An Empirical Study on Collaborative Architecture Decision Making in Software Teams

Architecture decision making is considered one of the most challenging cognitive tasks in software development. The objective of this study is to explore the state of the practice of architecture decision making in software teams, including the role of the architect and the associated challenges. An exploratory case study was conducted in a large software company in Europe and fifteen software architects were interviewed as the primary method of data collection. The results reveal that the majority of software teams make architecture decisions collaboratively. Especially, the consultative decision- making style is preferred as it helps to make decisions efficiently while taking the opinions of the team members into consideration. It is observed that most of the software architects maintain a close relationship with the software teams. Several organisational, process and human related challenges and their impact on architecture decision-making are also identified

Empirical evaluation of a process to increase consensus in group architectural decision making

CONTEXT : Many software architectural decisions are group decisions rather than decisions made by individuals. Consensus in a group of decision makers increases the acceptance of a decision among decision makers and their confidence in that decision. Furthermore, going through the process of reaching consensus means that decision makers understand better the decision (including the decision topic, decision options, rationales, and potential outcomes). Little guidance exists on how to increase consensus in group architectural decision making. OBJECTIVE : We evaluate how a newly proposed process (named GADGET) helps architects increase consensus when making group architectural decisions. Specifically, we investigate how well GADGET increases consensus in group architectural decision making, by understanding its practical applicability, and by comparing GADGET against group architectural decision making without using any prescribed approach. METHOD : We conducted two empirical studies. First, we conducted an exploratory case study to understand the practical applicability of GADGET in industry. We investigated whether there is a need to increase consensus, the effort and benefits of GADGET, and potential improvements for GADGET. Second, we conducted an experiment with 113 students from three universities to compare GADGET against group architectural decision making without using any prescribed approach. RESULTS : GADGET helps decision makers increase their consensus, captures knowledge on architectural decisions, clarifies the different points of view of different decision makers on the decision, and increases the focus of the group discussions about a decision. From the experiment, we obtained causal evidence that GADGET increases consensus better than group architectural decision making without using any prescribed approach. CONCLUSIONS : There is a need to increase consensus in group architectural decisions. GADGET helps inexperienced architects increase consensus in group architectural decision making, and provides additional benefits, such as capturing rationale of decisions. Future work is needed to understand and improve other aspects of group architectural decision making.http://www.elsevier.com/locate/infsof2017-04-30hb2016Computer Scienc