Managing COTS Components Using a Six Sigma-Based Process

  • Alejandra Cechich
  • Mario Piattini
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3009)


While the objectives of Six Sigma are to reduce variation and prevent defects, it is also a management philosophy that includes the need for fact-based decisions, customer focus, and teamwork. In attempting to build a COTS integrated system, selection of candidates typically pays attention to specify search criteria and goals to be met. Yet they often overlook some elements in the process such as fact-based decisions and teamwork, which might drive the process helping increase the probability of success. In this paper, we describe and illustrate a Six Sigma-based proposal for the process of selecting and integrating COTS components. Our approach also suggests some tools and measures to be applied during its specific phases.


Source System Reuse Architect Customer Focus Semantic Adaptation Adopted Goal 
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. 1.
    Alexander, R., Blackburn, M.: Component Assessment Using Specification-Based Analysis and Testing. Technical Report SPC-98095-CMC, Software Productivity Consortium (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alves, C., Filkenstein, A.: Challenges in COTS-Decision Making: A Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering Perspective. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, SEKE 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ballurio, K., Scalzo, B., Rose, L.: Risk Reduction in COTS Software Selection with BASIS. In: Dean, J., Gravel, A. (eds.) ICCBSS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2255, pp. 31–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertoa, M., Troya, J., Vallecillo, A.: A Survey on the Quality Information Provided by Software Component Vendors. In: Proceedings of the 7th ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering, QAOOSE (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cechich, A., et al.: Component-Based Software Quality: Methods and Techniques. In: Cechich, A., Piattini, M., Vallecillo, A. (eds.) Component-Based Software Quality. LNCS, vol. 2693, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cechich, A., Piattini, M.: Defining Stability for Component Integration Assessment. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, ICEIS, pp. 251–256 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cechich, A., Piattini, M.: On the Measurement of COTS Functional Suitability. In: Kazman, R., Port, D. (eds.) ICCBSS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2959, pp. 31–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) (to appear)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chung, L., Subramanian, N.: Process-Oriented Metrics for Software Architecture Adaptability. In: Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE 2001), pp. 310–312 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deline, R.: A Catalog of Techniques for Resolving Packaging Mismatch. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Software Reusability, Los Angeles, CA (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Feo, J., Bar-El, Z.: Creating Strategic change more efficiently with a new Design for Six Sigma process. Journal of Change Management 3(1), 60–80 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gack, A., Robinson, K.: Integrating Improvement Initiatives: Connecting Six Sigma for Software, CMMI, Personal Software Process and Team Software Process. Software Quality Journal 5(4), 5–13Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    ISO International Standard ISO/IEC 9126. ISO/IEC 9126 - Information technology - Software product evaluation - Quality characteristics and guidelines for their use (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaiya, H., Horai, H., Saeki, M.: AGORA: Attributed Goal-Oriented Requirements Analysis Method. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, RE 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sedigh-Ali, S., Ghafoor, A., Paul, R.: Metrics-Based Framework for Decision Making in COTS-Based Software Systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE 2002), pp. 243–244 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tayntor, C.: Six Sigma Software Development. Auerbach Publications (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alejandra Cechich
    • 1
  • Mario Piattini
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Ciencias de la ComputaciónUniversidad Nacional del ComahueNeuquénArgentina
  2. 2.Escuela Superior de InformáticaUniversidad de Castilla-La ManchaCiudad RealEspaña

Personalised recommendations