Unsolved Tricky Issues on COTS Selection and Evaluation

Unsolved Tricky Issues on COTS Selection and Evaluation

Dr. Muhammad Shakeel Faridi MS (Computer Science)

Contact

Dr. Zahid Javed

Contact

Ahsan Raza Sattar

Contact

University of Agriculture Faisalabad

Unsolved Tricky Issues on COTS Selection and Evaluation

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

4E3TY

Unsolved Tricky Issues on COTS Selection and Evaluation Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Connecting with the Eternal Ground

Abstract

Component Based Software Engineering (CBSE) approach is based on the idea to develop software systems by selecting appropriate components and then to assemble them with a well-defined software architecture. (CBSE) offers developers the twin benefits of reduced software life cycles, shorter development times , saving cost and less effort as compare to build own component. However the success of the component based paradigm depends on the quality of the commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components purchased and integrated into the existing software systems. It is need of the time to present a quality model that can be used by software programmer to evaluate the quality of software components before integrating them into legacy systems. The evaluation and selection of the COTS components are the most critical process. These evaluation and selection method cannot be resolved by the IT professionals itself. In this study the author tried to compare the twenty three available systematic methods for best evaluation and selection of COTS components.

References

38 Cites in Article

Reference Format

D Firesmith (2005). Achieving Quality Requirements with Reused Software Components: Challenges to Successful Reuse.
M Vigder,J Dean (1996). Building maintainable COTS based systems.
Barry Boehm,Alexander Egyed,Dan Port,Archita Shah,Julie Kwan,Ray Madachy (2003). A stakeholder win–win approach to software engineering education.
N Maiden,C Ncube (1998). Acquiring COTS software selection requirements.
G Ruhe (2003). Intelligent Support for Selection of COTS Products.
T Saaty (1990). The analytic hierarchy process.
D Carney (1998). Evaluation of COTS Products: Some Thoughts on the Process.
Sara Moussawi,Joseph Mertz,Jeria Quesenberry,Xiaoying Tu,Julia Poepping,Larry Heimann,Raja Sooriamurthi,Divakaran Liginlal,Christopher Kowalsky,Martin Barrett,Gabriela Gongora-Svartzman,Oscar Veliz,Laura Pottmeyer,Michael Melville (1998). Building Future Information Systems Leaders: The Crucial Role of Problem Scoping in Service-Learning Experiences.
J Kontio,G Caldiera,V Basili (1996). Defining factors, goals and criteria for reusable component evaluation.
X Franch,J Carvallo (2003). Using quality models in software package selection.
J Carvallo,X Franch,G Grau,C Quer (2004). COSTUME: a method for building quality models for composite cots-based software systems.
Alexander Redondo-Acuña,Beatriz Florian-Gaviria (2001). Software Quality Observation Model based on the ISO/IEC 29110 for Very Small Software Development Entities.
D Kunda,L Brooks (2000). Identifying and classifying processes (traditional and soft factors) that support COTS component selection: a case study.
P Oberndorf,L Browns Word,E Morris,C Sledge (1997). Workshop on COTS Based Systems.
J Kontio (1995). OTSO: A Systematic Process for Reusable Software Component Selection.
M Morisio,A Tsoukiàs (1997). IusWare: a methodology for the evaluation and selection of software products.
R Lichota,R Vesprini,B Swanson (1997). PRISM Product Examination Process for component based development.
V Tran&d,Liu (1997). A Procurement-centric Model for Engineering Component-based Software Systems.
D Kunda,L Brooks (1999). Applying social technical approach for COTS election.
Lawrence Chung,Brian Nixon,Eric Yu,John Mylopoulos (2000). Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering.
M Ochs,D Pfahl,G Chrobok-Diening,B Nothhelfer-Kolb (2000). A method for efficient measurement-based COTS assessment and selection method description and evaluation results.
Lawrence Chung,Kendra Cooper (2003). Defining goals in a COTS‐aware requirements engineering approach.
L Chung,K Cooper (2002). Knowledge-based COTSaware requirements engineering approach.
Lawrence Chung,Kendra Cooper (2004). Defining goals in a COTS‐aware requirements engineering approach.
L Chung,K Cooper (2004). Matching, ranking, and selecting components: a COTS-aware requirements engineering and software architecting approach.
Santiago Comella-Dorda,John Dean,Edwin Morris,Patricia Oberndorf (2002). A Process for COTS Software Product Evaluation.
Sallie Gregor,Joseph Hutson,Colleen Oresky (2002). Storyboard Process to Assist in Requirements Verification and Adaptation to Capabilities Inherent in COTS.
X Burgues,C Estay,X Franch,J Pastor,C Quer (2002). Combined Selection of COTS Components.
Ismail Erol,William Ferrell (2003). A methodology for selection problems with multiple, conflicting objectives and both qualitative and quantitative criteria.
G Grau,J Carvallo,X Franch,C Quer (2004). DesCOTS: a software system for selecting COTS components.
Abdallah Mohamed,Guenther Ruhe,Armin Eberlein (2007). Decision Support for Handling Mismatches between COTS Products and System Requirements.
J Kontio (null). A case study in applying a systematic method for COTS selection.
L Chung,K Cooper (2004). Matching, ranking, and selecting components: a COTS-aware requirements engineering and software architecting approach.
Jesal Bhuta,Barry Boehm (2005). A Method for Compatible COTS Component Selection.
Paris Avgeriou,Nicolas Guelfi (2005). Resolving Architectural Mismatches of COTS Through Architectural Reconciliation.
Mary Shaw (1995). Architectural issues in software reuse.
Catalunya Navarrete (2005). How agile COTS selection methods are (and can be)?.
Abdel Ibrahim,H Halim,Far (2011). Eberlein3 "UnHOS: A Method for Uncertainty Handling in Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Selection.

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Dr. Muhammad Shakeel Faridi. 2012. \u201cUnsolved Tricky Issues on COTS Selection and Evaluation\u201d. Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology - D: Neural & AI GJCST-D Volume 12 (GJCST Volume 12 Issue D10).

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

GJCST Volume 12 Issue D10

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/gjcst

Print ISSN 0975-4350

e-ISSN 0975-4172

Keywords

Commercial off-the-Shelf Component Based Software Engineering Software Architecture

Submission ReceivedDecember 13, 2011
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted January 3, 2012
Published January 15, 2012

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

August 22, 2012

Language

Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 108

Country: Unknown

Subject: Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology - D: Neural & AI

Authors: Dr. Zahid Javed, Ahsan Raza Sattar, Muhammad Shakeel Faridi (PhD/Dr. count: 1)

View Count (all-time): 361

Total Views (Real + Logic): 10238

Total Downloads (simulated): 2702

Publish Date: 2012 08, Wed

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 49 views
Month 2: 56 views
Month 3: 35 views
Month 4: 46 views
Month 5: 28 views
Month 6: 29 views
Month 7: 39 views
Month 8: 28 views
Month 9: 24 views
Month 10: 45 views
Month 11: 45 views
Month 12: 24 views
Month 13: 29 views
Month 14: 30 views
Month 15: 29 views
Month 16: 14 views
Month 17: 35 views
Month 18: 10 views
Month 19: 24 views
Month 20: 32 views
Month 21: 21 views
Month 22: 30 views
Month 23: 31 views
Month 24: 28 views
Month 25: 13 views
Month 26: 24 views
Month 27: 36 views
Month 28: 29 views
Month 29: 37 views
Month 30: 19 views
Month 31: 32 views
Month 32: 26 views
Month 33: 22 views
Month 34: 38 views
Month 35: 30 views
Month 36: 45 views
Month 37: 18 views
Month 38: 44 views
Month 39: 15 views
Month 40: 19 views
Month 41: 44 views
Month 42: 16 views
Month 43: 29 views
Month 44: 48 views
Month 45: 20 views
Month 46: 33 views
Month 47: 25 views
Month 48: 23 views
Month 49: 20 views
Month 50: 29 views
Month 51: 34 views
Month 52: 16 views
Month 53: 27 views
Month 54: 42 views
Month 55: 42 views
Month 56: 30 views
Month 57: 39 views
Month 58: 29 views
Month 59: 42 views
Month 60: 31 views
Month 61: 39 views
Month 62: 24 views
Month 63: 44 views
Month 64: 45 views
Month 65: 35 views
Month 66: 25 views
Month 67: 14 views
Month 68: 37 views
Month 69: 36 views
Month 70: 28 views
Month 71: 19 views
Month 72: 40 views
Month 73: 22 views
Month 74: 12 views
Month 75: 32 views
Month 76: 19 views
Month 77: 16 views
Month 78: 24 views
Month 79: 25 views
Month 80: 32 views
Month 81: 29 views
Month 82: 33 views
Month 83: 33 views
Month 84: 21 views
Month 85: 18 views
Month 86: 34 views
Month 87: 24 views
Month 88: 32 views
Month 89: 23 views
Month 90: 36 views
Month 91: 28 views
Month 92: 15 views
Month 93: 13 views
Month 94: 35 views
Month 95: 35 views
Month 96: 44 views
Month 97: 44 views
Month 98: 16 views
Month 99: 25 views
Month 100: 25 views
Month 101: 38 views
Month 102: 44 views
Month 103: 34 views
Month 104: 36 views
Month 105: 28 views
Month 106: 24 views
Month 107: 30 views
Month 108: 31 views
Month 109: 41 views
Month 110: 39 views
Month 111: 36 views
Month 112: 26 views
Month 113: 46 views
Month 114: 42 views
Month 115: 35 views
Month 116: 11 views
Month 117: 23 views
Month 118: 31 views
Month 119: 24 views
Month 120: 33 views
Month 121: 37 views
Month 122: 44 views
Month 123: 34 views
Month 124: 26 views
Month 125: 15 views
Month 126: 30 views
Month 127: 28 views
Month 128: 40 views
Month 129: 12 views
Month 130: 39 views
Month 131: 35 views
Month 132: 19 views
Month 133: 25 views
Month 134: 40 views
Month 135: 15 views
Month 136: 17 views
Month 137: 41 views
Month 138: 33 views
Month 139: 43 views
Month 140: 28 views
Month 141: 34 views
Month 142: 35 views
Month 143: 16 views
Month 144: 16 views
Month 145: 41 views
Month 146: 27 views
Month 147: 30 views
Month 148: 23 views
Month 149: 38 views
Month 150: 40 views
Month 151: 35 views
Month 152: 26 views
Month 153: 38 views
Month 154: 32 views
Month 155: 50 views
Month 156: 23 views
Month 157: 41 views
Month 158: 30 views
Month 159: 44 views
Month 160: 20 views
Month 161: 23 views
Month 162: 29 views
Month 163: 53 views
Month 164: 34 views
Month 165: 80 views
Month 166: 48 views

Total Views: 10238

Total Downloads: 2702

2026 Trends

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]