Product: Management and Development
Product: Management and Development
Review Article

A morphological approach to reviewing the literature on evaluation and selection of Commercial-Off-The- Shelf equipment for Defense

Felipe Fontenelle; Milton Borsato

Downloads: 0
Views: 540


To reduce the time and costs associated with the lifecycle of military equipment for continued operational effectiveness, Departments of Defense purchase Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) products. In this way, design and development costs are passed on to the manufacturer. At the same time, it is possible to take advantage of the rapid pace of technological advances in the industry. However, due to the nature of Defense equipment, COTS must be carefully evaluated and selected to mitigate the risks associated with entering government stockpile products that do not perform as intended or fail prematurely throughout their lifecycle. The present study develops an analytical framework to consolidate the prevailing research on COTS selection and evaluation for Defense use, identifies gaps, and proposes future research. We adopted a morphological analysis approach to systematically review the identified studies. We create a morphological structure with five dimensions specified by the Input-Process-Outcome (IPO) approach; it functions as a repository of the literature and allows the researcher to make changes as the literature portfolio grows, given its flexible representation and modularity.


commercial-off-the-shelf, life cycle, evaluation and selection process, defense, morphological analysis


Ajalli, M., Azimi, H., Balani, A. M., & Rezaei, M. (2017). Application of fuzzy AHP and COPRAS to solve the supplier selection problems. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 6(3), 112-119.

Alford, L. D. (2001). The problem with aviation COTS. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 16(2), 33-37.

Alves, C., & Finkelstein, A. (2002). Challenges in COTS decision-making: a goal-driven requirements engineering perspective. In C. Alves & A. Finkelstein. SEKE '02: Proceedings of the 14th international Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (pp. 789-794). ACM.

Alves, C., & Finkelstein, A. (2003). Investigating conflicts in COTS decision-making. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 13(5), 473-493.

Baliga, A. J., Chawla, V., Sunder, M. V., Ganesh, L. S., & Sivakumaran, B. (2021). Service failure and recovery in B2B markets – a morphological analysis. Journal of Business Research, 131, 763-781.

Basir, K., Khanum, A., Azam, F., & Qavi, A. (2015). TAES-COTS: thorough approach for evaluation & selection of COTS products. In Proceedings - 12th International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology, FIT 2014 (pp. 91-96). IEEE.

Bil, C., & Mo, J. (2013). Concurrent engineering approaches for sustainable product development in a multi-disciplinary environment. In J. Stjepandic, G. Rock & C. Bil (Eds.), Concurrent Engineering Approaches for Sustainable Product Development in a Multi-Disciplinary Environment (pp. 621-632). USA: Springer.

Brasil. Ministério da Defesa. Exército Brasileiro. (2023). Retrieved in 2023, June 15, from

Burrus, P. F., Jones, R., & Lew, C. (2012). A commercial approach to military system sustainment. In 2012 IEEE AUTOTESTCON Proceedings (pp. 166-168). IEEE.

Carvallo, J. P., Franch, X., & Quer, C. (2006). Managing non-technical requirements in COTS components selection. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE’06) (pp. 323-326). IEEE.

Daǧdeviren, M., Yavuz, S., & Kilinç, N. (2009). Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 8143-8151.

Demko, E. (1996). Commercial-off-the shelf (COTS): a challenge to military equipment reliability. In Proceedings of 1996 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (pp. 7-12). IEEE.

Ganesh, L. S., & Marathe, R. R. (2019). Dynamic capabilities: a morphological analysis framework and agenda for future research. European Business Review, 31(1), 25-63.

Gansler, J. S., Ph, D., Lipitz, R. C., & Lucyshyn, W. (2008). Commercial off The Shelf (COTS): doing it right. USA: Defense Technical Information Center.

Garg, R. (2017). A systematic review of COTS evaluation and selection approaches. Accounting, 3, 227-236.

Garg, R. (2022). A ranking model for the selection and ranking of commercial off-the-shelf components. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(5), 2196-2204.

Goel, A., Ganesh, L. S., & Kaur, A. (2019). Sustainability integration in the management of construction projects: a morphological analysis of over two decades’ research literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117676.

Gutterman, L. (2003). Military and field test applications using modified COTS products.In Proceedings AUTOTESTCON 2003. IEEE Systems Readiness Technology Conference (pp. 108-112). IEEE.

Hall, J., & Naff, R. (2001). The cost of COTS. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 16(8), 20-24.

Hawkins, T. G., & Gravier, M. J. (2019). Integrating COTS technology in defense systems: a knowledge-based framework for improved performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(3), 493-523.

