Are architecture decision making techniques taking into explicit account Group Decision Making requirements?
You will discover something from here.
This presentation has been given to ECSA 2014, the 8th European Conference on Software Architecture
%in Bahrain+277-882-255-28 abortion pills for sale in Bahrain
How the Architecture decision methods deal with Group Decision Making
1. Università degli Studi dell’Aquila
Suitability of Software Architecture
Decision Making Methods
for Group Decisions
Smrithi Rekha V.
Amrita Vishwa, Vidyapeetham, India
smrithirekha@gmail.com
Henry Muccini, Ph.D.
University of L’Aquila, Italy
henry.muccini@univaq.it
@muccinihenry, henrymuccini.com
Presented @ ECSA 2014, Vienna, Austria
2. 2
Multiple stakeholders are involved
Each with different concerns and goals
Decision
Making
Tech.
Stakeh
olders
Custo
mers
…
…
Busin
ess
Final
User
Archite
cts
42010:2011
Architecting = group decision-making process
3. 3
Three decades of research on group decision making in
the business domain
GDM Research
Perspectives
Processes and Methods Impact of factors like size,
diversity, roles, tasks
Challenges
Comparative Studies: Various
methods, Individual vs Group Issues: Groupthink, Group
Shift
Conflict Resolution
Process
Enhancement
Pros and Cons
GDM has been studied from multiple
perspectives that includes Psychology,
Organizational Behavior, Operations Research and
Economics
4. 4
how ◄practitioners► make group decisions in architecting
software systems
how ◄state-of-the-practice► GDM in SA relates to ◄state-
of-the-art► GDM techniques
◄challenges►companies face when making architecture-
related group decisions
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
how alternatives are evaluated
GDM methods used in practice
Issues experienced in GDM
Challenges
GDML tool usage
how practitioners arrive at a
consensus
drivers and decision patterns
5. 5
how ◄practitioners► make group decisions in architecting
software systems
how ◄state of the practice► GDM in SA relates to ◄state-
of-the-art► GDM techniques
◄challenges►companies face when making architecture-
related group decisions
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
how alternatives are evaluated
GDM methods used in practice
how practitioners arrive at a
consensus
drivers and decision patterns
Issues experienced in GDM
Challenges
GDML tool usage
6. We analyze if and how existing Architecture
Design Decision (ADD) method support Group
Decision Making (GDM)
RQ1) how to evaluate the architecture design decision
methods’ suitability for group decision making?
RQ2) how adequate existing architecture design
decision methods are for group decision making?
6
7. > 85% of the decisions made by software architects
are made by groups [1], [3]
To understand how and if current ADD explicitly
manage GDM factors that may impact the decision
making process
to facilitate a more democratic and robust method
of SA decision-making where preferences, priorities,
objectives etc., are included to make optimal
decisions
7
8. 8
Define an Evaluation Framework
Select ADD methods
Apply the framework to the ADD methods
1
2
3
9. RQ1) how to evaluate the architecture
design decision methods’ suitability for
group decision making?
9
12. 12
Problem Identification
Development of alternatives
Preference Indication
Prioritizing Group Members
Provision for conflict resolution
Group Decision Rules
Information Exchange and Recall
Revisiting Information
13. [10] Falessi, et al. Decision-making techniques for software architecture
design: A comparative survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 43(4) (2011)
[16] Tofan, et al. Past and future of software architectural decisions a
systematic mapping study. IST 56(8) (2014)
13
Only decision-making (DM) processes/methods
Decision methods covering broad aspects of DM
Coverage of different SA DM
Dealing with conflicting multiple objectives
We included
Output: 22 DM processes/method [17-38]
14. 14
Problem Identification
Development of alternatives
Preference Indication
Prioritizing Group Members
Provision for conflict resolution
Group Decision Rules
Information Exchange and Recall
Revisiting Information
Few methods present an explicit
problem identification step.
At best, the process starts with
identification of alternatives
A good problem identification step
-> better problem space analysis ->
high quality GDM practice [5]
15. 15
Problem Identification
Development of alternatives
Preference Indication
Prioritizing Group Members
Provision for conflict resolution
Group Decision Rules
Information Exchange and Recall
Revisiting Information
Very few methods allow
for a group to discuss and
evolve alternatives.
