Curriculum for Certified Professional for Software Architecture (CPSA)^® Advanced Level
COSMO – Collaborative Software Modelling

Participants understand the concept and implications of sociotechnical systems. They are able to relate the different aspects of collaborative modeling to the elements of a sociotechnical system.

The training provides a detailed understanding of the significance of the elements "organizational structure", "people", "technical system", and "processes".

Participants understand that these elements influence one another and that architectural decisions have an impact within the broader sociotechnical system.

Participants understand that people collaborate for a variety of individual and shared motivations.

Participants understand which factors can encourage or hinder the willingness to collaborate.

Participants are familiar with the fundamental social and organizational conditions that support successful collaboration.

Participants understand that trust, psychological safety, transparency, and shared goals are important prerequisites for sustainable collaboration.

Participants understand that collaboration must be actively fostered and continuously maintained.

Participants are familiar with the typical participants involved in collaborative modeling, including development teams, stakeholders, management, and users, as well as their different perspectives and interests.

Participants understand that collaborative modeling is not limited to people in the role of software architect but benefits from a diversity of roles and viewpoints.

They are familiar with the typical participants in successful collaborative modeling.

Participants are familiar with typical scenarios in which collaborative architecture work can positively influence collaboration, decision-making, and architectural quality. They understand that collaborative architecture work is particularly effective when addressing complex problems, coordinating across multiple stakeholders, or working with distributed knowledge.

Participants are able to identify the need for collaborative architecture work in different scenarios, especially within their own organizational context, by recognizing and assessing symptoms such as knowledge silos, coordination problems, misunderstandings, or decision bottlenecks.

Participants have experienced collaborative modeling through a practical example and actively participated in a collaborative modeling session. As a result, they understand collaborative modeling from the perspective of a participant.

Participants understand the role of the facilitator in collaborative modeling sessions and are familiar with the typical responsibilities involved in preparation, facilitation, follow-up, and review.

They understand that facilitation can be performed in a lightweight manner and does not require a formal role or extensive training in facilitation methods.

Participants are able to prepare, facilitate, follow up, and review a collaborative modeling session.

They can create the necessary conditions for a successful session, including arranging the physical or virtual environment, providing the required tools, and planning the schedule.

Participants can facilitate a collaborative modeling session, keeping track of time, gathering feedback, and ensuring that outcomes are captured.

They can document the results of a collaborative modeling session and make them available for subsequent work.

After facilitating a collaborative modeling session, participants are able to reflect on their own performance and identify opportunities for improvement for future sessions.

Participants reflect on their practical experience with collaborative modeling by considering questions such as:

As a result, participants understand how collaborative modeling can become part of their own professional toolkit.

Participants are familiar with common analogue and digital tools for collaborative modelling and are able to assess their suitability for different session formats.

In particular, they are familiar with:

Participants are able to describe the strengths, limitations, and typical use cases of these tools and select suitable tools for their individual context.

Participants are able to use a selection of tools confidently enough to prepare, facilitate, and document collaborative modelling sessions.

Participants understand that the success and lasting positive impact of collaborative sessions largely depends on the composition of the participant group.

Participants are able to identify the relevant skills and responsibilities required for a given context.

Participants are able to distinguish the facilitator role from actively contributing to architecture and design decisions.

They understand that, in collaborative architecture work, many participants can contribute to the design, regardless of their formal role in the software development process.

Participants are able to assess the implications of a person acting both as facilitator and as an active designer.

Participants are able to capture information during a collaborative modelling session through listening, asking questions, and visualising.

They understand that, in such situations, the facilitator role combines aspects of moderation, interviewing, translation, and visualisation.

Participants are able to transform what they hear into a model that the group can understand and to evolve this model collaboratively step by step.

They are able to use visualisation deliberately to involve inexperienced participants in the modelling process and foster a shared understanding.

Participants are familiar with the typical strengths and weaknesses of in-person and remote sessions in collaborative architecture work.

They understand that not every collaborative format is equally suitable for different organisational, social, or spatial contexts.

Participants are able to assess how session format (in-person vs. remote), group dynamics, degree of interaction, and organisational conditions influence the course and success of collaborative modelling and derive appropriate measures for the chosen format.

They understand that consciously selecting or adapting a collaborative format can help reduce risks and increase the effectiveness of a session.

Participants are able to justify whether an in-person or remote format is more appropriate for a given collaborative modelling session, based on group dynamics, interaction requirements, and the organisational context.

Participants understand the importance of language and a shared understanding of terminology for collaborative architecture work. They understand the need to continuously question and refine terminology.

Participants know the challenges involved in developing a shared understanding of problem domains.

They understand the benefits of establishing a deliberately designed common language and are able to recognise when such a language is missing.

Participants understand that language comprises not only words and their meaning, but also the ways in which the elements of a language can be combined. [Abelson-et-al-1996]

Participants understand that the presence or absence of suitable cultural conditions within an organisation influences collaborative architecture work.

Participants learn to identify constraints and requirements that directly affect architecture work.

The training provides practical guidance on how people with responsibility for architecture can influence organisational conditions and how to respond when such influence is not possible.

Participants understand the importance of securing buy-in from relevant stakeholders for effective collaborative architecture work.

They are familiar with practices for assessing existing buy-in and for revealing or strengthening missing buy-in.

Participants develop an awareness of the effects of collaborative design sessions, particularly their impact on existing plans and designs.

Participants understand that the timing, scope, and participant group of a session can significantly affect its energy and, consequently, the course of a development initiative.

Participants understand situational awareness as the ability to realistically assess the initial situation of a sociotechnical system in terms of people, organisation, collaboration, and constraints.

They understand that insufficient situational awareness can result in unrealistic expectations, unsuitable formats, or ineffective collaborative architecture work.

Participants are familiar with practices for building situational awareness and continuously refining it throughout collaborative work.

Participants understand that an effective collaborative session requires a clear understanding of the task, the available knowledge, and existing knowledge gaps.

They are able to identify relevant knowledge sources, interests, and perspectives required to address the task.

Participants are familiar with practices for preparing and visualising the initial situation of a session and validating it with the participants.

Participants understand that spontaneous discussions about architecture and modelling can benefit from collaborative modelling.

They are familiar with measures for quickly introducing an appropriate structure in such situations, including clarification of goals, the question to be addressed, the available time, the participants, and the expected outcome.

Participants know simple facilitation and questioning techniques for turning an unstructured discussion into a collaborative modelling session.

They understand that prepared working environments and readily available tools, such as architecture walls, whiteboards, pens, and sticky notes, support spontaneous collaborative sessions.

Participants are familiar with practices for documenting the results of a spontaneous session and deriving next steps.

Participants understand that organisational behaviour and cultural conditions can significantly affect collaborative architecture work.

They know typical behavioural patterns and cultural characteristics that can support or hinder collaborative architecture work.

Participants understand that establishing collaborative ways of working often requires changes to existing habits, communication patterns, and perceptions of responsibility.

They are able to identify areas in which behavioural change may be necessary to establish collaborative architecture work effectively.

Participants understand that existing communication, decision-making, and responsibility structures can affect the adoption of collaborative ways of working.

Participants understand that power imbalances, dominant participants, and dissenting opinions can be intimidating and can significantly reduce the expected quality of a collaborative session.

Participants know methods for preparing and facilitating collaborative sessions in ways that identify and mitigate potential disruptions.

Participants understand that organisational and logistical conditions can significantly affect the course and outcome of collaborative sessions.

They understand the importance of breaks, energy levels, and session rhythm during extended periods of collaborative work.

Participants understand that suitable refreshments, appropriate working environments, and deliberate pauses can support concentration and collaboration.

They understand that informal interaction and socialising can foster trust, networking, and sustainable collaboration.

Participants understand that collaborative architecture work can help ensure that underrepresented groups have an equal voice.

They understand that collaborative sessions can make the perspectives of underrepresented groups visible and open to discussion, whereas such perspectives may easily be overlooked in centralised or hierarchical decision-making processes.

Participants understand that diverse groups can bring a broader range of experiences, needs, and perspectives into architecture work.

They know ways of designing collaborative formats that enable different perspectives to be contributed effectively and considered appropriately.

Participants understand the fundamental principle that everyone involved in a collaborative session contributes different knowledge, experiences, roles, positions, abilities, and backgrounds.

They also understand that everyone involved has an equal right to be acknowledged, to speak, and to contribute to the collaborative architecture work.

Participants know facilitation practices for making different perspectives visible and including them in collaborative work with equal respect.

Participants know basic facilitation techniques for designing workshops.

They understand the importance of the following skills for facilitation and are familiar with practices to apply or acquire them

Participants have an overview of these three types of communication models:

They understand the differences between these categories and can relate them to typical situations in everyday software development (e.g., meetings, design workshops, pair programming).

A detailed understanding of specific methods (e.g., Shannon–Weaver) is not part of COSMO.

Participants understand the importance of a neutral stance for facilitators. They understand that conflicts of interest on the part of the facilitator can reduce the effectiveness of collaborative sessions, and that other, potentially external, individuals can serve as facilitators to mitigate this.

Participants understand that the perception of the facilitator role also requires facilitation skills. They understand, in particular, that different practices may require different facilitation skills. The training imparts facilitation skills to an extent appropriate for the role.

Participants understand that disagreement in collaborative modeling sessions is a normal part of joint architecture work.

Participants can contribute as facilitators to making different assumptions and mental models visible and guiding the group toward a shared understanding of the design task.

They are familiar with ways to promote ownership and consensus-building without overlooking or prematurely resolving technical differences.

A detailed understanding of conflict analysis and conflict resolution is not part of COSMO. For further study, the CPSA-A module SOFT is recommended.

Participants have gained an overview of collaborative approaches and have learned individual practices that are particularly valuable for architecture work in detail.

Participants know collaborative modeling techniques for areas such as:

Participants can decide, based on practical scenarios, which technique is applicable in which situation (e.g., requirements analysis, modeling). Participants are able to make the necessary preparations for the practices covered in the training, to lead collaborative sessions, and to follow up afterwards.

Participants can decide which collaborative formats are suitable for which situation. To do this, participants know the characteristic features of the presented methods and understand which conditions are crucial for the success of each method. They know how to combine collaborative modeling techniques.

Participants understand how the prevailing conditions and expectations in the organizational context affect the preparation, execution, and follow-up of collaborative sessions.

For all presented approaches, practices, and methods, participants know the requirements for: