The Cocomo II Suite-Forum21

USC
C S E
University of Southern California
Center for Software Engineering
The COCOMO II Suite of Software

Cost Estimation Models
Barry Boehm, USC
COCOMO/SSCM Forum 21 Tutorial
November 8, 2006
boehm@csse.usc.edu,
http://csse.usc.edu/research/cocomosuite
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
USC
C S E
Thanks to USC-CSSE Affiliates (33)

Commercial Industry (10)
Cost Xpert Group, Galorath, Group Systems, IBM, Intelligent Systems, Microsoft,
Motorola, Price Systems, Softstar Systems, Sun
Aerospace Industry (8)

BAE Systems, Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop
Grumman(2), Raytheon, SAIC
Government (6)
FAA, NASA-Ames, NSF, US Army Research Labs, US Army TACOM, USAF
Cost Center
FFRDCs and Consortia (6)

Aerospace, FC-MD, IDA, JPL, SEI, SPC
International (3)
Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences, EASE (Japan), Samsung
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
USC
C S E
USC-CSSE Affiliates Program

Provides priorities for, access to USC-CSE research
Scalable spiral processes, cost/schedule/quality models,
requirements groupware, architecting and re-engineering
tools, value-based software engineering methods.
Experience in application in DoD, NASA, industry
Affiliate community events
14th Annual Research Review and Executive Workshop, USC
Campus, February 12-15, 2007
11th Annual Ground Systems Architecture Workshop (with
Aerospace Corp.), Manhattan Beach, CA, March 26-29, 2007
22nd International COCOMO/Systems and Software Cost
Estimation Forum, USC Campus, October 23-26, 2007
Synergetic with USC distance education programs

MS Systems Architecting and Engineering
MS / Computer Science Software Engineering
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
USC
C S E
Outline
11/8/06
COCOMO II Overview
Overview of Emerging Extensions
Motivation and Context

Model Form and Parameters
Calibration and Accuracy
COTS Integration (COCOTS)

Quality: Delivered Defect Density (COQUALMO)
Phase Distributions (COPSEMO)
Rapid Application Development Schedule (CORADMO)
Productivity Improvement (COPROMO)
Product Line Investment (COPLIMO)
System Engineering (COSYSMO)
System of System Integration (COSOSIMO)
COCOMO II Security Extensions (COSECMO)
Network Information Protection (CONIPMO)
USC-CSSE
USC
C S E
COCOMO Baseline Overview I

Software product size estimate
Software development mainten
Software product, process, computer, and personal attributes
Cost, schedule, distribution by
Software reuse, maintenance,
and increment parameters
phase, activity, increment
Software organizations
Project data
COCOMO recalibrated to
ance cost and schedule estimates
COCOMO
11/8/06
organizations data
USC-CSSE
USC
C S E
COCOMO II Book Table of Contents
- Boehm, Abts, Brown, Chulani, Clark, Horowitz, Madachy, Reifer, Steece, Software
Cost Estimation with COCOMO II, Prentice Hall, 2000
1. Introduction
2. Model Definition
3. Application Examples
4. Calibration
5. Emerging Extensions
6. Future Trends
Appendices
Assumptions, Data Forms, Users Manual, CD Content
CD: Video tutorials, USC COCOMO II.2000, commercial tool

demos, manuals, data forms, web site links, Affiliate forms
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
USC
C S E
Need to ReEngineer COCOMO 81
11/8/06
New software processes

New sizing phenomena
New reuse phenomena
Need to make decisions based on
incomplete information
USC-CSSE
USC
C S E
4x
COCOMO II Model Stages
2x
Early Design
(13 parameters)
1.5x
1.25x
Relative
Size Range
x
0.8x
Post-Architecture
(23 parameters)
0.67x
0.5x
Applications
Composition
(3 parameters)
0.25x
Concept of
Operation
Feasibility
Plans
and
Rqts.
Detail
Design
Spec.
Product
Design
Spec.
Rqts.
Spec.
Product
Design
Detail
Design
Accepted
Software
Devel.
and Test
Phases and Milestones

11/8/06
USC-CSSE
USC
C S E
Outline
11/8/06
COCOMO II Overview


USC-CSSE
USC
C S E
Early Design and Post-Architecture Model

Environment
Multipliers
Effort
Process Scale Factors
Size
Environment: Product, Platform, People,

Project Factors
Size: Nonlinear reuse and volatility effects
Process: Constraint, Risk/Architecture, Team,
Maturity Factors
Schedule Multiplier Effort

11/8/06
USC-CSSE
Process Scale Factors
10
USC
C S E
New Scaling Exponent Approach

Nominal person-months = A*(size)B
B = 0.91 + 0.01 (scale factor ratings)
- B ranges from 0.91 to 1.23
- 5 scale factors; 6 rating levels each
Scale factors:
- Precedentedness (PREC)
- Development flexibility (FLEX)
- Architecture/ risk resolution (RESL)
- Team cohesion (TEAM)
- Process maturity (PMAT, derived from SEI CMM)
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
11
USC
C S E
Project Scale Factors
2.94 (Size) B EM
PM
estimated
i
B 0.910.01
.
SF
i
Scale Factors
(Wi)
Low
Nominal
FLEX
thoroughly
unprecedented
rigorous
largely
unprecedented
occasional
relaxation
RESL
little (20%)
some (40%)
somewhat
unprecedented
some
relaxation
often (60%)
TEAM
very difficult
interactions
some difficult
interactions
PREC
PMAT
11/8/06
Very Low
basically
cooperative
interactions
weighted sum of 18 KPA achievement levels
USC-CSSE
High
generally
familiar
general
conformity
generally
(75%)
largely
cooperative
Very High
Extra High
largely familiar throughly

familiar
some
general goals
conformity
mostly (90%) full (100%)
highly
cooperative
seamless
interactions
12
USC
C S E
Nonlinear Reuse Effects

Data on 2954
NASA modules
[Selby, 1988]
1.0
0.75
Relative
cost 0.5
1.0
0.70
0.55
Usual Linear
Assumption
0.25
0.046
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.0
Amount Modified
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
13
USC
C S E
Reuse and Reengineering Effects

Add Assessment & Assimilation increment (AA)
- Similar to conversion planning increment
Add software understanding increment (SU)
- To cover nonlinear software understanding effects

- Coupled with software unfamiliarity level (UNFM)
- Apply only if reused software is modified
Results in revised Equivalent Source Lines of Code

(ESLOC)
- AAF = 0.4(DM) + 0.3 (CM) + 0.3 (IM)
- ESLOC = ASLOC[AA+AAF(1+0.02(SU)(UNFM))],
AAF < 0.5
- ESLOC = ASLOC[AA+AAF(SU)(UNFM))], AAF > 0.5
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
14
USC
C S E
Software Understanding
Rating / Increment
Very Low
Structure
Low
Reasonably
well structured;
some weak
areas.
High
Very High
Strong
modularity,
information
hiding in
data/control
structures.
Application
No match
Some
Moderate
Good
Clear match
Clarity
between
correlation
correlation
correlation
between
program and
between
between
between
program and
application
program and
program and
program and
application
world views.
application .
application .
application .
world views.
SelfObscure code;
Some code
Moderate level
Good code
SelfDescriptiveness documentation commentary and
of code
commentary
descriptive
missing,
headers; some commentary,
and headers;
code;
obscure or
useful
headers,
useful
documentation
obsolete.
documentation. documentation. documentation; up-to-date,
some weak
well-organized,
areas.
with design
rationale.
SU Increment to
50
40
30
20
10
ESLOC
11/8/06
Very low
Moderately low
cohesion, high cohesion, high
coupling,
coupling.
spaghetti code.
Nom
USC-CSSE
High cohesion,
low coupling.
15
USC
C S E
Other Major COCOMO II Changes

