pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.18055 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 💻 cs.SE

Fairness-First Design Thinking for Software Architecture

Iffat Fatima , Markus Funke , Patricia Lago This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 04:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords fairnessdesign thinkingsoftware architecturefairness concernsdesign educationcross-cutting concernssoftware engineering educationcomposite views
0
0 comments X

The pith

A fairness-first Design Thinking approach addresses hidden fairness concerns in software architecture design.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper introduces a Design Thinking method that places fairness at the start of the software architecture process. Students in a graduate course applied every step of the method to assignments, and the authors examined the results to see how fairness concerns move from problem understanding into concrete design choices. A reader would care because many digital systems hide fairness problems until they cause harm after launch. The work finds that fairness theory and context details must come first for a complete approach, and that composite views can handle fairness when it cuts across different parts of a design. The authors also outline changes for teaching so that students can trace fairness all the way to specific architecture decisions.

Core claim

The central claim is that a fairness-first Design Thinking approach supports addressing fairness concerns in software architecture by adapting standard DT steps to emphasize fairness theory, context identification, and composite views for cross-cutting issues, as shown through student assignments that produced implications for both problem and solution spaces as well as for education.

What carries the argument

The fairness-first Design Thinking approach, which adapts DT steps to prioritize fairness in SA design through early integration of fairness theory, context identification, and composite views that treat fairness as a cross-cutting concern.

Load-bearing premise

Reflections and implications drawn from student assignment data in a single graduate course generalize to professional software architecture practice and education.

What would settle it

A direct comparison of architectures produced for the same system with and without the fairness-first DT method, measuring whether the method uncovers and resolves fairness issues missed by standard design processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18055 by Iffat Fatima, Markus Funke, Patricia Lago.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the DT Approach as a quality of the system under consideration, (ii) Quality concerns which are scoped to the fairness definition, (iii) Architectural tactics which, if implemented, would lead to achievement of the desired quality, (iv) Fairness Indicator which is a KPI that can be used to measure and monitor the level of fairness in the system, and (v) Problems and Pitfalls which are the issue… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overlapping use cases per fairness type Technical quality concerns can cause immediate impacts that ripple into systemic social and economic effects over time. DMaps show information on QA trade-offs and synergies that are rooted as direct impacts, but over time lead to enabling and systemic impacts. For example, in the use case A08 (Domain: Education), the implementation of the adaptive resource allocatio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example: Step 2 – DMap (A08) of resources for equitable access to educational resources, which may cross continental boundaries and cause data sovereignty and privacy issues. We also see differences in the definition of desired quality within a domain. An analysis of healthcare use cases (A02, A06, A10, A12) shows that fairness concerns in this context are mul￾tifaceted and often intersect across the categ… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Step 4 – Design View fulfills it. A08 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fairness issues often remain hidden in digital systems, making them difficult to detect and even more difficult to address. In this study, we introduce a fairness-first Design Thinking (DT) approach to support addressing fairness concerns in software architecture (SA) design. We implemented our approach in a graduate-level course where students executed all steps of our DT approach as part of an assignment. We analyzed the assignment data to reflect on the implications for applying the DT approach in SA and teaching the DT approach in SA education. As a result of this study, we provide (i) a DT approach for SA, (ii) implications of the DT approach on handling fairness in both problem and solution spaces, and (iii) implications for education. Our reflections highlight that fairness theory and context identification are essential for a holistic, fairness-first design. We propose the use of composite views to address cross-cutting concerns such as fairness. In the future, we will update the course material to provide end-to-end fairness traceability in SA, helping students to understand how fairness concerns can be translated into actionable design decisions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a fairness-first Design Thinking (DT) approach for addressing fairness concerns during software architecture (SA) design. It describes implementing the full DT process as a graduate course assignment, analyzes the resulting student data, and reflects on implications for SA practice (e.g., fairness in problem/solution spaces and composite views for cross-cutting concerns) as well as for SA education (e.g., incorporating fairness theory, context identification, and end-to-end traceability).

