Advertisement

Difficulty of Architectural Decisions – A Survey with Professional Architects

  • Dan Tofan
  • Matthias Galster
  • Paris Avgeriou
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7957)

Abstract

Much research exists on architectural decisions, but little work describes architectural decisions in the real-world. In this paper, we present the results of a survey with 43 architects from industry. We study characteristics of 86 real-world architectural decisions and factors that contribute to their difficulty. Also, we compare decisions made by junior architects and senior architects. Finally, we compare good and bad architectural decisions. Survey results indicate that architectural decisions take an average time of eight working days. Dependencies between decisions and the effort required to analyze decisions are major factors that contribute to their difficulty. Compared to senior architects, junior architects spend a quarter of the time on making a decision. Good architectural decisions tend to include more decision alternatives than bad decisions. Finally, we found that 86% of architectural decisions are group decisions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jansen, A., Bosch, J.: Software Architecture as a Set of Architectural Design Decisions. In: 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 109–120. IEEE (2005), doi:10.1109/WICSA.2005.61Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zimmermann, O.: Architectural Decisions as Reusable Design Assets. IEEE Software 28(1), 64–69 (2011), doi:10.1109/MS.2011.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clerc, V., Lago, P., van Vliet, H.: The Architect’s Mindset. In: Overhage, S., Ren, X.-M., Reussner, R., Stafford, J.A. (eds.) QoSA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4880, pp. 231–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farenhorst, R., Hoorn, J., Lago, P., van Vliet, H.: The Lonesome Architect. In: Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture & European Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 61–70. IEEE (2009), doi:10.1109/WICSA.2009.5290792Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Heesch, U., Avgeriou, P.: Naive Architecting - Understanding the Reasoning Process of Students. In: Babar, M.A., Gorton, I. (eds.) ECSA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6285, pp. 24–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Heesch, U., Avgeriou, P.: Mature Architecting - A Survey about the Reasoning Process of Professional Architects. In: 9th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 260–269. IEEE (2011), doi:10.1109/wicsa.2011.42Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jansen, A., Avgeriou, P., van der Ven, J.S.: Enriching Software Architecture Documentation. Journal of Systems and Software 82(8), 1232–1248 (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jss.2009.04.052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tofan, D., Galster, M., Avgeriou, P.: Capturing Tacit Architectural Knowledge Using the Repertory Grid Technique (NIER Track). In: 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 916–919 (2011), doi:10.1145/1985793.1985944Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tofan, D., Galster, M., Avgeriou, P.: Reducing Architectural Knowledge Vaporization by Applying the Repertory Grid Technique. In: Crnkovic, I., Gruhn, V., Book, M. (eds.) ECSA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6903, pp. 244–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tool for Repertory Grid Technique, https://github.com/danrg/RGT-tool (accessed April 2013)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Tofan
    • 1
  • Matthias Galster
    • 2
  • Paris Avgeriou
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of CanterburyNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations