Abstract
Despite considerable attention paid on software architecture, the organizational aspects of architecture design remain largely unexplored. This study analyses the stakeholders participating in architecture design in three software companies, their problems in relation to architecture, and the rationale for architecture description they emphasize. This qualitative, grounded-theory-based, study shows how the stakeholders’ rationales for describing architecture exceed the plain programming-in-the-large metaphor, emphasizing such issues as organizational communication, and knowledge creation and management. Whereas designers alone highlighted architecture as the basis for further design and implementation, the other stakeholders emphasized architecture mostly as a means for communication, interpretation, and decision-making. The results suggest a need for further research on practices and tools for effective communication and collaboration among the varying stakeholders of the architecture design process.
Keywords
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.
Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
References
Medvidovic, N. and Taylor, R. N., “A Classification and Comparison Framework for Software Architecture Description Languages,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 26, no. 1, 2000, pp. 70–93.
Luckham, D. C. and Vera, J., “An Event-Based Architecture Definition Language,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 21, no. 9, 1995, pp. 717–734.
Allen, R. and Garlan, D., “A formal basis for architectural connection,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 6, no. 3, 1997, pp. 213–49.
DeRemer, F. and Kron, H. H., “Programming-in-the-Large Versus Programming-in-the-Small,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. SE-2, no. 2, 1976, pp. 80–86.
Kruchten, P. B., “The 4+1 View Model of Architecture,” IEEE Software, vol. 12, no. 6, 1995, pp. 42–50.
Monroe, R. T., Kompanek, A., Melton, R., and Garlan, D., “Architectural styles, design patterns, and objects,” IEEE Software, vol. 14, no. 1, 1997, pp. 43–52.
Hofmeister, C, Nord, R., and Soni, D., Applied Software Architecture. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1999.
Gomaa, H., Menascé, D. A., and Shin, M. E., “Reusable Component Interconnection Patterns for Distributed Software Architectures,” ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, vol. 26, no. 3, 2001, pp. 69–77.
Kazman, R., Abowd, G., Bass, L., and Clements, P., “Scenario-Based Analysis of Software Architecture,” IEEE Software, vol. 13, no. 6, 1996, pp. 47–55.
Kazman, R., Barbacci, M., Klein, M., Carrière, S. J., and Woods, S. G., “Experience with Performing Architecture Tradeoff Analysis,” Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering, 1999, pp. 54–63.
Bosch, J., Design and Use of Software Architectures: Adopting and Evolving a Product-Line Approach: Addison-Wesley, 2000.
Robbins, J. E. and Redadles, D. F., “Software Architecture Critics in the Argo Design Environment,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 11, no. 1, 1998, pp. 47–60.
Schön, D., The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
Grinter, R. E., “Systems Architecture: Product Designing and Social Engineering,” ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, vol. 24, no. 2, 1999, pp. 11–18.
Shaw, M., “The Coming-of-Age of Software Architecture Research,” Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE2001), 2001, pp. 657–664a.
IEEE, “IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems,” IEEE, IEEE Std 1471-2000, 2000.
Garlan, D., “Software Architecture: a Roadmap,” in The Future of Software Engineering, A. Finkelstein, Ed.: ACM Press, 2000.
Bass, L., Clements, P., and Kazman, R., Software Architecture in Practice: Addison-Wesley, 1998.
Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J., Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.
Galliers, R., “Information Systems Research: Issues, Methods and Practical Guidelines.” Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Nandhakumar, J. and Jones, M., “Too Close for Comfort? Distance and Engagement in Interpretive Information Systems Research,” Information Systems Journal, vol. 7, no., 1997, pp. 109–131.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. L., The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chigago: Aldine, 1967.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M., Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1984.
Goodman, R. A. and Goodman, L. P., “Some Management Issues in Temporary Systems: A Study of Professional Development and Manpower-The Theater Case,” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 21, no. Sep 1976, 1976, pp. 494–501.
Avison, D., Lau, F., Myers, M. D., and Nielsen, P. A., “Action Research,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 42, no. 1, 1999, pp. 94–97.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Smolander, K., Päivärinta, T. (2002). Describing and Communicating Software Architecture in Practice: Observations on Stakeholders and Rationale. In: Pidduck, A.B., Ozsu, M.T., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C. (eds) Advanced Information Systems Engineering. CAiSE 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2348. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47961-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47961-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43738-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47961-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive