24th International Forum on COCOMO and Systems/Software Cost Modeling November 2, 2009

1. A Sizing Framework for DoD Software Cost AnalysisRaymond Madachy, NPSBarry Boehm, Brad Clark and Don Reifer, USCWilson Rosa, AFCAArjmadach@nps.edu, boehm@usc.edu, brad@software-metrics.com, dreifer@earthlink.net, wilson.rosa@pentagon.af.mil 24th International Forum on COCOMO and Systems/Software Cost ModelingNovember 2, 2009

2. Agenda Project Overview (Dr. Wilson Rosa) Data Analysis Software Sizing Conclusions

3. Project Background Goal is to improve the quality and consistency of estimating methods across cost agencies and program offices through guidance, standardization, and knowledge sharing. Project led by the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency (AFCAA) working with service cost agencies, and assisted by University of Southern California and Naval Postgraduate School We will publish the AFCAASoftware Cost Estimation Metrics Manual to help analysts and decision makers develop accurate, easy and quick software cost estimates for avionics, space, ground, and shipboard platforms.

4. Stakeholder Communities SLIM-Estimate™ • Research is collaborative across heterogeneous stakeholder communities who have helped us in refining our data definition framework, domain taxonomy and providing us project data. • Government agencies • Tool Vendors • Industry • Academia TruePlanning® by PRICE Systems 4

5. Research Objectives Establish a robust and cost effective software metrics collection process and knowledge base that supports the data needs of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) Enhance the utility of the collected data to program oversight and management Support academic and commercial research into improved cost estimation of future DoD software-intensive systems

6. Software Cost Model Calibration • Most program offices and support contractors rely heavily on software cost models • May have not been calibrated with most recent DoD data • Calibration with recent data (2002-Present) will help increase program office estimating accuracy

7. AFCAA Software Cost Estimation Metrics ManualTable of Contents • Chapter 1: Software Estimation Principles • Chapter 2: Product Sizing • Chapter 3: Product Growth • Chapter 4: Effective SLOC • Chapter 5: Historical Productivity • Chapter 6: Model Calibration • Chapter 7: Calibrated SLIM-ESTIMATE • Chapter 8: Cost Risk and Uncertainty Metrics • Chapter 9: Data Normalization • Chapter 10: Software Resource Data Report • Chapter 11: Software Maintenance • Chapter 12: Lessons Learned

8. Manual Special Features • Augment NCCA/AFCAA Software Cost Handbook: • Default Equivalent Size Inputs (DM, CM, IM, SU, AA, UNFM) • Productivity Benchmarks by Operating Environment, Application Domain, and Software Size • Empirical Code, Effort, and Schedule Growth Measures derived from SRDRs • Empirically Based Cost Risk and Uncertainty Analysis Metrics • Calibrated SLIM-Estimate™ using most recent SRDR data • Mapping between COCOMO, SEER, True S cost drivers • Empirical Dataset for COCOMO, True S, and SEER Calibration • Software Maintenance Parameters

9. Manual Special Features (Cont.) • Guidelines for reconciling inconsistent data • Standard Definitions (Application Domain, SLOC, etc.) • Address issues related to incremental development (overlaps, early-increment breakage, integration complexity growth, deleted software, relations to maintenance) and version management (a form of product line development and evolution). • Impact of Next Generation Paradigms – Model Driven Architecture, Net-Centricity, Systems of Systems, etc.

10. Agenda Project Overview (Dr. Wilson Rosa) Data Analysis Software Sizing Conclusions

11. DoD Empirical Data • Data quality and standardization issues • No reporting of Equivalent Size Inputs – CM, DM, IM, SU, AA, UNFM, Type • No common SLOC reporting – logical, physical, etc. • No standard definitions – Application Domain, Build, Increment, Spiral,… • No common effort reporting – analysis, design, code, test, CM, QA,… • No common code counting tool • Product size only reported in lines of code • No reporting of quality measures – defect density, defect containment, etc. • Limited empirical research within DoD on other contributors to productivity besides effort and size: • Operating Environment, Application Domain, and Product Complexity • Personnel Capability • Required Reliability • Quality – Defect Density, Defect Containment • Integrating code from previous deliveries – Builds, Spirals, Increments, etc. • Converting to Equivalent SLOC • Categories like Modified, Reused, Adopted, Managed, and Used add no value unless they translate into single or unique narrow ranges of DM, CM, and IM parameter values. We have seen no empirical evidence that they do…

12. SRDR Data Source

13. Data Collection and Analysis Approach Be sensitive to the application domain Embrace the full life cycle and Incremental Commitment Model Be able to collect data by phase, project and/or build or increment Items to collect SLOC reporting – logical, physical, NCSS, etc. Requirements Volatility and Reuse Modified or Adopted using DM, CM, IM; SU, UNFM as appropriate Definitions for Application Types, Development Phase, Lifecycle Model,… Effort reporting – phase and activity Quality measures – defects, MTBF, etc.

14. Data Normalization Strategy Interview program offices and developers to obtain additional information not captured in SRDRs… Modification Type – auto generated, re-hosted, translated, modified Source – in-house, third party, Prior Build, Prior Spiral, etc. Degree-of-Modification – %DM, %CM, %IM; SU, UNFM as appropriate Requirements Volatility -- % of ESLOC reworked or deleted due to requirements volatility Method – Model Driven Architecture, Object-Oriented, Traditional Cost Model Parameters – True S, SEER, COCOMO

15. Agenda Project Overview (Dr. Wilson Rosa) Data Analysis Software Sizing Conclusions

16. Size Issues and Definitions • An accurate size estimate is the most important input to parametric cost models. • Desire consistent size definitions and measurements across different models and programming languages • The sizing chapter addresses these: • Common size measures defined and interpreted for all the models • Guidelines for estimating software size • Guidelines to convert size inputs between models so projects can be represented in in a consistent manner • Using Source Lines of Code (SLOC) as common measure • Logical source statements consisting of data declarations executables • Rules for considering statement type, how produced, origin, build, etc. • Providing automated code counting tools adhering to definition • Providing conversion guidelines for physical statements • Addressing other size units such as requirements, use cases, etc.

17. Sizing Framework Elements • Core software size type definitions • Standardized data collection definitions • Measurements will be invariant across cost models and data collections venues • Project data normalized to these definitions • Translation tables for non-compliant data sources • SLOC definition and inclusion rules • Equivalent SLOC parameters • Cost model Rosetta Stone size translations • Other size unit conversions (e.g. function points, use cases, requirements)

18. Core Software Size Types

19. Equivalent SLOC – A User Perspective * • “Equivalent” – A way of accounting for relative work done to generate software relative to the code-counted size of the delivered software • “Source” lines of code: The number of logical statements prepared by the developer and used to generate the executing code • Usual Third Generation Language (C, Java): count logical 3GL statements • For Model-driven, Very High Level Language, or Macro-based development: count statements that generate customary 3GL code • For maintenance above the 3GL level: count the generator statements • For maintenance at the 3GL level: count the generated 3GL statements • Two primary effects: Volatility and Reuse • Volatility: % of ESLOC reworked or deleted due to requirements volatility • Reuse: either with modification (modified) or without modification (adopted) * Stutzke, Richard D, Estimating Software-Intensive Systems, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Addison Wesley, 2005

20. Adapted Software Parameters • For adapted software, apply the parameters: • DM: % of design modified • CM: % of code modified • IM: % of integration required compared to integrating new code • Normal Reuse Adjustment Factor RAF = 0.4*DM + 0.3*CM + 0.3*IM • Reused software has DM = CM = 0. • Modifiedsoftware has CM > 0. Since data indicates that the RAF factor tends to underestimate modification effort due to added software understanding effects, two other factors are used: • Software Understandability (SU): How understandable is the software to be modified? • Unfamiliarity (UNFM): How unfamiliar with the software to be modified is the person modifying it?

21. SLOC Inclusion Rules

22. Equivalent SLOC Rules Equivalent SLOC Rules for Maintenance Equivalent SLOC Rules for Development

23. Cost Model Size Inputs

24. Sizing Chapter Current Outline

25. Agenda Project Overview (Dr. Wilson Rosa) Data Analysis Software Sizing Conclusions

26. Concluding Remarks Goal is to publish a manual to help analysts develop quick software estimates using empirical metrics from recent programs Additional information is crucial for improving data quality across DoD We want your input on Productivity Domains and Data Definitions Looking for collaborators Looking for peer-reviewers Need more data

27. References • United States Department of Defense (DoD), “Instruction 5000.2, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System”, December 2008. • W. Rosa, B. Clark, R. Madachy, D. Reifer, and B. Boehm, “Software Cost Metrics Manual”, Proceedings of the 42nd Department of Defense Cost Analysis Symposium, February 2009. • B. Boehm, “Future Challenges for Systems and Software Cost Estimation”, Proceedings of the 13th Annual Practical Software and Systems Measurement Users’ Group Conference, June 2009. • B. Boehm, C. Abts, W. Brown, S. Chulani, B. Clark, E. Horowitz, R. Madachy, D. Reifer, and B. Steece, Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000. • R. Stutzke, Estimating Software-Intensive Systems, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison Wesley, 2005. • Madachy R, Boehm B, “Comparative Analysis of COCOMO II, SEER-SEM and True-S Software Cost Models”, USC-CSSE-2008-816, University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering, 2008.