Assessing and upgrading online camera trap applications at WWF (World Wildlife Fund For Nature) Organisation

Other criteria related to the quality, cost and benefits, vendor, hardware and software requirements, opinion of different stakeholders about the software package, and output characteris[r]

Assessing and upgrading online camera trap applications

at WWF (World Wildlife Fund For Nature) Organisation.

Group sciences: Nguyễn Thị Mỹ Duyên

Dương Thị AnhNguyễn Thị TrangNgô Thị Phương

Võ Hồng QuânClass: MIS2015AScience advisors: Dr Phạm Thị Huệ

Ms Trần Thị Hải

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides background information of this study including thepractical basis, objectives of the research, methodology and the expected outcomes.

1.1 Practical basis

Why do we choose this research topic ?

Over the last 10 years, and in particular since 2006, there has been a substantialgrowth in the number of published camera trap studies Even though camera trappinghas been used in ecological studies for decades (Kucera and Barrett, 2011), itsapplication expanded with the advent of commercial wildlife camera traps in the early1990s and the popular need of using camera trapping systems for security purposes of

in the industry Today, with the development of digital technology, camera trapping isincreasingly used in the world and gradually applied in Vietnam Moreover, a variety

of software tools aimed at managing camera trap data have been produced Camelotand Cametest software are currently attracting the interest of wildlife conservationorganizations, especially WWF organization The significant growth of cameratrapping software used in biodiversity research is posing a challenge of selecting themost suitable software The current software tools still have technical problems, forexample, cataloging and analyzing camera trap surveys which take a lot of time andmanpower and various issues related to data management

Camelot

Camelot is a new open source software tool for managing the data associatedwith camera trap surveys, specifically for applications in wildlife conservationresearch Camelot is a new invention with the application of data capture managementsoftware camera trap Camelot is designed to be the first step in camera trap surveyimage classification, and provide versatile outputs that can be used in other software.The goal of Camelot is to provide a modern and intuitive software application forclassifying large volumes of camera trap data efficiently and accurately In addition,Camelot is designed to be both powerful and easy-to- use It provides a number ofinnovative features, such as an extensible reporting system that serves as an integrationpoint with specialized analysis tools This combination of features and usability makes

it a compelling alternative to existing camera trap data management software Camelotprovides a workflow that caters for camera trap surveys currently in the field, where,

as images are collected, they can be processed immediately and ongoing reports

produced Furthermore, Camelot provides a number of purpose-specific reports

built-in, and is also open to extension by the user Several purpose-specific built-in reportsare provided to enable subsequent analysis of the data with PRESENCE and the Rpackage camtrapR and any other software utilising similar data formats

Camera trap application – Cametest

The cametest software is designed specifically for the WWF to meet almost allthe needs of the researcher Cametest has a hierarchical database structure It has theability to manage and analyze data accurately Camelot and Cametest software meetmost of the requirements of researchers in the field of wildlife protection It seemedconvenient and shortened the time management and data analysis for the organization.However, these two software has certain limitations that have not been investigated.This research aimed to make a system evaluation for camera trap software, based onstandards and specific organisation’s requirements, in order to provide solutions forupgrading to the WWF’s camera trapping software and provide interested communitieswith practical guidelines and recommendations

1.2 Objectives of the study

The use of camera trapping software has been very popular and each is serving

a particular purpose in many different fields Thus, choosing an appropriate software

to the needs of organizations to use, and ensures reliability and high security is veryimportant In this research, we create a framework for evaluating and comparing the 2software which are Camelot- an open source software system and Cametest- asoftware that was written exclusively for WWF Vietnam The framework is proposed

to be a comprehensive list of software evaluation criteria which can be used as a toolfor evaluating similar software packages

1.3 Research methods

Case study is a process or record of research in which detailed consideration isgiven to the development of a particular person, group, or situation over a period ofinterview and also reading related documents about Cameratest and Camelot, we havesome useful and necessary data to compare both of them and we also have a newframework During data analysing, we base on some references about software ofreseachers and scientists and we collect some similar information that can help us to

especially Camelot has upgraded sometimes This is an important information toevaluate both of software We had an opportunity for training at WWF Vietnam and ithepls us to have more clear information and data about Cameratest We also have someshort interviews with staff there to aks something were still not clear Especially IT ofWWF reponsed a lot of questions After getting information, training and also usingboth of software, we make ourr own framework and evaluating software that we hopethey can support other people to do a science reseach.

