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.