A comparative study of architecture knowledge management tools

Computing and Communications

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

A comparative study of architecture knowledge management tools. / Tang, Antony; Avgeriou, Paris; Jansen, Anton et al.
In: Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 83, No. 3, 03.2010, p. 352-370.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Tang, A, Avgeriou, P, Jansen, A, Capilla, R & Babar, MA 2010, 'A comparative study of architecture knowledge management tools', Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 352-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2009.08.032

APA

Tang, A., Avgeriou, P., Jansen, A., Capilla, R., & Babar, M. A. (2010). A comparative study of architecture knowledge management tools. Journal of Systems and Software, 83(3), 352-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2009.08.032

Vancouver

Tang A, Avgeriou P, Jansen A, Capilla R, Babar MA. A comparative study of architecture knowledge management tools. Journal of Systems and Software. 2010 Mar;83(3):352-370. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2009.08.032

Author

Tang, Antony ; Avgeriou, Paris ; Jansen, Anton et al. / A comparative study of architecture knowledge management tools. In: Journal of Systems and Software. 2010 ; Vol. 83, No. 3. pp. 352-370.

Bibtex

@article{87811a7172744f7abb799e153a8b8ae1,

title = "A comparative study of architecture knowledge management tools",

abstract = "Recent research suggests that architectural knowledge, such as design decisions, is important and should be recorded alongside the architecture description. Different approaches have emerged to support such architectural knowledge (AK) management activities. However, there are different notions of and emphasis on what and how architectural activities should be supported. This is reflected in the design and implementation of existing AK tools. To understand the current status of software architecture knowledge engineering and future research trends, this paper compares five architectural knowledge management tools and the support they provide in the architecture life-cycle. The comparison is based on an evaluation framework defined by a set of 10 criteria. The results of the comparison provide insights into the current focus of architectural knowledge management support, their advantages, deficiencies, and conformance to the current architectural description standard. Based on the outcome of this comparison a research agenda is proposed for future work on AK tools.",

keywords = "Design rationale, Architectural knowledge management tool, Architectural design",

author = "Antony Tang and Paris Avgeriou and Anton Jansen and Rafael Capilla and Babar, {Muhammad Ali}",

year = "2010",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1016/j.jss.2009.08.032",

language = "English",

volume = "83",

pages = "352--370",

journal = "Journal of Systems and Software",

issn = "0164-1212",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative study of architecture knowledge management tools

AU - Tang, Antony

AU - Avgeriou, Paris

AU - Jansen, Anton

AU - Capilla, Rafael

AU - Babar, Muhammad Ali

PY - 2010/3

Y1 - 2010/3

N2 - Recent research suggests that architectural knowledge, such as design decisions, is important and should be recorded alongside the architecture description. Different approaches have emerged to support such architectural knowledge (AK) management activities. However, there are different notions of and emphasis on what and how architectural activities should be supported. This is reflected in the design and implementation of existing AK tools. To understand the current status of software architecture knowledge engineering and future research trends, this paper compares five architectural knowledge management tools and the support they provide in the architecture life-cycle. The comparison is based on an evaluation framework defined by a set of 10 criteria. The results of the comparison provide insights into the current focus of architectural knowledge management support, their advantages, deficiencies, and conformance to the current architectural description standard. Based on the outcome of this comparison a research agenda is proposed for future work on AK tools.

AB - Recent research suggests that architectural knowledge, such as design decisions, is important and should be recorded alongside the architecture description. Different approaches have emerged to support such architectural knowledge (AK) management activities. However, there are different notions of and emphasis on what and how architectural activities should be supported. This is reflected in the design and implementation of existing AK tools. To understand the current status of software architecture knowledge engineering and future research trends, this paper compares five architectural knowledge management tools and the support they provide in the architecture life-cycle. The comparison is based on an evaluation framework defined by a set of 10 criteria. The results of the comparison provide insights into the current focus of architectural knowledge management support, their advantages, deficiencies, and conformance to the current architectural description standard. Based on the outcome of this comparison a research agenda is proposed for future work on AK tools.

KW - Design rationale

KW - Architectural knowledge management tool

KW - Architectural design

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=75349102679&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jss.2009.08.032

DO - 10.1016/j.jss.2009.08.032

M3 - Journal article

VL - 83

SP - 352

EP - 370

JO - Journal of Systems and Software

JF - Journal of Systems and Software

SN - 0164-1212

IS - 3

ER -

Research

Associated organisational unit

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords