The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.06 - November/December (2008 vol.25)
pp: 56-63
Barry Boehm , University of Southern California
Jesal Bhuta , Infosys
ABSTRACT
The increasingly rapid change in information technology makes it essential for software development projects to continuously monitor and adapt to new sources of opportunity and risk. Software projects and organizations can increase their success rates in software development by better assessing and balancing their opportunities and risks. The authors summarize the Incremental Commitment Model (ICM), a process framework for improved project monitoring and decision making based on balancing opportunities and risks. They give an example of how the ICM framework can improve component-based development choices based on assessment of opportunities and risks. They show how different opportunistic solutions result from different stakeholder value propositions. They elaborate on the risks involved in architectural mismatches among components, present a tool called the Integration Studio (iStudio) that enables projects to assess the most common sources of architectural mismatch between components. Finally, they present representative examples of its use.
INDEX TERMS
COTS, opportunities, risk, integration, Incremental Commitment Model, ICM, spiral, concurrent engineering, life-cycle processes, component-based software development
CITATION
Barry Boehm, Jesal Bhuta, "Balancing Opportunities and Risks in Component-Based Software Development", IEEE Software, vol.25, no. 6, pp. 56-63, November/December 2008, doi:10.1109/MS.2008.145
REFERENCES
1. D. Garlan, R. Allen, and J. Ockerbloom, "Architectural Mismatch: Why Reuse Is So Hard," IEEE Software, vol. 12, no. 6, 1995, pp. 17–26.
2. R.W. Pew and A.S. Mavor, Human-System Integration in the System Development Process: A New Look, Nat'l Academy Press, 2007.
3. B. Boehm and J. Lane, "Using the Incremental Commitment Model to Integrate System Acquisition, Systems Engineering, and Software Engineering," CrossTalk, Oct. 2007, pp. 4–9.
4. P. Kruchten, The Rational Unified Process, Addison-Wesley, 1999.
5. B. Boehm, "Anchoring the Software Process," IEEE Software, vol. 13, no. 4, 1996, pp. 73–82.
6. M. Maranzano et al., "Architecture Reviews: Practice and Experience," IEEE Software, vol. 22, no. 2, 2005, pp. 34–43.
7. C. Albert and L. Brownsword, Evolutionary Process for Integrating COTS-Based Systems (EPIC): An Overview, tech. report CMU/SEI2002-TR-009, Carnegie-Mellon Univ., July 2002.
8. B.C. Meyers and P. Oberndorf, Managing Software Acquisition: Open Systems and COTS Products, Addison-Wesley, 2002.
9. K. Wallnau, S. Hissam, and R. Seacord, Building Systems from Commercial Components, Addison-Wesley, 2002.
10. Y. Yang et al., "Value-Based Processes for COTS-Based Applications," IEEE Software, vol. 22, no. 4, 2005, pp. 54–62.
11. J. Bhuta, "A Framework for Intelligent Assessment and Resolution of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf Product Incompatibilities," doctoral dissertation, Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Southern California, 2007.
12. C. Gacek, "Detecting Architectural Mismatches during Systems Composition," doctoral dissertation, Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Southern California, 1998.
19 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool