Early detection of COTS component functional suitability

The adoption of COTS-based development brings with it many challenges about the identification and finding of candidate components for reuse. Particularly, the first stage in the identification of COTS candidates is commonly carried out by dealing with unstructured information on the Web, which makes the evaluation process highly costly when applying complex evaluation criteria. To facilitate this process, our proposal introduces an early measurement procedure for suitability of COTS candidates. Considering that filtering is about a first-stage selection, functionality evaluation might drive the analysis, proceeding with the evaluation of other properties only on the pre-selected candidates. In this way, a few candidates are fully evaluated making in principle the whole process more cost-effective. In this paper, we illustrate how functional measures at an initial state are calculated for an E-payment case study.

[1]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The Unified Software Development Process , 1999 .

[2]  C. Rolland,et al.  GUIDING GOAL MODELLING USING SCENARIOS , 1998 .

[3]  Veikko Seppänen,et al.  COTS component acquisition in an emerging market , 2004, IEEE Software.

[4]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Filtering COTS Components Through an Improvement-Based Process , 2005, ICCBSS.

[5]  R. Stake.  The art of case study research , 1995 .

[6]  Vincent Bouthors,et al.  eCots Platform: An Inter-industrial Initiative for COTS-Related Information Sharing , 2003, ICCBSS.

[7]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  Guiding parallel requirements acquisition and COTS software selection , 1999, Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (Cat. No.PR00188).

[8]  Christine B. Tayntor.  Six Sigma Software Development , 2002 .

[9]  Marco Torchiano,et al.  Overlooked aspects of COTS-based development , 2004, IEEE Software.

[10]  Xavier Franch,et al.  On Goal-Oriented COTS Taxonomies Construction , 2005, ICCBSS.

[11]  Leon Sterling,et al.  Experiences with Ontology Development for Value-Added Publishing , 2003, OAS.

[12]  Marco Torchiano,et al.  Characterization of a Taxonomy for Business Applications and the Relationships Among Them , 2004, ICCBSS.

[13]  Gary A. Gack,et al.  Integrating Improvement Initiatives: Connecting Six Sigma for Software, CMMI, Personal Software Process (PSP), and Team Software Process (TSP) , 2003 .

[14]  Colette Rolland,et al.  Guiding Goal Modeling Using Scenarios , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[15]  Antonio Vallecillo,et al.  A Survey on the Quality Information Provided by Software Component Vendors , 2003 .

[16]  Joseph De Feo,et al.  Creating strategic change more efficiently with a new Design for Six Sigma process , 2002 .

[17]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  Acquiring COTS Software Selection Requirements , 1998, IEEE Softw..

[18]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Quantifying COTS Component Functional Adaptation , 2004, ICSR.

[19]  T. Alexander,et al.  Component Assessment Using Specification-Ba sed Analysis and Testing , 1999 .

[20]  Marco Torchiano,et al.  Characterization of a Taxonomy for Business Applications and the Relationships Among Them , 2004, ICCBSS.

[21]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Early Detection of Cots Functional Suitability for an E-Payment Case Study , 2005, ICEIS.

[22]  Lisa Brownsword,et al.  Evolutionary Process for Integrating COTS-Based Systems (EPIC): An Overview , 2002 .

[23]  Marta Mattoso,et al.  The use of mediation and ontology technologies for software component information retrieval , 2001, SSR '01.

[24]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Balancing Stakeholder's Preferences on Measuring COTS Component Functional Suitability , 2004, ICEIS.

[25]  Claus Pahl.  Ontology-based Description and Reasoning for Component-based Development on the Web , 2003 .

[26]  Andrew P. Moore,et al.  Can We Ever Build Survivable Systems from COTS Components? , 2002, CAiSE.

[27]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[28]  Sven Overhage,et al.  UnSCom: A Standardized Framework for the Specification of Software Components , 2004, Net.ObjectDays.

[29]  M. Ochs,et al.  A method for efficient measurement-based COTS assessment and selection method description and evaluation results , 2001, Proceedings Seventh International Software Metrics Symposium.

[30]  Tomi Männistö,et al.  Representing Feature Models of Software Product Families Using a Configuration Ontology , 2004 .

[31]  Richard E. Biehl.  Six Sigma for Software , 2004, IEEE Softw..

[32]  Peter Loos,et al.  Classification framework for business components , 2000, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[33]  Chris Abts.  COTS-Based Systems (CBS) Functional Density -- A Heuristic for Better CBS Design , 2002, ICCBSS.

[34]  Mario Piattini,et al.  On the Measurement of COTS Functional Suitability , 2004, ICCBSS.

[35]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Managing COTS Components Using a Six Sigma-Based Process , 2004, PROFES.

[36]  Alessandro Bianchi,et al.  COTS Products Characterization: Proposal and Empirical Assessment , 2003, ESERNET.

[37]  Paul G. Bassett,et al.  Proceedings of the 2001 symposium on Software reusability: putting software reuse in context , 2001 .

[38]  Alejandra Cechich,et al.  Trends on COTS component identification , 2006, Fifth International Conference on Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS)-Based Software Systems (ICCBSS'05).

[39]  Claus Pahl.  An ontology for software component matching , 2006, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer.

[40]  Lamia Labed Jilani,et al.  Defining and Applying Measures of Distance Between Specifications , 2001, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[41]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  A spiral model of software development and enhancement , 1986, Computer.

[42]  Jingyue Li.  An empirical study on COTS component selection process in Norwegian IT companies , 2004, ICSE 2004.