🤖 AI Summary
In multi-stakeholder platforms, software architecture decisions often implicitly entrench conflicting requirements without systematic support for mapping governance principles to technical design. This work proposes the first governance-architecture alignment framework, explicitly linking five core governance principles to the space of architectural decisions, thereby rendering implicit governance stances identifiable and contestable. The framework also exposes how default technical choices can obscure underlying value commitments. Feasibility is preliminarily demonstrated through a constructive case study of a pig-farming knowledge platform in Rwanda. Future work will employ pre- and post-intervention user judgment studies to evaluate the framework’s impact on actual governance outcomes.
📝 Abstract
Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) coordinate diverse stakeholder groups, often with competing or conflicting requirements. As these platforms increasingly take digital form, engineers building them make architectural decisions about data visibility, service decomposition, and algorithm design that directly determine which stakeholder requirements are prioritized when conflicts arise. Software architecture literature provides patterns for data isolation and access control among tenants but does not address how architectural decisions resolve conflicts among stakeholders with structurally divergent interests. MSP governance literature identifies the principles at stake but treats technology as neutral infrastructure. Neither addresses the translation between governance principles and architectural decision spaces. This paper proposes a governance-architecture correspondence framework that surfaces implicit governance decisions, making them explicit and debatable before deployment. The framework maps five MSP governance principles to the architectural decision spaces where they must be addressed, identifying for each the governance-aware design choice and the technically convenient default it overrides. We illustrate the framework in a constructed knowledge platform for pig farming in Rwanda, where five stakeholder types present structurally conflicting requirements. As work in progress, the framework is proposed but not yet empirically validated; a planned pre/post judgment study with platform users across all stakeholder types will test falsifiable predictions about governance outcomes.