more domain specific or expert level. Usuallyorganizational knowledgeor “intellectualproperty” istranslated into patents, trademarks, copyright etc.
Organization:This KM school focuses on theorganizational structure.These structures are often referred as “knowledge communities”. This is a networkingapproach for peopleto communicate and share knowledge. The main aim is to collaborate and createknowledge for the organization. Strategic: In this school of knowledgemanagement organizations identify strategies that add competitive advantages. It is related to developingconceptual models knowledge management for organizations. Spatial:This KM school focuses on usingorganizations spacefor knowledge sharing. Organizations use different office settings to encourage people tocommunicate.
For example in the case of software organizations agile methodologies promote the use of boards, chartsor other tools to create spatial knowledge. Sometimes even commonspaces like conference rooms, coffee rooms or place for refreshment activitiesalsoserve as places where the knowledgecan be shared 23.The need to fostermultidisciplinary research collaboration across organizations resulted in teamsdispersed separated by time and distance.
However to attain the potential benefits of such collaboration, there is acritical need for a better management of communication, knowledge and co-ordinationacross distributed teams. The importance of these factors is becomingincreasingly known to organizations requiring them to develop methods andenabling mechanisms in need for more successful and efficient collaboration outcomes11. Knowledge management, communication and coordination are interconnectedand it influences each other so by addressing the problem of knowledgemanagement we can address other 2 major challenges of project management also. PROBLEMS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT StructuredArchitectural knowledge management (1), Unstructured Architectural knowledgeManagement (6), lack of predefined process to cope up with new roles / rotationof role/ interdependent roles/ knowledge transfer from domain expert to newlyrecruited team members/ interdependent tasks (1), lack of communication/ timelag in communication/ slow collaboration/ Wong media selection forcommunication (5) , time zone difference/ limited time window to exchangeknowledge (3), difficulties in building and maintaining trust (1), lack ofknowledge sharing tools and practices, lack of common terminology/ linguisticdifferences (3), lack of structured knowledge(1), socio-cultural and temporaldistances (3), transfer of tacit knowledge/ collect and share tacit knowledgein remote areas (2) lack of documentation/frequent access to projectdocumentation (4), knowledgefragmentation, overload and de-contextualization (1), lack of training (1),backflow of knowledge doesn’t exist (1), cost of knowledge transfer is notknown (1), less or missing domainknowledge (2), Knowledge is not available in explicit form (2), missingfeedback regarding knowledge gaps (1), lack of strong data protection (1), lackof data externalization (1), team awareness (2), distinct types of knowledge shouldbe captured (1).
1) UNSTRUCTURED& STRUCTURED ARCHITECTURAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AMeta model was proposed by conducting a literature review on architecturalknowledge management. It represents the relationship between different conceptsof knowledge management and their inter relationship. Other Knowledgemanagement unsolved challenges such as cultural issues, component, and meetingdeadlines were also identified. Also a need of method topass on general information across sites such as “how things work, what issueshave priority, responsibility assignments, and who was an expert at what”,ensuring architectural compliance was sensed 12.
A case study wasconducted to validate the proposed architectural knowledge elements and itsevaluation criteria. The key elements of architecture knowledge management are: Des: The architectural designitself, Ass: Assumptions thatwere made during the architectural design and underpinning design decisions, Env: Linkage to the environment, Dec Design decisions, Dep:Interdependencies, between the design decisions, Map: Mapping of design decisions to requirements, needs,constraints, design, and implementation, Dom:The domain analysis, Pat Architecturalpatterns used, Alt: Designalternatives evaluated, Rat: Rationale. The architecture knowledge evaluationcriteria are: Crit. 1: Appropriateviews and viewpoints, Crit.
2: Bottlenecksidentified, Crit. 3: Build anddeployment documentation, Crit. 4: Decompositionand layering, Crit. 5 : Designpatterns and architectural patterns,Crit. 6: Design rationale,Crit. 7: Document application architecture and design. Crit. 8: Explicit externaldependencies, Crit.
9: Explicitinternal dependencies, Crit. 10: Fail-over, Crit. 11: Load balancing, Crit. 12: Rationale, Crit. 13: Scalable capacity, Crit. 14: Single-points-of-failure.
The purpose was to identify the difference in evaluation criteria of on-shoreelements and off-shore elements. Their case study didn’t show much of thedifference 13.Anempirical study was conducted tounderstand architectural knowledge articulation through unstructured textualelectronic media (UTEM). They conductedan empirical study on 4 Mexican agile global software development companieshaving 20 software engineers as participants and observed and explored theinteraction through UTEM. Ontology was presented that represents the involved aspects in AKarticulation through UTEM in AGSD teams. Their findings provideevidence of the importance of UTEM interactions, and that AK is shared throughthese types of media 14.Architecturalknowledge vaporization is a problem of global software development project. Amodel ‘SCRUMCONIX’ was proposed to improve architectural knowledge managementin GSD organizations.
SCRUMCONIX uses lightweight documentation mainly based ondiagram. This model was implemented in Mexican GSD organization and then theopinion of participants was collected through questionnaire. They felt that the domain model domain model was useful tovisualize the project’s scope, use cases diagrams helped them identify softwarefunctionality, and robustness diagrams provided a clear and common language.
Also, these artifacts were sufficient to perform an accurate estimation and toproduce test cases. Participants also said that the use of diagrams improvedthe communication between local and foreign team members. Finally, it was concluded thatScrumconix was perceived as useful and lightweight to documentand understand a software project. However, when the client requests a changeover a developed use case, participants do not update the correspondingartifacts. Also, the participants did not report any experiences about the usecase point’s technique because they did not apply it 15.Agile Global Software Development (AGSD) is a reality, since nowadayssoftware products are required to get into the market with more speed thanbefore. This situation has pushed Global Software Development (GSD) companiesto adopt lighter ways to develop software (Agile Software Development – ASD) tosatisfy market demands.
However, AGSD companies have encountered increasedtechnical debt and architectural knowledge (AK) vaporization, mainly becausethe inherent differences between ASD and GSD, especially in documentationhandling. An empirical study wasconducted to evaluate the use of UTEM for architectural knowledge management.The empirical study raised the need of adding the ‘tagging feature’ in UTEM.Using UTEM improves the knowledge management in GSD 16.