1.4 Expectation outcomes

For this research, we expect to produce :

 A complete report on the comparison and evaluation of the two softwareCametest,Camelot and thereby can offer objective opinions about the use ofsoftware that will bring benefits to the WWF

 A standard framework that can be used for similar software

 Useful experience for novice and interested researchers in the process ofstudying and evaluating camera trapping system

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews research related to the two software that we aimed tocompare and materials that provides the basis for developing the system evaluationframework

Firstly, we should know what is Camelot, what is Cametest and what do cameratrapping mean? And why did WWF choose them for managing information? WWF isone of the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservationorganizations, with over 5 million supporters and a global network active in more than

100 countries WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planets naturalenvironment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature byconserving the worlds biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable naturalresources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wastefulconsumption [0].A camera trap is a remotely activated camera that is equipped with amotion sensor or an infrared sensor, or uses a light beam as a trigger Camera trapping

is a method for capturing wild animals on film when researchers are not present, andhas been used in ecological research for decades In addition to applications in hunting

and wildlife viewing, research applications include studies of nest ecology, detection

of rare species, estimation of population size and species richness, as well as research

on habitat use and occupation of human-built structures [1] A variety of software toolsfor camera trap data management have been produced over the years, though theauthors encountered numerous shortcomings with each

Camelot is a new open source cross-platform software application for managingcamera trap survey data Camelot is designed to be both powerful and easy-to- use Itprovides a number of innovative features, such as an extensible reporting system thatserves as an integration point with specialized analysis tools This combination offeatures and usability makes it a compelling alternative to existing camera trap datamanagement software [2] Cametest is a software that is written specific for WWF VietNam base on demand of field staff From the camera trapping- a guide to best practicesfor conversation, Camelot and Cametest were born to become effective supporter formanaging and analyzing the data But besides some advantages of both softwares, theystill have a lot of drawbacks that they need to improve and develop for service better

Camelot is a software which commonly known as programs or apps, consists

of all the instructure that tell the hardware how to perform a task It designed to run onmany operating systems including Windows, macOS, Linux,… and it is written byHedi Hendry and Chris Mann On the other hand, Cametest is a software which isdeveloped by IT program at World Wildlife Fund Vietnam Both of them serve thepurpose of importing, analyzing and reporting image data, these processes helpbiologists and professors have an overlook about biodivesity

2.1 Camera trap and Camelot applications

Camera trap application is the most useful tool for biodiversity research.

Camera trap application is one of the most effective methods for biodiversityresearch in Vietnam as well as around the world International organizations for theprotection of wildlife have identified cameratrap software as an important tool incampaigns to conserve endangered species As a result of the cameratrap software ,Conservation organization have identified and documented several rare species listed

in the Red Book of Vietnam and the endangered IUCN Red List

According to the United Solidarity newspaper, issued on 24.4.2017 “The

conservation of biodiversity and wildlife is alarming If things keep going this way, itwill not be long, there will be many animals that our offspring can only know throughbooks or specimens in the museum To be more serious, it is we humans who share thehabitat on Earth and the survival of human beings will certainly be seriouslythreatened.