Significance. If the approach proves transferable, it could offer a practical early-stage method for surfacing and managing fairness in SA, complementing existing bias-detection techniques. The suggestion of composite views for cross-cutting concerns is a potentially useful framing. However, the current grounding in reflections from a single course limits immediate significance for professional practice or curriculum design.

major comments (2)
  1. [Implications for SA] The implications for SA practice (handling fairness in problem and solution spaces, composite views) rest entirely on reflections from student assignments in one graduate course. No comparative analysis with professional SA contexts, legacy constraints, or team dynamics is provided, so the claim that these implications generalize remains unsupported.
  2. [Implications for education] The education implications (need for fairness theory, context identification, and end-to-end traceability) are derived from the same single-course data without describing the analysis method, number of students, or specific examples of traceability gaps observed in the assignments. This makes the load-bearing recommendations for course updates difficult to evaluate or replicate.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that assignment data were analyzed but supplies no details on sample size, qualitative coding approach, or representative excerpts, which would strengthen the reflections section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the emphasis on rigor and generalizability. Below we respond point-by-point to the major comments, indicating the revisions we will make. We have been careful to distinguish between what the current study can support and what requires additional work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Implications for SA] The implications for SA practice (handling fairness in problem and solution spaces, composite views) rest entirely on reflections from student assignments in one graduate course. No comparative analysis with professional SA contexts, legacy constraints, or team dynamics is provided, so the claim that these implications generalize remains unsupported.

    Authors: We agree that the implications for software architecture practice are derived exclusively from reflections on student assignments in a single graduate course and that no comparative data from professional settings, legacy systems, or team dynamics were collected. This is an inherent limitation of the study design. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit Limitations section that states these implications are preliminary and exploratory, tone down any language suggesting broad generalization, and frame the composite-view proposal as a hypothesis for future validation in industry contexts. We maintain that the controlled educational setting still yields useful early-stage insights into surfacing fairness concerns, but we will not claim transferability without further evidence. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Implications for education] The education implications (need for fairness theory, context identification, and end-to-end traceability) are derived from the same single-course data without describing the analysis method, number of students, or specific examples of traceability gaps observed in the assignments. This makes the load-bearing recommendations for course updates difficult to evaluate or replicate.

    Authors: We accept this criticism. The manuscript currently omits a description of the analysis procedure, the size of the student cohort, and concrete examples of the traceability gaps identified. In the revision we will insert a dedicated 'Data Analysis' subsection that (1) specifies the qualitative method employed (thematic analysis of student reports and deliverables), (2) reports the number of students who completed the assignment, and (3) provides two or three anonymized, brief excerpts illustrating observed gaps (e.g., fairness concerns raised in the problem space but not carried through to architectural decisions). These additions will make the educational recommendations more transparent, evaluable, and potentially replicable by other instructors. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct comparative analysis with professional software architecture practice, legacy constraints, or real team dynamics, because the study was conducted exclusively within a graduate course and no such industry data were gathered.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; approach introduced independently then applied to generate separate student data for post-hoc reflection

full rationale

The paper defines a fairness-first DT approach, has students execute it in a course assignment, then analyzes the resulting assignment outputs to draw implications for SA practice and education. This chain contains no self-definitional loops (the approach is not defined in terms of the later implications), no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations. The student-generated data functions as an independent input to the reflection step rather than being constructed to reproduce the original definition. Generalization from one course to professional practice is an external validity concern, not a circularity in the derivation itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative educational study; no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities are introduced. The work adapts standard Design Thinking principles under the domain assumption that fairness can be treated as a primary cross-cutting concern in architecture design.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Design Thinking can be effectively adapted to prioritize fairness in software architecture design.
    Invoked when the paper states the approach supports addressing fairness concerns and derives implications from the course.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5481 in / 1128 out tokens · 52849 ms · 2026-05-10T04:50:34.500114+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kyra Milan Abrams. 2025. Digital Redlining: Past and Present Motivations. In Advances in Information and Communication. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 32–43

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Razieh Alidoosti, Patricia Lago, Eltjo Poort, and Maryam Razavian. 2023. De- signing Ethics-Aware DecidArch Game to Promote Value Diversity in Software Fairness-First Design Thinking for Software Architecture , , Architecture Design Decision Making. InUniversal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 3–26

