An MADM risk-based evaluation-selection model of free-libre open source software tools

Abstract

Free-Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) tools are free-cost license highly attractive to be implemented by organizations. However, not of all the FLOSS tools are mature, and failed implementations can occur. Thus, FLOSS evaluation-selection frameworks and FLOSS success-failure implementation factors studies have been conducted. In this research, we advance on such studies through an integrated FLOSS evaluation-selection model with a risk-based decision making approach. Our model was built upon the other two literatures, and it was structured as a Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM) model which contains 12 variables grouped in four risk categories: financial, organizational, enduser and technical ones. We illustrated its utilization in the domain of Information Technology Service Management (ITSM) FLOSS tools. Hence, our model contributes to the FLOSS literature with the inclusion of the risk management approach and to the FLOSS evaluation-selection praxis with the provision of an innovative and essential risk-based model. Keywords

An MADM risk-based evaluation-selection model of free-libre open source software tools

“…Additional studies from 2006-2013 period complement the findings on FLOSS implementation enablers and inhibitors (Ven and Verelst, 2006;Morgan and Finnegan, 2007;Gallego et al, 2008;Sohn and Mok, 2008;Lee et al, 2009;Hauge et al, 2010;Nagy et al, 2010;Rossi et al, 2012;Li et al, 2013). In Ven and Verelst's study (2006), five case studies are reported from Belgian organizations that adopted the utilization of a FLOSS operating system.…”

“…We found 12 FLOSS evaluation frameworks in the literature: Capgemini Open Source Maturity Model (Duijnhouwer and Widdow, 2003), Navica Open Source Maturity Model (OSMM) (Golden, 2005), Open Business Readiness Rating (OpenBRR) (OpenBRR.org, 2005), Open Business Quality Rating (OpenBQR) (Taibi et al, 2007), Quality Model for Open Source Selection (QMOSS) (Sung et al, 2007), QualOSS (Deprez, 2008), Software Quality Observatory for Open Source Software model (SQO-OSS) (Samoladas et al, 2008), OpenSource Maturity Model (OMM) (Petrinja et al, 2009), QualiPSo-Quality Platform for Open Source Software (del Bianco et al, 2009), IRCA Model (Wheeler, 2011), Method for Qualification and Selection of Open Source Software (QSOSv2) (QSOS.org, 2013), and the Evaluation Framework for Free/Open Source Projects (EFFORT) (Aversano and Tortorella, 2013). We analyzed carefully these 12 FLOSS evaluation frameworks for: 1) assessing their overall suitability for being applied in IT areas of small business, and 2) identifying the shared criteria structure.…”

“…In next study of Lee et al (2009) surveyed international Linux communities. They found the following enablers: quality, community support, expert developer community, and usefulness (satisfaction).…”

ITSM Software Ranking for Small Medium Enterprises Based on ITIL V3 Quick Win Criteria using Fuzzy SIR Method

“…Several studies have tried to compare ITSM software including by [1], [2], [5], [16]- [19]. These studies have the same purpose, namely, to evaluate and rank software based on ITSM criteria.…”

“…This research also adds several nonfunctional criteria, including portability, platforms, security, etc. While [18], [19] use four main criteria in the form of risk factors, for example for financial risk, there are two attributes, namely new business opportunity and switching costs. The organizational risk in the form of training, user investment, top management support, enduser risk in the form of functionality, usability, quality, and usefulness.…”