oru.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Component attributes and their importance in decisions and component selection
Örebro University, Örebro University School of Business.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0311-1502
RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Software Engineering Research Lab (SERL), Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.
RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: Software quality journal, ISSN 0963-9314, E-ISSN 1573-1367Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

Component-based software engineering is a common approach in the development and evolution of contemporary software systems. Different component sourcing options are available, such as: (1) Software developed internally (in-house), (2) Software developed outsourced, (3) Commercial off-the-shelf software, and (4) Open-Source Software. However, there is little available research on what attributes of a component are the most important ones when selecting new components. The objective of this study is to investigate what matters the most to industry practitioners when they decide to select a component. We conducted a cross-domain anonymous survey with industry practitioners involved in component selection. First, the practitioners selected the most important attributes from a list. Next, they prioritized their selection using the Hundred-Dollar ($100) test. We analyzed the results using compositional data analysis. The results of this exploratory analysis showed that cost was clearly considered to be the most important attribute for component selection. Other important attributes for the practitioners were: support of the componentlongevity prediction, and level of off-the-shelf fit to product. Moreover, several practitioners still consider in-house software development to be the sole option when adding or replacing a component. On the other hand, there is a trend to complement it with other component sourcing options and, apart from cost, different attributes factor into their decision. Furthermore, in our analysis, nonparametric tests and biplots were used to further investigate the practitioners’ inherent characteristics. It seems that smaller and larger organizations have different views on what attributes are the most important, and the most surprising finding is their contrasting views on the cost attribute: larger organizations with mature products are considerably more cost aware.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2019.
Keywords [en]
Component-based software engineering, Component sourcing options, Decision making, Compositional data analysis, Cumulative voting
National Category
Information Systems, Social aspects
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-76412DOI: 10.1007/s11219-019-09465-2OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-76412DiVA, id: diva2:1351304
Funder
Knowledge FoundationAvailable from: 2019-09-13 Created: 2019-09-13 Last updated: 2019-09-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Chatzipetrou, Panagiota

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Chatzipetrou, Panagiota
By organisation
Örebro University School of Business
In the same journal
Software quality journal
Information Systems, Social aspects

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 31 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf