In one aspect, the recency of the data file, record, or software component would also impact the ranking as would the number of edits of the data file, record, or software component. For example, the more recent in time the data file, record, or software component is in relation to the software application, the greater the weighted value (e.g., higher value) may be assigned for the ranking may be assigned. Also, an increased number of times of edits to the data file, record, or software component, the greater the weighted value (e.g., higher value) may be assigned for the ranking may be assigned. Also, the quality of software identification may also contribute to the ranking. Other factors that may be used to increase and/or decrease the weighted value/confidence score for ranking the data sources 510, 520, and 530 to indicate either retaining the software application and/or decommissioning the software may include, for example, a status of a user editing the records (e.g., an administrator or end user making edits), the user's role and relative importance (band or job title) as it relates to an entity (e.g., company such as, for example, a manager) or relates to the software application itself (e.g., an end user or software administrator). After the ranking and classification, those of the data sources 510, 520, and 530 having lower ranked software component scores as compared to those with a higher ranked software component scores may be identified as potential software decommission candidates.