Multi-criteria decision-making
methods must allow for the
generation and filtering of
alternatives through a process
of discussion and deliberation
which ensures more participation
of group members [5].
16. 16
Problem Identification
Development of alternatives
Preference Indication
Prioritizing Group Members
Provision for conflict resolution
Group Decision Rules
Information Exchange and Recall
Revisiting Information
The selected methods allow for
preference indication
but it is mostly individuals
who rank the alternatives.
They do not
seem to allow multiple
stakeholders to indicate
preferences.
17. 17
Problem Identification
Development of alternatives
Preference Indication
Prioritizing Group Members
Provision for conflict resolution
Group Decision Rules
Information Exchange and Recall
Revisiting Information
(almost) none of the methods
account for hierarchy or
expertise differences
among stakeholders.
18. 18
Problem Identification
Development of alternatives
Preference Indication
Prioritizing Group Members
Provision for conflict resolution
Group Decision Rules
Information Exchange and Recall
Revisiting Information
no method accounts for
conflict management strategies.
The sources of conflict,
levels of conflict and appropriate
conflict resolution styles could
be applied to the SA
decision-making methods.
Collaborative style of conflict
resolution is the most popular [1],
so, it shall be supported
19. 19
Problem Identification
Development of alternatives
Preference Indication
Prioritizing Group Members
Provision for conflict resolution
Group Decision Rules
Information Exchange and Recall
Revisiting Information
Very few allow for multiple
stakeholder
preference and hence they alone
discuss decision-rules.
(The more rigorous
and scientific the decision-rule is, the
better the quality of decisions made
[5], [14])
20. 20
Problem Identification
Development of alternatives
Preference Indication
Prioritizing Group Members
Provision for conflict resolution
Group Decision Rules
Information Exchange and Recall
Revisiting Information
Two of the chosen methods seem
to indicate
the presence of visual
representation of information.
(Information recall has been found
to be key in making the knowledge
pool more rich)
21. 21
Problem Identification
Development of alternatives
Preference Indication
Prioritizing Group Members
Provision for conflict resolution
Group Decision Rules
Information Exchange and Recall
Revisiting Information
Only two methods are iterative
in nature.
The more number
of times the group is able to
exchange information, uncover
unshared information
and revisit the alternatives, the
higher the quality of decisions.
22. Lack of support in current architecture design decisions
methods of GDM
Why:
current methods may inherit and expand over state-of-the art work
(e.g., QOC) that where mostly focusing on capturing concerns,
alternatives, and criteria.
need to first carefully understand how the ADD process works for
individuals
22
23. Extend the study to ADD tools as well
Enhance one (or more) ADD methods to meet
GDM requirements
Empirical studies to evaluate whether those
enhancements are effective
23
24. 24
[10] Falessi, D., Cantone, G., Kazman, R., Kruchten, P.:
Decision-making techniques for software architecture design: A comparative
survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 43(4) (2011)
[16] Tofan, D., Galster, M., Avgeriou, P., Schuitema,W.: Past and future of
software architectural decisions a systematic
mapping study. IST 56(8) (2014)
For selecting
ADD methods
[39] Tang, A., Avgeriou, P., Jansen, A., Capilla, R., Ali
Babar, M. A comparative study of architecture knowledge management tools.
JSS 83(3) (2010)
AK tools
comparison
[2] Miesbauer, C.,Weinreich, R.: Classification of design
decisions an expert survey in practice. In Drira, K., ed.:
Software Architecture. Volume 7957 of LNCS. Springer Berlin Heidelberg
(2013)
[3] Tofan, D., Galster, M., Avgeriou, P.: Difficulty of architectural decisions a
survey with professional architects. In Drira, K., ed.: Software Architecture.
Volume 7957 of LNCS. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2013)
Surveys on
ADD
25. If you are interested to this research, please
25
Stop by after the presentation
Contact me at henry.muccini@univaq.it
Tweet @muccinihenry
Skype me at henry.muccini
Call me
Suitability of Software Architecture Decision Making Methods for Group Decisions @ ECSA2014