Download
cosysmo portion the cocomo ii suite of software cost estimation models n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
COSYSMO Portion The COCOMO II Suite of Software Cost Estimation Models PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
COSYSMO Portion The COCOMO II Suite of Software Cost Estimation Models

COSYSMO Portion The COCOMO II Suite of Software Cost Estimation Models

1483 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

COSYSMO Portion The COCOMO II Suite of Software Cost Estimation Models

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. COSYSMO PortionThe COCOMO II Suite of Software Cost Estimation Models Garry Thomas, Raytheonand Barry Boehm, USC COCOMO/SCM 16 -- Oct. 23, 2001

  2. USC University of Southern California C S E Center for Software Engineering COSYSMO • Background • Scope • Strawman Model • Size & complexity • Cost & schedule drivers • Outputs • Issues

  3. Background • Topic of breakout group at October 2000 COCOMO/SCM Forum • Decided on incremental approach • Increment I: front-end costs of information systems engineering • Coordinating with development of INCOSE-FAA systems engineering maturity data repository • Also coordinating with Rational sizing metrics effort

  4. COSYSMO Increment I : Scope • Expand COCOMO II to information system engineering front end costs • Excluding aircraft, printer, etc. system engineering • sensors a gray area • Excluding Transition effort for now • All of Inception and Elaboration effort • Construction: Requirements; Deployment; 50% of Design effort

  5. Proposed System Engineering Scope: COCOMO II MBASE/RUP Phase and Activity Distribution

  6. Strawman COSYSMO • Sizing model determines nominal COCOMO II SysE effort and schedule • Function points/use cases/other for basic effort • Tool and document preparation separate (?) • “source of effort” • Factor in volatility and reuse • Begin with linear effort scaling with size (?) • Cost & Schedule drivers multiplicatively adjust nominal effort and schedule by phase, source of effort (?) • Application factors • Team factors

  7. COSYSMO Model Parameters Comments (Additions from Raytheon and TRW drivers, USC/CSE application and team factors) System Size Complexity rating (from Raytheon) 1 trivial, 3 simple, 7 normal, 10 very complex System Functional Requirements System Performance & Service Requirements (TPMs) System Scenarios & Ops Concept operational threads, use cases System External & Internal Interfaces System Integration & Test number of test cases, number of procedures, special test equipment, test tools, KSLOC of I&T support SW, number of problem reports, number of SDFs, number of test locations, number of COTS packages integrated System Architecture & Platforms Including Security Requirements number of HWCIs, CSCIs, subsystems, processors Note: Security requirement an effort driver versus a sizing parameter? Consolidated USC, SAIC, TRW Parameters - I

  8. COSYSMO: Factor Importance Rating Rate each factor H, M, or L depending on its relatively high, medium, or low influence on system engineering effort. Use an equal number of H’s, M’s, and L’s. N=6 3.0 2.5 2.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.5 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.3 Application Factors __H___Requirements understanding _M - H_Architecture understanding _L - H_ Level of service rqts. criticality, difficulty _L - M_ Legacy transition complexity _L – M COTS assessment complexity _L - H_ Platform difficulty _L – M_Required business process reengineering ______ TBD :Ops. concept understanding (N=H) ______ TBD Team Factors _L - M_Number and diversity of stakeholder communities _M - H_Stakeholder team cohesion _M - H_Personnel capability/continuity __ H__ Personnel experience _L - H_ Process maturity _L - M_Multisite coordination _L - H_Degree of system engineering ceremony _L - M_Tool support ______ TBD ______ TBD

  9. Raytheon Survey (21 responses) : COSYSMO Application Factors

  10. Raytheon Survey (21 responses) : COSYSMO Team Factors

  11. COSYSMO Model Parameters Comments (Additions from Raytheon and TRW drivers, USC/CSE application and team factors) Effort Drivers Technology Readiness & Maturity number of simulations, prototypes, tool development, engineering studies, life cycle support studies (LCC & RAM analyses) legacy transition, required business process re-engineering, process maturity Stakeholders & Cohesion Number and diversity of stakeholder communities, stakeholder team cohesion, multi-site coordination Formality of Deliverables number of traceability levels, formality of test program, level of service requirements criticality/difficulty Stability requirements volatility, schedule aggressiveness Understanding interface repeats, prior use, learning curve, reuse requirements and architecture understanding personnel experience and personnel capability/continuity Consolidated USC, SAIC, TRW Parameters - II

  12. Raytheon Survey (8 responses) : What constitutes SE Effort at your site?

  13. Issues : Suggestions on Improving • Scope • Proposed Approach • Model Form • Model Elements • Outputs • Over/underlaps with COCOMO II, COCOTS, CORADMO • Sources of data • Staffing