On Cognitive Biases in Architecture Decision Making

  • Andrzej ZalewskiEmail author
  • Klara Borowa
  • Andrzej Ratkowski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10475)


The research carried out to date shows that architectural decision-making is far from being a rational process. Architects tend to adopt a satisfying approach, rather than looking for the optimal architecture, which is a result of many human and social factors. The results of a workshop, carried out with 14 software engineering practitioners show that cognitive biases are commonly present in architecture decision-making. A systematic approach to analysing the influence of biases on decision making has been introduced. Twelve cognitive biases identified during the workshop were analysed with regard to the elements of the decision-making context that affected the aspects of architectural decision making. Finally, we analyse the interactions between cognitive biases and the conditions of real-world software development.


Cognitive biases Architectural decisions Architectural decision-making 


  1. 1.
    Naur, P., Randell, B.: Software engineering techniques. In: Report on a Conference Sponsored by the Nato Science Committee, Garmisch, Germany, 7th to 11th October 1968Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buxton, J.N., Randell, B.: Software engineering techniques. In: Report on a conference sponsored by the Nato Science Committee, Rome, Italy, 27–31 October 1969Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zannier, C., Chiasson, M., Maurer, F.: A model of design decision making based on empirical results of interviews with software designers. Inf. Softw. Technol. 49(6), 637–653 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kahneman, D.: Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin, London (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tang, A., Vliet, H.: Software designers satisfice. In: Weyns, D., Mirandola, R., Crnkovic, I. (eds.) ECSA 2015. LNCS, vol. 9278, pp. 105–120. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23727-5_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Vliet, H., Tang, A.: Decision making in software architecture. J. Softw. Syst. 117, 638–644 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J. Bus. 59, S251–S278 (1986)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nickerson, R.S.: Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2, 175 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Norton, M.I., Mochon, D., Ariely, D.: The IKEA effect: when labor leads to love. J. Consum. Psychol. 22(3), 453–460 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parkinson, C.N.: Parkinson’s Law, or the Pursuit of Progress. Penguin, London (1958)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. In: Wendt, D., Vlek, C. (eds.) Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making, vol. 11, pp. 141–162. Springer, Netherlands (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Birch, S.A.J., Bloom, P.: The curse of knowledge in reasoning about false beliefs. Psychol. Sci. 18(5), 382–386 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sharot, T.: Neural mechanisms mediating optimism bias. Nature 450(7166), 102–105 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brown, W.H., et al.: AntiPatterns: Refactoring Software, Architectures, and Projects in Crisis. Wiley Inc., Hoboken (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations. Simon and Schuster, New York City (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buehler, R., Griffin, D., Ross, M.: Exploring the planning fallacy: Why people underestimate their task completion times. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67(3), 366 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bazerman, M.H., Neale, M.A.: Negotiating Rationally. Simon and Schuster, New York City (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leibenstein, H.: Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers’ demand. Q. J. Econ. 64(2), 183–207 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kahneman, D., Renshon, J.: Hawkish biases. In: American Foreign Policy and the Politics of Fear: Threat Inflation Since 9/11, pp. 79–96. Routledge, London (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bosch, J., Jansen, A.: Software architecture as a set of architectural design decisions. In: 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA 2005), pp. 109–120 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kruger, J., Dunning, D.: Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77(6), 1121 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrzej Zalewski
    • 1
    Email author
  • Klara Borowa
    • 1
  • Andrzej Ratkowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Control and Computation EngineeringWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations