Micro-Frontend Architecture in Software Development: A Systematic

Mapping Study

Giovanni Cunha de Amorim

and Edna Dias Canedo

University of

ılia–DF, Brazil

giovanni.amorim.ti@gmail.com, ednacanedo@unb.br

Keywords:

Micro-Frontend Architecture, Software Architecture, Web Development, Systematic Mapping Study.

Abstract:

Context: The integration of new technologies into monolithic frontend projects poses signiﬁcant chal-

lenges, including code redundancy, inconsistency, and limited scalability. The micro-frontend architecture

has emerged as a promising solution, offering a more modular and independent approach to frontend develop-

ment. Goal: This study aims to explore the impacts and challenges of adopting micro-frontend architecture in

software projects. Method: We conducted a systematic mapping study to identify common architectural pat-

terns and strategies used in micro-frontends. Results: Our ﬁndings underscore the potential of micro-frontend

architecture in modernizing frontend development, particularly for large, complex projects. However, suc-

cessful implementation depends on the project’s scale and requires careful methodological and technological

planning.

1 INTRODUCTION

The growing interest of large organizations in adopt-

ing micro-frontend architectures highlights a signif-

icant shift in software development practices (SPA,

2022), driven by the pursuit of more ﬂexible and ef-

fective approaches to building frontend applications

(Sim

oes et al., 2023). However, this strategy can lead

to a decrease in operational efﬁciency. To mitigate

this issue, micro-frontends enable the integration of

the entire application portfolio through a single gate-

way, addressing the need for rapid application evolu-

tion (Moraes et al., 2024; Rappl and Sch

ottner, 2021).

By enabling independent development and de-

ployment of application modules, this approach en-

hances scalability and ﬂexibility in software projects

(Gashi et al., 2024; Tilak et al., 2020). However,

its adoption also brings challenges, such as dupli-

cated functionalities leading to code redundancy, dif-

ﬁculties in ensuring a consistent user experience, in-

creased complexity due to the use of diverse technolo-

gies, and a growing volume of frontend code resulting

from multiple dependencies (Geers, 2020).

Taibi and Mezzalira (Taibi and Mezzalira, 2022)

identiﬁed four crucial decisions to consider before

embarking on a micro-frontends project. The ﬁrst is

https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7933-1552

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2159-339X

the choice between a “Horizontal Split”, and a “Verti-

cal Split”, which determines whether teams will col-

laborate on different frontends within the same view

(horizontal) or each team will manage a distinct view

(vertical). The second decision, “Composition Side”,

involves choosing between client-side composition,

where micro-frontends are dynamically loaded in the

browser, and server-side composition. The third deci-

sion focuses on “Routing”, which concerns directing

user requests to the correct micro-frontend. Lastly,

the fourth decision, “Communication between Micro-

frontends”, addresses how to enable communication

between different applications, either through custom

events or shared services.

Although the concept has gained popularity in re-

cent years, more research is needed to explore its

practical applications in software development envi-

ronments. This study aims to ﬁll this gap by sys-

tematically identifying and analyzing the key factors,

practices, and challenges reported in the literature re-

garding the implementation of micro-frontends.

Given the challenges associated with large mono-

liths and their drawbacks, such as code redundancy,

consistency issues, heterogeneity, and excessive code

(Geers, 2020; Lewis and Fowler, 2014), as well as ar-

chitectural decisions related to composition, routing,

and communication (Taibi and Mezzalira, 2022), this

study aims to explore the impacts and challenges of

adopting micro-frontends in the development of com-

Cunha de Amorim, G. and Canedo, E. D.

Micro-Frontend Architecture in Software Development: A Systematic Mapping Study.

DOI: 10.5220/0013195800003929

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2025) - Volume 2, pages 105-116

ISBN: 978-989-758-749-8; ISSN: 2184-4992

105

plex web applications. To achieve this, we conducted

a Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) to identify the

impacts and challenges of implementing the micro-

frontends architecture.

Thus, we highlight the following contribution di-

rections: the identiﬁcation of design and architec-

ture patterns speciﬁc to the implementation of micro-

frontends, aiming to promote consistency, modularity,

and reuse of front-end components in a distributed

ecosystem; the identiﬁcation of practices and tools

that facilitate continuous integration and continuous

delivery (CI/CD) of micro-frontends, enabling teams

to implement updates quickly and safely. The results

of this work highlight the positive impact of micro-

frontends on software projects, the architectural pat-

terns used, and the challenges faced during adoption,

contributing to the validation of the SMS.

2 RELATED WORK

Experiments comparing frontend architectures con-

nected to microservices-based backends were con-

ducted by (Harms et al., 2017). Their ﬁndings indi-

cate that Micro-Frontends offer good testability and

modiﬁability, though with variations in performance

and interface consistency. This study emphasized the

practical application of Micro-Frontends in hybrid ar-

chitectures but did not explore speciﬁc composition or

splitting strategies, which are gaps our research seeks

to ﬁll.

A multi-platform web application using Micro-

Frontends and microservices to ensure a consistent

user experience across different devices was devel-

oped by Mena et al. (Mena et al., 2019). Their

primary focus was on fulﬁlling the application’s

functional requirements, highlighting that Micro-

Frontends helped isolate the development of distinct

components and minimize codebase conﬂicts. Our re-

search complements this approach by investigating ar-

chitectural patterns that support component isolation

in a more structured and comparative manner.

A Multivocal Literature Review to investigate

the motivations behind companies adopting Micro-

Frontends was conducted by Peltonen et al. (Pel-

tonen et al., 2021). The study analyzed 173 pub-

lications, 43 of which addressed motivations, bene-

ﬁts, and challenges. The results showed that compa-

nies adopted Micro-Frontends to increase team auton-

omy and reduce frontend complexity, beneﬁts similar

to those promised by microservices in the backend.

However, the authors identiﬁed drawbacks such as

increased application payload size and code duplica-

tion. While the study highlights general motivations

and impacts, it does not address speciﬁc architectural

patterns, which is the main focus of our research.

Pavlenko et al. (Pavlenko et al., 2020) reported

the creation of a React-based single-page application

using Micro-Frontends. While the architecture intro-

duced greater complexity, the authors found it suit-

able for applications with extensive frontend logic and

larger development teams. Although the study de-

tailed operational challenges, it did not address the

systematization or comparison of different architec-

tural patterns, which is a key aspect of our analysis.

annist

o et al. (M

annist

o et al., 2023) de-

scribed the migration of a monolithic application to

a Micro-Frontends architecture using a framework-

less approach based on Web Components. The study

highlighted that even small teams can beneﬁt from

Micro-Frontends, particularly in terms of conﬁgura-

bility, and that web standards-based APIs offer viable

alternatives to JavaScript frameworks. While the au-

thors focused on cost beneﬁts and client-speciﬁc con-

ﬁgurability, our research delves into the analysis of

speciﬁc architectural strategies and their applicability

to diverse development scenarios.

3 RESEARCH METHOD

In this work, we conducted a Systematic Mapping

Study (SMS) to identify the impacts and challenges

associated with the implementation of the micro-

frontends architecture. This approach enabled us to

systematically review existing literature, categorize

key ﬁndings, and synthesize insights relevant to both

academic and industry perspectives. The goal of

this study is to provide insights into the architectural

views and patterns associated with micro-frontends

and understand how these elements resonate in the

development environment. It is important to empha-

size that our scope is strictly limited to aspects related

to the implementation of the micro-frontends archi-

tecture, without delving into speciﬁc technical devel-

opment issues such as programming languages and

frameworks. To achieve the objectives of the SMS,

we formulated three research questions to guide our

investigation, described as follows:

• RQ.1: What architectural patterns are used in the

implementation of micro-frontends?

• RQ.2: What are the impacts of adopting a micro-

frontends architecture?

• RQ.3: What challenges do software development

teams encounter when adopting micro-frontends?

Search String. The PICOC terms (Wohlin et al.,

2012) were used as a guide to deﬁne the inclu-

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

106

sion and exclusion criteria, although they were not

directly applied in the construction of the search

string. The Population was deﬁned by terms re-

lated to micro-frontends, software industry, develop-

ment teams, and micro-frontend architecture adop-

tion. The Intervention focused on terms like imple-

mentation, patterns, and adoption. The Outcome was

shaped by terms such as impacts, challenges, team co-

ordination, continuous integration, continuous deliv-

ery, and dependencies. Finally, the Context involved

software development, implementation, and frontend

paradigms. The search string was iteratively adjusted

based on preliminary results, ensuring greater preci-

sion in identifying relevant articles for the study.

We selected ﬁve digital databases (ACM Dig-

ital Library, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, Scopus

e Springer Link) to apply the search string. The

choice of these platforms was based on their rel-

evance in Software Engineering research(Brereton

et al., 2007). The search string used in the system-

atic mapping study was: (“micro-frontend” OR “mi-

cro frontend” OR “microfrontend”). Studies pub-

lished before 2016, as the micro-frontend technology

became widely adopted primarily from that year on-

ward.

Selection Criteria. To ensure a rigorous and well-

deﬁned selection process, we adopted speciﬁc inclu-

sion and exclusion criteria, as summarized in Table

1. The inclusion criteria focus on identifying stud-

ies that provide comprehensive insights into the tech-

nologies, challenges, and organizational impacts as-

sociated with micro-frontends. Conversely, the exclu-

sion criteria were designed to ﬁlter out studies that

lack relevance or clarity regarding the adoption and

implementation of micro-frontends.

Table 1: Selection Criteria.

Type Criteria

Inclusion IC1. Technologies or methodologies used in the

implementation of micro-frontends.

IC2. Challenges related to the implementation of

micro-frontends.

IC3. Impacts on team organization when im-

plementing technologies and methods related to

micro-frontends.

Exclusion EC1. Studies that do not explicitly address the

adoption of micro-frontend architecture, or that

lack a clear focus.

EC2. Studies published in languages not under-

stood by the authors (Portuguese and English).

Execution. To conduct the review, we used the Par-

sifal tool. Figure 1 presents the number of studies

selected at each stage of the review. A total of 279

studies were initially identiﬁed, distributed across the

following databases: 14 from the ACM Digital Li-

brary, 150 from IEEE Xplore, 27 from ScienceDirect,

48 from Scopus, and 40 from Springer Link. Dur-

ing the Duplicate Removal Phase, 110 duplicate stud-

ies were identiﬁed and removed. This left a ﬁnal set

of 169 studies for analysis. Then, inclusion, exclu-

sion, and quality assessment criteria were applied to

the remaining studies through a review of titles and

abstracts.

Although the initially selected studies addressed

topics related to the search string, 119 studies were

excluded for not meeting the established selection cri-

teria or not being relevant to the context of this paper,

resulting in a total of 50 studies for analysis in the

next phase.

IC=Inclusion Criteria EC=Exclusion Criteria QA=Quality

Assessment

Figure 1: Selected Studies for Data Extraction.

Finally, we conducted a full reading of the se-

lected studies. During this stage, we applied all the

established selection criteria to a total of 24 studies,

including 2 from the ACM Digital Library, 6 from

IEEE Xplore, 1 from ScienceDirect, 13 from Scopus,

and 2 from Springer Link.

3.1 Data Extraction

In the data extraction phase, our goal was to ensure

the completeness of the SMS. To achieve this, we sys-

tematically identiﬁed, evaluated, and interpreted all

the selected studies (Table 2). The data extracted from

these studies served as the foundation for both quan-

titative and qualitative analyses. This process went

beyond merely classifying the studies; it involved a

detailed evaluation to support the subsequent phases

of the investigation. We have made the Supplemen-

tary Material available on Zenodo

https://zenodo.org/records/14834868

Micro-Frontend Architecture in Software Development: A Systematic Mapping Study

107

Table 2: Data Extraction.

Study Year #Cite Type Conference/Journal Score Ref.

PS1 2021 21 J Information and Software Technology 2.0 (Peltonen et al., 2021)

PS2 2020 0 J Journal of Internet Services and Information Security 1.5 (Pavlenko et al., 2020)

PS3 2022 1 C AICMHI 2022 2.0 (Mohammed et al., 2022)

PS4 2023 0 C CLOSER 2023 1.5 (Abdelfattah and Cern

y, 2023)

PS5 2019 11 J IOP Publishing Ltd 1.5 (Yang et al., 2019)

PS6 2023 0 C Politechnica University of Bucharest 2.0 (Petcu et al., 2023)

PS7 2020 5 C ETFA 2020 1.0 (Shakil and Zoitl, 2020)

PS8 2021 0 C ETFA 2021 2.0 (Lorenz et al., 2021)

PS9 2023 0 J International Journal of Web Engineering and Technology 1.5 (Wanjala, 2022)

PS10 2022 0 J Journal of Information Processing 2.0 (Nishizu and Kamina, 2022)

PS11 2021 0 C Budapest Tech Polytechnical Institution 2.0 (P

oskei and Bub, 2021)

PS12 2022 1 C ICTI 2022 1.5 (Stefanovska and Trajkovik, 2022)

PS13 2021 1 C ICITCS 2021 1.5 (Noppadol and Limpiyakorn, 2021)

PS14 2022 0 C SummerSOC 2022 2.0 (B

uhler et al., 2022)

PS15 2021 11 J SN Computer Science 2.0 (Sorgalla et al., 2021)

PS16 2020 4 C IEEE-HYDCON 2020 1.5 (Tilak et al., 2020)

PS17 2023 1 C ICSA 2023 1.0 (M

annist

o et al., 2023)

PS18 2023 1 C AICT 2023 2.0 (Perlin et al., 2023)

PS19 2019 17 J IEEE Access Journal 2.0 (Mena et al., 2019)

PS20 2022 1 C ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 2.0 (Taibi and Mezzalira, 2022)

PS21 2023 1 C Web3D 2023 1.0 (Sim

oes et al., 2023)

PS22 2020 9 J KES-2020 2.0 (Wang et al., 2020)

PS23 2023 0 C ISCSIC-2023 2.0 (Zhang et al., 2023)

PS24 2024 0 C MECO 2.0 (Gashi et al., 2024)

4 SMS RESULTS

The results of our Systematic Mapping Study (SMS),

addressing the three research questions (RQs) that

guided our investigation. The analysis provides in-

sights into the architectural patterns employed in

micro-frontend implementations (RQ.1), the impacts

of adopting this approach in software development

projects (RQ.2), and the challenges faced by develop-

ment teams during its adoption (RQ.3). The ﬁndings

are synthesized from relevant studies and categorized

to highlight key trends, beneﬁts, and obstacles associ-

ated with micro-frontends.

4.1 RQ.1. What Architectural Patterns

Are Used in the Implementation of

Micro-Frontends?

To address RQ.1, we used the data from the selected

studies presented in Table 2. In these studies, ar-

chitectural views and patterns used in the implemen-

tation of micro-frontends were identiﬁed, including

technologies such as frameworks, programming lan-

guages, and tools for development and deployment.

Due to the breadth of RQ.1, we divided it into two

topics: architectural views and architectural patterns.

Architectural Views. The architectural views (Fig-

ure 2) identiﬁed in the studies illustrate the strategies

adopted by companies to implement micro-frontend

architecture, as follows:

• API View: Addressed in 20 studies (PS1, PS2,

PS3, PS4, PS5, PS8, PS9, PS10, PS11, PS12,

PS13, PS14, PS15, PS16, PS17, PS19, PS20,

PS21, PS23, and PS24), this view demonstrates

the role of APIs as a single entry point for backend

requests, allowing micro-frontends to remain in-

dependent and loosely coupled, facilitating com-

munication between components, and optimizing

development and maintenance.

• Single-SPA View: Mentioned in 18 studies (PS1,

PS2, PS3, PS4, PS5, PS6, PS7, PS9, PS10, PS11,

PS12, PS13, PS17, PS18, PS20, PS21, PS22, and

PS24), this view supports the scalability and mod-

ularity of the application, allowing for the addi-

tion of new micro-frontends without impacting

existing parts of the application.

• Web Components: Discussed in 13 studies (PS2,

PS5, PS6, PS8, PS10, PS11, PS12, PS14, PS17,

PS19, PS20, PS22, and PS24), the implementa-

tion in the studies used technologies such as Cus-

tom Elements, HTML Templates, Shadow DOM,

HTML, and JavaScript without the need for a spe-

ciﬁc library or framework.

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

108

• App Container and Module Federation Views:

The App Container view (containerization) was

referenced in 7 studies (PS1, PS2, PS4, PS7,

PS11, PS12, PS22). Similarly, Module Federa-

tion, addressed in seven studies (PS3, PS6, PS12,

PS18, PS20, PS21, and PS24), these studies ex-

plored how different parts of an application can be

loaded on demand without requiring a full system

recompilation.

• DevOps Views: DevOps was discussed in 4 stud-

ies (PS1, PS2, PS11, and PS15), noted for its

efﬁciency in continuous integration and delivery

(CI/CD).

• BFF Views: The BFF (Backend for Frontend)

view appeared in 3 studies (PS3, PS4, and PS11),

highlighting that different parts of the user inter-

face can communicate with speciﬁc backends, en-

suring targeted and efﬁcient communication.

These ﬁndings highlight the various architectural

views employed in micro-frontend implementation,

emphasizing their signiﬁcance in promoting modular-

ity, scalability, and effective communication.

0 10 20

MVC

Application Shell

DDD

Design System

Iframe

Composition

Routing

Communication

Frameworks

Programming Languages

BFF

DevOps

Module Federation

App Container

Web Components

Single-SPA

API

Number of Studies

Architectural Patterns Architectural Views

Figure 2: Architectural Views and Architectural Patterns.

Architectural Patterns. During the analysis of the

selected studies, we identiﬁed the most employed ar-

chitectural patterns in the implementations of micro-

frontends architecture (Figure 2). These patterns rep-

resent the strategies adopted by development teams

to address routine challenges, such as choosing pro-

gramming languages, frameworks, libraries, and spe-

ciﬁc decisions regarding micro-application architec-

ture, such as composition and routing.

• Programming Languages: Mentioned in 18

studies, JavaScript, TypeScript, HTML, and CSS

are widely used in the frontend layer. The stud-

ies addressing these languages include PS1, PS2,

PS5, PS6, PS7, PS8, PS9, PS10, PS11, PS12,

PS13, PS14, PS17, PS18, PS20, PS21, PS22, and

PS24. These languages are often used in conjunc-

tion with frameworks such as Angular, React, and

Vue.

• Frameworks: The choice of frameworks Angu-

lar, React and Vue was the most discussed in stud-

ies PS1, PS2, PS3, PS5, PS7, PS8, PS9, PS10,

PS11, PS12, PS13, PS14, PS18, PS19, PS20,

PS21, and PS22. These 17 studies highlighted the

ﬂexibility provided by micro-frontends, allowing

teams to adopt their preferred technologies for de-

veloping components independently.

• Communication Pattern: Referenced in stud-

ies PS1, PS4, PS5, PS6, PS7, PS8, PS12, PS13,

PS14, PS15, PS17, PS18, PS19, PS20, PS22 and

PS24, this pattern promotes more efﬁcient inte-

gration between micro-applications. It improves

communication between components, particularly

through dynamic routing, offering more effective

control and management of component state.

• Routing Pattern: Mentioned in studies PS1, PS2,

PS5, PS6, PS9, PS10, PS11, PS12, PS19, PS20,

PS21, PS22, PS23, and PS24, this pattern im-

proves the efﬁciency of the application’s initial

load by dynamically loading micro-frontends. It

can be managed on the server side, reducing load

time and enhancing the user experience (Mezza-

lira, 2021). The pattern is associated with deploy-

ment independence, team autonomy, and ease of

code maintenance, although study PS9 noted in-

creased operational complexity when used with

SPAs and the Static Assets pattern.

• Composition Pattern: Analyzed in studies PS1,

PS2, PS3, PS6, PS11, PS12, PS13, PS14, PS15,

PS18, PS19, PS20, and PS24, this pattern includes

Client-Side Composition, Server-Side Composi-

tion, and Edge-Side Composition. Composition

is associated with increased application scalabil-

ity and operational complexity.

• Iframe Pattern: Highlighted in studies PS1, PS2,

PS5, PS6, PS11, PS12, PS19, PS20, PS22, and

PS24, this pattern simpliﬁes the loading of mul-

tiple applications within the browser, promoting

independence and agility in team deployments.

However, it may lead to potential CSS style con-

ﬂicts and code redundancy.

• Design System: Mentioned in studies PS5, PS6,

PS8, PS9, PS15, PS17, PS18, PS20, and PS24,

Micro-Frontend Architecture in Software Development: A Systematic Mapping Study

109

this pattern addresses code reuse, interface stan-

dardization, and reduction of complexity in fron-

tend application development. Study PS24, al-

though not explicitly using the term Design Sys-

tem, refers to it as Component Library and User

Experience (UX), contextualizing it with design

patterns.

• DDD Pattern: Mentioned in studies PS1, PS12,

PS15, PS21, PS22, and PS24, this pattern aligns

business strategies with technology to improve

operational efﬁciency. The studies discuss how

DDD, in the context of Micro-Frontends, helps

unify product and development teams by associ-

ating each micro-frontend with a speciﬁc business

domain, ensuring better alignment between tech-

nology and business needs while supporting scal-

able and adaptable architectures.

• Application Shell: Referenced in studies PS1,

PS11, PS16, PS17, PS20, and PS24, this pat-

tern mounts and unmounts a micro-frontend, im-

proving performance by quickly loading the basic

structure of the application for a faster initial re-

sponse.

• Model-View-Controller (MVC): Addressed in

studies PS2, PS9, and PS22, this pattern improves

source code organization and maintenance efﬁ-

ciency.

The identiﬁed architectural patterns reﬂect diverse

strategies and tools employed by development teams

to tackle common challenges in micro-frontend archi-

tectures.

4.1.1 Comparative Analysis of Micro-Frontend

Architectural Patterns

In this section, we present a comparative analysis of

the main architectural patterns for micro-frontends:

Split Horizontal, Split Vertical, Client-Side Composi-

tion, Edge-Side Composition, and Server-Side Com-

position. Although other patterns can be applied

in different software architecture contexts, we focus

on those most relevant to this approach. We will

then explore the differences between the splitting ap-

proaches and composition methods, which have a

signiﬁcant impact on the implementation of micro-

frontend-based solutions.

Horizontal Split. In the Horizontal Split pattern,

different teams work on distinct functionalities within

a single page or view, sharing the same rendering area

on the front end. Each team is responsible for a por-

tion of the application’s layout, facilitating collabora-

tion across teams working on different functionalities

(Figure 3).

Figure 3: Horizontal Split (Mezzalira, 2021).

This model is more suitable for small teams or ap-

plications with simple requirements, where communi-

cation among members is more ﬂuid. In Study PS12,

the authors present use cases that apply this approach

and also conclude that Split Horizontal can introduce

communication overhead between teams, which may

hinder coordination and impact the user experience if

not managed efﬁciently.

Vertical Split. In the Vertical Split pattern, teams

are responsible for entire sections of the system, such

as a login screen or a user dashboard, having full con-

trol over the behavior and appearance of that section.

This approach aligns with the DDD principle, as dis-

cussed for example in Study PS24, where each team

is responsible for a speciﬁc business domain, such as

authentication. By structuring teams around business

capabilities, this pattern enhances domain expertise

and improves development efﬁciency. The main ad-

vantage of this pattern is the greater autonomy and

control teams have over their work areas, facilitat-

ing responsibility isolation and system maintenance,

as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Vertical Split (Mezzalira, 2021).

However, coordinating functionalities that involve

data or actions across different sections can be more

challenging, increasing system complexity. Addition-

ally, there is a higher likelihood of functionality dupli-

cation between teams. Split Vertical is better suited

for larger systems with multiple independent func-

tionalities that require greater team autonomy.

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

110

Client-Side Composition. This approach involves

assembling components on the client side, meaning

in the user’s browser. The micro-frontend is dynam-

ically loaded when the page is accessed as show in

Figure 5, reducing server costs as composition is han-

dled by the client and improving user experience with

asynchronous and responsive loading.

Figure 5: Client-Side Composition (Geers, 2020).

In Study PS11, it is added that lazy-loading is nec-

essary for satisfactory client-side performance, ensur-

ing that only the required modules are loaded when

needed. This approach involves assembling compo-

nents on the client side, meaning in the user’s browser.

The micro-frontend is dynamically loaded when the

page is accessed, reducing server costs as compo-

sition is handled by the client and improves user

experience with asynchronous and responsive load-

ing. However, this approach also increases client-

side complexity, resulting in higher maintenance costs

within the browser. If too many micro-frontends are

loaded simultaneously, performance degradation may

occur. Reusability, another fundamental aspect, en-

ables some frontend functionalities to be served di-

rectly across various platforms.

Server-Side Composition. This pattern are com-

posed on the server, which generates a fully assem-

bled page, including micro-frontends ready to be ren-

dered in the browser. This model reduces client-side

complexity since composition happens on the server,

providing better performance control by distributing

the workload between the client and the server.

Figure 6 shows the server-side approach, where

page composition occurs on the server before be-

ing sent to the client (browser). The server assem-

bles the micro-frontends to build the complete page

and sends a fully integrated version to the client.

Study PS19 highlights that this approach is a proven

method for implementing microservices mechanisms

in the frontend, such as API gateway patterns, cir-

cuit breakers, and service discovery (client-side and

server-side). These mechanisms enhance scalability,

resilience, and ﬂexibility in distributed systems with

micro-frontends. However, this approach can increase

Figure 6: Server-Side Composition (Geers, 2020).

server load, potentially affecting performance in high-

demand systems, and provides less ﬂexibility for dy-

namic content changes.

Edge-Side Composition. Edge-Side composition,

as described by Geers (Geers, 2020), involves com-

bining Micro-Frontends on the server or an inter-

mediary point like a CDN, which is a variation of

server-side composition but occurs closer to the user

at the “edge” of the network. This approach im-

proves performance by ofﬂoading composition from

the browser, enabling efﬁcient caching and faster con-

tent delivery.

Figure 7: Edge-Side Composition - Adapted from (Mezza-

lira, 2021).

Edge-Side Composition allows for selective

caching strategies, where frequently accessed com-

ponents can be stored at edge locations, reducing

the need for repeated requests to the origin server.

This is particularly beneﬁcial for globally distributed

users, minimizing load times. Study PS20 discusses

how Edge Side facilitate the assembly of views at

the CDN level, as shown in Figure 7, using place-

holders replaced with valid HTML during process-

ing. In the context of Micro-Frontends, this approach

enables faster content delivery by distributing com-

position tasks closer to the user. Since composition

occurs before reaching the client, real-time personal-

Micro-Frontend Architecture in Software Development: A Systematic Mapping Study

111

ization and user-speciﬁc adaptations may be limited,

requiring additional client-side logic to mitigate these

restrictions.

4.2 RQ.2. What Are the Impacts of

Adopting a Micro-Frontends

Architecture?

The implementation of micro-frontends presents a

perspective of bringing beneﬁts such as scalability,

ﬂexibility, and the ability for independent develop-

ment. However, it is important to analyze the negative

impacts that may arise, notably regarding the com-

plexity in conﬁguration and coordination of the archi-

tecture. Figure 8 presents the number of studies that

addressed both the positive and negative impacts of

adopting the micro-frontends architecture, categoriz-

ing them for a holistic analysis. It is important to note

that we grouped the strategies of Decoupling, Scala-

bility, Productivity, Flexibility, and Performance into

the “Application Efﬁciency” strategy, and the strate-

gies Components, Conﬂicts, and Code Redundancy

into the “Reusability” strategy (Figure 8).

0 2 4

Team Efﬁciency

Applicability

Reusability

Application Efﬁciency

Deployment Efﬁciency

Operational Costs

Operational Complexity

Positive Impacts Negative Impacts

Figure 8: Positive and Negative Impacts.

Positive Impacts. The Team Efﬁciency (Figure 8)

resulting from greater independence, scalability, and

faster deliveries stood out as one of the most men-

tioned impacts by the authors of studies (PS1, PS8,

PS9, PS10, PS11, PS12, and PS22). This impact was

highlighted across multiple studies, emphasizing how

micro-frontends improve development efﬁciency by

enabling teams to work more autonomously and de-

liver results more rapidly.

Additionally, the Applicability of micro-frontends

was extensively studied. Studies PS3, PS4, PS6,

PS14, PS16, PS19, and PS21 developed prototypes

and use cases in various business scenarios where the

micro-frontends approach was successfully adopted.

These studies demonstrated positive outcomes in in-

dustries such as the Human-Machine Interface (HMI)

(PS14), industrial plants (PS3), and Internet of Things

(IoT) (PS16). Moreover, Study PS6 presented bene-

ﬁts in the effective implementation of chatbots, and

PS21 reported the successful construction of plat-

forms designed for organizing functionalities associ-

ated with microservices and micro-frontends.

The Reusability of components and plugins (PS2,

PS5, and PS17) was also identiﬁed as an inﬂuen-

tial practice in enhancing team velocity and ensur-

ing interface standardization, thus accelerating devel-

opment cycles. In parallel, studies PS10, PS12, and

PS22 highlighted positive impacts on Deployment Ef-

ﬁciency, allowing for independent implementations,

risk reduction, facilitated rollback, and continuous

updates. These beneﬁts contribute to a more agile de-

velopment cycle and a more resilient application to

changes.

Furthermore, Study PS20 highlighted positive

points related to the decoupling and scalability of ap-

plications, which led to cost reduction and improved

user experience, further illustrating the advantages of

adopting micro-frontends. Studies PS1 and PS15 also

mentioned improvements in Application Efﬁciency as

positive outcomes of the approach.

Finally, one particular study, PS21, highlighted

the improved application performance as a positive

outcome, which in turn led to a reduction in Opera-

tional Costs. This shift offered greater ﬂexibility and

customization, allowing for a more efﬁcient use of re-

sources. Manufacturers were able to leverage external

expertise and specialized solutions, optimizing their

processes while maintaining cost efﬁciency through a

pay-as-you-go model.

Negative Impacts. The negative impacts associated

with the adoption of the micro-frontends are related to

technical and operational complexities, including the

implementation of pipelines, and reusability, where

challenges such as conﬂict resolution and code re-

dundancy become evident (Figure 8). The stud-

ies PS2, PS10, PS12, PS20 and PS21 highlighted

the increase in Operational Complexity as a nega-

tive impact resulting from the adoption of the micro-

frontends architecture. For example, the study PS12

compared two implementation strategies of micro-

frontends using the Iframes and Module Federation

patterns. The results showed that, in a decentralized

architecture, scaling the release and deployment pro-

cesses becomes essential to support multiple applica-

tions. This, in turn, introduces a new type of com-

plexity. This increase in complexity was attributed, in

part, to the considerable effort required in conﬁgur-

ing environments, as mentioned by study PS20. This

complexity can result in a steep learning curve and

require efﬁcient conﬁguration management practices.

Regarding Team Efﬁciency, while some studies

highlight potential improvements in software devel-

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

112

opment team management—such as increased auton-

omy, which allows teams to focus on their speciﬁc do-

main and make independent architecture and imple-

mentation decisions—others reveal signiﬁcant chal-

lenges. Study PS17, for instance, demonstrated that

while micro-frontend architecture provided beneﬁts

in rewriting the Resident Portal application, it also in-

troduced complexities that impacted efﬁciency. These

challenges included increased coordination overhead,

the need for standardized communication between

teams, and potential inconsistencies in user experi-

ence due to decentralized development.

Furthermore, although sources such as Geers

(Geers, 2020) suggest that micro-frontend architec-

ture is ideal for medium to large-scale applications,

its adoption in smaller organizations, as observed in

study PS1, led to an increase in payload size and the

number of requests to servers, thereby raising oper-

ational costs. Additionally, studies PS6 and PS17

also highlight that the necessity of maintaining mul-

tiple independent frontends results in duplicated ef-

forts and higher operational burdens. Collectively,

these studies indicate that while micro-frontend archi-

tecture offers advantages, it also introduces trade-offs

that can signiﬁcantly increase Operational Costs, par-

ticularly for teams with limited resources.

Regarding Reusability, the negative impact was

emphasized by the presence of redundancy and con-

ﬂicts in the source code, as evidenced in studies PS5,

PS11, and PS13. These issues highlight the impor-

tance of adopting effective coding and reuse tech-

niques. In this context, study PS6 suggests that com-

ponentization, along with the use of libraries and plu-

gins, can help mitigate redundancy and minimize con-

ﬂicts in the code.

4.3 RQ.3. What Challenges Do

Software Development Teams

Encounter when Adopting

Micro-Frontends?

According to the selected studies, the challenges

faced by software development teams when adopt-

ing micro-frontends are related to Team Coordination,

Environment Conﬁguration, Application Efﬁciency,

and Reusability.

Challenges in Team Coordination. As differ-

ent teams may be developing independent micro-

frontends, coordination between these teams can be-

come complex. It is essential to establish effective

communication and collaboration strategies to pre-

vent conﬂicts and ensure software cohesion. Only

study PS7 reported team coordination as a challenge,

likely due to the project’s small scale.

Challenges in Environment Conﬁguration. Con-

ﬁguring environments to support the continuous ex-

ecution and integration of multiple micro-frontends

can be challenging. Environment conﬁguration for

micro-frontends involves both technical complexity

and operational costs, as presented in Figure 8. These

challenges were also reported in studies PS7, PS9,

PS12, PS15, and PS18. Furthermore, studies PS1,

PS3, PS5, PS13, PS16, and PS15 emphasized the im-

portance of a strategic and proactive approach to over-

coming orchestration challenges, considering project-

speciﬁc factors such as requirements, technologies in-

volved (Docker and Kubernetes), and intended scala-

bility.

Challenges in Application Efﬁciency. This chal-

lenge includes aspects inherent to software develop-

ment, used to achieve results such as decoupling,

scalability, productivity, ﬂexibility, and performance.

The aspects include state management, communi-

cation patterns, navigation and routing, composi-

tion, and user experience, including developer experi-

ence. These challenges were identiﬁed in studies PS1,

PS10, PS15, PS18, PS19, PS20, and PS21.

Challenges in Reusability. Studies PS22, PS8, and

PS13 identiﬁed challenges related to the complexity

of code and component reuse, including difﬁculty in

efﬁciently managing CSS style conﬂicts and code re-

dundancy (PS13). These challenges highlight the in-

herent difﬁculty in integrating various frontends and

teams working on a single system, even when divided

among different teams and micro-applications, as the

system must ultimately appear seamless for a better

user experience. One solution to mitigating style con-

ﬂicts and avoiding code duplication is the adoption

of a Design System (studies PS2, PS3, PS10, PS11,

PS12, PS13, PS15, PS18, and PS21).

5 DISCUSSION

Micro-frontends have emerged as a promising archi-

tectural approach to address the challenges of modern

software development frontend, particularly in foster-

ing agility, scalability, and independent deployment

of frontend components. This systematic mapping

study (SMS) synthesized a broad range of literature

to examine the architectural patterns, implementation

Micro-Frontend Architecture in Software Development: A Systematic Mapping Study

113

strategies, impacts, and challenges associated with

micro-frontends.

The analysis of architectural views shows a strate-

gic approach by organizations to enhance modular-

ity and scalability while optimizing communication

between components. The widespread adoption of

API views underscores the role of APIs as pivotal

in enabling independent micro-frontends, facilitat-

ing seamless backend communication and support-

ing efﬁcient development and maintenance practices

across diverse frameworks and technologies. Simi-

larly, views such as Single-SPA and Web Components

illustrate the ﬂexibility and modularity achievable

without strict dependencies on speciﬁc frameworks,

promoting adaptability and simplifying the integra-

tion of new features. Containerization and orches-

tration views, alongside emerging concepts such as

Module Federation, further illustrate evolving prac-

tices aimed at maximizing code reuse and operational

efﬁciency. Overall, these architectural visions under-

score the adaptability and strategic value of micro-

frontend architectures in modern software develop-

ment landscapes.

In parallel, the study of architectural patterns

reveals a comprehensive landscape of strategies

adopted by development teams. These patterns, rang-

ing from framework choices (such as Angular, React,

and Vue) to communication and composition patterns,

underscore the ﬂexibility and complexity inherent in

micro-application development. Key patterns such

as Iframe for deployment agility, Design System for

interface standardization, and Routing for enhanced

user experience illustrate the diverse approaches to

managing frontend complexity and improving appli-

cation scalability. These patterns may facilitate the

integration, scalability, and maintainability of appli-

cations, while also highlighting the complexities in-

volved. Understanding these patterns and their im-

plications helps in making informed decisions during

the adoption and implementation of micro-frontends,

ensuring a balanced approach between innovation and

operational efﬁciency.

The adoption of micro-frontends offers signiﬁcant

beneﬁts to software development projects. Improved

team efﬁciency, highlighted by autonomous develop-

ment teams making independent architectural deci-

sions, enhances productivity and responsiveness to

market demands. Deployment efﬁciency is also no-

table, with micro-frontends enabling incremental up-

dates, reduced deployment risks, and faster time-to-

market. Furthermore, the scalability and ﬂexibility

afforded by micro-frontends cater to diverse applica-

tion requirements, supporting the dynamic scaling of

components based on user demand. This adaptability

is particularly advantageous in sectors requiring rapid

iteration and deployment cycles, such as e-commerce

and content management systems.

Despite its beneﬁts, the adoption of micro-

frontends introduces certain challenges. Techni-

cal complexity arises from managing multiple fron-

tend technologies, necessitating reliable conﬁguration

management and infrastructure orchestration. Chal-

lenges in ensuring consistent user experiences across

micro-frontends, especially in handling state manage-

ment and interface coherence, require careful archi-

tectural planning and design. Moreover, concerns

over code reusability and integration complexities

highlight the importance of establishing clear devel-

opment standards and enforcing best practices. Ad-

dressing these challenges requires ongoing reﬁnement

of architectural strategies, investment in developer

training, and adoption of tools that streamline collab-

oration and code management.

6 THREATS TO VALIDITY

Construction Validity. We ensured clarity in def-

initions of concepts and terms used in the primary

studies, focusing on views and patterns in micro-

frontends architecture. We recognized the threat of

conceptual divergences, such as different interpreta-

tions of component communication and variations in

strategies such as Single-SPA or Module Federation.

To mitigate this, we included deﬁnitions aligned with

widely accepted practices, analyzed each study in its

business context, and mapped relationships between

perspectives and results in section 7.

Internal Validity. To address selection bias, we es-

tablished inclusion criteria representing different im-

plementation approaches. We also discussed con-

founding factors and emphasized the observational

nature of included studies, which limits causal infer-

ence. Reusability and conceptual divergence can af-

fect consistency in deﬁning practices, but addressing

divergences during analysis can enhance validity. Op-

erational complexity and costs, inﬂuenced by imple-

mentation diversity, also impact results. We assessed

the relationship between these factors to mitigate va-

lidity threats. Efﬁciency aspects such as decoupling,

scalability, and performance vary by project size and

complexity, requiring contextualized evaluation. De-

ployment strategies and team efﬁciency are critical in

validating conclusions.

External Validity. Given the modular nature of

micro-frontends, results from speciﬁc contexts may

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

114

not apply universally. The diversity in implementa-

tions means that ﬁndings from one context may not

be directly applicable to others. We addressed this

by transparently discussing the results and consider-

ing the variety of approaches used, which improved

the external validity of our conclusions. The selected

studies covered different scenarios, from large enter-

prise applications to smaller, agile setups, enhancing

the sturdiness and representativeness of our ﬁndings.

This approach allowed for more generalized insights

that can guide best practices across various use cases.

7 CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we explored fundamental strategies and

guidelines to address the challenges and maximize the

beneﬁts of adopting micro-frontends through a Sys-

tematic Mapping Study. The results emphasize the

need for strategies to enhance the beneﬁts and miti-

gate challenges associated with this emerging archi-

tecture. Based on the ﬁndings of this research and

the identiﬁed gaps, a promising area for future explo-

ration involves conducting more in-depth studies on

speciﬁc aspects of micro-frontends architecture. This

includes detailed investigations into communication

strategies between micro-frontends, integration pat-

terns, and state management techniques, aiming for

a deeper understanding of their practical implications

and potential improvements.

Additionally, expanding research through empiri-

cal studies to validate and deepen this work’s conclu-

sions is essential. Collecting quantitative and qual-

itative data in real software development environ-

ments will provide valuable insights into the per-

formance, scalability, and maintainability of micro-

frontends in different contexts. A systematic com-

parison with similar architectures, such as microser-

vices, will also help assess their advantages and dis-

advantages, guiding decisions on adopting and evolv-

ing micro-frontends.

Looking ahead, further research is needed to ad-

dress emerging trends and challenges. Exploring

advanced composition strategies, enhancing tooling

support, and optimizing performance and scalability

are key areas of focus. Empirical studies evaluating

real-world implementations and comparative analyses

across architectures will offer deeper insights into the

long-term viability of micro-frontends.

REFERENCES

Abdelfattah, A. S. and Cern

y, T. (2023). Filling the gaps in

microservice frontend communication: Case for new

frontend patterns. In van Steen, M. and Pahl, C., edi-

tors, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference

on Cloud Computing and Services Science, CLOSER

2023, Prague, Czech Republic, April 26-28, 2023,

pages 184–193. SCITEPRESS.

Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., Turner, M.,

and Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the sys-

tematic literature review process within the software

engineering domain. J. Syst. Softw., 80(4):571–583.

uhler, F., Barzen, J., Harzenetter, L., Leymann, F., and

Wundrack, P. (2022). Combining the best of two

worlds: Microservices and micro frontends as basis

for a new plugin architecture. In Barzen, J., Leymann,

F., and Dustdar, S., editors, Service-Oriented Com-

puting - 16th Symposium and Summer School, Sum-

merSOC 2022, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece, July 3-9,

2022, Revised Selected Papers, volume 1603 of Com-

munications in Computer and Information Science,

pages 3–23. Springer.

Gashi, E., Hyseni, D., Shabani, I., and C¸ ic¸o, B. (2024). The

advantages of micro-frontend architecture for devel-

oping web application. In 2024 13th Mediterranean

Conference on Embedded Computing (MECO), pages

1–5.

Geers, M. (2020). Micro Frontends in Action. Manning

Publications.

Harms, H., Rogowski, C., and Iacono, L. L. (2017). Guide-

lines for adopting frontend architectures and pat-

terns in microservices-based systems. In Bodden, E.,

Sch

afer, W., van Deursen, A., and Zisman, A., editors,

Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foun-

dations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2017,

Paderborn, Germany, September 4-8, 2017, pages

902–907. ACM.

Lewis, J. and Fowler, M. (2014). Microservices. AAccessed

on January 6, 2024.

Lorenz, J., Lohse, C., and Urbas, L. (2021). Microfrontends

as opportunity for process orchestration layer archi-

tecture in modular process plants. In 26th IEEE Inter-

national Conference on Emerging Technologies and

Factory Automation, ETFA 2021, Vasteras, Sweden,

September 7-10, 2021, pages 1–4. IEEE.

annist

o, T., Tuovinen, A., and Raatikainen, M. (2023).

Experiences on a frameworkless micro-frontend ar-

chitecture in a small organization. In 20th Inter-

national Conference on Software Architecture, ICSA

2023 - Companion, L’Aquila, Italy, March 13-17,

2023, pages 61–67. IEEE.

Mena, M., Corral, A., Iribarne, L., and Criado, J. (2019). A

progressive web application based on microservices

combining geospatial data and the internet of things.

IEEE Access, 7:104577–104590.

Mezzalira, L. (2021). Building Micro-Frontends. O’Reilly

Media.

