The Limitations of Current Decision-Making Techniques in the Procurement of COTS Software Components

  • Cornelius Ncube
  • John C. Dean
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2255)


The fundamentals of good decision-making are, first, a clear understanding of the decision itself and second the availability of properly focused information to support the decision. Decision-making techniques help with both these problems. However, the techniques should be thought of as aids to decision-making and not the substitutes for it. Numerous decision-making techniques have been proposed as effective methods of ranking software products for selection for use as components in large-scale systems. Many of these techniques have been developed and successfully applied in other arenas and have been either used directly or adapted to be applied to COTS product evaluation and selection. This paper will show that many of these techniques are not valid when applied in this manner. We will describe an alternate requirements-driven technique that could be more effective.


Analytical Hierarchy Process Analytical Hierarchy Process Method Priority Vector Analytical Hierarchy Process Technique MCDA Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    Briand, L.C.: COTS evaluation and selection. Proc. International Conference on Software Maintenance, Bethesda, Nov. (1998) IEEE Comput. Soc, Los Alamitos, pp 222–223.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Nand K. Jha: Decision-Based Design Value Design. Position paper, Decision Based Design Open Workshop (1997).Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Farrokh Mistree and Janet K. Allen: Optimization in Decision-Based Design. Position Paper, Decision-Based Design Workshop, Orlando, Florida, April (1997).Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Robert J. Tkach & Slobodan P. Simonovic: A New Approach to Multi-Criteria Decision. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 25–43.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Anderson, E. E.: A Heuristic for Software Evaluation and Selection. Software Practice and Experience, vol 19(8), August (1989).Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Fenton, N.: Out Ranking Method for Multi-Criteria Decision Aid: with emphasis on its role in systems dependability assessment. Centre for Software Reliability, City University, London, UK (1994).Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Frair, L.: Student Peer Evaluations Using the AHP Method. Foundation Coalition, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, (1995).Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Kontio, J.: A Case Study in Applying a Systematic Method for COTS Selection. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, (1996).Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    MacCrimmon, R. K.: Proceedings of Multiple Criteria Decision Making. University of South Carolina, October 26-27, (1972).Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Morisio, M. and Tsoukias, A.: A Methodology for the Evaluation and Selection of Software Products. Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica, Politicnico di Torino, Italy, (1997).Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Saaty, L.T.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): How to make a decision. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, (1990), 9–26.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cornelius Ncube
    • 1
  • John C. Dean
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Technological Innovation (ITI)Zayed UniversityDubaiUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.Sotfware Engineering GroupInstitute for Information Technology National Research Council Canada

Personalised recommendations