Camelot is a new tool to support biologists and researchers to do research

Today, a variety of software tools for managing camera trap data used inbiodiversity research have been produced This poses the challenge of choosing themost suitable software Because the existing software tools still have issues such ascataloging and analyzing camera trap surveys it takes a lot of time and manpower.Thus, the emergence of Camelot as a useful tool for biologists and researchers in thefield of wildlife protection Camelot is designed with user-responsive interface and canalso be More than that, Camelot offers a modern and intuitive software application thathelps to classify large volumes of camera data efficiently and effectively We cansearch for classification descriptions of species available when Camelot is running on

a computer with an internet connection Alternatively, we can manually import speciesnot in the data or without an internet connection In this way, researchers andbiologists can reduce input time and risk of error while entering data In addition,Camelot's image recognition interface is called a 'library' Here, we can choose one ormore different images and details of The detected species are identified In each image

is included full information, resolution and zoom feature of each image Researchersmay also enter additional fields in the identification process if needed With regard tothe release of the report, Camelot software integrates the necessary information intovarious reporting formats, which is convenient and effective for the collection andresearch of biologists and researchers in working process

Firstly, According to Software Evaluation Guide by Mike Jackson, Steve

Crouch and Rob Baxter, " A software evaluation is done for someone Someone wants

to know about the state of a particular package, and may even be paying you to lookinto it! So, at the outset, you should agree with this "someone" the scope of theevaluation This includes what software and other project resources will be evaluated

and the user classes from whose perspective the evaluation will be done The user

classes determine the tasks that will form the basis of any evaluation, especially atutorial-based evaluation "

2.2 Software evaluation research

Exploited references that support for software evaluation

In this research, Software Evaluation is process to find out about the demand ofusers and organizations, then we can make a framework including standards to evalute

a sofware and find another suitable software for them

In recently years, reseachers have focused on models and methods for reusableoff-the-shelf software selection

 A structured Approach to the Evaluation and Selection of CASE Tools ( Blanc and Korn, 1992 )

 Framework for evaluation and selection of the software packages ( Anil S Jadhava, Rajendra M Sonar, 2011)

 An evaluation framework for data quality tools( V Gousdoue', Snugier, D Duquennoy, B Laoisse, 2007 )

 Conservation technology CAMERA-TRAPING ( Oliver R Wearn & Paul Glover-Kapfer 2017)

2.3 Frameworks for software evaluation

Some descriptions about these frameworks

The contribution of the reviewed literature in the field of evaluation andselection of the software packages includes: Blanc and Korn,1992, open software,WWF-UK and the software evaluation criteria of Jadhav author It has softwareevaluation criteria, methodologies for software selection, software evaluationtechniques, and systems/tools to support decision makers in evaluating and selectingsoftware packages It enables decision makers to structure a decision making probleminto a hierarchy, helping them to understand and simplify the problem

Weighting methods for software are very clear and easy to understand We will bebased on Jadhav, Blanc and Korn's 1992, WWF and Open Source framework to findout the limitations and limitations of each software From that point of view, we willmake a comparative analysis of the software specific to the user

Our observations based on review of literature are:

(1)Here are our research and findings on the highlights and limitations of the foursoftware comparison frameworks First, the article by Blanc and Korn in 1992 there is

a little work done on developing decision making framework comprising:methodology for selecting software packages,criteria for evaluating software packages,technique for evaluing software packages,

(2) Tthere is need of system/tool having inbuilt knowledge of softwareevaluation criteria and evaluation technique which will assist decision makers not only

in software selection but also increase efficiency, and brings consistency andtransparency in the process of software selection

(3) This article also focuses a lot on the important criteria for a softwareevaluation Although the functional requirements need to be described in great detailand each piece of software requires a different functionality, we have also added anumber of other criteria that users can easily evaluate Other criteria related to thequality, cost and benefits, vendor, hardware and software requirements, opinion ofdifferent stakeholders about the software package, and output characteristics of thesoftware package are common and can be used for evaluation of any software package

Here are our reviews of the highlights and limitations of the four softwarecomparison frameworks Firstly, the article by Blanc and Korn in 1992 The evaluationand collection method for Case software by Blanc and Korn provides more detailinformation The methodology proposed in this paper facilitates the development ofspecific applications with Case tools However, we can see some advantages anddisadvantages First, the highlight of the article is to provide a clear assessment andcollection method, in particular, the screening reduces the number of Case packagesare evaluated in detail

There are three main steps proposed :

 The first stage is screening of prospective candidates and development of ashort list of Case software packages Determines whether appropriate tools existand narrows the field of available

 The second stage determines that selecting a CASE tool, if any, which best suitsthe systems development requirements Determines which of the remainingproduct best meet the needs of organization, from both functional and technicalperspectives

 The third stage is matching user requirements to the features of the selectedCase tool and describing how these requirement will be satisfied by buildingsystem application with selected product

Furthermore, this method of assessment also focuses on functionalrequirements The information is describes more detailed : full system developmentlife cycle support, standard/common users interface, network support

In addition, Blanc and Korn author provides information on softwaremodification In addition, Blanc and Korn authors provide information on softwaremodification and supporting programs through vendor-supplied enhancements,supporting programs and alter code This makes Case software evaluation moreeffective Finally, the final advantage is the addition of the criteria for documentationand training and it is well appropriated

On the other hand, there are some limitations in Case software evaluation Itonly described in four categories: technical requirements, functional requirements,documentation and training, and vendor information, and do not focus on a number ofimportant criteria such as cost and profitability, opinions, quality and output relatedcharacteristics of the software package Moreover, this paper is lack of comparisonbetween different software evaluation methods

Secondly, in the research " A comparison framework for Open Source Software(OSS) evaluation method" of Klass- Jan Stol, Muhammad Ali Babar,2010 Thiswriting starts with reality about using Open Source Software, then he finds out whysoftware is chosen by the user and used less and finds the cause He does not blame forusers, he said this responsibility belongs to OSS

However, It has not make clear why he gives those standards and he also doesnot explain meaning of these Beside that, Open Source Software Evaluation Methods’framework does not give weight for each criteria, I mean he does show me whichcriteria is most important and necessary

Third, the article by two authors ( Anil S Jadhave, Rajendra M Sonar, 2010)about Framework for evaluation and selection of the software packages is very useful

It describe and provides a conceptual understanding about generic methodology aboutdescribes and provides a conceptual understanding about generic methodology for

help reader or company give evaluations and choice But, defining the criteria forevaluating and comparison the work package is tedious and time-consuming for policymakers.

Fourth, along with camera trap software, WWF-UK(2009) has a very detailedresearch paper on production need, and, it is a good guide for readers as well as adviceand recommendations for the use of camera trap and camera trap software But, it hasnot yet comparison and evaluation of the features of the camera trap software as theframework does not help reader find out what software they or their company need

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the use of case study methodology used to investigatethe research problems It includes three sections: (i) Case study research methodology;(ii) Data collection; (iii) Data analysis

3.1 Case study research methodology

The main research methodology for this research is case study Case study is aleading methodology used qualitative and very popular scientific research Case studyhas many outstanding benefits and high applicability in the research project

“Assessing and upgrading online camera trap applications at WWF (World WildlifeFund for Nature) Organization.” Case study is an empirical investigation, investigating

a contemporary phenomenon and its real context, especially when the boundarybetween the phenomenon and context is unclear

In order to select the most appropriate research method, the researchers shouldbase on the research questions and the research purposes There are no generalformulas for case studies, however the choice of this method may be appropriate in thefollowing three cases First, the research question is "How?" Or "Why." Unlike the

"What" question, these are more explanatory questions

In this study, case study methodology was used to answer the followingresearch questions:

- What are the advantages and disadvantages of current camera trap software?

- What are processes involved in system evaluation of camera trap software?

- How can a software evaluation framework be developed?

Secondly, the researcher has almost no control over research issues or events.Third, research focuses on what is happening in the real world This distinguishes casestudies from research using other methods in scientific inquiry With context-specificcontexts, the researcher will have to use a strategy to convince the results of theresearch It is involving a rich sources of evidence, combined with the necessary data.This is an interesting feature of this approach, but it also challenges the researcher interms of data

The advantage of the case study is, first, that the researcher can answer

questions "How?" Or "Why" flexibly while quantitative research is difficult to do

questions (data, historical data, observations, interviews) Third, the study delves intoone or more cases, so that the results of the study may provide a practical solution orlesson to the subject under study

- It can represent a variety of perspectives and can provide support to explainthe alternative

- Case studies also provide a database of materials that can be explained byfuture researchers

- Understanding case studies can be used immediately for a variety of purposes,including employee development, internal feedback, process assessment, andeducational policy making

- Case study data is often more accessible than conventional research reportsand is therefore likely to serve many subjects

Case study is one of way to help researcher expand their knowledge, improveability to evaluate problems Based on this, researcher can apply the theory andcontext to find the cause and how to solve the problems still exist

Contrary to these advantages, the case study also has some disadvantages, mostcommonly known as the low level of generalizability However, this limitation isoutweighed by the opportunity for researchers to study the problems in depth in order

to discover the best solution

Process of case study consists of 6 steps:

- Step 1: Planning and selecting methods

- Step 2: Research design

- Step 3: Preparation before data collection

- Step 4: Collecting data

- Step 5: Analyzing data

- Step 6: Share and discuss analysis results

Each of these steps may be cross-linked in the whole process, not just with thesubsequent steps Research design should be adjusted when errors occur duringimplementation, so the flexibility of the researcher is essential

Case study has a prominent role in evaluating, for example, a certainintervention of a particular policy Directions for case study in this area:

 Most important is explaining causal relationships in real life interventions thatare too complex to use survey or trial strategies.

 Describe the real life context in which interventions have taken place

 Case study serves as an illustration of interventions that help assess thisintervention

 Use case studies to probe, detect situations in which interventions need to beevaluated for clear and definitive consequences

A case study investigates one or more subjects, situations, or situations Inaddition, when doing research, the researchers can combine the use of differentresearch methods, for example studies using case studies can use more survey methods

or vice versa

Oslaon (in Hoaglin and others, 1982,pp.138-139 cited in Marriam, 1988) hasdevelop a list of case study characteristics that may illuminate the nature of thisresearch design Three statements reflect the case study’s particularistic nature are:

 It can suggest to the reader what to do in a similar situation

 It can examine a specific instance but illuminate a general problem

 It may or may not be influenced by author’s bias

Case study can be defined in terms of the process of conducting the inquiry(case study research), the bounded system or unit of analysis selected for study, or theproduct, the end report of a case investigation Further qualitative case studies areparticularistic, descriptive and heuristic Because a case study has these attributes, aresearcher might choose this approach to illuminate a phenomenon Case study canalso be understood in term of their strengths and limitations in form of qualitativeresearch

3.2 Data collection:

3.2.1 The organization case study: World Wide Fund For Nature – WWF [3]

World Wide Fund For Nature - WWF is one of the world's largest governmental organizations for the protection of nature, the old name of this company

non-is World Wildlife Fund

WWF sets out the following objectives:

 To conserve the biodiversity of the world

 Ensure the sustainable use of renewable natural resources.

 Promote the reduction of environmental pollution and waste consumption WWF is keen to reduce the global destruction of nature to build a future wherepeople live in harmony with nature

On 14-12-2016, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Vietnam and Yok DonNational Park launch the Yok Don Forest Emergency Action Plan for the period 2016-

2020, to minimize the danger the largest forest elephant in the country Observed datashow that the Central Highlands has the largest population of elephants with about 70,out of about 100 in the whole country From 2009 to date, at least 23 individuals,mostly elephants under one year old, died in Dak Lak Meanwhile elephant hunting forivory, deforestation makes it a direct threat to living space, leading to the threat ofextinction of the elephant herd here

The reason for choosing WWF is the case study for this research project

 WWF is one of the world largest organizations that specialize in protectingenvironment and natural habitats

 The organization has many years of experiences in using camera trap software

to analyze data

 The research team was offered an opportunity to work with one of the seniororganization expert to research the current camera trap software and test forother better solution if any

 With this valuable offer, the team had a chance to conduct a thorough research,undergo two trainings, do video conferencing with a group of experts

 3.2.2 Sources for data collection

During the study, the team used a variety of data sources to present the results

of this study Here the group split into two groups of data that the user groups in theresearch process: The main sources of data are the results of interviews, training anddiscussions with WWF Vietnam experts on the use and evaluation of Cametest andsome suggestions about using for Camelot so that we used this result as a fulcrum and

it may be objective views about these two software Secondary data sources that weused as corporate references, online publications of organizations, reviews andmaterials by foreign experts, answers directly through the email of experts using thesoftware

3.2.3 Data analysis

The process of collecting and analyzing data is also an extremely important part

of which we spend a lot of time to get the results we need From the documentation ofour organization we analyze it to get the foundation needed for the practice In addition

to analyzing the opinions and suggestions of experts about the proficient use ofsoftware to be able to evaluate how the operation and performance of the softwareused to compare

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS

This chapter reports our solutions for the current camera trapping systems used

at WWF The first section provides findings of the criteria for evaluating cameratrapping software packages The second section illustrates the strengths andweaknesses of the two systems: WWF organization’s software and Camelot The lastsection reports our good research experiences throughout the stages of these systemevaluation processes

4.1 Framework

Introduction about criteria of Framework

A common process framework is established by identifying a small number offramework activities that are applicable to most software projects, regardless of thesize or complexity of the software projects Some work sets - each selected softwarehas the task of technical work, milestones of the project, work products and quality

assurance points These allow the operations of the framework to be tailored to thecharacteristics, requirements of the software project or project team.

There is a lot of materials that has to do with evaluating and selecting softwarepackages that provide software evaluation criteria to evaluate software specificpackages such as Data Mining, CRM and ERP These documents are not intended toprovide a generic list of criteria that can be used to evaluate any software package.They also tell the reader that the meaning of each evaluation criterion is open to theevaluators Sometime, the terminology used by an author for a criterion in onedocument would be different than that used by another author for the same criteria.Some documents describe only the function and quality attributes of the package notinclude other important criteria related to the supplier, costs and benefits, technicalrequirements (hardware and software), opinions and characteristics related to theoutput of the package

In this section, we provide the classification of a set of software evaluationcriteria that can be used to evaluate any software package We also define the meaning

of each evaluation criteria along with the related measures necessary for the evaluation

of a candidate software package Evaluation criteria were studied on the basis ofcareful examination of various authors, including Anil S Jadhave, Rajendra M Sonar,

2010, Arditi and Singh, 1991classified into seven different groups:

are listed in the Table 1.

Table 1: Functional Criteria

Basic

Criteria

Criteria Meaning Possible Values Score

Camelot Cametest Camelot CametestSpeed Processed transactions/s

User/Event responsetime/ Screen refresh time

Date time Date time

Size Kbytes / Number of

Availability

Numeric Numeric

Robustness % events causing failure/

Time to restart afterfailure/ Probability ofdata corruption on failure

Numeric,Date time

Numeric,Date time

Table 2: Technical criteria

Basic Criteria Criteria Meaning Possible Values Score

Camelot Cametest Camelot CametestCommunication

protocol

Communicationprotocols

supported by thepackage

TCP/IP,UDP,NETBUI,HTTP, FTP,SOAP, etc

TCP/IP,UDP,NETBUI,HTTP, FTP,SOAP, etc

External storage External storage

LAN,WAN,MAN

LAN,WAN,MAN

Primary storage Primary storage

capacity required Numeric Numeric

4.1.3 Quality Criteria

Quality Criteria is used to evaluate the quality of a software package We haveused the ISO / IEC 9126 Software Engineering - Product quality model as a basis forfine-tuning, customizing and visualizing into quality model According to the ISO /IEC Quality Model, six key quality features, namely Portability, Personalizability,Maintainability, Usability, Reliability, Efficiency and Security It can be used toevaluate and select any software package according to the purpose of the evaluator

Different functional criteria are available for different software packages so wehave moved it from the quality criterion as suggested in Framework for evaluation andselection of the software packages (Anil S Jadhava, Rajendra M Sonar, 2011) andform the functional category criterion separately:

 Portability is the ability of software to be transferred from one environment to

another

 Personalizability is ability of the software package to be customized according

to the user needs

 Maintainability assesses the likelihood that a software needs to be modified,

improved, or modified

 Usability is: "A set of attributes that bear on the relationship between the level

of performance of the software and the amount of resources used, under stated conditions."

 Reliability is the ability of a software to maintain its level of performance

under conditions that exist for a given period of time

 Efficiency is the ability to respond appropriately to resource efficiency,

application performance, and scalability The source code ensures high

performance when software runs on the system such as algorithms, transactions,scalability, etc This analysis provides potential risks, Harms caused by softwaredelays over time

 Security takes measures to protect and prevent the occurrence of security

breaches to the software and data of the system and prevent the risk of attackingsecurity holes causing harm to enterprises; Meet the acceptable risk level for theuser, software, or environment

Quality criteria were further analyzed by our team based on the

secondary criteria as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Quality Criteria

Sub-criteria Basic criteria Criteria

Camelot

CametestPortability

Middlewarestandards

Breadth ofthe

middlewarestandardssupported

softwarepackage

DBMSstandards

Breadth ofthe DBMSsystemssupported

softwarepackage

Excel

Excel

MS-Communicati

on standards

organization

exchangestandardssupported

softwarepackage

Packagecompatibilit

y with theoperatingsystems

MicrosoftWindows, macOSandLinux

Microsoft

Windows,

macOSandLinuxHardware

compatibility

Packagecompatibilit

y with thehardware

Compute

r, mobile

Computer,mobile

Personalizabil

ity

Verticalsolution

Number ofcustomizedversions ofthe softwarepackage

Numeric Numeric

Customizabl

e fields

Ability topersonalizelayout of thesoftwarepackage

Customizabl

e reports

Ability topersonalizelayout of thereport

produced bythe softwarepackage

Interfacetype

Interfacetype of thesoftwarepackage

g languages

Ability topersonalizemodules ofthe softwarepackage byprogrammin

g languages

UsingDSL(DomainSpecificLanguage)

modules

Numeric Numeric

Number ofindependentl

y installablemodules

Level ofindependenc

e among themodules byindicatingwhethergroups ofmodules orsub-modulesneed to besimultaneously installedeven if onlysubset of

required

Numeric Numeric

Number of

workstations

Maximumnumber ofsimultaneou

distributedontodifferentservers

Numeric Numeric

Scalability Ability to

support anincreasingnumber ofusers and

higher loadof

transaction

Usability

Userinterface

Ease withwhich usercan useinterface ofthe softwarepackage

Learningcurve

Ease withwhich usercan learnand operatethe package

Fair Fair

User types

Ability ofthe softwarepackage tosupportbeginners,intermediate, advancedusers or acombination

of user types

OnlyCoderand User

SupperAdmin,Expert,Editor,Visitor,User

Datavisualization

Capability

softwarepackage topresent dataeffectively

Errorreportingandmessagingability of thesoftwarepackage

Domainvariety

Capability

softwarepackage to

be used indifferentindustries tosolve

differentkinds ofbusinessproblemsReliability

Robustness

Capability

softwarepackage torun

consistentlywithoutcrashing

Backup andrecovery

Capability

softwarepackage tosupport

backup andrecoveryfeature

support forpassword

superadmin,expert,editorhas anaccountData security Level of

support fordata security

4.1.4 Vendor Criteria

The vendor's criteria are used to assess the vendor's ability to deliver such asTraining and documentation criteria, Maintenance and up-gradation and Vendor

reputation In order to clarify the vendor criteria, the team analyzed Sub-criteria and

explained each sub- criteria through Criteria meaning as shown in Table 4

Table 4: Vendor Criteria Sub-

criteria

Basic criteria

Criteria meaning

ot

Camet est

to use thesoftware

Full PDFsare

available onhow to useHeidi

Hendry'scamelotsoftwareandChristopherMannauthors

Thedocumentation andresearchprovided

by UK

WWF-Troubleshooting guide

How tofix theproblem

Discussissuesthrough theGoogleGroup orsend email

masters

Training Provide

trainingcourses toteach how

to use thesoftware

No trainingcourses

Learn how

to usecametrapsoftware byprofessiona

l