Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Injecting Sustainability in Software Architecture: A Rapid Review

Markus Funke, Patricia Lago

TL;DR

The paper investigates how to integrate sustainability into software architecture by combining a meta-rapid review of 16 secondary studies with a practitioner focus group (11 experts). It reveals a literature-driven emphasis on tools, lifecycle integration, and architectural evaluation challenges, while industry practitioners emphasize actionable opportunities at the product level and governance. By synthesizing these views, the authors propose five takeaways aimed at guiding practitioners and industry partners toward multi-level, baseline-aware, sustainability-conscious architecture practices. The study highlights the need to anchor sustainability across all architectural layers and to reuse existing architectural concepts and processes rather than pursuing largely new tools. This work informs both research and practice by identifying where empirical evidence exists and where further integration work is needed.

Abstract

Sustainability has evolved from an emerging concern into a fundamental responsibility in software design, development, and operation. Research increasingly explores how sustainability can be systematically integrated into existing software engineering practices. Building on an industry-academia collaboration, we contribute to this discourse by conducting a mixed-method empirical study. We combine a rapid review of secondary studies with a focus group of practitioners. The review identifies challenges and opportunities in embedding sustainability in software architecture, while the focus group enriches and compares these findings. Based on the literature and industry synthesis, we derive five tangible takeaways to inform architects working in the field, and to guide our industry partners in the integration of sustainability concerns in architecture practices.

Injecting Sustainability in Software Architecture: A Rapid Review

TL;DR

The paper investigates how to integrate sustainability into software architecture by combining a meta-rapid review of 16 secondary studies with a practitioner focus group (11 experts). It reveals a literature-driven emphasis on tools, lifecycle integration, and architectural evaluation challenges, while industry practitioners emphasize actionable opportunities at the product level and governance. By synthesizing these views, the authors propose five takeaways aimed at guiding practitioners and industry partners toward multi-level, baseline-aware, sustainability-conscious architecture practices. The study highlights the need to anchor sustainability across all architectural layers and to reuse existing architectural concepts and processes rather than pursuing largely new tools. This work informs both research and practice by identifying where empirical evidence exists and where further integration work is needed.

Abstract

Sustainability has evolved from an emerging concern into a fundamental responsibility in software design, development, and operation. Research increasingly explores how sustainability can be systematically integrated into existing software engineering practices. Building on an industry-academia collaboration, we contribute to this discourse by conducting a mixed-method empirical study. We combine a rapid review of secondary studies with a focus group of practitioners. The review identifies challenges and opportunities in embedding sustainability in software architecture, while the focus group enriches and compares these findings. Based on the literature and industry synthesis, we derive five tangible takeaways to inform architects working in the field, and to guide our industry partners in the integration of sustainability concerns in architecture practices.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 26 sections, 5 figures, 2 tables.

Figures (5)

  • Figure 1: General study design
  • Figure 2: Meta-Rapid Review: number of publications per selection stage
  • Figure 3: Meta-Rapid Review: total challenges vs. total opportunities per category (one count per paper)
  • Figure 4: Focus Group: total challenges vs. total opportunities per category
  • Figure 5: Overlap between findings from the meta-rapid review (literature) and focus group (industry)