DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

정량적인 OSS 선정을 위한 평가지표 연구

A Study on Evaluation Criteria for quantitatively OSS Selection

  • Lee, Hoo-Jae (Information Strategic Operation Team, Daelim University College) ;
  • Kim, Doo-Yeon (Ministry of Education, Science And Technonlogy) ;
  • Choi, Il-Woo (Division of General Studies, Kangnam University)
  • 투고 : 2012.01.13
  • 심사 : 2012.04.12
  • 발행 : 2012.04.30

초록

기존의 OSS의 활용은 운영체제나 DBMS와 같은 시스템 애플리케이션의 사용이 주를 이루었다. 그러나 현재 많은 기업에서 시스템 소프트웨어가 아닌 응용 애플리케이션 중심으로 OSS를 활용하려고 한다. 그러나 OSS를 활용한 응용 애플리케이션 개발을 위해서는 기반이 되는 OSS의 선정이 무엇보다 중요하다. 기존의 OSS 평가 연구의 범위는 전체 OSS 품질을 포함하고 있다. 그러므로 OSS 선정에 대한 평가 연구는 미흡하다. 또한 평가의 결과는 정량적인 측정보다 정성적인 측정에 기반하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 기존의 OSS 평가지표들 중 선정을 위한 지표들만을 도출하고 이를 기반으로 프로젝트 특징에 따라 정량적인 평가가 가능한 평가지표를 제안한다. 제안하는 평가지표는 OSS 커뮤니티 내의 정보만을 가지고 평가할 수 있는 초기평가지표와 정량적인 측정이 가능한 상세평가지표로 구분하여 제안한다. 이를 통해 OSS 선정 시 정량적인 점수와 지표를 통해 객관적인 근거를 제공한다.

Utilization of the former OSS was mainly focused on the usage of system applications such as operating system and DBMS. However, nowadays many companies are trying to make use of OSS based on the application rather than the system software. However, selection of base OSS is the most important to develop of application for utilizing OSS. The scope of existing OSS evaluation studies is covered the entire OSS quality. Thus existing studies of evaluation of OSS selection is insufficient. Also, the result of assessment is based on qualitative measurement rather than quantitative ones. In this paper, we derives only the indicators for selection among the existing OSS assessment indicators and suggests the assessment indicator that is capable of quantitative assessment in accordance with the characteristics of the project. The proposed assessment indicator is divided into an initial assessment indicator that can be assessed with only the information within the OSS community, and the detailed assessment indicator through metrics to make quantitative measurements possible. In this way, an objective basis can be provided through quantitative scores & indicators when selecting OSS.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Walt Scacchi, "OSS Development: Recent Research Results and Methods", Advances in Computer, No.69, pp.243-295, 2007.
  2. CapGemini, Open Source Software Maturity Model, 2003.
  3. Navica, Making Open Source Ready for the Enterprise: The Open Source Maturity Model, 2005.
  4. Intel, Spike Source, The Business Readiness Rating model: An evaluation framework for open source, 2005.
  5. Atos Origin, Method for Qualification and Selection of Open Source software: QSOS, 2006.
  6. T.R. Madanmohan and Rahul De', "Open Source Reuse in Commercial Firms", IEEE Software, Vol.21, No.6, pp.62-69, 2004.
  7. Meng Huang, Liguang Yang, Ye Yang, "A Development Process for Building OSS-Based Applications", LNCS 3840, pp.122-135, 2005.
  8. Optaros, Open Source Catalogue 2007 U.S. Version 1.1, 2007.
  9. Dan Woods, Gautam Guliani, Open Source for the Enterprise, O'Reilly, 2005.
  10. Carolyn A. Kenwood, A Business Case Study of Open Source Software, The MITRE Corporation, 2001.
  11. Pankaj Jalote, CMM in Practice-Processes for Executing Software Projects at Infosys, Addison-Wesley, 2002.
  12. Aaron J. Shenhar, Dov Dvir,"Toward a typological theory of project management", Research Policy, Elsevier, Vol.25, pp.607-632, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(95)00877-2
  13. Mark P. Ginsberg, Lauren H. Quinn, Process Tailoring and the Software Capability Maturity Model, Technical Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-024, 1995.
  14. ISO/IEC 9126-1, Software Engineering-Product Quality- Part 1 : Quality model, 2001.
  15. ISO/IEC 9126-2, Software Engineering-Product Quality- Part 2 : External Metrics, 2001.
  16. ISO/IEC 9126-4, Software Engineering-Product Quality- Part 4 : Use in Metrics, 2001.
  17. ISO/IEC 14598-6, Software Engineering Product Evaluation-Part 6 : Documentation of Evaluation Modules, 2001.
  18. Barbara Kitchenham, Shari Lawrence Pfleeger, Norman Fenton, "Towards a Framework for Software Measurement Validation", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol.21, No.12, pp.929-944, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.489070