Not All CBS Are Created Equally: COTS-Intensive Project Types

  • Barry W. Boehm
  • Dan Port
  • Ye Yang
  • Jesal Bhuta
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2580)


COTS products affect development strategies and tactics, but not all CBS development efforts are equal. Based on our experiences with 20 large government and industry CBS projects assessed during our development of the COCOTS estimation model, and our hands-on experience with 52 small e-services CBS projects within USC’s graduate level software engineering course, we have identi.ed four distinct CBS activity areas: assessment intensive, tailoring intensive, glue-code intensive, and non-COTS intensive. The CBS activity type fundamentally affects the COTS related activity effort and project risks. In this work we define the three COTS activity intensive CBS types and discuss their strategic comparisons based on an empirical study of the spectrum of large and small CBS projects.


Business Case Critical Activity Project Risk Custom Component Custom Development 
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.
    David C.: Assembling Large Scale Systems from COTS Components: Opportunities, Cautions, and Complexities. In: SEI Monograph on the Use of Commercial Software in Government SystemsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morisio, M., Seaman, C. B., Parra, A. T., Basili, V. R., Kraft, S. E., and Condon S. E.: Investigating and Improving a COTS-based Software Development Process. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, June (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jyrki, K.: A Case Study in Applying a Systematic Method for COTS Selection. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering, Berlin,Germany, May (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braun, C. L.: A Life Cycle Process for E.ective Reuse of Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Software. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Software Reusability, Los Angeles, California (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boehm B., and Abts, C.: COTS Integration Plug and Pray. In: IEEE Computer, January (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vigder, M. R., and Dean, J. C.: Building Maintainable COTS Based Systems. National Research Council of CanadaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dean, J., Oberndorf, P., Vigder, M., Abts, C., Erdogmus, H., Maiden, N., Looney, M., Heineman, G., and Guntersdorfer, M.: COTS Workshop: Continuing Collaborations for Successful COTS DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carney, D.: Requirements and COTS-based Systems: A Thorny Question Indeed. Available at:
  9. 9.
    Seacord, R. C.: Building Systems from Commercial Components: Classroom Experiences. Available at:
  10. 10.
    Hissam, W. S., and Seacord, R.: Building Systems from Commercial Components. Addison-Wesley (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boehm, B., Port, D., Abi-Antoun, M., and Egyed, A.: Guidelines for the Life Cycle Objectives (LCO) and the Life Cycle Architecture (LCA) Deliverables for Model-Based Architecting and Software Engineering (MBASE). USC Technical Report USC-CSE-98-519, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, February (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boehm, B., and Port, D.: Educating Software Engineering Students to Manage Risk, Software Engineering. In: ICSE 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Victor R. B., and Barry W. B.: COTS-Based Systems Top 10 List. IEEE Computer 34(5) (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Vidger, M. R., Gentleman, W. M., and Dean, J.: COTS Software Integration: State of the Art (1998) Available at:
  15. 16.
    Brownsword, L., Oberndorf, P., and Sledge, C.: Developing New Processes forCOTS-Based Systems. In: IEEE Software, July/August (2000) 48–55Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    Donald J. R.: Making the Software Business Case. Addison-Wesley, September (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 19.
    Boehm, B., Abts, C., Brown, A. W., Chulani, S., Clark, B. K., Horowitz, E., Madachy, R., Reifer, D., and Steece, B.: Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice Hall PTR, July (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 20.
    Wallnau, K. C., Carney, D., and Pollak, B.: How COTS Software Affects the Design of COTS-Intensive Systems. Available at:
  19. 21.
    Maurizio, M., and Marco, T.: Definition and Classi.cation of COTS: A Proposal. In: First International Conference, ICCBSS 2002, Orlando, FL, USA, February (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 25.
    Oberndorf, T.: COTS and Open Systems-An Overview (1997) Available at:
  21. 26.
    Vidger, M. R., Gentleman, W. M., and Dean. J.: COTS Software Integration: State of the Art (1998) Available at:
  22. 27.
    Brownsword, L., Oberndorf, T., and Sledge, C. A.: Developing New Processes for COTS-Based Systems. In: IEEE Software, July/August (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry W. Boehm
    • 1
  • Dan Port
    • 1
  • Ye Yang
    • 1
  • Jesal Bhuta
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Software EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaUSA

Personalised recommendations