The GRADE Decision Canvas for Classification and Reflection on Architecture Decisions

Efi Papatheocharous, Kai Petersen, Jakob Axelsson, Claes Wohlin, Jan Carlson, Federico Ciccozzi, Séverine Sentilles, Antonio Cicchetti

Abstract

This paper introduces a decision canvas for capturing architecture decisions in software and systems engineering. The canvas leverages a dedicated taxonomy, denoted GRADE, meant for establishing the basics of the vocabulary for assessing and choosing architectural assets in the development of software-intensive systems. The canvas serves as a template for practitioners to discuss and document architecture decisions, i.e., capture, understand and communicate decisions among decision-makers and to others. It also serves as a way to reflect on past decision-making activities devoted to both tentative and concluding decisions in the development of software-intensive systems. The canvas has been assessed by means of preliminary internal and external evaluations with four scenarios. The results are promising as the canvas fulfills its intended objectives while satisfying most of the needs of the subjects participating in the evaluation.

References

  1. Badampudi, D., Wohlin, C., and Petersen, K. (2016). Software component decision-making: In-house, OSS, COTS or outsourcing - A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 121:105-124.
  2. Herrmann, T., Jahnke, I., and Loser, K.-U. (2004). The role concept as a basis for designing community systems. In COOP, pages 163-178.
  3. Li, J., Bjørnson, F. O., Conradi, R., and Kampenes, V. B. (2006a). An empirical study of variations in cotsbased software development processes in the norwegian it industry. Empirical Software Engineering, 11(3):433-461.
  4. Manteuffel, C., Tofan, D., Avgeriou, P., Koziolek, H., and Goldschmidt, T. (2016). Decision architect a decision documentation tool for industry. Journal of Systems and Software, 112:181 - 198.
  5. McCormick, W., Lyons, N., and Hutcheson, K. (1992). Distributional properties of jaccards index of similarity. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 21(1):51-68.
  6. Morisset, C., Yevseyeva, I., Groß, T., and van Moorsel, A. (2014). A formal model for soft enforcement: influencing the decision-maker. In Security and Trust Management, pages 113-128. Springer.
  7. Papatheocharous, E., Petersen, K., Cicchetti, A., Sentilles, S., Shah, S. M. A., and Gorschek, T. (2015). Decision support for choosing architectural assets in the development of software-intensive systems: The grade taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 2015 European Conference on Software Architecture Workshops, page 48. ACM.
  8. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., and Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3):45-77.
  9. Petersen, K., Badampudi, D., Shah, S., Wnuk, K., Gorschek, T., Papatheocharous, E., Axelsson, J., Sentilles, S., Crnkovic, I., and Cicchetti, A. (2017). Choosing component origins for software intensive systems: In-house, cots, oss or outsourcing?-a case survey. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.
  10. Tan, J. K. and Sheps, S. B. (1998). Health decision support systems. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
  11. Tang, A., Tran, M. H., Han, J., and Van Vliet, H. (2008). Design reasoning improves software design quality. In International Conference on the Quality of Software Architectures, pages 28-42. Springer.
  12. Tyree, J. and Akerman, A. (2005). Architecture decisions: Demystifying architecture. IEEE software, 22(2):19- 27.
  13. Van Heesch, U., Avgeriou, P., and Hilliard, R. (2012a). A documentation framework for architecture decisions. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(4):795-820.
  14. Van Heesch, U., Avgeriou, P., and Hilliard, R. (2012b). Forces on architecture decisions-a viewpoint. In Software Architecture (WICSA) and European Conference on Software Architecture (ECSA), 2012 Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on, pages 101-110. IEEE.
  15. Van Vliet, H. and Tang, A. (2016). Decision making in software architecture. Journal of Systems and Software, 117:638-644.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Papatheocharous E., Petersen K., Axelsson J., Wohlin C., Carlson J., Ciccozzi F., Sentilles S. and Cicchetti A. (2017). The GRADE Decision Canvas for Classification and Reflection on Architecture Decisions . In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE, ISBN 978-989-758-250-9, pages 187-194. DOI: 10.5220/0006301301870194


in Bibtex Style

@conference{enase17,
author={Efi Papatheocharous and Kai Petersen and Jakob Axelsson and Claes Wohlin and Jan Carlson and Federico Ciccozzi and Séverine Sentilles and Antonio Cicchetti},
title={The GRADE Decision Canvas for Classification and Reflection on Architecture Decisions},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,},
year={2017},
pages={187-194},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006301301870194},
isbn={978-989-758-250-9},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,
TI - The GRADE Decision Canvas for Classification and Reflection on Architecture Decisions
SN - 978-989-758-250-9
AU - Papatheocharous E.
AU - Petersen K.
AU - Axelsson J.
AU - Wohlin C.
AU - Carlson J.
AU - Ciccozzi F.
AU - Sentilles S.
AU - Cicchetti A.
PY - 2017
SP - 187
EP - 194
DO - 10.5220/0006301301870194