ICCBSS 2004: COTS-Based Software Systems pp 127-136 | Cite as
ImpACT: An Alternative to Technology Readiness Levels for Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Software
Abstract
The use of Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) as a tool in assessing acquisition and development program risk has steadily increased over the past several years. There is considerable evidence to support the utility of using TRLs as part of a risk assessment, but there are some difficulties in using TRLs with software, especially Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) software technology and products. These difficulties take several forms, including “blurring-together” various aspects of COTS technology/product readiness; the absence of some important aspects of readiness; COTS product “decay;” and no mechanism to account for changes in the relative importance of the contributors to technology/product readiness over time. This paper briefly examines these issues, and proposes an alternate methodology—ImpACT—for assessing COTS software technology and product readiness which considers these factors.
Keywords
Analytic Hierarchy Process Software Technology Technology Maturity Technology Readiness Product ReadinessPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Eisman, M., Gonzales, D.: Life Cycle Cost Assessments for Military Transatmospheric Vehicles (1997), www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR893/
- 2.Mankins, J.: Technology Readiness Levels – A White Paper (1995), http://advtech.jsc.nasa.gov/downloads/TRLs.pdf
- 3.Department of Defense.: Operation of the Defense Acquisition System (2003), http://dod5000.dau.mil/DOCS/DoDI%205000.2-signed%20May%2012,%202003.doc
- 4.General Accounting Office.: Better Management of Technology Development Can Improve Weapon System Outcome (1999), http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/ns99162.pdf
- 5.Graettinger, C., Garcia, S., Siviy, J., Schenk, R., Syckle, P.: Using the Technology Readiness Levels Scale to Support Technology Management in the DoD’s ATD/STO Environment (2002), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/02.reports/02sr027.html
- 6.Graettinger, C., Garcia, S., Ferguson, J.: TRL Corollaries for Practice-Based Technologies (2003), http://www.acq.osd.mil/sis/Conference%20Presentations/TRL%20Corollaries%20for%20Practice%20Based%20Technologies.pdf
- 7.Wong, B.: NASA Cost Symposium – Multivariate Instrument Cost Model-TRL, MICMTRL (2000), http://ipao.larc.nasa.gov/symposium/MICM-TRL-Wong.pdf
- 8.Department of Energy.: Modeling and Simulation Technologies Future Combat System Workshop (2000), http://www.amso.army.mil/topic/fcs/feb-conf/overview.ppt
- 9.Hanakawa, N., Morisaki, S., Matsumoto, K.: A Learning Curve Based Simulation Model for Software Development (1998), http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel4/5475/14745/00671388.pdf?isNumber=14745&prod=CNF&arnumber=671388&arSt=350&ared=359&arAuthor=Hanakawa%2C+N.%3B+Morisaki%2C+S.%3B+Matsumoto%2C+K.%3B
- 10.Saaty, T.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 11.Wallnau, K., Hissam, S., Seacord, R.: Building Systems from Commercial Components. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
- 12.Ncube, C., Dean, J.: The Limitations of Current Decision-Making Techniques. In: Dean, J., Gravel, A. (eds.) ICCBSS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2255, pp. 176–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar