Advertisement

Suitability of Software Architecture Decision Making Methods for Group Decisions

  • Smrithi Rekha V.
  • Henry Muccini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8627)

Abstract

Software architecture design decisions are central to the architecting process. Hence, the software architecture community has been constantly striving towards making the decision-making process robust and reliable to create high-quality architectures. Surveys of practitioners has demonstrated that most decisions made by them are group decisions. Hence, for any tool or method to be useful to them, it must include provision for making group decisions.

In this paper we analyse if and how current software architecture decision-making techniques support Group Decision Making (GDM). We use an evaluation framework with eight criteria, identified by the GDM community, to evaluate selected SA decision-making techniques in order to check their adequacy and suitability to support group decisions. As per our analysis, most of the selected methods in their current form are not yet fully suitable for group decision making and may need to integrate more aspects like provision for stakeholders to explicitly indicate their preferences, conflict resolution mechanisms, and group decision rules meant to specify how stakeholders’ preferences are taken into account.

Keywords

Group Decision Making Software Architecture Evaluation Framework Multiple Stakeholder Analytic Network Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rekha, V.S., Muccini, H.: A study on group decision-making in software architecture. In: Proc. WICSA 2014 the 11th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miesbauer, C., Weinreich, R.: Classification of design decisions an expert survey in practice. In: Drira, K. (ed.) ECSA 2013. LNCS, vol. 7957, pp. 130–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tofan, D., Galster, M., Avgeriou, P.: Difficulty of architectural decisions a survey with professional architects. In: Drira, K. (ed.) ECSA 2013. LNCS, vol. 7957, pp. 192–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO: ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010, Systems and software engineering — Architecture description (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G.: Decision making with the analytic network process. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aldag, R.J., Fuller, S.R.: Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological Bulletin 113(3), 533 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ambrus, A., Greiner, B., Pathak, P.: Group versus individual decision-making: Is there a shift? Economics Working Papers from Institute for Advanced Study (91) (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kerr, N.L., Tindale, R.S.: Group performance and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 623–655 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Janis, I.L.: Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1983)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Falessi, D., Cantone, G., Kazman, R., Kruchten, P.: Decision-making techniques for software architecture design: A comparative survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 43(4), 33 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lipshitz, R., Strauss, O.: Coping with uncertainty: A naturalistic decision-making analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 69(2), 149–163 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dennis, A.R.: Information processing in group decision making: You can lead a group to information, but you can’t make it think. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 283–287 (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brodbeck, F.C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., Schulz-Hardt, S.: Group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: The information asymmetries model. Academy of Management Review 32(2), 459–479 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hinsz, V.B., Tindale, R.S., Vollrath, D.A.: The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin 121(1), 43 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stasser, G., Titus, W.: Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48(6), 1467 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tofan, D., Galster, M., Avgeriou, P., Schuitema, W.: Past and future of software architectural decisions a systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology 56(8), 850–872 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Al-Naeem, T., Gorton, I., Babar, M.A., Rabhi, F., Benatallah, B.: A quality-driven systematic approach for architecting distributed software applications. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 244–253. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Andrews, A., Mancebo, E., Runeson, P., France, R.: A framework for design tradeoffs. Software Quality Journal 13(4), 377–405 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Phillips, B.C., Polen, S.M.: Add decision analysis to your cots selection process. Software Technology Support Center Crosstalk (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lozano-Tello, A., Gómez-Pérez, A.: Baremo: how to choose the appropriate software component using the analytic hierarchy process. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 781–788. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moore, M., Kazman, R., Klein, M., Asundi, J.: Quantifying the value of architecture design decisions: lessons from the field. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 557–562. IEEE Computer Society (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Svahnberg, M., Wohlin, C., Lundberg, L., Mattsson, M.: A quality-driven decision-support method for identifying software architecture candidates. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 13(05), 547–573 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vijayalakshmi, S., Zayaraz, G., Vijayalakshmi, V.: Multicriteria decision analysis method for evaluation of software architectures. International Journal of Computer Applications 1(25), 22–27 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tofan, D., Galster, M., Avgeriou, P.: Capturing tacit architectural knowledge using the repertory grid technique (nier track). In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 916–919. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wallin, P., Froberg, J., Axelsson, J.: Making decisions in integration of automotive software and electronics: A method based on atam and ahp. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Software Engineering for Automotive Systems, p. 5. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stoll, P., Wall, A., Norstrom, C.: Guiding architectural decisions with the influencing factors method. In: Seventh Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, WICSA 2008, pp. 179–188. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gilson, F., Englebert, V.: Rationale, decisions and alternatives traceability for architecture design. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Software Architecture, Companion Volume, p. 4. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Orlic, B., Mak, R., David, I., Lukkien, J.: Concepts and diagram elements for architectural knowledge management. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Software Architecture, Companion Volume, p. 3. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wu, W., Kelly, T.: Managing architectural design decisions for safety-critical software systems. In: Hofmeister, C., Crnković, I., Reussner, R. (eds.) QoSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4214, pp. 59–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Choi, H., Choi, Y., Yeom, K.: An integrated approach to quality achievement with architectural design decisions. JSW 1(3), 40–49 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    In, H., Kazman, R., Olson, D.: From requirements negotiation to software architectural decisions. In: Proc. From Software Requ. to Architectures Workshop STRAW (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grunske, L.: Identifying good architectural design alternatives with multi-objective optimization strategies. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 849–852. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gu, Q., Lago, P., van Vliet, H.: A template for soa design decision making in an educational setting. In: 2010 36th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 175–182. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zannier, C., Maurer, F.: A qualitative empirical evaluation of design decisions. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 30(4), 1–7 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zimmermann, O., Gschwind, T., Küster, J., Leymann, F., Schuster, N.: Reusable architectural decision models for enterprise application development. In: Overhage, S., Szyperski, C.A., Reussner, R., Stafford, J.A. (eds.) QoSA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4880, pp. 15–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Riebisch, M., Wohlfarth, S.: Introducing impact analysis for architectural decisions. In: 14th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, ECBS 2007, pp. 381–392. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Xu, B., Huang, Z., Wei, O.: Making architectural decisions based on requirements: Analysis and combination of risk-based and quality attribute-based methods. In: 2010 7th International Conference on Ubiquitous Intelligence Computing and 7th International Conference on Autonomic Trusted Computing (UIC/ATC), pp. 392–397 (2010)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nakakawa, A., Bommel, P.: Requirements for collaborative decision making in enterprise architecture. In: Proceedings of the 4th SIKS/BENAIS Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, The Netherlands, Nijmegen (2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tang, A., Avgeriou, P., Jansen, A., Capilla, R., Ali Babar, M.: A comparative study of architecture knowledge management tools. Journal of Systems and Software 83(3), 352–370 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Smrithi Rekha V.
    • 1
    • 2
  • Henry Muccini
    • 3
  1. 1.Amrita School of BusinessAmrita Vishwa VidyapeethamIndia
  2. 2.Center for Research in Advanced Technologies for Education (CREATE)Amrita Vishwa VidyapeethamIndia
  3. 3.Department of Engineering, Computer Science, and MathematicsUniversity of L’AquilaItaly

Personalised recommendations