Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Requirements engineering for sustainability: an awareness framework for designing software systems for a better tomorrow

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Integrating novel software systems in our society, economy and environment can have far-reaching effects. As a result, software systems should be designed in such a way as to maintain or improve the sustainability of their intended socio-technical systems. However, a paradigm shift is required to raise awareness of software professionals on the potential sustainability effects of software systems. While Requirements Engineering is considered the key for driving this change, requirements engineers lack the knowledge, experience and methodological support for acting as facilitators for a broader discussion on sustainability effects. This paper presents a question-based framework for raising awareness of the potential effects of software systems on sustainability, as the first step towards enabling the required paradigm shift. An evaluation study of the framework was conducted with four groups of computer science students. The results of the study indicate that the framework is applicable to different types of systems and helps to facilitate discussions about the potential effects that software systems could have on sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As an awareness framework, the detailed analysis of potential effects is currently outside of the scope of the framework.

  2. When first introduced the framework, practitioners often ask whether the framework can be applied to a system whose purpose is not related to sustainability. Hence, we decided to add this RQ.

  3. Therefore, they interviewed at least five stakeholders and we generally expected that each dimension would be represented by a different stakeholder.

  4. While these metrics can give us an indication of whether the students could use the framework, a mapping to a five-point scale (as used to answer the remaining RQs) would be unreliable. Hence, we chose a simpler scale.

  5. The binary responses (b.4 and b.7 in Table 8) were not used for RQ analysis directly, as they are only qualifying questions for answers to b.5 and b.8, respectively.

References

  1. Airbnb, inc. http://www.airbnb.com 2019. Accessed 01 March 2019

  2. Akinli Kocak S, Becker C, Betz S, Chitchyan R, Duboc L, Easterbrook S, Leifler O, Penzenstadler B, Porras J, Seyff N, Venters CC (2019) The SusA Workshop—improving sustainability awareness to inform future business process and systems design. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3632486

  3. Alharthi AD, Spichkova M, Hamilton M (2018) Susoftpro: sustainability profiling for software. In: IEEE 26th international requirements engineering conference (RE), pp 500–501

  4. Becker C, Betz S, Chitchyan R, Duboc L, Easterbrook S, Penzenstadler B, Seyff N, Venters C (2016) Requirements: the key to sustainability. IEEE Softw. 33(1):56–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Becker C, Chitchyan R, Duboc L, Easterbrook S, Mahaux M, Penzenstadler B, Rodriguez-Navas G, Salinesi C, Seyff N, Venters C, Calero C, Akinli Kocak S, Betz S (2015) Karlskrona manifesto on sustainability design. https://www.sustainabilitydesign.org/

  6. Becker C, Chitchyan R, Duboc L, Easterbrook S, Penzenstadler B, Seyff N, Venters C (2015) Sustainability design and software: the karlskrona manifesto. In: Proceedings of the 37th international conference on software engineering-volume 2, IEEE Press, pp 467–476

  7. Brito IS, Conejero JM, Moreira A, Araújo J (2018) A concern-oriented sustainability approach. In: 2018 12th international conference on research challenges in information science (RCIS), pp 1–12

  8. Brundtland GH, Khalid M, Agnelli S et al (1987) Our common future. New York

  9. Cabot J, Easterbrook S, Horkoff J, Lessard L, Liaskos S, Mazon J (2009) Integrating sustainability in decision-making processes: a modelling strategy. In: 31st international conference on software engineering—companion volume, pp 207–210

  10. Cagdas V, Stubkjær E (2011) Design research for cadastral systems. Comput Environ Urban Syst 35(01):77–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Checkland P (1999) Systems thinking. Rethinking management information systems, pp 45–56

  12. Checkland P, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use, for practitioners, teachers and students. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chitchyan R, Becker C, Betz S, Duboc L, Penzenstadler B, Seyff N, Venters C (2016) Sustainability design in requirements engineering: state of practice. In: Proceedings of the 38th international conference on software engineering companion, ACM, pp 533–542

