The document summarizes a literature review on evaluating and selecting software packages. It discusses various methodologies, techniques, tools, and criteria discussed in the literature. The key findings are that analytic hierarchy process is widely used for evaluation. There is a lack of common evaluation criteria and need for a framework to assist decision makers. The literature contributes stage-based methodologies, systems/tools for evaluation, and describes techniques like analytic hierarchy process and criteria for evaluating software packages. Limitations include constraints of the literature search and non-English papers. The study provides an overview of the evaluation and selection domain and proposes a generic methodology and criteria.

1. Evaluating and selecting
software packages: A review
Anil S. Jadhav*, Rajendra M. Sonar
Information and Software Technology
vol.51 pp.555–563, 2009.
Big Wu
Presenter : Jin Liu
Dean Yeh

2. Keyword
• Software Evaluation
• Software Selection
• Evaluation Criteria
• Software Selection Tools
2

3. Overview
• Evaluating and selecting software packages
• That meet an organization’s requirements is a difficult
software engineering process.
• The aim of this paper is to provide a basis to improve the
process
• Selection of a wrong software package
• Can turn out to be costly and adversely affect business
processes.
3

4. Overview
• This paper reports a systematic review of papers
published in journals and conference proceedings.
• The review investigates methodologies that support
decision makers include:
Selecting
Software
Packages
Software
Evaluation
Techniques
Software
Evaluation
Criteria
System
4

5. Overview
• The key findings of the review are:
1. Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP) has been widely
used for evaluation of the software packages.
2. Lack of a common list of generic software
evaluation criteria and its meaning.
3. Need to develop a framework comprising to assist
decision makers in software selection.
5

6. Introduction
• B. Hecht (1997)
• Selecting the right solution is an exhausting process for
companies.
• J. Verville, A. Hallingten (2002)
• As ERP packages cost hundreds of thousands and even
millions of dollars, purchasing an ERP solution is a high
expenditure activity that consumes a significant portion of
companies’ capital budgets.
6

7. Research Questions
RQ1:
• What is the contribution of the literature in the field of
evaluation and selection of the software packages?
RQ2:
• What are the methodologies for selecting software
packages?
RQ3:
• What are the systems/tools to assist decision makers in
evaluating and selecting software packages?
RQ4:
• What are the software evaluation techniques?
RQ5:
• What are the software evaluation criteria?
7

8. Multiple Criteria Decision Making
(MCDM)
• K. Yoon, C. Hwang (1995) & E. Triantaphyllou (2000)
• MCDM refers to making preference decisions over the available
alternatives that are characterized by multiple, usually conflicting, attributes.
• M. Mollaghasemi, J. Pet-Edwards (1997)
• The goal of the MCDM is to help
1. Decision makers choose the best alternative of those studied.
2. Dort out alternatives that seem good among the set of alternatives studied.
3. Rank the alternatives in decreasing order of performance.
8

9. Literature review
P.K. Lawlis, K.E. Mark, D.A.
Thomas, T. Courtheyn, (1997)
B. Kizzort, (2001)
• A formal process for evaluating COTS software products,
IEEE Proceedings Software
• Selection of components for OTS component based
systems, IEEE
S. Comella-Dorda, J.C. Dean, E.
Morris, P. Oberndorf, (2002)
• A Process for COTS Software Product Evaluation, ICCBSS
K.R.P.H. Leung, Hareton K.N.
Leung, (2002)
• On the efficiency of domain-based COTS product selection
method, Information and Software Technology
C.-D. Santiago, C. John, M.
Edwin, O. Patricia, (2002)
• A process for COTS software product evaluation, ICCBSS
9

10. Literature review
D. Kunda, (2003)
K. Oh, N. Lee, S. Rhew,
(2003)
• STACE: Social Technical Approach to COTS Software
Evaluation Component Based Software Quality, LNCS,
• A selection process of COTS components based on the
quality of the software in a special attention to internet, HIS
G. Grau, J. Pablo Carvallo,
X. Franch, C. Quer, (2004)
• DesCOTS: a software system for selecting COTS
components, in: Proceedings of the 30th EUROMICRO
Conference, IEEE
J. Bhuta, B. Boehm, (2005)
• A Method for Compatible COTS Component Selection,
ICCBSS
10

11. Literature review
• In recent years, researchers have focused on models and methods for
reusable off-the-shelf (OTS) software selection.
1. Concentrate on evaluation and selection of specific software products.
2. Describe automated systems/tools that assist decision makers in various
activities involved in software evaluation and selection.
3. Describe only criteria for software selection and methodology for software
selection.
4. Relate to the evaluation of a single software attribute, quality or some quality subattribute, for a software product.
11

12. Software evaluation problem
situations
• Stamelos & Tsoukias (2003)
• analyzed the contents of different ‘‘problem situations” and
suggested a basic classification of software evaluation
problem situations:
Keep or Change
Make or Buy
Software
certification
Commercial
product
evaluation
Software
process
evaluation.
Tender
evaluation
Software
system design
selection.
12

13. Research method
1.
2.
3.
4.
Inclusion criteria
Search strategy and search
Paper selection
Data extraction
13

14. Inclusion criteria
1. Methodology for selecting software
packages
2. Software evaluation criteria
3. Software evaluation technique
4. System/Tool to assist decision makers in
evaluating software packages
14

15. Search strategy and search
• Search Database
ACM Portal
Elsevier’s
Science
Direct
IEEE Xplore
SpringerVerlag
15

16. Paper selection
1. Initial selection from the search results, based
on reading the abstract of the papers.
2. Final selection from the initially selected list of
papers, based on reading of entire paper.
 Reading all 130 papers in detail and considered
60 papers to be included in the final list for review.
16

17. Data extraction
17

18. Research Results
• The contribution of the reviewed literature in the
field of evaluation and selection.
• Contribution of the literature in the field of evaluation and
selection of the software packages (RQ1)
• The Software packages is presented stage-based
methodologies for selecting software packages.
• Software selection methodologies (RQ2)
18

19. Contribution of the literature in the field
of evaluation and selection
of the software packages (RQ1)
19

20. Software selection
methodologies (RQ2)
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
• Determining the need for purchasing by vendor.
• Short listing of candidate packages.
• Eliminating most candidate package.
• Using an evaluation technique of them.
20

21. Software selection
methodologies (RQ2)
Step 5:
• Doing further scrutiny by obtaining trial copy.
• Negotiating a contract specifying to terminate
any agreement.
Step 6:
• Purchasing and implementing most
appropriate software package.
Step 7:
21

22. Research Results
• Describes systems/tools to assist decision
makers in evaluating software packages.
• Systems/tools for evaluation and selection of software
packages(RQ3)
22

23. Systems/Tools for evaluation and
selection of software packages (RQ3)
23

24. Research Results
• Techniques for evaluating software packages
and software evaluation criteria are
described in :
• Software evaluation techniques (RQ4)
• Evaluation criteria (RQ5)
24

25. Software evaluation techniques
(RQ4)
Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP)
Feature Analysis
Weighted Average Sum (WAS)
Fuzzy Based Approach
25

26. Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP)
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
• AHP enables decision makers to
• AHP is time consuming because of the
structure a decision making problem
into a hierarchy, helping them to
understand and simplify the problem.
• It is flexible and powerful tool for
handling both qualitative and
quantitative multi-criteria problems.
• AHP procedures are applicable to
individual and group decision making.
mathematical calculations and number of pair-wise
comparisons that increases as the number of
alternatives and criteria increases.
• The decision makers need to re-evaluate
alternatives when the number of criteria or
alternatives are changed.
• Ranking of alternatives depends on the
alternatives consider edfor evaluation hence
adding or deleting alternatives can lead to changes
26
in the final rank.

27. Feature Analysis
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
• Evaluation can be done to any
• Producing the single number from the
required level of detail by organizing
evaluation in different ways such as
screening mode, case study, formal
experiment and survey.
individual scores may be misleading
because many different combinations
of numbers can produce the same
aggregate score.
• It is used not only for technical
evaluation but also for evaluation of
viability of supplier.
27

28. Weighted Average Sum (WAS)
Strengths:
• Main advantage of WAS is its
ease of use.
Weaknesses:
• Weights to the attribute are assigned
arbitrary and it is very difficult to assign
weight when number of criteria is high.
• To obtain a score using this method a
common numerical scaling is required.
• Difficulties emerge when WAS is applied to
multi-dimensional MCDM problems.
28

29. Fuzzy Based Approach
Strengths:
• The decision makers can use
linguistic terms to evaluate
alternatives easily and intuitively.
• It improves decision making
procedure by accommodating the
vagueness and ambiguity occurred
during human decision making.
Weaknesses:
• Difficult to compute fuzzy
appropriateness index values
and ranking values for all
alternatives.
29

30. Evaluation criteria (RQ5)
Software quality characteristics
30

31. Evaluation criteria (RQ5)
Vendor & Functional characteristics
31

32. Evaluation criteria (RQ5)
Cost and Benefits & Hardware and Software
32

33. Evaluation criteria (RQ5)
Opinions from technical and non-technical sources & Output
33

34. Limitations
• This study has the usual limitations associated with any systematic
literature review.
• With respect to the search process, we have limited ourselves to
English language studies and to four major electronic databases
and search terms related to the terms ‘‘evaluation” and ‘‘selection”.
• This strategy will not find non-English language papers, paper in
many national journals and conferences, or papers that use
unusual terminology.
34

35. Conclusions
• This study provides an overview of the
literature associated with evaluation and
selection of software packages.
• On the basis of literature review we propose
generic software selection methodology and
evaluation criteria.
35

36. Thanks for Your Listening
Q&A
36