Mohammed, S., Fiaidhi, J., Sawyer, D., and Lamouchie,

M. (2022). Developing a graphql SOAP conversa-

Micro-Frontend Architecture in Software Development: A Systematic Mapping Study

115

tional micro frontends for the problem oriented med-

ical record (QL4POMR). In Proceedings of the 6th

International Conference on Medical and Health In-

formatics, ICMHI 2022, Virtual Event, Japan, May

13-15, 2022, pages 52–60. ACM.

Moraes, F. R., Campos, G. N., de Almeida, N. R., and

Affonso, F. J. (2024). Micro frontend-based de-

velopment: Concepts, motivations, implementation

principles, and an experience report. In Filipe, J.,

Smialek, M., Brodsky, A., and Hammoudi, S., editors,

Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on

Enterprise Information Systems, ICEIS 2024, Angers,

France, April 28-30, 2024, Volume 2, pages 175–

184, https://doi.org/10.5220/0012627300003690.

SCITEPRESS.

Nishizu, Y. and Kamina, T. (2022). Implementing micro

frontends using signal-based web components. J. Inf.

Process., 30:505–512.

Noppadol, N. and Limpiyakorn, Y. (2021). Application of

micro-frontends to legal search engine web develop-

ment. In Kim, H. and Kim, K. J., editors, IT Con-

vergence and Security, pages 165–173, Singapore.

Springer Singapore.

Pavlenko, A., Askarbekuly, N., Megha, S., and Mazzara,

M. (2020). Micro-frontends: application of microser-

vices to web front-ends. J. Internet Serv. Inf. Secur.,

10(2):49–66.

Peltonen, S., Mezzalira, L., and Taibi, D. (2021). Mo-

tivations, beneﬁts, and issues for adopting micro-

frontends: A multivocal literature review. Inf. Softw.

Technol., 136:106571.

Perlin, R., Ebling, D., Maran, V., Descovi, G., and

Machado, A. (2023). An approach to follow microser-

vices principles in frontend. In 2023 IEEE 17th In-

ternational Conference on Application of Information

and Communication Technologies (AICT), pages 1–6.

Petcu, A., Frunzete, M., and Stoichescu, D. (2023). Ben-

eﬁts, challenges, and performance analysis of a scal-

able web architecture based on micro-frontends. UPB

Scientiﬁc Bulletin, Series C: Electrical Engineering

and Computer Science, 85(3):319–334. cited By 0.

oskei, I. and Bub, U. (2021). Enterprise-level migra-

tion to micro frontends in a multi-vendor environment.

Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 18(8):7 – 25. Cited by:

4; All Open Access, Bronze Open Access.

Rappl, F. and Sch

ottner, L. (2021). The Art of Micro Fron-

tends: Build websites using compositional UIs that

grow naturally as your application scales. Packt Pub-

lishing.

Shakil, M. and Zoitl, A. (2020). Towards a modular archi-

tecture for industrial hmis. In 25th IEEE International

Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory

Automation, ETFA 2020, Vienna, Austria, September

8-11, 2020, pages 1267–1270. IEEE.

Sim

oes, B., del Puy Carretero, M., Santiago, J. M., Segovia,

S. M., and Alca

ın, N. (2023). Twinark: A uniﬁed

framework for digital twins based on micro-frontends,

micro-services, and web 3d. In Posada, J., Moreno,

A., Jaspe, A., Mu

noz-Pandiella, I., Stricker, D., Mou-

ton, C., Mohammed, A., and Elizalde, A., editors, The

28th International ACM Conference on 3D Web Tech-

nology, Web3D 2023, San Sebastian, Spain, October

9-11, 2023, pages 9:1–9:10. ACM.

Sorgalla, J., Wizenty, P., Rademacher, F., Sachweh, S., and

undorf, A. (2021). Applying model-driven engineer-

ing to stimulate the adoption of devops processes in

small and medium-sized development organizations.

SN Comput. Sci., 2(6):459.

SPA, S. (2022). Single spa - getting started overview. Ac-

cessed on January 6, 2024.

Stefanovska, E. and Trajkovik, V. (2022). Evaluating

micro frontend approaches for code reusability. In

Zdravkova, K. and Basnarkov, L., editors, ICT Innova-

tions 2022. Reshaping the Future Towards a New Nor-

mal - 14th International Conference, ICT Innovations

2022, Skopje, Macedonia, September 29 - October 1,

2022, Proceedings, volume 1740 of Communications

in Computer and Information Science, pages 93–106.

Springer.

Taibi, D. and Mezzalira, L. (2022). Micro-frontends: Prin-

ciples, implementations, and pitfalls. ACM SIGSOFT

Softw. Eng. Notes, 47(4):25–29.

Tilak, P. Y., Yadav, V., Dharmendra, S. D., and Bolloju,

N. (2020). A platform for enhancing application de-

veloper productivity using microservices and micro-

frontends. In 2020 IEEE-HYDCON, pages 1–4.

Wang, D., Yang, D., Zhou, H., Wang, Y., Hong, D., Dong,

Q., and Song, S. (2020). A novel application of educa-

tional management information system based on mi-

cro frontends. In Cristani, M., Toro, C., Zanni-Merk,

C., Howlett, R. J., and Jain, L. C., editors, Knowledge-

Based and Intelligent Information & Engineering Sys-

tems: Proceedings of the 24th International Confer-

ence KES-2020, Virtual Event, 16-18 September 2020,

volume 176 of Procedia Computer Science, pages

1567–1576. Elsevier.

Wanjala, S. T. (2022). A framework for implementing mi-

cro frontend architecture. Int. J. Web Eng. Technol.,

17(4):337–352.

Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., H

ost, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Reg-

nell, B., and Wessl

en, A. (2012). Systematic Litera-

ture Reviews, chapter 4, pages 45–54. Springer Berlin

Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Yang, C., Liu, C., and Su, Z. (2019). Research and ap-

plication of micro frontends. IOP Conference Series:

Materials Science and Engineering, 490(6):062082.

Zhang, C., Zhang, D., Zhou, H., Wang, X., Lv, L., Zhang,

R., Xie, Y., Liu, H., Li, Y., Jia, D., Huang, Y., and

Jiang, T. (2023). Application business information

interaction bus based on micro frontend framework.

In 2023 7th International Symposium on Computer

Science and Intelligent Control (ISCSIC), pages 306–

310, Los Alamitos, CA, USA. IEEE Computer Soci-

ety.

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

116