publication . Article . 2013

Does decision documentation help junior designers rationalize their decisions? A comparative multiple-case study

Heesch, U. van; Avgeriou, P.; Tang, A.;
Open Access English
  • Published: 01 Jun 2013
Software architecture design is challenging, especially for junior software designers. Lacking practice and experience, junior designers need process support in order to make rational architecture decisions. In this paper, we present the results of a comparative multiple-case study conducted to find out if decision viewpoints from van Heesch et al. (2012, in press) can provide such a support. The case study was conducted with four teams of software engineering students working in industrial software projects. Two of the four teams were instructed to document their decisions using decision viewpoints; the other two teams were not instructed to do so. We observed ...
free text keywords: Software architecture, Architecture decisions, Viewpoints, ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010, Design reasoning, Case study, SOFTWARE-DESIGN, ARCHITECTURE, QUALITY, SYSTEMS, FIELD, MODEL
Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
Download from
55 references, page 1 of 4

Adolph, S., Hall, W., Kruchten, P., 2011. Using grounded theory to study the experience of software development. Empirical Software Engineering 16 (4), 487-513.

Basili, Victor R., Gianluigi Caldiera, Rombach, Dieter H., 1994. The goal question metric approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.

Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B., Budgen, D., Li, Z., 2008. Using a protocol template for case study planning. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation & Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2008). [OpenAIRE]

Brooks, F.P., 2009. The Design of Design: Essays From a Computer Scientist. AddisonWesley Professional, Boston, MA, USA.

Burge, J.E., Brinkman, B., 2010. Using rationale to assist student cognitive and intellectual development. Human Technology 6 (1), 106-128.

Carver, J.C., Jaccheri, L., Morasca, S., Shull, F., 2010. A checklist for integrating student empirical studies with research and teaching goals. Empirical Software Engineering 15 (1), 35-59.

Corbin, J.M., Strauss, A.L., 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications Inc.

Creswell, J.W., Miller, D.L., 2000. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice 39 (3). [OpenAIRE]

Cross, N., 2001. Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education 7, 9-103.

Curtis, B., Krasner, H., Iscoe, N., 1988. A field study of the software design process for large systems. Communications of the ACM 31 (11), 1268-1287. [OpenAIRE]

Easterbrook, S., Singer, J., Storey, M.A., Damian, D., 2008. Selecting empirical methods for software engineering research. Guide to advanced empirical software engineering 28, 5-311. [OpenAIRE]

Edgewall Software Trac., February 2012.

Epley, N., Gilovich, T., 2006. The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science 17 (4), 311-318.

Given, L.M., 2008. The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, vol. 1. Sage Publications.

Glaser, B., Strauss, A., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company, Piscataway, NJ, USA.

55 references, page 1 of 4
Powered by OpenAIRE Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue