The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.01 - January/February (2012 vol.29)
pp: 90-93
Irwin Kwan , Oregon State University
Marcelo Cataldo , Robert Bosch
Daniela Damian , University of Victoria
ABSTRACT
Conway's law, also called the mirroring hypothesis, predicts that a development organization will inevitably design systems that mirror its organizational communication structure. The alignment between architecture and communication applies to physical systems, but not necessarily to software systems. In this article, the authors present evidence that a task-level view of Conway's law can realize the benefits of alignment in software systems.
INDEX TERMS
software design, software architecture, organizations, evidence-based software engineering, engineering management
CITATION
Irwin Kwan, Marcelo Cataldo, Daniela Damian, "Conway's Law Revisited: The Evidence for a Task-Based Perspective", IEEE Software, vol.29, no. 1, pp. 90-93, January/February 2012, doi:10.1109/MS.2012.3
REFERENCES
1. M. Conway, "How Do Committees Invent?" Datamation, vol. 14, no. 4, 1968, pp. 28–31.
2. D.L. Parnas, "On the Criteria to Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules," Comm. ACM, vol. 15, no. 12, 1972, p. 12.
3. J.D. Herbsleb, and R.E. Grinter, "Architectures, Coordination, and Distance: Conway's Law and Beyond," IEEE Software, vol. 16, no. 5, 1999, pp. 63–70.
4. C.Y. Baldwin and K.B. Clark, Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, MIT Press, 2000.
5. L. Colfer and C.Y. Baldwin, "The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions," working paper, Harvard Business School, 2010.
6. M.E. Nordberg III, "Managing Code Ownership," IEEE Software, vol. 20, no. 2, 2003, pp. 26–33.
7. C.R. de Souza and D.F. Redmiles, "The Awareness Network: To Whom Should I Display My Actions, and Whose Actions Should I Monitor?" IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 37, no 3, 2011, pp. 325–340.
8. P. Ovaska, M. Rossi, and P. Marttiin, "Architecture as a Coordination Tool in Multi-Site Software Development," Software Process Improvement and Practice, vol. 8, no. 4, 2003, pp. 233–247.
9. M. Bass et al., "Architectural Misalignment: An Experience Report," Proc. IEEE/IFIP Conf. Software Architecture, IEEE CS Press, 2007, pp. 17-25.
10. H. Gall, K. Hajek, and M. Jazayeri, "Detection of Logical Coupling Based on Product Release History," Proc. Int'l Conf. Software Maintenance (ICSM 98), IEEE CS Press, 1998, pp. 190–198.
11. M. Cataldo et al., "Identification of Coordination Requirements: Implications for the Design of Collaboration and Awareness Tools," Proc. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 06), ACM Press, 2006, pp. 353–362.
12. M. Cataldo, J.D. Herbsleb, and K.M. Carley, "Socio-Technical Congruence: A Framework for Assessing the Impact of Technical and Work Dependencies on Software Development Productivity," Proc. Empirical Software Eng. Measurement, ACM Press, 2008, pp. 2-11.
13. P. Wagstrom, J. Herbsleb, and K. Carley, "Communication, Team Performance, and the Individual: Bridging Technical Dependencies," Proc. Academy of Management Ann. Meeting, Academy of Management, 2010; available at http://academic.patrick.wagstrom.net/publications.
14. M. Sosa, "A Structured Approach to Predicting and Managing Technical Interactions in Software Development," Research in Eng. Design, vol. 19, no. 1, 2008, pp. 47–70.
15. I. Kwan, A. Schroter, and D. Damian, "Does Socio-Technical Congruence Have an Effect on Software Build Success? A Study of Coordination in a Software Project," IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 37, no. 3, 2011, pp. 307–324.
16. J.M. Costa, M. Cataldo, and C.R. de Souza, "The Scale and Evolution of Coordination Needs in Large-Scale Distributed Projects: Implications for the Future Generation of Collaborative Tools," Proc. 2011 Ann. Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 11), ACM Press, pp. 3151–3160.
17. I. Kwan and D. Damian, "The Hidden Experts in Software-Engineering Communication," Proc. 33rd Int'l Conf. Software Eng. (ICSE 11), IEEE CS Press, 2011, pp. 800–803.
18. J. Coplien, "Organizational Patterns," Enterprise Information Systems VI, Springer, 2006, pp. 43–52.
37 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool