AbstractThe proliferation of software packages has created a difficult, complex problem of evaluation and selection for many users. Traditional approaches to the quantification of package performance have relied on compensatory models, such as the linear weighted attribute model, which sums the weighted ratings of software attributes. These approaches define the dimensions of quality too narrowly and, therefore, omit substantial amounts of information from consideration. This paper presents an alternative methodology, previously used in capital rationing and tournament ranking, that expands the opportunity for objective insight into software quality. In particular, it considers three measures of quality, the frequency with which the attribute ratings of one package exceed those of another, the presence of outliers, where very poor performance may exist on a single attribute and be glossed over by compensatory methods, and the cumulative magnitude of attribute ratings on one package that exceed those on others. The proposed methodology is applied to the evaluation of the following software types: word processing, database management systems, spreadsheet/financial planning, integrated software, graphics, data communications and project management.