Describe situations in which an organization should buy rather than build software components
What will be an ideal response?
It is invariably cheaper to buy reusable components and very expensive to develop them. Software vendors can afford to invest heavily in developing components because they hope to recoup the expense in the marketplace. Businesses who develop software for in-house use, with few exceptions, cannot afford to do so. Besides, you can spend tens of millions of dollars to create an in-house data management system, but it is unlikely that the resulting product would compare favorably with a battle-tested DBMS from established vendors, even if it has some interesting or clever features. On the other hand, using an off-the-shelf component means that the continued health of your system is now dependent on the continued health of the outside vendor and its ability to provide timely updates.
You might also like to view...
Output of the Management Reporting System may vary considerably among companies
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
With multichannel support, roles such as technical support and knowledge engineer are more important, as service desks rely more heavily on their support systems for knowledge and use those systems to collect and maintain content for their web sites.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
All of the following are true regarding conflict in teams except ______.
A. Stimulating information exchange among team members is a benefit of moderate levels of task conflict B. Differences in opinion may improve decision quality C. Moderate task conflict hinders creativity in a team D. Task conflict helps force members to see other viewpoints
Fixed costs are ignored in allocating scarce resources because
a. they are sunk. b. they are unaffected by the allocation of scarce resources. c. there are no fixed costs associated with scarce resources. d. fixed costs only apply to long-run decisions.