=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2286/invited_paper_2
|storemode=property
|title=Conceptual modeling of goals and metrics to visualize the measurement of sustainability (Invited Talk)
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2286/invited_paper_2.pdf
|volume=Vol-2286
|authors=Birgit Penzenstadler
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/esem/Penzenstadler18
}}
==Conceptual modeling of goals and metrics to visualize the measurement of sustainability (Invited Talk)==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2286/invited_paper_2.pdf
Conceptual modeling of goals and metrics to
visualize the measurement of sustainability
Birgit Penzenstadler
Department of Computer Engineering
and Computer Science
California State University Long Beach
Long Beach, California, USA
birgit.penzenstadler@csulb.edu
Abstract—This keynote first presents a couple of approaches software engineering researchers, be the facilitators of a larger
from past and current work in visualizing and breaking down joint vision of the future?
high-level sustainability goals into measurable goals and how to
relate them to indicators and metrics, from both the field of
software engineering as well as sustainable development. Then II. SCOPING SUSTAINABILITY
we will take a dive into other models that have been used to Tainter [2] proposes that in order to analyze the
structure and visualize the relation from high-level goals and all sustainability of something, we need to get very clear on the
the way down to detailed metrics and sketch out a few scoping, and answer the questions of:
opportunities to make increased use of those in a research
agenda for MegSuS. 1. What to sustain? What is the purpose of the system,
or the mission behind it?
Keywords—sustainability, sustainability measures, software 2. For whom? Who are the stakeholders? Are some of
systems for sustainability, visualization, metrics. them maybe beyond organizational reach, being
impacted but not considered during development?
I. FLOURISHING INSTEAD OF FIXING
3. For how long? A decade? A generation? A
According to the Oxford dictionary, sustainability is the century? Can we think beyond standard business
ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level, as well as the plan terms?
avoidance of the depletion of natural resources in order to 4. At what cost? What is the return on investment,
maintain an ecological balance. and what are the environmental and social impacts?
Ehrenfeld [1] proposes to take that further, where
sustainability (as an end) should be understood as the ability Applying those four questions to a specific software
to flourish indefinitely (means). He points out that our current system under consideration, we note that we can answer the
problem is that we are trying to reduce unsustainability, which first question on several levels, on a conceptual level or on a
is not creating sustainability. He adds that as a society, we technical level. If we are to respond on a technical level, we
seem to be addicted to solving our problems through a go back to the technology fix loop. If we can respond on a
reductionist framework, which manifests itself in technology conceptual level, we focus on the functionality or service that
fixes that keep us trapped in the wrong path. We try to apply the system under consideration is supposed to support. The
a technology fix to create more eco-efficiency, and due to next question is how we can integrate that into the
rebound effects, unconsciousness, and even addiction (to our development of software-intensive systems.
technology fixes), we remain in a state of unsustainability –
instead of taking on a new paradigm and new mindset that III. DESIGNING FOR SUSTAINABILITY
would allow us (with a certain delay) to be able to transition
onto a sustainable path. To get towards flourishing, Ehrenfeld The Karlskrona Manifesto on Sustainability Design was
proposes four steps: one of the first answers proposed on a conceptual level, before
considering a specific system purpose and optimizing a
1. Take ethical decisions based on values, technical solution. The manifesto makes observations about
2. Develop collective visions of the future (outside of common misconceptions around sustainability and
the old circular patterns), development towards sustainability and proposes a set of
3. Replace old structures and strategies, and principles and commitments. These principles are [3]:
4. Live inside the question. 1. Sustainability is systemic. Sustainability is never
an isolated property. Systems thinking has to be the
While all four steps require a big shift in thinking and starting point for the transdisciplinary common
major changes, they promise to lead us towards manifesting a ground of sustainability.
transition that none of our technology fix routes has been able
to achieve. 2. Sustainability has multiple dimensions. We have
to include those dimensions into our analysis if we
As researchers, we are in a position to lead the way for are to understand the nature of sustainability in any
living inside the question, and we need to step into that given situation.
responsibility. That means to not buy into the technology fix 3. Sustainability transcends multiple disciplines.
path, which is very tempting in our field of research. So the Working in sustainability means working with
question is how we can go beyond this limited perception of people from across many disciplines, addressing
making an IT solution more eco-efficient than it currently is, the challenges from multiple perspectives.
and instead contemplate a bigger picture. How can we, as 4. Sustainability is a concern independent of the
purpose of the system. Sustainability has to be
considered even if the primary focus of the system 10. Humility and desire to learn over fixed knowledge
under design is not sustainability. sets
5. Sustainability applies to both a system and its When faced with the challenge of how to bring such a
wider contexts. There are at least two spheres to mindset into practice, requirements engineering is the key
consider in system design: the sustainability of the activity within software-intensive systems development to
system itself and how it affects sustainability of the affect change [6]. As proposed in several pieces of related
wider system of which it will be part. work [7], an artifact-based approach to requirements
6. Sustainability requires action on multiple levels. engineering with a focus on sustainability as a first-citizen
Some interventions have more leverage on a objective makes the contribution by and impacts of ICT for
system than others. Whenever we take action sustainability better tangible and visible.
towards sustainability, we should consider
opportunity costs: action at other levels may offer V. REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABILITY
more effective forms of intervention. Requirements Engineering for Sustainability (RE4S) helps
7. System visibility is a necessary precondition and elicit and document requirements with a focus on analyzing
enabler for sustainability design. The status of the different dimensions of sustainability in the wider system
the system and its context should be visible at context.
different levels of abstraction and perspectives to
The first artifact breaking down the sustainability goals of
enable participation and informed responsible
the system is a dedicated goal model [8], organized according
choice. to different dimensions of sustainability, namely individual,
8. Sustainability requires long-term thinking. We social, environmental, economic, and technical. Then we
should assess benefits and impacts on multiple analyze the potential impacts of the system for the dimensions
timescales and include longer-term indicators in and for the orthogonal three orders of effect [9], namely direct
assessment and decisions. effects, enabling effects, and systemic effects. We can
9. It is possible to meet the needs of future visualize a summary of such an analysis in a Sustainability
generations without sacrificing the prosperity of Analysis Diagram (SusAD), as illustrated for a procurement
the current generation. Innovation in system in [6], and for a resilient smart garden system in [10].
sustainability can play out as decoupling present Figure 1 shows the empty template for a sustainability analysis
and future needs. By moving away from the diagram along with guidance for a first draft. Both the goal
language of conflict and the trade-off mindset, we model and the sustainability analysis diagram allow for a tie-
can identify and enact choices that benefit both in with metrics to assess chosen interventions.
present and future.
If software engineers are to take those principles account
while engineering the requirements and design of their
systems, we will see a significant shift towards more
sustainability in software-intensive systems development.
The work on the manifesto includes developing methods that
make their application straight-forward, and we have
evaluated these methods in first industry studies [4].
IV. TRANSFORMATION MINDSET
The next question that arises is where our current solutions
are in terms of maturity. Mann, Bates, and Maher [5] have
analyzed the maturity of ICT (information and
communication technology) solutions for sustainability and
found that most solutions are in the area of compliance, e.g. to
standards, and use in terms of user behavior. Instead, the
authors argue, we need a sustainability-based transformation
mindset. The transformation mindset includes ten
propositions [6]: Fig. 1: Template for a sustainability analysis diagram.
1. Socioecological restoration over economic
justification VI. CONCLUSION
2. Transformative system change over small steps to The complexity of sustainability asks for effective
keep business as usual visualization of conflicts & contradictions. We can visualize
3. Holistic perspectives over narrow focus goals to identify metrics and analyze effects to measure
4. Equity and diversity over homogeneity sustainability. Thereby, goal modeling helps visualize the
5. Respectful, collaborative responsibility over vision, and a sustainability analysis diagram helps visualize
selfish othering the impacts and effects. Future work is under way towards best
6. Action in the face of fear over paralysis or willful practice patterns.
ignorance
7. Values change over behavior modification
8. Empowering engagement over imposed solutions
9. Living positive futures over bleak predictions
REFERENCES Conference on Information and Communication
1. Ehrenfeld, John R., and Andrew J. Technology for Sustainability ICT4S (2018)
Hoffman. Flourishing: A frank conversation about 6. Becker, C., Betz, S., Chitchyan, R., Duboc, L.,
sustainability. Stanford University Press, 2013. Easterbrook, S.M., Penzenstadler, B., Seyff, N. and
2. Tainter, Joseph A. "Social complexity and Venters, C.C., 2016. Requirements: The key to
sustainability." ecological complexity 3.2 (2006): sustainability. IEEE Software, 33(1), pp.56-65.
91-103. 7. Penzenstadler, Birgit. "Infusing Green:
3. Becker, C., Chitchyan, R., Duboc, L., Easterbrook, Requirements Engineering for Green In and
S., Penzenstadler, B., Seyff, N., & Venters, C. C. Through Software Systems." 3rd Intl. Workshop on
(2015, May). Sustainability design and software: Requirements Engineering for Sustainable
The karlskrona manifesto. In Proceedings of the Systems, RE4SuSy@ RE. 2014.
37th International Conference on Software 8. Penzenstadler, B., & Femmer, H. (2013, March). A
Engineering-Volume 2 (pp. 467-476). IEEE Press. generic model for sustainability with process-and
4. Seyff, N., Betz, S., Duboc, L., Venters, C., Becker, product-specific instances. In Proceedings of the
C., Chitchyan, R., Penzenstadler, B. and Nöbauer, 2013 workshop on Green in/by software
M., 2018, August. Tailoring Requirements engineering (pp. 3-8). ACM.
Negotiation to Sustainability. In 2018 IEEE 26th 9. Hilty, Lorenz M., and Bernard Aebischer. “ICT for
International Requirements Engineering sustainability: An emerging research field." ICT
Conference (RE) (pp. 304-314). IEEE. Innovations for Sustainability. Springer, Cham,
5. Mann, Samuel, Oliver Bates, and Raymond Maher. 2015. 3-36.
"Shifting the maturity needle of ICT for 10. Penzenstadler, Birgit, Jayden Khakurel, Carl Plojo,
Sustainability." Proceedings of the 5th Intl. Marinela Sanchez, Ruben Marin, and Lam Tran.
"Resilient Smart Gardens—Exploration of a
Blueprint." Sustainability 10, no. 8 (2018): 2654.