Hedman, J., & Andersson, B. (2014). Selection Method for COTS Systems. Procedia Technology, 16, 301-309.

Hodson, R. F., Chen, Y., Pandolf, J. E., Boomer, K. T., Green, C. M., Leitner, J. A., Majewicz, P., Gore, S. H., Faller, C. S., Denson, E. C., Hodge, R. E., & Defrancis, M. A. (2020). Recommendations on use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions. Retrieved in 2023, June 15, from

Hull, A. W., White, R. H., & Markov, D. R. (1997). Inserting commercial technologies into military systems: lessons from british experience. Institute for Defense Analyses. Retrieved in 2023, June 15, from

Julian, C., Lucy, T., & Farr, J. (2011). Commercial-Off-The-Shelf selection process. EMJ -. Engineering Management Journal, 23(2), 63-71.

Kenneth, M. (2000). United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board report on ensuring successful implementation of commercial items in air force systems. USA: United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.

Kohl, R. J. (2005). Requirements engineering changes for COTS-intensive systems. IEEE Software, 22(4), 63-64.

Kontio, J. (1995). A COTS selection method and experiences of its use. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Software Engineering Workshop. Maryland: editor.

Mathopo, S., & Marnewick, A. (2017). Selection process for commercial-off-the-shelf products used as defence equipment. In IEEE AFRICON 2017 (pp. 682-687). IEEE.

Miller, J., & Yeoh, H. C. (2006). COTS acquisition process: incorporating business factors into COTS vendor evaluation taxonomies. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 11(6), 601-626.

Mohamed, A., Ruhe, G., & Eberlein, A. (2007a). COTS selection: Past, present, and future. Proceedings of the International Symposium and Workshop on Engineering of Computer Based Systems, 103–112.

Mohamed, A., Ruhe, G., & Eberlein, A. (2007b). Decision support for handling mismatches between COTS products and system requirements. Proceedings - ICCBSS 2007: Sixth International IEEE Conference on Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS)-Based Software Systems, 63–72.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2021). Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual.” Accessed Mar 23, 2023.

Pizzica, S. V. (1998). Meeting military system test requirements with the usage of COTS products. In Proceedings of the 17th DASC. AIAA/IEEE/SAE. Digital Avionics Systems Conference (Cat. No.98CH36267) (Vol.1, pp. B45/1-B45/7). IEEE.

Prashar, A. (2022). Title: production planning and control in industry 4.0 environment: a morphological analysis of literature and research agenda. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,

Ritchey, T. (2011). Wicked problems–social messes: decision support modelling with morphological analysis (Vol. 17). USA: Springer Science & Business Media.

Rocha Junior, C. S., Lellis Moreira, M. Â., & dos Santos, M. (2022). Selection of interns for startups: an approach based on the AHP-TOPSIS-2N method and the 3DM computational platform. Procedia Computer Science, 199, 984-991.

Shyur, H. J. (2006). COTS evaluation using modified TOPSIS and ANP. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 177(1), 251-259.

Sudhindra, S., Ganesh, L. S., & Arshinder, K. (2014). Classification of supply chain knowledge: a morphological approach. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(4), 812-823.

Sunder, M. V., Ganesh, L. S., & Marathe, R. R. (2018). A morphological analysis of research literature on Lean Six Sigma for services. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(1), 149-182.

Tarawneh, F., Baharom, F., Yahaya, J. H., & Ahmad, F. (2011). Evaluation and selection COTS software process. The State of the Art., 1(2), 344-357.

Thames, T. (1998). Using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment to meet joint service requirements. In IEEE AUTOTESTCON Proceedings. IEEE Systems Readiness Technology Conference. Test Technology for the 21st Century (Cat. No.98CH36179) (pp. 204-209). IEEE.

Trujillo, E. (1995). Military requirements constrain COTS utilization. In Proceedings of 14th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (pp. 112-117). IEEE.

Verma, S., & Mehlawat, M. K. (2017). Multi-criteria optimization model integrated with AHP for evaluation and selection of COTS components. Optimization, 66(11), 1879-1894.

Wanyama, T., & Far, B. H. (2006). Repositories for COTS selection. In Proceedings of the 2006 Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (pp. 2416-2419). IEEE.

Zikos, T., Karadimas, N. V., Tsigkas, A., & Sidiropoulou, K. (2022). Weapons’ life cycle cost: the key of success in logistics. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 19, 1036-1045.

Zwicky, F. (1969). Discovery, invention, research through the morphological approach. London: Macmillan

Submitted date:

Accepted date:

654a9e11a953952f132babe3 pmd Articles
Links & Downloads


Share this page
Page Sections