Suitability of Software Architecture Decision Making Methods for Group Decisions

Rekha, V. Smrithi; Muccini, Henry

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09970-5_2

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research of MCDA techniques has been described in recent surveys by Falessi et al [4] and Rekha & Muccini [5]. A software architecture decision can be seen as a choice that trades off various quality attributes important to stakeholders.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of Design Rule Spaces as Risk Containers

Leigh

Wermelinger

Zisman

2016

2016 13th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-It is well understood that software development can be a risky enterprise and industrial projects often overrun budget and schedule. Effective risk management is, therefore, vital for a successful project outcome. Design Rule Spaces (DRSpaces) have been used by other researchers to understand why implemented software is error-prone [1, 2]. This industrial case study evaluates whether such spaces are durable, meaningful, and isolating risk containers. DRSpaces were created from UML class diagrams of architectural design artefacts. In our study, object orientated metrics were calculated from the UML diagrams, and compared to the error-proneness of the DRSpace implementation, to determine whether architectural coupling translated into implementation difficulties. A correlation between architectural coupling and error-proneness of DRSpaces was observed in the case study. Software developers were asked to identify DRSpaces they found difficult to implement, in order to understand which factors, other than architectural coupling, were also important. The qualitative results show agreement between the code areas developers found difficult to implement and the error-prone DRSpaces. However, the results also show that architectural coupling is just one risk factor of many. The case study suggests that architectural DRSpaces can be used to facilitate a targeted risk review prior to implementation and manage risk.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of Design Rule Spaces as Risk Containers

Leigh

Wermelinger

Zisman

2016

2016 13th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent literature surveys and reviews that compare approaches and tools for architectural decision making and documentation (e.g., Rekha V. and Muccini, 2014;Shahin et al, 2009; consider collaboration support as an important feature of these tools. In addition, according to a survey with 43 architects from industry conducted by Tofan et al, most of the architectural decisions are group decisions (86%) (Tofan et al, 2013).…”

Section: Collaboration In Architectural Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So far there are only a few empirical studies on architectural decision making (see, e.g., van Heesch et al, 2013van Heesch et al, , 2012Shahin et al, 2011) in general or on the specific aspect of group decision making (see, e.g., Nowak and Pautasso, 2013;Rekha V. and Muccini, 2014). As our work mainly deals with propositions about the efficiency and effectiveness of supporting automatic enforcement of constraints for humans, we decided to evaluate it using a controlled experiment with 48 participants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Gaubatz

Lytra

Zdun

2015

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In other words, we exclude decisionmaking approaches based on software agents that aim to assist humans in decision-making since we only consider decision-making processes performed by groups of stakeholders during decentralized and multi-view design. To analyze the existing approaches, we use some of the criteria of Saaty and Vargas (2006) and Rekha and Muccini (2014). The retained criteria concern the five following aspects:…”

Section: Criteria For State-of-the-art Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

A Formalization of Group Decision Making in Multi-Viewpoints Design

Bennani¹,

Kouch²,

Hamlaoui³

et al. 2020

CIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complex systems are typically designed collaboratively by stakeholders from different domains. This multi viewpoints paradigm promotes the separation of concerns since separate teams, from different business viewpoints, build partial models describing the system. These partial models are naturally heterogeneous. So, it is difficult to ensure their intermodel consistency if kept separately. For that, we propose a collaborative approach that combines Group Decision Making (GDM) and Model-Based Engineering (MBE). This paper highlights the GDM part of our approach and especially the concept of decision policy that enables coming up with collective decisions in group decision-making contexts.

show abstract

Suitability of Software Architecture Decision Making Methods for Group Decisions

Cited by 16 publications

References 32 publications

An Evaluation of Design Rule Spaces as Risk Containers

An Evaluation of Design Rule Spaces as Risk Containers

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

A Formalization of Group Decision Making in Multi-Viewpoints Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About