  14. Chitchyan R, Betz S, Duboc L, Penzenstadler B, Easterbrook S, Ponsard C, Venters C (2015) Evidencing sustainability design through examples. In: Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on requirements engineering for sustainable systems

  15. Damian D (2007) Stakeholders in global requirements engineering: lessons learned from practice. IEEE Softw. 24(2):21–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q:319–340

  17. Dresch A, Lacerda DP, Antunes JAV (2014) A method for science and technology advancement. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  18. Duboc L, Betz S, Penzenstadler B, Akinli Kocak S, Chitchyan R, Leifler O, Porras J, Seyff N, Venters CC (2019) Do we really know what we are building? Raising awareness of potential sustainability effects of software systems in requirements engineering. In: 2019 IEEE 27th international requirements engineering conference (RE), pp 6–16

  19. Easterbrook S (2014) From computational thinking to systems thinking: A conceptual toolkit for sustainability computing. In: ICT for Sustainability, (2014) ICT4S-14. Stockholm, Sweden, p 2014

  20. Gabrysiak G, Giese H, Seibel A, Neumann S (2010) Teaching requirements engineering with virtual stakeholders without software engineering knowledge. In: 2010 5th international workshop on requirements engineering education and training, IEEE, pp 36–45

  21. Gambetta D (2000) Can we trust trust? In: Gambetta D (ed) Trust: making and breaking cooperative relations, vol 13. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 213–237

    Google Scholar 

  22. Goodchild M, Janelle D (2010) Toward critical spatial thinking in the social sciences and humanities. GeoJournal 75(1):3–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hilty L, Aebischer B (2015) Ict for sustainability: an emerging research field. In: ICT innovations for sustainability, Springer, pp 3–36

  24. Höst M, Regnell B, Wohlin C (2000) Using students as subjects—a comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. Empir Softw Eng 5(3):201–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Landeta J (2006) Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol Forecast Soc Change 73(5):467–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Laplante PA (2017) Requirements engineering for software and systems, 3rd edn. Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  27. Laukkanen E, Paasivaara M, Arvonen T (2015) Stakeholder perceptions of the adoption of continuous integration—a case study. In: 2015 agile conference, pp 11–20

  28. Levy M, Hadar I (2018) Multidisciplinary requirements engineering for addressing social-oriented concerns. In: 2018 1st international workshop on learning from other disciplines for requirements engineering (D4RE), pp 1–3

  29. Mayring P (2014) Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution

  30. Meadows D (2008) Thinking in systems: a primer. Chelsea Green Publishing, Hartford

    Google Scholar 

  31. Meadows DH (1999) Leverage points: places to intervene in a system

  32. Mireles GAG, Moraga M Á, García F, Piattini M (2017) A classification approach of sustainability aware requirements methods. In: 2017 12th Iberian conference on information systems and technologies (CISTI), pp 1–6

  33. Mussbacher G, Nuttall D (Aug 2014) Goal modeling for sustainability: the case of time. In: IEEE 4th international model-driven requirements engineering workshop (MoDRE), pp 7–16

  34. Okoli C, Pawlowski S (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manag 42(1):15–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Penzenstadler B, Duboc L, Venters CC, Betz S, Seyff N, Wnuk K, Chitchyan R, Easterbrook SM, Becker C (2018) Software engineering for sustainability: find the leverage points!. IEEE Softw 35(4):22–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Penzenstadler B, Raturi A, Richardson D, Tomlinson B (2014) Safety, security, now sustainability: the nonfunctional requirement for the 21st century. IEEE Softw 31(3):40–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Roher K, Richardson D (2013) A proposed recommender system for eliciting software sustainability requirements. In: 2013 2nd international workshop on user evaluations for software engineering researchers (USER), pp 16–19

