A COTS Component Comprehension Process

Interactive Decision Support for Multiobjective COTS Selection

“…corresponding empirical studies by [4], [5]) if development costs have to be kept at a comparatively low level. And finally, CBSE is stimulated by a growing number of technologies such as CORBA, JavaBeans/EJB, DCOM/ActiveX or .Net as well as by the availability of various component configuration and deployment tools [6].…”

“…Further note that CBSE aims at providing complex solutions in a more efficient and effective way (e.g., within less time and/or for lower costs), but there is a serious threat of underestimating technical risks associated with the selection, evaluation, and integration of these software components, which more often than not has resulted in considerable delays as well as budget overruns for development or maintenance [14]. Although typical tasks in a CBSE framework are pretty much alike [6], [14], [15] (for a typical example cf. Section III-A), there is, so far, no generally accepted COTS selection method [1].…”

“…Section III-A), there is, so far, no generally accepted COTS selection method [1]. According to Andrews [6], frameworks can be grouped into architecturedriven and requirements-driven approaches; the first group is represented by OTSO [2], BAREMO [16], or STACE [17], while SCARLET [18] as the successor of PORE [7] and CRE [19] are of the latter type.…”