As a researcher on software sustainabilty, I first tried to search for a definition of the term. But software sustainability turned out not to behave like a simple term. It crosses multiple dimensions and domains. It evolves over time in an unclear time period which can change depending on which aspect is being talked about. Software sustainability considers people, organizations, ecosystems, and technologies. I kept wondering, am I missing something in how I’m choosing my definition of software sustainability? As software and software development practices continually change and new technology developed that then reshape our environment, how could any single definition fully encompass this?
I have now been researching software sustainability for a couple of years, and the problem I faced on day one is the same problem I feel today: What is software sustainability? When people ask me this question, I pause longer than I should. Even though I have answered this question many times, I still get stuck on the best way to describe it. My current research explores industry perspectives on software sustainability, and those perspectives vary widely depending on context, priorities, and organizational concerns as well.
Then one day, I tried thinking of sustainability not as a definition but as a framework, and I realized that trying to force software sustainability into a definition may have been the real issue.
Why a Definition Doesn’t Quite Work
Oxford describes definition as ‘a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary,’ It creates boundaries and clarifies meaning. But definitions are reductive by design, they compress ideas into something succinct.
This works well for concepts like “protocol” or “algorithm,” but software sustainability is different. Any attempt to define it quickly requires further definitions: Are we talking about making a system more sustainable through the software? Or about the sustainability of the software itself? Or the sustainability of the socio-technical environment around it?
A single definition cannot hold all of this without a lot of explanation on how the term is being used.
Software Sustainability as a Framework
A framework provides structure. It breaks a concept into components or dimensions that can be examined, measured, and discussed. A framework explains how to think about a concept, not just what it is. It can also highlight the limitations of its own structure by making explicit what is included and what is not.
There is one framework that I know of that has been developed towards identifying software’s impact across five dimensions called sustainability awareness framework (SUSAF) which has had multiple publications identifying the usefulness of a framework for sustainability in education and industry.
A definition cannot as directly be used in this same way to develop, structure, or operationalize a concept.
Why Frameworks Work Better for Sustainability Research
Thinking of software sustainability as a framework gives researchers several advantages:
- It avoids oversimplification. The complexity of sustainability is preserved rather than reduced away.
- It aligns more easily with research goals. The specific elements relevant to a project can be made explicit.
- It fits naturally with software engineering. Software engineering already relies on structured models (e.g. quality models, architectural models, lifecycle models) and sustainability integrates well when expressed similarly.
- Frameworks can be validated. Their components can be tested, refined, and supported by evidence.
- Frameworks are adaptable. They can evolve as technologies, practices, and sustainability challenges change.
Thinking of sustainability as a framework acknowledges that it is complex and multidimensional. It touches code, infrastructure, people, organizations, and the planet. It changes as software evolves and as its impacts unfold.
A definition indicates understanding.
A framework enables action and analysis.
For researchers in software engineering and software sustainability, shifting the question from “What is sustainability?” to “How is sustainability structured?” makes the concept more usable and meaningful.
