palacio³

et al. 2019

Information and Software Technology

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]. Groher and Weinreich analyze four approaches for group decision making that were proposed by students with practical experience [48].…”

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

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

Automatic enforcement of constraints in real-time collaborative architectural decision making

Cited by 8 publications

References 46 publications

Insights on the relationship between decision-making style and personality in software engineering

Insights on the relationship between decision-making style and personality in software engineering

Towards a reduction in architectural knowledge vaporization during agile global software development

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About