  38. Roher K, Richardson D (2013) Sustainability requirement patterns. In: 2013 3rd international workshop on requirements patterns (RePa), pp 8–11

  39. Runeson Per (2003) Using students as experiment subjects–an analysis on graduate and freshmen student data. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on empirical assessment in software engineering, Citeseer, pp 95–102

  40. Saputri T, Lee S (2016) Incorporating sustainability design in requirements engineering process: a preliminary study. In: Asia pacific requirements engineering conference, Springer, pp 53–67

  41. Seyff N, Betz S, Duboc L, Venters C, Becker C, Chitchyan R, Penzenstadler B, Nöbauer M (2018) Tailoring requirements negotiation to sustainability. In: 2018 IEEE 26th international requirements engineering conference (RE), pp 304–314

  42. UK Commission for Integrated Transport. Transport and climate change: advice to government from the commission for integrated transport. http://www.cambridgeenergy.com/archive/2007-02-08/commission-integ-trans.pdf (2007)

  43. Venters C, Seyff N, Becker C, Betz S, Chitchyan R, Duboc L, Mcintyre D, Penzenstadler B (2017) Characterising sustainability requirements: a new species, red herring, or just an odd fish? In: IEEE/ACM 39th international conference on software engineering, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 6, pp 3–12

  44. Verner J, Sampson J, Cerpa N (2008) What factors lead to software project failure? In: 2008 second international conference on research challenges in information science, pp 71–80

  45. Wohlin C, Runeson P, Hst M, Ohlsson M, Regnell B, Wessln A (2012) Experimentation in software engineering. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Zowghi D, Paryani S (2003) Teaching requirements engineering through role playing: lessons learnt. In: Proceedings of 11th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, 2003., IEEE, pp 233–241

  47. Zuppiroli S, Ciancarini P, Gabbrielli M (2012) A role-playing game for a software engineering lab: developing a product line. In: 2012 IEEE 25th conference on software engineering education and training, IEEE, pp 13–22

Download references

Acknowledgements

Each named author made a significant contribution in terms of ideas, discussions, evolution and physical writing to be named on the paper. All authors participated in the design and development of the framework applied in the study. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Christoph Becker for insights that led us to change the focus from an analytic to an awareness framework and Ms. Nanae Aubry for helping with part of the coding of the feedback forms.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. La Salle, Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain

    Leticia Duboc

  2. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Birgit Penzenstadler

  3. Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland

    Birgit Penzenstadler

  4. Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology LUT, Lappeenranta, Finland

    Jari Porras

  5. Vector Institute, Toronto, Canada

    Sedef Akinli Kocak

  6. Hochschule Furtwangen University, Furtwangen, Germany

    Stefanie Betz

  7. University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Ruzanna Chitchyan

  8. Linköpings Universitet, Linköping, Sweden

    Ola Leifler

  9. FHNW, Windisch, Switzerland

    Norbert Seyff

  10. University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Norbert Seyff

  11. University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK

    Colin C. Venters

Authors
  1. Leticia Duboc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Birgit Penzenstadler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jari Porras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sedef Akinli Kocak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stefanie Betz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ruzanna Chitchyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ola Leifler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Norbert Seyff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Colin C. Venters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colin C. Venters.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The authors would like to acknowledge EPSRC Grant EP/R007373/1, Digitaldialog 21 funded by the Ministry for Science, Research and Art Baden-Württemberg, the Secretaria d’Universitats i Recerca del Departament d’Economia i Coneixement de la Generalitat de Catalunya (grant 2017 SGR 966), and the funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 712949 (TECNIOspring PLUS) and from the Agency for Business Competitiveness of the Government of Catalonia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duboc, L., Penzenstadler, B., Porras, J. et al. Requirements engineering for sustainability: an awareness framework for designing software systems for a better tomorrow. Requirements Eng 25, 469–492 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-020-00336-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-020-00336-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation