=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2541/paper6
|storemode=property
|title=Raising Awareness for Potential Sustainability Effects in Uganda
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2541/paper6.pdf
|volume=Vol-2541
|authors=Birgit Penzenstadler,Letícia Duboc,Regina Hebig,Andy Dearden,Benjamin Kanagawa,Michel Chaudron,Engineer Bainomugisha,Eric Umuhoza,Dorothy Okello
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/re/PenzenstadlerDH19
}}
==Raising Awareness for Potential Sustainability Effects in Uganda==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2541/paper6.pdf
Copyright © 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Raising Awareness for Potential Sustainability Effects in Uganda:
A Survey-based Empirical Study
Birgit Penzenstadler Leticia Duboc Regina Hebig Andy Dearden
Chalmers | University of La Salle Chalmers | University of Sheffield Hallam University
Gothenburg, Sweden University Ramon Llull Gothenburg, Sweden Sheffield, UK
Lappeenranta Univ. of T., Finland Barcelona, Spain hebig@chalmers.se A.M.Dearden@shu.ac.uk
birgitp@chalmers.se l.duboc@salle.url.edu
Benjamin Kanagwa Michel Chaudron Engineer Bainomugisha Eric Umuhoza Dorothy Okello
Makerere University Chalmers | Univ. of Makerere University CMU Africa Makerere University
Kampala, Uganda Gothenburg, Sweden Kampala, Uganda Kigali, Rwanda Kampala, Uganda
bkanagwa@gmail.com chaudron@chalmers.se baino@cis.mak.ac.ug eumuhoza@andrew.cmu.edu dokello@wougnet.org
Abstract—In July 2019, we ran the 3rd International BRIGHT help software engineers step up to their role of designing
summer school for Software Engineering and Information the future with consciousness.
Systems at the Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda. The foundation for the work presented in the paper
The participants developed a group project over the course of at hand has been established by the Karlskrona Alliance
the week, which included the application of the Sustainability for Sustainability Design [3]. The group advocates for the
Awareness Framework. The framework promotes discussion importance of Sustainability Design in software engineer-
on the impact of software systems on sustainability based on ing [2]. Among other techniques, it developed the Sustain-
a set of questions. ability Awareness Framework (SusAF), which intends to
In this paper, we present the educational evaluation of raise awareness about the potential impact software systems
the Sustainability Awareness Framework in a country in Sub- can have on sustainability [6]. The framework is composed
Saharan Africa. The results indicate that the framework can of a set of guiding questions for each of the five sustainabil-
provide supportive guidance of the societal and environmental ity dimensions [7], [10], an adapted radar chart that we call
challenges in the given context. the Sustainability Awareness Diagram (SuSAD) to capture
Keywords: sustainability, requirements engineering, potential effects over dimensions an order of effects [8], and
software-intensive systems, socio-technical systems, ICTD a set of instructions for using the questions and drawing the
diagram.
In the following, we present how the summer school
1. Introduction & Background was organized, the projects the students worked on, and the
results of the survey evaluation we performed at the end of
The BRIGHT Summer School [9], this time hosted by the week with regards to SuSAF.
Makarere University in Kampala, was held in Uganda for
the third time in the summer of 2019.
As a change to previous editions, which focused more 2. Background: SusAF
exclusively on project development, this year the focus was
on contributing to the development of research project ideas The Sustainability Awareness Framework (SusAF) [6] is
and grant proposals for local sustainability challenges. an approach developed by Duboc et al. over the past years
Sustainability, which is defined as the “ability to endure” that was conceptualized using a design science approach
[1] [4], has become one of the greatest concerns of our and iterated in three design cycles. It serves to raise the
society. The nature and pervasiveness of software systems awareness of potential sustainability impacts in the five
means that they can have a considerable impact on our dimensions of sustainability (social, individual, environmen-
sustainable development [5], for better or worse. Hence, the tal, technical, and economic) [10] along three orders of
summer school included a couple of sessions on “Software effect [8]. The idea was informally introduced in [2] and
Engineering for Sustainability”.These sessions aimed at rais- then developed into a framework applicable across a wider
ing awareness for this potential impact and offering tools to range of scenarios, including discussions in development
teams, interviews with stakeholders, and dedicated stake- a rich picture for it. The rich pictures included an elicitation
holder workshops. of important stakeholders and their main concerns.
The framework uses a set of questions per dimension, The second day targeted the discussion and analysis
structured in five topic areas, namely: work leading to the Sustainability Awareness Diagrams,
• Social: (1) Sense of Community; (2) Trust; (3) Inclu- according to Duboc et al. [6], led by Birgit Penzenstadler.
siveness and Diversity; (4) Equality; (5) Participation The evaluation of this part is the main reported result in the
and Communication; paper at hand.
• Individual: (1) Health; (2) Lifelong learning; (3) The third day, led by Eric Umuhoza was used for
Privacy; (4) Safety; (5) Agency; business process modeling of the system and its operational
• Environmental: (1) Material and Resources; (2) Soil, environment. On day four, Dorothy Okello instructed stu-
Atmospheric and Water Pollution; (3) Energy; (4) dents on how to write good grant proposals, specifically
Biodiversity and Land Use; (5) Logistics and Trans- targeting funding agencies in Africa. The students presented
portation; their results on day five, including the research questions
• Economic: (1) Value; (2) Customer Relationship they derived for future grant proposals.
Management (CRM); (3) Supply chain; (4) Gover-
nance and Processes; (5) Innovation and R&D; 4. Team Project Results
• Technical: (1) Maintainability; (2) Usability; (3) Ex-
tensibility and Adaptability; (4) Security; (5) Scala- We had six teams who developed their research chal-
bility lenges and system ideas over the course of the week. Their
The questions allow the user to explore the key topic project topics were as follows:
areas of each sustainability dimension, even if they are not • Aviation Operations Ecosystem: This team inves-
an expert in the area. That way, the framework does not tigated the sustainability of daily operations at an
proclaim to be an analysis tool but a way to increase the airport, with focus on direct interaction with the
awareness for certain effects the system may have in its travelers.
operational as well as business environment. • Malaria Prevention System: This team engaged with
The results of the discussions in the five dimensions get opportunities to improve malaria prevention in rural
summarized in a Sustainability Awareness Diagram in form Uganda with mobile health workers.
of a radar chart. The diagram serves as decision making • Healthcare in Rural Areas: This team looked into
support on which actions to take and which sustainability extending the services that mobile health providers
experts to further involve to perform an in-depth analysis if can bring to remote villages.
necessary. • Agriculture Extension Services Against Climate
The approach has been evaluated in seven universities Change: This team worked on potential extension
and six companies. Part of the educational evaluation is services that could support farmers in dealing with
described in [6]. The following research questions were the changes climate change is bringing.
addressed both in [6] and, for evaluation in a different • Food Safety Information System: This team devel-
setting, in the paper at hand: oped a set of interventions to improve food safety
RQ1: Does the framework encourage insightful dis- from the harvest location to delivery to the end
cussions about the potential effects of software consumer.
systems on sustainability? • University Career Support Services: This team pro-
RQ2: Does the framework help to identify the po- vided an analysis of opportunities to improve the ex-
tential chains-of-effects of software systems on tension services to students in support of job search
sustainability? and career start before, at, and after graduation time.
RQ3: How practical is the proposed approach?
Based on the elicitation day, the teams developed a
stakeholder analysis, a sustainability awareness diagram, a
3. Organization of the Summer School business process model, and a research agenda for a more
We had thirty participants, mainly from Uganda, plus involved investigation of the project.
one from Rwanda and one from Turkey. The levels were
mixed - there were a few Bachelor students, a few Master 5. SuSAF Instructions and Guidance
students, about a dozen PhD students, a few lecturers, and
a few staff members. For the Sustainability Design day, students started out
The summer school was organized as follows: On with a set of guiding questions per dimension which they
the first day, Andy Dearden moderated a brainstorming discussed in their teams. The complete set of questions and
group exercise to come up with a number of sustainability worksheets is published by Duboc et al. [6].
challenges and corresponding application domains. Subse- In contrast to previous educational evaluations, in the
quently, the students self-selected teams around those chal- summer school students did not have the time to perform
lenges, identified a more specific challenge, and developed interviews. Instead, they asked one of the facilitators in case
Figure 2. Sample: Sustainability Analysis Diagram of the Aviation Opera-
tions Ecosystem Team.
Figure 1. Sample: Rich Picture of the Aviation Operations Ecosystem Team. How long did it take to conduct the discussion of all dimensions?
Have you understood the questions?
Which questions were not easy to understand? (Keywords?) And why?
Did you have difficulties in answering the questions? Why?
they got stuck with a question or were lacking background Did you get insightful answers using the questions in this domain?
knowledge. Over the course of a few hours, they worked Why?
their way through the dimensions, engaged in vivid discus- Did you ask about the “extreme scenario” for key topics? Why, or
why not?
sions with each other, and drafted their initial versions of Have you been able to think of chains of effects (e.g. more trust leads
the Sustainability Awareness Diagrams. to more participation, which again leads to increased health)?
Figure 1 shows the Rich Picture of the Aviation Team For how many key topics could you think of chains of effects?
with all main stakeholders and concerns as well as involved Did anything come up that you didn’t expect? If yes, what?
technical and social systems. While the picture is hard TABLE 1. S URVEY R ESULTS ON THE G UIDING Q UESTIONS
to read, it is only intended to give an impression of the
level of involvement and discussion that each of the teams
experienced during their elicitation sessions. up unexpected items in the discussion. In detail, the results
Figure 2 presents their Sustainability Awareness Dia- were as follows:
gram with a summary of potential sustainability effects How long did it take to conduct the discussion of all
across all five dimensions (chart sectors) and the three orders dimensions? Participants took an average of 2.6 hours dis-
of impact (radial axes). cussing the questions. Seven participants declared having
spent around 1 hour, seven said they spent between 3-4 hours
6. Evaluation Results & Feedback and 2 around 5 hours. Three people declared having spent
0.5, 2 and 8 hours, respectively.
We evaluated the summer school in a combined survey Have you understood the questions? Rate from 1 (not at
on 1) how participants perceived the entire summer school all) to 5 (completely): Eighteen (78.2%) participants rated
this year and 2) specifically the usage of SuSAF and 3) if the questions as easy to understand, giving a rate of 4-5 out
they had participated last year, what benefits, if any, had of 5. Three (13%) had some difficulty (rate 3 out of 5) and
been perceived over the last 12 months.
We received 24 filled out replies. In the following,
Have the questions helped to identify possible effects? If yes, how
we only report on the SuSAF part of the evaluation. The much? If no, why?
questions on the Guiding Questions are listed in Tab. 1, and How easy was it to identify possible effects for each dimension?
on the Sustainability Awareness Diagram in Tab. 2. What, in addition to the questions, would have helped you to identify
possible effects?
Did the questions help to fill out the Sustainability Analysis Diagram
6.1. Results for Guiding Questions (SusAD)?
Was the resulting SusAD readable? Why (not)?
Was the resulting SusAD useful? Why (not)?
The individual results per question on the Guiding Is there anything else you would like to comment on?
Questions (Tab. 1) indicate that the participants found the TABLE 2. S URVEY R ESULTS ON THE S USTAINABILITY AWARENESS
questions helpful as they got insightful answers from them, D IAGRAM
they helped to think of chains of effect, and they brought
two (8.6%) found them difficult to understand. expected considerations.
