Aligning Software Architecture with Cost Structure: A Comparative Study Using ATAM and Lean Canvas in Early Startup Development

Jan Falih Fadhillah; Dana Sulistiyo Kusumo

doi:10.52436/1.jutif.2025.6.6.4302

Authors

Jan Falih Fadhillah Computer Science, Telkom University, Indonesia
Dana Sulistiyo Kusumo Computer Science, Telkom University, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52436/1.jutif.2025.6.6.4302

Keywords:

Cost Structure, Lean Canvas, Microservices, Monolithic Architecture, Software Architecture, Startup

Abstract

Startups in the early phase often face challenges in balancing operational efficiency with resource constraints. This research find how startups can choose software architecture to align with cost structures with the Lean Canvas framework and the Architecture Trade-off Analysis Method (ATAM). Lean canvas allows for startups to identify cost structures at an early stage and align with market demands efficiently and ATAM helps to evaluate software architecture systematically by analysing trade-offs and quality attributes. Although microservice architecture offers modularity and scalability, its implementation can lead to higher operational costs making it unsuitable for startups with limited budgets. On the other hand, monolithic architecture is more cost-effective, easy to manage and suitable for the needs of early-stage startups. This research emphasizes that systematic evaluation of software architecture based on business goals and resource limitations is essential for startup growth for sustainability. By combining Lean Canvas for business validation and ATAM for architectural decision making, startups can optimize operational and technical strategies, analyse risks, and identify trade-offs that are implemented according to business development.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

N. Razabillah, S. R. Putri Junaedi, O. P. Maria Daeli, and N. S. Arasid, “Lean Canvas and the Business Model Canvas Model in Startup Piecework,” Startupreneur Business Digital (SABDA Journal), vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 72–85, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.33050/sabda.v2i1.239.

T. Felin, A. Gambardella, S. Stern, and T. Zenger, “Lean startup and the business model: Experimentation revisited,” Long Range Plann, vol. 53, no. 4, p. 101889, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2019.06.002.

A. Maurya, Running lean, 3rd Edition. “ O’Reilly Media, Inc.,” 2022.

M. Pellegrini, “The Business Canvas*,” in The 39th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, New York, NY, USA: ACM, Oct. 2021, pp. 224–230. doi: 10.1145/3472714.3473645.

F.-L. Noelia and D.-C. Rosalia, “A dynamic analysis of the role of entrepreneurial ecosystems in reducing innovation obstacles for startups,” Journal of Business Venturing Insights, vol. 14, p. e00192, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00192.

R. G. Chammassian and V. Sabatier, “The role of costs in business model design for early-stage technology startups,” Technol Forecast Soc Change, vol. 157, p. 120090, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120090.

Eashwar Sivakumar and Paras Chawla, “Decentralized Lean Business Model Canvas for BlockchainBased Enterprises ,” Journal of Computer Sciences, vol. 18, pp. 426–440, 2022, doi: 10.3844/jcssp.2022.426.440.

Rachmad and Yoesoep Edhie, “The Influence And Impact of The Money Burning Strategy on The Future of Startups,” Adpebi Science Series, Jul. 2022.

M. Unterkalmsteiner et al., “Software Startups -- A Research Agenda,” e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.5277/e-Inf160105.

N. C. Mendonca, C. Box, C. Manolache, and L. Ryan, “The Monolith Strikes Back: Why Istio Migrated From Microservices to a Monolithic Architecture,” IEEE Softw, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 17–22, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1109/MS.2021.3080335.

G. Blinowski, A. Ojdowska, and A. Przybyłek, “Monolithic vs. Microservice Architecture: A Performance and Scalability Evaluation,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 20357–20374, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3152803.

K. Gos and W. Zabierowski, “The Comparison of Microservice and Monolithic Architecture,” in 2020 IEEE XVIth International Conference on the Perspective Technologies and Methods in MEMS Design (MEMSTECH), IEEE, Apr. 2020, pp. 150–153. doi: 10.1109/MEMSTECH49584.2020.9109514.

R. Su, X. Li, and D. Taibi, “From Microservice to Monolith: A Multivocal Literature Review,” Electronics (Basel), vol. 13, no. 8, p. 1452, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.3390/electronics13081452.

T. Selivorstova, S. Klishch, S. Kyrychenko, A. Guda, and K. Ostrovskaya, “Analysis of Monolithic and Microservice Architectures Features and Metrics,” Computer systems and information technologies, no. 3, pp. 59–65, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.31891/CSIT-2021-5-8.

R. Su and X. Li, “Modular Monolith: Is This the Trend in Software Architecture?,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on New Trends in Software Architecture, New York, NY, USA: ACM, Apr. 2024, pp. 10–13. doi: 10.1145/3643657.3643911.

M. Sahlabadi, R. C. Muniyandi, Z. Shukur, and F. Qamar, “Lightweight Software Architecture Evaluation for Industry: A Comprehensive Review,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 3, p. 1252, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.3390/s22031252.

D. A. S. G. Putra Kusuma, “Designing and Evaluating Representational State Transfer Architecture for School Management Information System,” International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 3649–3658, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.30534/ijeter/2020/124872020.

D. Sobhy, R. Bahsoon, L. Minku, and R. Kazman, “Evaluation of Software Architectures under Uncertainty,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1–50, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1145/3464305.

F. Moshiri, A. Asosheh, and F. Hashembigi, “Introduce an Enhanced Hospital Information System Reference Architecture with ATAM Evaluation,” 2024.

S. M. Ågren et al., “Architecture evaluation in continuous development,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 184, p. 111111, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.111111.

A. El Murabet and A. Abtoy, “Methodologies of the Validation of Software Architectures,” Journal of Computing Theories and Applications, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 78–85, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.33633/jcta.v1i2.9332.

D. de Silva et al., “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Different Software Testing Frameworks on Software Quality,” May 19, 2023. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2928368/v1.

Osinachi Deborah Segun-Falade, Olajide Soji Osundare, Wagobera Edgar Kedi, Patrick Azuka Okeleke, Tochukwu Ignatius Ijomah, and Oluwatosin Yetunde Abdul-Azeez, “Assessing the transformative impact of cloud computing on software deployment and management,” Computer Science & IT Research Journal, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 2062–2082, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.51594/csitrj.v5i8.1492.

N. Mateus-Coelho, M. Cruz-Cunha, and L. G. Ferreira, “Security in Microservices Architectures,” Procedia Comput Sci, vol. 181, pp. 1225–1236, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.320.

A. Choudhary, “A walkthrough of Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2): A Review,” Int J Res Appl Sci Eng Technol, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 93–97, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.22214/ijraset.2021.38764.

H. Sihotang, “Quantitative research methods” 2023, UKI Press.

M. Catillo, U. Villano, and M. Rak, “A survey on auto-scaling: how to exploit cloud elasticity,” International Journal of Grid and Utility Computing, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 37, 2023, doi: 10.1504/IJGUC.2023.129702.