Decision Support for Handling Mismatches between COTS Products and System Requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the process of selecting commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products, it is inevitable to encounter mismatches between COTS products and system requirements. Mismatches occur when COTS attributes do not exactly match our requirements. Many of these mismatches are resolved after selecting a COTS product in order to improve its fitness with the requirements. This paper proposes a decision support approach that aims at addressing COTS mismatches during and after the selection process. Our approach can be integrated with existing COTS selection methods at two stages: (I) When evaluating COTS candidates: our approach is used to estimate the anticipated fitness of the candidates if their mismatches are resolved. This helps to base our COTS selection decisions on the fitness that the COTS candidates will eventually have if selected. (2) After selecting a COTS product: the approach suggests alternative plans for resolving the most appropriate mismatches using suitable actions, such that the most important risk, technical, and resource constraints are met. A case study from the e-services domain is used to illustrate the method and to discuss its added value
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".