Team Situational Awareness and Architectural Decision Making with the Software Architecture Warehouse

  • Marcin Nowak
  • Cesare Pautasso
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7957)


The core of the design of software architecture is all about architectural decision making. A high-quality design outcome sets high requirements, not only on the skills and knowledge of the design team members, but also on the management of the decision making process. We claim that in order to deliver high quality decisions, the design team needs to obtain a high level of situational awareness. To address this, we present an analysis of the problem of team situational awareness in design workshops and propose a model on how stakeholder positions help to build consensus within the argumentation viewpoint of architectural decisions. We show how the Software Architecture Warehouse tool has been extended to support the argumentation viewpoint within its live design document metaphor to provide support for co-located and distributed design workshops.


Design Space Design Decision Software Architecture Design Issue Design Alternative 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ISO/IEC 42010 – Systems and software engineering – architecture description (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Naeem, T., Gorton, I., Babar, M.A., Rabhi, F., Benatallah, B.: A quality-driven systematic approach for architecting distributed software applications. In: Proc. of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Babar, M.A., Dingsøyr, T., Lago, P., van Vliet, H.: Software Architecture Knowledge Management - Theory and Practice. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Babar, M.A., Gorton, I.: A tool for managing software architecture knowledge. In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on SHAring and Reusing Architectural Knowledge Architecture, Rationale, and Design Intent, SHARK-ADI 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Capilla, R., Nava, F., Pérez, S., Dueñas, J.C.: A web-based tool for managing architectural design decisions. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 31(5), 4 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conklin, J.: Dialogue Mapping. Wiley (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Gooijer, T., Jansen, A., Koziolek, H., Koziolek, A.: An industrial case study of performance and cost design space exploration. In: International Conference on Performance Engineering (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Endsley, M.R.: Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: a critical review. In: Endsley, M.R., Garland, D.J. (eds.) Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Falessi, D., Cantone, G., Kazman, R., Kruchten, P.: Decision-making techniques for software architecture design: a comparative survey. ACM Computing Surveys 43 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hirokawa, R.Y., Poole, M.S. (eds.): Communication and Group Decision Making, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, Inc. (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jansen, A., Bosch, J.: Software architecture as a set of architectural design decisions. In: Proceedings of the 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, WICSA 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kerr, D.S., Murthy, U.S.: Divergent and convergent idea generation in teams: A comparison of computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Group Decision and Negotiation 13, 381–399 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klein, G.: Sources of Power. MIT Press (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kruchten, P., Lago, P., van Vliet, H.: Building up and reasoning about architectural knowledge. In: Hofmeister, C., Crnković, I., Reussner, R. (eds.) QoSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4214, pp. 43–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nowak, M., Pautasso, C., Zimmerman, O.: Architectural decision modeling with reuse: Challenges and opportunities. In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Sharing and Reusing Architectural Knowledge, SHARK 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nuseibeh, B.: Weaving together requirements and architectures. IEEE Computer, 115–119 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Potts, C., Burns, G.: Recording the reasons for design decisions. In: Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 418–427 (1988)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shahin, M., Liang, P., Khayyambashi, M.-R.: Architectural design decision: Existing models and tools. In: Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture 2009 and European Conference on Software Architecture 2009, WICSA/ECSA 2009, pp. 293–296 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tang, A., Jin, Y., Han, J.: A rationale-based architecture model for design traceability and reasoning. Journal of Systems and Software 80(6), 918–934 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Heesch, U., Avgeriou, P., Hilliard, R.: A documentation framework for architecture decisions. Journal of Systems and Software 85(4), 795–820 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Heesch, U., Avgeriou, P., Hilliard, R.: Forces on architecture decisions - a viewpoint. In: Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture and European Conference on Software Architecture, WICSA/ECSA, Helsinki, Finland, August 20-24. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zimmermann, O., Koehler, J., Leymann, F., Polley, R., Schuster, N.: Managing architectural decision models with dependency relations, integrity constraints, and production rules. Journal of Systems and Software 82(8), 1249–1267 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcin Nowak
    • 1
  • Cesare Pautasso
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of InformaticsUniversity of LuganoSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations