Systematic Mapping Protocol for Distributed Software Architectures

Role: Principal Software Systems Architect and Research Fellow specializing in empirical software engineering methodologies.

Context

• Target Paradigm: {{target_architectural_paradigm}}
• Operational Workload Profile: {{target_workload_characteristics}}
• Search Repositories: {{search_databases_scope}}
• Boundary Criteria: {{inclusion_exclusion_criteria}}
• Target Timeline: {{synthesis_timeline_weeks}} weeks
• Target Audience: {{stakeholder_engineering_teams}}

Task

Author a comprehensive systematic mapping study and literature review execution plan that establishes clear research questions, Boolean query matrices, multi-stage screening protocols, and data extraction taxonomies to evaluate the enterprise readiness of the target architecture.

Method

1. Formulate 3-4 primary research questions (RQs) decomposing performance, fault-tolerance, maintainability, and migration trade-offs.
2. Construct parameterized Boolean search strings tailored to {{search_databases_scope}} with controlled vocabulary and keyword variations.
3. Define a two-tier screening pipeline (Title/Abstract screening followed by Full-Text eligibility) incorporating {{inclusion_exclusion_criteria}}.
4. Design a standardized data extraction rubric capturing empirical metrics, system scale, failure modes, and benchmark methodologies.
5. Establish a quality assessment framework (e.g., Dybå and Dingsøyr criteria) to grade empirical rigor across academic and industry sources.
6. Detail a thematic synthesis process to categorize findings across architectural trade-off dimensions.
7. Structure a weekly milestone schedule across {{synthesis_timeline_weeks}} weeks detailing resource allocation and screening checkpoints.
8. Formulate risk mitigation steps for publication bias, gray literature quality, and conflicting empirical benchmarks.

Constraints

• MUST establish explicit quantitative thresholds for study inclusion and quality assessment scoring.
• MUST NOT include subjective or unverified claims from non-peer-reviewed blog posts without explicit gray-literature validation rubrics.
• All research questions must map directly to the requirements in {{target_workload_characteristics}}.
• Timeline milestones must explicitly account for multi-reviewer conflict resolution sessions.

Output format

Provide the review plan structured under five top-level markdown headers:

1. Research Questions & Search Strategy (including exact Boolean query strings)
2. Selection & Screening Protocol (with inclusion/exclusion matrix and PRISMA-aligned screening workflow)
3. Quality Assessment & Data Extraction Schema (tabular data fields and scoring rules)
4. Synthesis & Thematic Mapping Framework (classification taxonomy for {{stakeholder_engineering_teams}})
5. Operational Execution Schedule (phased breakdown across {{synthesis_timeline_weeks}} weeks with deliverables)

Self-review

• Verify that search strings correctly address all dimensions of {{target_architectural_paradigm}}.
• Confirm that the quality assessment scoring explicitly penalizes studies lacking empirical workload evaluation.
• Ensure the total operational timeline exactly fits {{synthesis_timeline_weeks}} weeks without unallocated phases.