A value-based approach for documenting design decisions rationale: a replicated experiment

ABSTRACT

The explicit documentation of the rationale of design decisions is a practice generally encouraged but rarely implemented in industry because of a variety of inhibitors. Known methods for Design Decisions Rationale Documentation (DDRD) are aimed to maximize the benefits for practitioners who should utilize the DDRD by imposing the burden on the developers of documenting all the potentially useful information. In our view, the adoption of a tailored DDRD, consisting only of the required set of information, would mitigate the effects of DDRD inhibitors. This paper focuses on confirming empirically the feasibility of a value-based approach for documenting the rationale behind design decisions, and the importance of different DDRD information categories. In this context, this work describes a replicated experiment carried out at the University Rey Juan Carlos of Madrid (Spain) aimed to validate previous results from an analogous study conducted at the University of Roma Tor Vergata (Italy). Results confirm that the level of utility related to the same category of DDRD information significantly changes depending on its purpose.

REFERENCES

• 1: Anton Jansen , Jan Bosch, Software Architecture as a Set of Architectural Design Decisions, Proceedings of the 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, p.109-120, November 06-10, 2005 [doi>10.1109/WICSA.2005.61]
• 2: Dewayne E. Perry , Alexander L. Wolf, Foundations for the study of software architecture, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.17 n.4, p.40-52, Oct. 1992 [doi>10.1145/141874.141884]
• 3: Philippe Kruchten, The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2003
• 4: Philippe Kruchten, The 4+1 View Model of Architecture, IEEE Software, v.12 n.6, p.42-50, November 1995 [doi>10.1109/52.469759]
• 5: Davide Falessi , Giovanni Cantone , Philippe Kruchten, Value-Based Design Decision Rationale Documentation: Principles and Empirical Feasibility Study, Proceedings of the Seventh Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA 2008), p.189-198, February 18-21, 2008 [doi>10.1109/WICSA.2008.8]
• 6: Jeff Tyree , Art Akerman, Architecture Decisions: Demystifying Architecture, IEEE Software, v.22 n.2, p.19-27, March 2005 [doi>10.1109/MS.2005.27]
• 7: P. Kruchten. Year. An ontology of architectural design decisions in software intensive systems. Proceedings of the 2nd Groningen Workshop on Software Variability.
• 8: Rafael Capilla , Francisco Nava , Juan C. Duenas, Modeling and Documenting the Evolution of Architectural Design Decisions, Proceedings of the Second Workshop on SHAring and Reusing architectural Knowledge Architecture, Rationale, and Design Intent, p.9, May 20-26, 2007 [doi>10.1109/SHARK-ADI.2007.9]
• 9: Philippe Kruchten , Patricia Lago , Hans van Vliet , Timo Wolf, Building up and Exploiting Architectural Knowledge, Proceedings of the 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, p.291-292, November 06-10, 2005 [doi>10.1109/WICSA.2005.19]
• 10: Antony Tang , Muhammad Ali Babar , Ian Gorton , Jun Han, A survey of architecture design rationale, Journal of Systems and Software, v.79 n.12, p.1792-1804, December, 2006 [doi>10.1016/j.jss.2006.04.029]
• 11: Lars Bratthall , Enrico Johansson , Björn Regnell, Is a Design Rationale Vital when Predicting Change Impact? A Controlled Experiment on Software Architecture Evolution, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement, p.126-139, June 20-22, 2000
• 12: Laurent Karsenty, An empirical evaluation of design rationale documents, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: common ground, p.150-156, April 13-18, 1996, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/238386.238462]
• 13: Matthias Heindl , Stefan Biffl, A case study on value-based requirements tracing, Proceedings of the 10th European software engineering conference held jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, September 05-09, 2005, Lisbon, Portugal [doi>10.1145/1081706.1081717]
• 14: Davide Falessi , Giovanni Cantone , Martin Becker, Documenting design decision rationale to improve individual and team design decision making: an experimental evaluation, Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering, September 21-22, 2006, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil [doi>10.1145/1159733.1159755]
• 15: Jintae Lee, Design Rationale Systems: Understanding the Issues, IEEE Expert: Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, v.12 n.3, p.78-85, May 1997 [doi>10.1109/64.592267]
• 16: Stefan Biffl , Aybüke Aurum , Barry Boehm , Hakan Erdogmus , Paul Grünbacher, Value-Based Software Engineering, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, 2005
• 17: The-Standish-Group, CHAOS Report 1995, www.standishgroup.com, 1995.
• 18: V. Basili, G. Caldiera, and D. Rombach, 1994. Goal/Question/Metric Paradigm. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. 1, John Wiley & Sons. 528--532.
• 19: J. C. Dueñas, and R. Capilla. Year. The Decision View of Software Architecture. 2nd European Workshop on Software Architecture, (Pisa, Italy June 13-15, 2005).

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
        D.2.11 Software Architectures
            Subjects: Languages (e.g., description, interconnection, definition)

General Terms:
Design, Documentation, Experimentation, Measurement

Keywords:
design decisions, design rationale, documentation, empirical software engineering, software architecture