Successful Architectural Knowledge Sharing: Beware of Emotions
- 600 Downloads
This paper presents the analysis and key findings of a survey on architectural knowledge sharing. The responses of 97 architects working in the Dutch IT Industry were analyzed by correlating practices and challenges with project size and success. Impact mechanisms between project size, project success, and architectural knowledge sharing practices and challenges were deduced based on reasoning, experience and literature. We find that architects run into numerous and diverse challenges sharing architectural knowledge, but that the only challenges that have a significant impact are the emotional challenges related to interpersonal relationships. Thus, architects should be careful when dealing with emotions in knowledge sharing.
KeywordsSoftware Architecture Architecture Knowledge Software Project Management
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Baccarini, D.: The logical framework method for defining project success. Project Management Journal 30, 25–32 (1999)Google Scholar
- 2.Bacon, S.F.: Religious Meditations, 1597Google Scholar
- 3.Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practice, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
- 5.Clements, P., Shaw, M., Shaw, M.: The golden age of software architecture: A comprehensive survey, tech., Technical report (2006)Google Scholar
- 7.El Emam, K., Koru, A.G.: A replicated survey of IT software project failures. IEEE Software, 84–89 (September/October 2008)Google Scholar
- 8.Frederick, J., Brooks, P.: The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, 20th edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
- 9.Jones, C.: Software Assessments, Benchmarks, and Best Practices. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
- 13.McConnell, S.: Rapid Development. Microsoft Press (1996)Google Scholar
- 14.Pinto, J., Slevin, D.: Project success: definitions and measurement techniques. Project Management Journal 19, 67–72 (1988)Google Scholar
- 16.Standish Group, Chaos Report (1994)Google Scholar