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Razieh Alidoosti, Patricia Lago, Eltjo Poort, Maryam Razavian, and Antony Tang

    work page

  4. [4]

    8 IEEE Software 2025

    Incorporating Ethical Values into Software Architecture Design Practices. In2022 IEEE 19th International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C). doi:10.1109/ICSA-C54293.2022.00031

    work page doi:10.1109/icsa-c54293.2022.00031 2022

  5. [5]

    2014.The Nicomachean Ethics

    Aristotle. 2014.The Nicomachean Ethics. Penguin Classics

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    2012.Software Architecture in Practice (3rd ed.)

    Len Bass, Paul Clements, and Rick Kazman. 2012.Software Architecture in Practice (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Bies and Joseph S

    Robert J. Bies and Joseph S. Moag. 1986. Interactional Justice: Communication Criteria of Fairness. InAnnual Meeting of the Academy of Management. JAI Press

    work page 1986

  8. [8]

    Andrea J. Bingham. 2022. From Data Management to Actionable Findings: A Five-Phase Process of Qualitative Data Analysis.Sage Open12, 2 (2022)

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Carlsmith, John M

    Kevin M. Carlsmith, John M. Darley, and Paul H. Robinson. 2002. Why Do We Punish? Deterrence and Just Deserts as Motives for Punishment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology83, 2 (2002)

    work page 2002

  10. [10]

    Alessandro Castelnovo, Luca Malandri, Federico Mercorio, Mario Mezzanzanica, and Alberto Cosentini. 2021. Towards Fairness Through Time. InMachine Learn- ing and Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Vol. 1524. Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-93736-2_46

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-93736-2_46 2021

  11. [11]

    Jane Cleland-Huang and Mona Rahimi. 2017. A case study: Injecting safety- critical thinking into graduate software engineering projects. InProceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering and Education Track. IEEE Press. doi:10.1109/ICSE-SEET.2017.4

    work page doi:10.1109/icse-seet.2017.4 2017

  12. [12]

    Colquitt

    Jason A. Colquitt. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure.Journal of Applied Psychology86, 3 (2001). doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

    work page doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386 2001

  13. [13]

    Gaebler, Hamed Nilforoshan, Ravi Shroff, and Sharad Goel

    Sam Corbett-Davies, Johann D. Gaebler, Hamed Nilforoshan, Ravi Shroff, and Sharad Goel. 2023. The measure and mismeasure of fairness. 24, 1, Article 312 (2023), 117 pages

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Costa Valentim, Williamson Silva, and Tayana Conte

    Natasha M. Costa Valentim, Williamson Silva, and Tayana Conte. 2017. The Students’ Perspectives on Applying Design Thinking for the Design of Mo- bile Applications. In2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training Track (ICSE-SEET). doi:10.1109/ICSE-SEET.2017.10

    work page doi:10.1109/icse-seet.2017.10 2017

  15. [15]

    Ronnie de Souza Santos, Felipe Fronchetti, Savio Freire, and Rodrigo Spinola. 2025. Software Fairness Debt. arXiv:2405.02490 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.02490

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Ronnie de Souza Santos, Cleyton Magalhaes, and Rodrigo Spínola. 2025. Bias Smells: Exploring the Roots of Discrimination and Societal Inequities in Software Systems.SSRN Electronic Journal(2025). doi:10.2139/ssrn.5227890

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5227890 2025

  17. [17]

    Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. 2012. Fairness Through Awareness. InProceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS). ACM. doi:10.1145/2090236. 2090255

    work page doi:10.1145/2090236 2012

  18. [18]

    Iffat Fatima, Markus Funke, and Patricia Lago. 2024. Providing Guidance to Software Practitioners: A Framework for Creating KPIs.IEEE Software(2024). doi:10.1109/MS.2024.3456446

    work page doi:10.1109/ms.2024.3456446 2024

  19. [19]

    Fxhenn: Fpga-based acceleration framework for homomorphic encrypted cnn inference,

    Iffat Fatima, Markus Funke, and Patricia Lago. 2025.Replication Package: Fairness- First Design Thinking for Software Architecture (Version 1). doi:10.5281/zenodo. 17977756

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo 2025

  20. [20]

    Markus Funke and Patricia Lago. 2025. Towards an Architectural Perspective for Sustainability: Bundle the Needs from Industry. InQuality of Information and Communications Technology. Springer Nature Switzerland. In press https: //arxiv.org/abs/2508.20774

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Kiev Gama, Fernando Castor, Pedro Alessio, Andre Neves, Cristiano Araújo, Rafael Formiga, Francisco Soares-Neto, and Higor Oliveira. 2018. Combining Challenge-Based Learning and Design Thinking to Teach Mobile App Develop- ment. In2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). doi:10.1109/FIE.2018. 8658447

    work page doi:10.1109/fie.2018 2018

  22. [22]

    Jennifer Golbeck. 2025. Recommender System-Induced Eating Disorder Relapse: Harmful Content and the Challenges of Responsible Recommendation.ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol.16, 1 (2025). doi:10.1145/3675404

    work page doi:10.1145/3675404 2025

  23. [23]

    Jerald Greenberg. 1993. The Social Side of Fairness: Interpersonal and Informa- tional Classes of Organizational Justice.Justice in the Workplace1 (1993)

    work page 1993

  24. [24]

    2009.An Introduction to Design Thinking Process Guide

    Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford. 2009.An Introduction to Design Thinking Process Guide. Technical Report. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Nord, and Dilip Soni

    Christine Hofmeister, Robert L. Nord, and Dilip Soni. 2007.Applied Software Architecture. Addison-Wesley Professional

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah E. Shannon. 2005. Three Approaches to Qualita- tive Content Analysis.Qualitative Health Research15, 9 (2005). doi:10.1177/ 1049732305276687

    work page 2005

  27. [27]

    Christophe Hurlin, Christophe Pérignon, and Sébastien Saurin. 2024. The Fairness of Credit Scoring Models.Management Science(2024). doi:10.1287/mnsc.2022. 03888

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.2022 2024

  28. [28]

    International Organization for Standardization. 2011. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011 Systems and software engineering — Architecture description. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/50508.html

    work page 2011

  29. [29]

    Jansen and J

    A. Jansen and J. Bosch. 2005. Software Architecture as a Set of Architectural Design Decisions. In5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA’05). doi:10.1109/WICSA.2005.61

    work page doi:10.1109/wicsa.2005.61 2005

  30. [30]

    2020.Digitize and Punish: Racial Criminalization in the Digital Age

    Brian Jefferson. 2020.Digitize and Punish: Racial Criminalization in the Digital Age. University of Minnesota Press

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Aislinn Kelly-Lyth. 2021. Challenging Biased Hiring Algorithms.Oxford Journal of Legal Studies41, 4 (2021). doi:10.1093/ojls/gqab006

    work page doi:10.1093/ojls/gqab006 2021

  32. [32]

    Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. 2016. Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores.Proceedings of Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS)(2016)

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Joyce H. L. Koh, Ching Sing Chai, Boon Wong, and Huang-Yao Hong. 2015. Design Thinking and Education. InDesign Thinking for Education. Springer, Singapore. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-444-3_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-287-444-3_1 2015

  34. [34]

    Patricia Lago, Nelly Condori-Fernandez, Iffat Fatima, Markus Funke, and Ivano Malavolta. 2024. The sustainability assessment framework toolkit: a decade of modeling experience: The sustainability assessment framework toolkit: a decade of modeling experience.Softw. Syst. Model.24, 2 (2024). doi:10.1007/s10270-024- 01230-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10270-024- 2024

  35. [35]

    Patricia Lago, Sedef Akinli Koçak, Ivica Crnkovic, and Birgit Penzenstadler. 2015. Framing sustainability as a property of software quality.Commun. ACM58, 10 (2015). doi:10.1145/2714560

    work page doi:10.1145/2714560 2015

  36. [36]

