MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414015752 · doi:10.11159/cist25.129

Analysis of Factors Affecting Decision-Making Process of Offshore Application Maintenance using ISM Approach

2025· article· en· W4414015752 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asaad Alzayed, Hanif Ur Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems and Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPublic Authority for Applied Education and Training
KeywordsProcess (computing)Submarine pipelineComputer scienceDecision-makingReliability engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringProcess engineeringBusinessGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software maintenance has the longest lifespan and requires roughly 60% of the total budget of software development life cycle.Organizations are seeking ways to reduce the software maintenance costs.Therefore, companies use offshore outsourcing to reduce costs by using low-cost countries' cheaper and more skilled labour.This research seeks to analyse the factors impacting the decisionmaking process and also identifies their structural associations.To fulfil the research objectives, first, the factors are evaluated by the IT specialists using online survey.Second, an ISM approach is implemented creating an ISM model based on factors' interrelationships.Five elements are prioritized in the first level: cost savings, infrastructure, domain expertise, project management, and requirement adjustments.These depend on second-level variables including employee skills, inadequate communication, and language barrier.The third level includes legal requirements and maturity.Further, this study classifies elements into three tiers based on their impact on the decision-making process.The findings of this study help service providers and clients to adopt effective sourcing strategies, increasing project success and saving projects' costs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems and ScienceSame topicTechnology Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207