Nội dung được dịch bởi AI, chỉ mang tính chất tham khảo
Thiết kế kiến trúc ứng dụng CNTT thành công: một nghiên cứu thực nghiệm
Tóm tắt
Kiến trúc kỹ thuật của một ứng dụng CNTT là yếu tố quyết định quan trọng cho sự phát triển thành công của nó. Bổ sung cho quan điểm kỹ thuật phần mềm, bài báo này áp dụng một góc nhìn rộng hơn về thiết kế ứng dụng CNTT và sự thành công của dự án sau đó. Nó báo cáo về một nghiên cứu thực nghiệm gần đây về các yếu tố ảnh hưởng đến thiết kế kiến trúc ứng dụng CNTT. Nó xác định năm yếu tố ảnh hưởng có liên quan đáng kể đến sự biến đổi trong hiệu suất ngân sách thời gian của dự án phát triển sau đó. Hơn nữa, nó phát hiện rằng các dự án có thể được phân loại theo năm thuộc tính này thành bốn loại khác nhau với những khác biệt rõ ràng về hiệu suất. Bài báo đưa ra những khuyến nghị cho thực tiễn tốt trong thiết kế kiến trúc ứng dụng CNTT, đóng góp một công cụ chi tiết cho nghiên cứu trong lĩnh vực này, so sánh với những phát hiện từ kỹ thuật phần mềm, và nêu ra các vấn đề cho nghiên cứu tiếp theo.
Từ khóa
#kiến trúc CNTT #thiết kế ứng dụng #nghiên cứu thực nghiệm #hiệu suất dự án #kỹ thuật phần mềmTài liệu tham khảo
Aerts ATM, Goossenaerts JBM, Hammer DK, Wortmann JC (2004) Architectures in context: on the evolution of business, application software, and ICT platform architectures. Inf Manage 41:781–794
Ballantine J, Bonner M, Levy M, Martin A, Munro I, Powell P (1996) The 3-D model of information systems success: the search for the dependent variable continues. Inf Resour Manage J 9(4):5–14
Bass L, Clements P, Kazman R (1998) Software architecture in practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Behrsin M, Mason G, Sharpe T (1994) Reshaping IT for business flexibility: The IT architecture as a common language for dealing with change. McGraw-Hill, NY
Broadbent M, Weill P (1997) Management by maxim: how business and IT managers can create IT infrastructure. Sloan Manage Rev Spring 1997:77–91
Broadbent M, Weill P (1999) The implications of information technology infrastructure for business process redesign. MIS Q 23(2):159–172
Broadbent M, Weill P, Neo BS (1999) Strategic context and patterns of IT infrastructure capability. J Strateg Inf Sys 8(2):157–187
Ewusi-Mensah K, Przasnyski Z (1991) On information systems project abandonment: an exploratory study of organizational practices. MIS Q 15(1):67–86
Finkelstein A, Kramer J (2000) Software engineering: a roadmap. In: Finkelstein A (ed) The future of software engineering, ACM Press, NY, pp 5–22; also at http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/A.Finkelstein/fose/finalfinkelstein.pdf last accessed August 2005
Fitzgerald G (1990) Achieving flexible information systems: the case of improved analysis. J Inf Technol 5:5–11
Fitzgerald B (1996) Formalized systems development methodologies: a critical perspective. Inf Sys J 6:3–23
Fitzgerald B (1997) The use of systems development methodologies in practice: a field study. Inf Sys J 7:201–212
Fitzgerald G, Philippedes A, Probert S (1999) Information systems development, maintenance and enhancement: findings from a UK study. Int J Inf Manage 19:319–328
Gonzales R (2005) Developing the requirements discipline: software vs. systems. IEEE Softw 22(2):59–61
Harris T, Rothwell JW, Lloyd PTL (1999) Experiences in reusing technical reference architectures. IBM Sys J 38(1):98–117
Huber N (2003) Hitting targets? The state of UK IT project management. Comput Wkly 11/4/2003:22–23
Jeffery M, Leliveld I (2004) Best practices in IT portfolio management. MIT Sloan Manage Rev Spring 45(3):41–49
Jiang JJ, Klein G, Hwang H-G, Huang J, Hung S-Y (2004) An exploration of the relationship between software development process maturity and project performance. Inf Manage 41:279–288
Kazman R, Bass L (2002) Making architecture reviews work in the real world. IEEE Softw 19(1):67–73
Keider S (1984) Why systems development projects fail. J Inf Syst Manage 1(3):33–38
Langdon CS (2003) Information systems architecture styles and business interaction patterns: toward theoretic correspondence. Inf Sys e-Bus Manage 1:283–304
Lloyd PTL, Galambos GM (1999) Technical reference architectures. IBM Syst J 38(1):51–75
Lyytinen K, Hirschheim R (1987) Information systems failures: a survey and classification of the empirical literature. Oxf Surv Inf Technol 4:257–309
Lyytinen K, Mathiassen L, Ropponen J (1996) A framework for software risk management. J Inf Technol 11(4):275–285
Lyytinen K, Mathiassen L, Ropponen J (1998) Attention shaping and software risk- a categorical analysis of four classical approaches. Inf Sys Res 9(3):233–255
Maier MW, Rechtin E (2002) The art of systems architecting, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Maranzano JF, Rozsypal SA, Zimmerman GH, Warnken GW, Wirth PE, Weiss DM (2005) Architecture reviews: practice and experience. IEEE Softw 22(2):34–43
Martin A (2003) What drives the configuration of information technology projects?: exploratory research in ten organizations. J Inf Technol 18(1):1–15
Martin A, Chan M (1996) Information systems project redefinition in New Zealand: will we ever learn. Aust Comput J 28(1):27–40
Nidumolu S (1995) The effect of coordination and uncertainty on software project performance: residual performance risk as an intervening variable. Inf Sys Res 6(3):191–219
Norusis MJ (1985) SPSS-X advanced statistics guide. SPSS/McGraw-Hill
Paulk MC, Curtis B, Chrissis MB, Weber CV (1993) Capability maturity model, Version 1.1. IEEE Softw 10(4):18–27
Pinto JK, Slevin DP (1987) Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE Trans Eng Manage EM-34(1):22–27
Remenyi D, Money A, Twite A (1991) A guide to measuring and managing IT benefits. NCC Blackwell, Oxford
Ropponen J, Lyytinen K (2000) Components of software development risk: how to address them? A project manager survey. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 26(2):98–112
Ross JW (2003) Creating a strategic IT architecture competency: learning in stages. MIS Q Exec 1(2):31–43
Sauer C, Willcocks LP (2002) The evolution of the organizational architect. MIT Sloan Manage Rev Camb 43(3):41–49
Sewell MT, Sewell LM (2002) The software architect’s profession: an introduction. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River NJ
Shaw M, Garlan D (1996) Software architecture: perspectives on an emerging discipline. Prentice Hall, NJ
Software Engineering Institute (2002a) CMMISM for systems engineering/software engineering, Version 1.1, continuous representation (CMMI-SE/SW, V1.1, Continuous), technical report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-001, and http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/02.reports/02tr001.html last accessed 31/8/2005
Software Engineering Institute (2002b) CMMISM for systems engineering/software engineering, Version 1.1, staged representation (CMMI-SE/SW, V1.1, Staged), technical report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-002, and http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/02.reports/02tr002.html last accessed 31/8/2005
Software Engineering Institute (2005) Capability maturity model integration (CMMI) overview. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/adoption/pdf/cmmi-overview05.pdf Last accessed 31/8/2005
Sommerville I (2004) Software engineering, 7th edn. Pearson Addison-Wesley, Boston
Thorogood A, Yetton P (2004) Reducing the technical complexity and business risk of major systems projects. In: 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Truex D, Baskerville R, Travis J (2000) Amethodical systems development: the deferred meaning of systems development methods. Acc Manage Inf Technol 10:53–79
Wallace L, Keil M, Rai A (2004) How software project risk affects project performance: an investigation of the dimensions of risk and an exploratory model. Decis Sci 35(2):289–321
Weill P, Broadbent M (2000) Managing IT infrastructure: a strategic choice. In: Zmud RW (ed) Framing the domains of IT management: projecting the future ... through the past, Pinnaflex, pp 329–353
Weill P, Subramani M, Broadbent M (2002) Building IT infrastructure for strategic agility. MIT Sloan Manage Rev 44(1):57–65
Yetton P, Martin A, Sharma R, Johnston K (2000) A model of information systems development project performance. Inf Sys J 10(4):263–289