    Leventhal

    Gerald S. Leventhal. 1980. What Should Be Done with Equity Theory?Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research(1980)

    work page 1980

  37. [37]

    Sofia Migliorini, Roberto Verdecchia, Ivano Malavolta, Patricia Lago, and Enrico Vicario. 2024. Architectural Views: The State of Practice in Open-Source Software Projects. InEuropean Conference on Software Architecture. Springer, 396–415

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Ziad Obermeyer, Brian Powers, Christine Vogeli, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2019. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science366, 6464 (2019). doi:10.1126/science.aax2342

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aax2342 2019

  39. [39]

    Maria Palacin-Silva, Jayden Khakurel, Ari Happonen, Timo Hynninen, and Jari Porras. 2017. Infusing Design Thinking into a Software Engineering Capstone Course. In2017 IEEE 30th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T). doi:10.1109/CSEET.2017.41

    work page doi:10.1109/cseet.2017.41 2017

  40. [40]

    Kai Petersen and Cigdem Gencel. 2013. Worldviews, Research Methods, and their Relationship to Validity in Empirical Software Engineering Research. In2013 Joint Conference of the 23rd International Workshop on Software Measurement and the 8th International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement. 81–89. doi:10.1109/IWSM-Mensura.2013.22

    work page doi:10.1109/iwsm-mensura.2013.22 2013

  41. [41]

    2010.Design Thinking: Understand – Improve – Apply

    Hasso Plattner, Christoph Meinel, and Larry Leifer. 2010.Design Thinking: Understand – Improve – Apply. Springer

    work page 2010

  42. [42]

    Christophe Ponsard, Bérengère Nihoul, and Mounir Touzani. 2024. Modelling and Classification of Fairness Patterns for Designing Sustainable Information Systems. arXiv:2411.17894 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.17894

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    1971.A Theory of Justice

    John Rawls. 1971.A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press

    work page 1971

  44. [44]

    2012.Software Systems Architecture: Working With Stakeholders Using Viewpoints and Perspectives(2nd ed.)

    Nick Rozanski and Eoin Woods. 2012.Software Systems Architecture: Working With Stakeholders Using Viewpoints and Perspectives(2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley

    work page 2012

  45. [45]

    Seamus Ryan, Camille Nadal, and Gavin Doherty. 2023. Integrating Fairness in the Software Design Process: An Interview Study With HCI and ML Experts. IEEE Access11 (2023). doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3260639

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2023.3260639 2023

  46. [46]

    Selbst, danah boyd, Sorelle A

    Andrew D. Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A. Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Janet Vertesi. 2019. Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems. InProceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/3287560.3287598

    work page doi:10.1145/3287560.3287598 2019

  47. [47]

    Cameron Shelley. 2012. Fairness in Technological Design.Science and Engineering Ethics18, 4 (2012). doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9259-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9259-1 2012

  48. [48]

    Yi Sheng, Junhuan Yang, Yawen Wu, Kevin Mao, Yiyu Shi, Jingtong Hu, Weiwen Jiang, and Lei Yang. 2022. The larger the fairer? small neural networks can achieve fairness for edge devices. InProceedings of the 59th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference. Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/3489517.3530427

    work page doi:10.1145/3489517.3530427 2022

  49. [49]

    Herbert A. Simon. 1969.The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press

    work page 1969

  50. [50]

    Marc Steen. 2013. Co-Design as a Process of Joint Inquiry and Imagination. Design Issues29, 2 (2013). doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00207

    work page doi:10.1162/desi_a_00207 2013

  51. [51]

    1990.Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques

    Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1990.Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications

    work page 1990

  52. [52]

    Urjaswala Vora. 2025. Architecting for Fairness. In2025 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C). doi:10.1109/ICSA- C65153.2025.00052

    work page doi:10.1109/icsa- 2025

  53. [53]

    Jiehuang Zhang, Ying Shu, and Han Yu. 2023. Fairness in Design: A Framework for Facilitating Ethical Artificial Intelligence Designs.International Journal of Crowd Science7, 1 (2023). doi:10.26599/IJCS.2022.9100033

    work page doi:10.26599/ijcs.2022.9100033 2023