Sustainability Perspective Vision

• Sustainability perspective vision is a holistic, modular framework that guides architects to incorporate energy efficiency, resource optimization, and system longevity from the design phase.
• The framework repurposes traditional architectural perspectives by embedding iterative processes and role-based strategies to continuously address sustainability priorities.
• Combining literature synthesis with practitioner insights, it employs open-ended checklists and evolving tactics to adapt design practices to dynamic technological landscapes.

Sustainability perspective vision denotes a comprehensive architectural knowledge artifact designed to address sustainability as an explicit, cross-cutting quality property in software-intensive systems design. It reconceptualizes architectural perspectives—traditionally used to structure concerns, processes, tactics, pitfalls, and checklists—so they can systematically and iteratively guide software architects in integrating sustainability objectives (such as energy efficiency, resource optimization, and system longevity) during early-stage and throughout architectural design processes. This vision is developed in response to both literature-driven synthesis and direct engagement with industry experts (Funke et al., 28 Aug 2025).

1. The Concept of Sustainability Perspective Vision

The sustainability perspective vision is defined as a domain- and framework-independent, modular structure that architects can apply across multiple architectural views and system contexts to address sustainability. Unlike perspectives limited to measurement or documentation, this revised notion functions as a holistic and open-ended knowledge base:

• Concerns: Explicit capture of sustainability-relevant architectural concerns (e.g., modularity, maintainability, optimized deployment, resource provisioning for ecological efficiency).
• Processes (or Activities): A structured process, replacing traditional “activities,” consisting of iterative revisions to architectural views to address sustainability priorities.
• Tactics: A non-exhaustive, externally linked set of architectural tactics (e.g., adopting containerization, serverless deployment, green cloud practices) enabling dynamic updates as best practices evolve.
• Pitfalls: Documented missteps (e.g., inflexible resource allocation, monolithic architectures) that may undermine sustainability aims.
• Checklists/Open-ended Templates: Instead of fixed, prescriptive checklists, the vision proposes interactive templates composed of open-ended questions to stimulate analytic reflection (e.g., “How does this architectural decision impact system longevity?”).

This construct transforms sustainability into an actionable and integrated design target, not an afterthought.

2. Architectural Perspectives for Sustainability Concerns

Architectural perspectives serve as knowledge artifacts encapsulating domain- and view-spanning quality properties. In addressing sustainability:

• Perspectives aggregate and systematize sustainability-related concerns (modularity, efficiency, carbon intensity, and more), ensuring cross-view coherence.
• Process guidance is embedded, mapping sustainability concerns explicitly to architectural activities.
• Decoupled tactics are referenced, facilitating rapid update and adaptation.
• Open-ended, reflective checklists guide the design team in actively and iteratively surfacing sustainability issues.
• Role-based assignments (e.g., assigning a “sustainability champion”) embed accountability and help establish sustainability as a first-class design quality comparable to performance or security.

Table 1 (see below) illustrates the mapping from classic to revised perspective elements.

Classic Perspective Element	Updated for Sustainability Vision (examples)
Desired Quality	“Sustainability” (with potential subtypes: environmental, etc.)
Concerns	Modular maintainability, energy/resource optimization
Activities	Iterative process steps; integration with existing architectural flows
Tactics	Linked externally; e.g., containerization, serverless, green cloud
Pitfalls	Over-provisioning, monolithic patterns, inflexible infra
Checklist	Open-ended templates; reflective prompts (not prescriptive)

The approach ensures systematic inclusion and traceability of sustainability in architectural reasoning.

3. Methodological Foundations: Literature and Industry Input

The framework’s design is grounded in both a forward-backward snowballing literature review and a practitioner focus group:

• Literature Review: Beginning with Woods & Rozanski’s architectural perspectives, the review identifies seminal, extended, and emergent perspectives (including energy, scalability, and cross-domain qualities) to derive reusable structural elements and update mechanisms.
• Focus Group: Four senior experts (including original perspective authors and industry practitioners) provided critical feedback on terminology (preferring “process” over “activities”), the relevance and maintenance needs of tactics, checklist usability, and the necessity for role-based accountability (e.g., “sustainability champions”). Templates and supplementary materials were validated as valuable for both industrial and educational use.

Findings highlighted the need for iterative, extensible processes over rigid, static mandates; open-ended guidance over checklist formalism; and integration with industrial workflow patterns.

4. Implementation Artifacts: Tables, Diagrams, and Role-Based Practice

Artifacts are central to operationalizing the sustainability perspective:

• LaTeX Table: A two-column structure presents original perspective elements alongside their sustainability-specific counterparts, facilitating knowledge transfer and template-based adaptation.
• UML Activity Diagram: Adapted from Woods and Rozanski, this diagram illustrates the iterative process by which architects use the sustainability perspective, with callouts for sustainability-related outputs (e.g., “modular microservice architecture,” “cloud resource optimizations”).
• Role Assignments: Implementation recommends explicit attribution of sustainability-related concerns to designated “champions” within the design process, supporting ongoing review and tactical adaptation.

These artifacts not only support technical communication but serve as documentation and oversight tools throughout project evolution.

5. Identified Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

Key obstacles in implementation and usage include:

• Misinterpretation: Risks exist that the perspective is treated as a mere documentation extension rather than an iterative design knowledge artifact—mitigated by emphasizing active process integration.
• Checklist Rigidity: Closed checklists can impede analytic depth; open-ended templates are thus proposed.
• Tactics Obsolescence: Rapid technological shifts necessitate external, updatable tactics repositories linked to the perspective.
• Complexity: Sustainability’s multidimensionality may require multiple specialized perspectives (e.g., environmental, economic) for comprehensive coverage.
• Organizational Fit: Embedding role-based responsibility (e.g., “sustainability champion”) may require cultural and structural change.

Addressing these issues is essential for the practical adoption and enduring relevance of the sustainability perspective.

6. Application and Illustrative Scenario

An illustrative scenario based on Figure 1 in the paper demonstrates practical application:

• An architect, guided by the sustainability perspective, identifies “modular and maintainable code” and “optimized resource provisioning” as primary sustainability concerns.
• The iterative design process includes explicit selection of views (development, deployment, operational) and candidate architectures (e.g., containerized microservices, serverless deployment to minimize idle compute).
• Open-ended checklist questions prompt continuous reflection such as: “How does the deployment approach minimize cloud overprovisioning?”.
• Iterative refinement occurs as new tactics become available or as sustainability objectives evolve.

Although not a full real-world case paper, this scenario typifies the intended workflow: continuous, role-based, sustainability-focused architectural refinement.

7. Implications, Education, and Future Directions

The proposed vision positions the sustainability perspective as a living, educational, and industrial tool:

• Industry: Provides a systematic, expert-informed framework for integrating sustainability through accountability, iteration, and extensible tactics.
• Education: Supports professional and computer science curriculum by offering structured, experiential guidance for novices.
• Research: Advocates further development through structured Delphi studies, industry feedback, and cross-case validation.
• Framework Evolution: Foresees the need for modular, extensible sub-perspectives as sustainability components (environmental, economic, social) diversify in practice, and for linkage to live repositories of best practices and tactics.

This structured, living approach is designed both for immediate adoption and longer-term evolution in response to technology and sustainability demands.