Modeling and Documenting the Evolution of Architectural Design Decisions

Capilla, Rafael; Nava, Francisco; Dueñas, Juan C.

doi:10.1109/shark-adi.2007.9

Cited by 56 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, users need to change the property of "mandatory or optional" for some attributes of a prescribed model. Capilla et al reported similar observation in [31].…”

Section: B Customization Provided By Existing Toolssupporting

confidence: 66%

Supporting Customizable Architectural Design Decision Management

Chen

Babar

2010

2010 17th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Engineering of Computer Based Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-When engineering complex software systems, the key Architectural Design Decisions (ADD) and the reasoning underlying those decisions need to be fully understood by all stakeholders. Achieving such understanding usually requires the use of ADD management tools. Most existing ADD management tools apply prescriptive ADD models and do not provide sufficient customizability. However, forcing architects to follow an ADD model that does not fit their specific needs can cause significant problems (e.g., extra cost is needed, and architects' willingness and motivation can negatively be affected). This research project aims at solving this issue by developing a highly customizable solution, which can enable practitioners to define ADD models according to their preferences and working situations. The detailed needs for ADD model customization will be identified by multiple case studies and semi-structured interviews; the proposed solution will be evaluated using different empirical research methods.Architectural knowledge; architectural design decision; customizability; design rationale; software architecture

show abstract

“…Thus, users need to change the property of "mandatory or optional" for some attributes of a prescribed model. Capilla et al reported similar observation in [31].…”

Section: B Customization Provided By Existing Toolssupporting

confidence: 66%

Supporting Customizable Architectural Design Decision Management

Chen

Babar

2010

2010 17th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Engineering of Computer Based Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Tyree and Akerman, 2005) have proposed a template of attributes to represent architectural design decisions (Tyree and Akerman, 2005), which extends the documentation of design decisions described in Clements et al (2002). Instead of providing a list of attributes to describe a design decision, the approach discussed in Capilla et al (2007a) advocates the use of mandatory and optional attributes that can be tailored according to different needs for making more agile the efforts of capturing a decision. Moreover, specific attributes and relationships aimed to support the evolution of design decisions can be found in Capilla et al (2007b).…”

Section: Managing Architectural Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of architecture knowledge management tools

Tang

Avgeriou

Jansen

et al. 2010

Journal of Systems and Software

Self Cite

165

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tRecent research suggests that architectural knowledge, such as design decisions, is important and should be recorded alongside the architecture description. Different approaches have emerged to support such architectural knowledge (AK) management activities. However, there are different notions of and emphasis on what and how architectural activities should be supported. This is reflected in the design and implementation of existing AK tools. To understand the current status of software architecture knowledge engineering and future research trends, this paper compares five architectural knowledge management tools and the support they provide in the architecture life-cycle. The comparison is based on an evaluation framework defined by a set of 10 criteria. The results of the comparison provide insights into the current focus of architectural knowledge management support, their advantages, deficiencies, and conformance to the current architectural description standard. Based on the outcome of this comparison a research agenda is proposed for future work on AK tools.

show abstract

“…ADDSS' conceptual model [8] relies on the ideas described in the "decision view" [11], which consider this as a new cross-cutting architectural view with respect to the traditional ones [16] used for documenting the architecture. The decisions view fosters capturing and documenting the design decisions and the rationale that happen during any architecting process.…”

Section: The Addss Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Basic research has been done for representing the information of architectural design decisions and how this should be captured. Some authors have focused on describing template lists of attributes for capturing such knowledge [8] Figure 5. Summary of the effort spent in decisionmaking and modelling tasks for the three phases addition to the attributes that are used to describe such AK [1] [17].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%