Which questions were not easy to understand? (Key- If yes, what? Few gave reasons. Two were surprised by
words?) And why? Most students referred to dimensions the potential environmental effects, while other two didn’t
(all have been mentioned), rather than questions. No ques- expect the rebound effects. A couple were just happy with
tion/dimension stood out. The environmental and technical the experience. Interestingly, one of the five participants who
dimensions were mentioned more frequently (three times felt that the questions did not bring anything unexpected,
each). Reasons varied from uncertainty of the future, lack said that “Being a social scientist I was able to integrate the
of knowledge about system, lack of understanding of the course with my knowledge so its really been helpful”.
dimension itself. In summary, the participants found the questions useful
Did you have difficulties in answering the questions? for getting insights on the key topics as well as chains of
Rate between 1 (not at all) and 5 (a lot): On average, effects and discovering new discussion items.
participants had some difficulty in answering the questions
(rate 3.08 out of 5). Six participants ( 25%) felt very little 6.2. Results for Sustainability Awareness Diagram
difficulty (rated 1-2), nine ( 37.5%) had some difficulty
(rated 3), and eight ( 37.5%) has some difficulty (rated 4-5). The individual results per question on the Sustainability
Why? Several reasons where given for their difficulty. The Awareness Diagram (Tab. 2) indicate that it was possible to
most cited one was the difficulty to relate the idea/system identify effects using the questions, and that the resulting
with sustainability (3 citations). Other reasons where unfa- diagram was readable and useful. In detail, the responses
miliarity to the topic or context, difficulty in understanding were as follows:
the questions, the need for critical thinking and the little Have the questions helped to identify possible effects?
time given to the exercise. The vast majority (95,6%) felt the questions helped them
Did you get insightful answers using the questions in this to identify possible effects. Only one participant didn’t feel
particular domain? Rate between 1 (not at all) and 5 (a lot): the questions were helpful to that end.
Despite their reported difficulty in answering the questions, If yes, how much did the questions help to identify possible
most participants felt that they got insightful answers, with effects? Rate between 1 (a little bit) and 5 (a lot): Most
29% giving a rate of 3 and 62.5% rating between 4 and 5. (58.8%) gave the questions a rate between 4 and 5, out of
Why? The most cited reason was that the questions promoted 5. 23.5% felt the questions had been reasonably helpful (rate
discussion within the group (four times). Others were that of 3 out of 5) and only one felt it helped a little (rate 1 out
the questions were relevant to their project/domain and of 5).
widened their thinking (e.g. “they got me thinking deeper”). If no, why? The only participant who felt the questions were
Did you ask about the “extreme scenario” for different unhelpful, said he or she probably needed more time.
key topics? Rate between 1 (never) and 5 (always): In How easy was it to identify possible effects for each
general, participants remembered to consider the extreme dimension? Per dimension, 1 (very easy) to 5 (very difficult).
scenario, which nearly 74% rating between 3 to 5 out of Social: Most participants (75%) felt that it was easy to
five. identify potential effects on the social dimension (rate of
Why, or why not? The participants who used the extreme 1 and 2 out of 5). The remaining ones (25%) felt it was not
scenario, normally justified that it allowed them to further particularly easy or difficult (rate of 3 out of 5).
explore the topics. For example, participants said that the Individual: The individual dimension had similar results,
extreme scenario does “show long term safety and environ- with 75% of the participants finding it quite easy to identify
ment concerns - something good to think about in terms of potential effects (rate of 1 and 2 out of 5), 20% stating that
sustainability” and that it “highlighted the systemic effects it was neither easy or difficult (rate of 3 out of 5) and only
for each issue”. Two that did not use the scenario said they one reporting some difficulty (rate of 4 out of 5).
did not understand the framework well and were struggling Economic: Answers regarding the economic dimension were
to understand the principles, respectively. more evenly distributed. Around 43% of the respondents
Have you been able to think of chains of effects (e.g. had no difficulties (rate of 1 and 2 out of 5), 39.1% felt
more trust leads to more participation, which again leads indifferent (rate of 3 out of 5) and 17.4% reported difficulty
to increased health)? Rate between 1 (not at all) and 5 (rate of 4 to 5 out of 5).
(always): With an average of 4 out of 5, most participants Environmental: The results for the environmental dimension
declared that they could normally think of chains of effects, were quite similar. 37% of the participants identified poten-
with 66% rating 4 to 5 and 19% rating 3, all out of five. tial effects with ease (rate of 1 and 2 out of 5), 41% felt
Only one student could not think of any chain of effect at it was neither particularly difficult or easy (rate of 3 out of
all. 5), and the remaining 20.8% had difficulties (rate of 4 to 5
For how many key topics could you think of chains of out of 5).
effects? Most participants (71.4%) were able to think of Technical: Finally, the for the technical dimension, most
chains of effects for more than 4 topics. The remaining respondents (54.2%) found potential effects easily (rate of
identified chains for 2 to 3 topics. 1 and 2 out of 5), 20.8% felt quite indifferent (rate of 3 out
Did anything come up that you didn’t expect? Most of 5), and 25% experienced difficulties (rate of 4 out of 5).
participants (66.7%) felt that the questions brought up un- From these results, we can see that the social and individual
dimensions were the easiest ones to discuss, while the other 7. Discussion
ones were slightly more difficult.
What, in addition to the questions, would have helped While the research questions were answered confirma-
you to identify possible effects? Participants have identified tory in both cases, there are still a number of issues up for
several other things that could have helped then further, like discussion, in terms of reflection on the evaluation, threats
more discussion (cited by 3), an example (cited by 2), more to validity, and comparison to previous evaluations.
input from the domain (cited by 2), more time and prior
knowledge of the solution (cited by 1 each). Sample quotes 7.1. Reflections on the Evaluation
were “Discussions and interactions with members of differ-
ent groups”, “More study - user centered design methods Education stages. The participants of the summer
like observation, interviews, literature review”, “interaction school were at very different stages of their education,
with key stakeholder”. starting from Bachelor’s, including Master’s students, PhD
Did the questions help to fill out the Sustainability Anal- students as well as lecturers and professors. This diversity
ysis Diagram (SusAD)? Rate between 1 (very helpful) and 5 might explain some outliers in rating for the the easy to
(not helpful at all). The majority of the participants (78.9%) understand question.
felt that the questions were helpful to fill out the SusAD Unfamiliarity with Concept of Sustainability.
(rates of 1 and 2 out of 5). Around 15% were indifferent Some students had difficulty to relate an idea they came
(rate of 3 out of 5) and 10% disagreed (rates of 4 and 5 out up with for a project with the concept of sustainability.
of 5). We are under the impression that this may be the case
more commonly than expected - we have a sustainability
Was the resulting SusAD readable? Rate between 1
label here at GU that we can put on courses which is very
(perfectly) and 5 (not at all). Also, most respondents (85.7%)
underused, because many teacher think that their courses do
felt that the resulting SusAD was easy to read (rates of 1 and
not address ”that form of” sustainability.
2 out of 5), one participant was indifferent and 2 disagreed
Insightful Answers. On the question about insight-
(rates of 4 out of 5).
ful answers, we found the participants’ responses interesting,
Why? The ones who disagreed justified that “because the
because they could be given completely independent of the
questions clearly spelled out how to fill out the chart”.
sustainability aspect (or targeted solution). This could be
Others felt that the chart were easily readable because
considered a (useful) side effect, since sustainability is so
“because the questions clearly spelled out how to fill out
woven into all aspects of a domain that a tool to systemati-
the chart” and “we made sure to write only a few items so
cally think about sustainability forces you to further explore
that they fit well”.
the domain.
Was the resulting SusAD useful? Rate between 1 (per- Extreme Scenario Usage. With regard to the ques-
fectly) and 5 (not at all). When asked whether the resulting tion on the usage of the extreme scenario, there is a very
SusAD was useful, 90% of the responded agreed with this large overlap of the 74% who used the extreme scenarios
notion (rates of 1 and 2 out of 5). Just one was indifferent with the 78% who understood the questions. That means we
(rate of 3 out of 5) and another disagreed (rates of 4 out of basically have a close to 100% percent use of this part of the
5). tool, which is great in terms of transfer from one stage of the
Why? The reasons why participants were happy with the method to adaptation of the next, which we consider a good
results were: “It enabled us to analyse our project from outcome and a promising indicator in terms of application
a very broad perspective”, “Helped us understand how the in a real-world setting.
project can grow”, “helps to look at all areas a funder would Ease & Difficulty of Specific Dimensions. Consid-
like to ask”, “can be applied in every day life”, “Gives ering the perceived ease or difficulty of specific dimensions,
chance to think of how best to design system in a more it is not a surprise that the technical dimension was not the
reliable way”, “it got us thinking and allowed us to think one to be perceived most difficult since we had a rather
beyond the box”. The responded who did not find the SusAD technically-educated set of participants. However, it is a
useful did not give an explanation. surprise that even for these participants the technical dimen-
Is there anything else you would like to comment on? sion is harder than, e.g. the social or individual dimension.
Finally, when asked whether they would like to comment on The difficulty with the environmental dimension might play
something else, most students just talked about the Summer into the same issue that we had about relating the general
School in general or thanked for the interesting lecture. The project idea to sustainability. The environmental dimension
one who specifically referred to the SusAF said “It was a seemed to be the most prominent when discussing about
new way of understanding sustainability, helped me improve sustainability — this leads to the question of whether we
knowledge in this area. I can relate my research very well need to better communicate a) aspects of the dimension itself
to sustainability with the diagram.” Another suggested “to or b) the other dimensions?
give more resources about model / teamwork”. Additional Help Suggestions. In terms of what
In summary, the participants found that effects could would have helped in addition, the participants had good an-
be identified well using the questions, and that the resulting swers and showed an understanding of effective educational
Sustainability Awareness Diagram was readable and useful. means. The course was only a simulation for a longer course,
project and one would of course expect to have more time setting in the context of sustainability challenges in a Sub-
and study the topics on a deeper level to go into this kind of Saharan country.
analysis. However, considering the available time frame, the In conclusion, we confirm the evidence of Duboc et
students made the most of the instructors’ support to get a al. [6] that the Sustainability Awareness Framework provides
deeper insight into how sustainability can be perceived and a simple and accessible framework to elicit awareness of the
understood in different dimensions and what the different impacts that software-intensive systems could have.
impacts over time might be. For future work, several research proposals are currently
under development based on the results of the summer
7.2. Threats to Validity school, and SusAF is now being evaluated in industrial
contexts.
Threats to validity hamper the ability to draw conclu-
sions from the evidence [11]. Acknowledgement
For the feasibility study, which uses the same instrument
as [6], one of the main risks is the reactive bias, as the We would like to thank the Swedish International Devel-
students might answer the questionnaire positively to meet opment Cooperation Agency, Sida, for funding the BRIGHT
the expectations of their teachers (i.e. “halo effect”). In Summer School as part of the Sida/BRIGHT project 317.
addition, there are several confounding factors which may The research leading to these results has received fund-
affect the outcome that were not taken into account, such ing from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
as differences in knowledge regarding sustainability issues innovation programme under the Marie Skodowska-Curie
of the students. However, we endeavor to ensure a similar grant agreement No 712949 (TECNIOspring PLUS) and
perspective on sustainability and knowledge of the ques- from the Agency for Business Competitiveness of the Gov-
tions and the SusAF method by delivering the introductory ernment of Catalonia.
session and instructions. Another main risk is the possible
bias caused by result interpretation. We applied researcher References
triangulation and mixed qualitative and quantitative methods
[1] The Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford University Press, 2010.
to minimize this risk. Sustainability.
Last but not least, we do not attempt to generalize the
[2] C. Becker, S. Betz, R. Chitchyan, L. Duboc, S. Easterbrook, B. Pen-
findings from this application case. Instead, we demonstrate zenstadler, N. Seyff, and C. Venters. Requirements: The key to
the feasibility of using the SusAF for relating the require- sustainability. IEEE Software, 33(1):56–65, 2016.
ments engineering process to topic of sustainability in a [3] C. Becker, R. Chitchyan, L. Duboc, S. Easterbrook, M. Mahaux,
specific context. It is an additional data point for Duboc B. Penzenstadler, G. Rodriguez-Navas, C. Salinesi, N. Seyff, C Ven-
et al. [6]. ters, C. Calero, S. Akinli Kocak, and S. Betz. Karlskrona manifesto
on sustainability design, 2015. https://www.sustainabilitydesign.org/.
[4] C. Becker, R. Chitchyan, L. Duboc, S. Easterbrook, B. Penzenstadler,
7.3. Comparison to Previous Evaluations N. Seyff, and C. Venters. Sustainability design and software: The
karlskrona manifesto. In Proceedings of the 37th Intl Conference on
We have previously used the same instrument to evaluate Software Engineering-Volume 2, pages 467–476. IEEE Press, 2015.
SusAF in academic contexts at other universities [6], namely [5] Gro Harlem Brundtland, M Khalid, S Agnelli, et al. Our common
the Lappeenranta University of Technology in Finland and future. New York, 1987.
the California State University Long Beach in California, [6] Leticia Duboc, Stefanie Betz, Birgit Penzenstadler, Sedef Akinli-
USA. Our findings confirm the ones in the previous study, Kocak, Ruzanna Chitchyan, Ola Leifler, Jari Porras, Norbert Seyff,
and Colin C. Venters. Do we really know what we are building?
this time for the context of an educational setting in a Sub- raising awareness of potential sustainability effects of software sys-
Saharan country in Africa — a setting where the societal and tems in requirements engineering. In Intl. Conf. on Requirements
environmental challenges significantly differ from the ones Engineering 2019, 2019.
experienced in Finland and the USA. Also in the context [7] Robert Goodland and W. Bank. Sustainability: Human, social, eco-
at hand, the framework was found to encourage insightful nomic and environmental. Social Science, 6:220–225, 01 2002.
discussions (RQ1), to help identify chains of effects (RQ2), [8] Lorenz M. Hilty, Peter Arnfalk, Lorenz Erdmann, James Goodman
and to be practical (RQ3). 0002, Martin Lehmann, and Patrick A. Wger. The relevance of
information and communication technologies for environmental sus-
Further evaluation has been performed with first industry tainability - a prospective simulation study. Environmental Modelling
partners, indicating similar tendencies. and Software, (11):1618–1629.
[9] Benjamin Kanagwa. Bright summer school 2019 on soft-
8. Conclusion ware engineering and information systems. http://ssc.mak.ac.ug/
bright-summer-school-2019-on-software-engineering-and-is/, 2019.
The overall evaluation of the summer school was de- [10] Birgit Penzenstadler and Henning Femmer. A generic model for
sustainability with process- and product-specific instances. In Pro-
cidedly positive and the authors are working on securing ceedings of the 2013 Workshop on Green in/by Software Engineering,
follow-up funding for future iterations of the BRIGHT GIBSE ’13, pages 3–8, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM.
Summer School series. [11] C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Hst, M. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, and
The results of the SuSAF evaluation indicate that the A. Wessln. Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer
SuSAF can be applicable and useful within an educational Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2012.