Range versus point estimates
Requirements Volatility (Evolution) included in Size
Multiplicative cost driver changes
- Product CDs
- Platform CDs
- Personnel CDs
- Project CDs
Maintenance model includes SU, UNFM factors from reuse
model
Applied to subset of legacy code undergoing change
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
16
USC
C S E
COCOMO II Estimation Accuracy:

Percentage of sample projects within 30% of actuals
-Without and with calibration to data source
# Projects
Effort
Schedule
11/8/06
COCOMO81
COCOMOII.1997
COCOMOII.2000
63
81%
83
161
52%
64%
61%
62%
75%
80%
72%
81%
65%
USC-CSSE
17
USC
C S E
COCOMO II. 2000 Productivity Ranges

Scale Factor Ranges: 10, 100, 1000 KSLOC
Development Flexibility (FLEX)

Team Cohesion (TEAM)
Develop for Reuse (RUSE)
Precedentedness (PREC)
Architecture and Risk Resolution (RESL)
Platform Experience (PEXP)
Data Base Size (DATA)
Required Development Schedule (SCED)
Language and Tools Experience (LTEX)
Process Maturity (PMAT)
Storage Constraint (STOR)
Use of Software Tools (TOOL)
Platform Volatility (PVOL)
Applications Experience (AEXP)
Multi-Site Development (SITE)
Documentation Match to Life Cycle Needs (DOCU)
Required Software Reliability (RELY)
Personnel Continuity (PCON)
Time Constraint (TIME)
Programmer Capability (PCAP)
Analyst Capability (ACAP)
Product Complexity (CPLX)
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
Productivity Range
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
18
USC
C S E
Outline
11/8/06
COCOMO II Overview


USC-CSSE
19
USC
C S E
Status of Models
COCOMO II
COCOTS
COQUALMO
Defects in
Defects out
CORADMO
COSYSMO
11/8/06
Literature
Behavior
Signif.
Variables
Delphi
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
>200
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
USC-CSSE
Data,
Bayes
20
6
16
60
20
USC
C S E
STAFFING
COCOMO vs. COCOTS Cost Sources
TIME
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
21
USC
C S E
Current COQUALMO System

COCOMO II
Software Size Estimate
Software platform,
Project, product and
personnel attributes
COQUALMO
Defect
Introduction
Model
Software
development effort,
cost and schedule
estimate
Number of residual defects

Defect density per unit of size
Defect removal
profile levels
Automation,
Reviews, Testing
11/8/06
Defect
Removal
Model
USC-CSSE
22
USC
C S E
Defect Removal Rating Scales

COCOMO II p.263
11/8/06
Very Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
Extra High
Automated
Analysis
Simple
compiler
syntax
checking
Basic compiler
capabilities
Compiler
extension
Basic req. and
design
consistency
Intermediatelevel module
Simple
req./design
More elaborate
req./design
Basic distprocessing
Formalized
specification,
verification.
Advanced distprocessing
Peer Reviews
No peer review
Ad-hoc
informal walkthrough
Well-defined
preparation,
review,
minimal
follow-up
Formal review
roles and Welltrained people
and basic
checklist
Root cause
analysis,
formal follow
Using
historical data
Extensive
review
checklist
Statistical
control
Execution
Testing and
Tools
No testing
Ad-hoc test
and debug
Basic test
Test criteria
based on
checklist
Well-defined
test seq. and
basic test
coverage tool
system
More advance
test tools,
preparation.
Distmonitoring
Highly
advanced
tools, modelbased test
USC-CSSE
23
USC
C S E
Defect Removal Estimates

- Nominal Defect Introduction Rates
70
60
60
50
Delivered Defects
/ KSLOC
40
30
28.5
20
14.3
10
7.5
0
VL
Low
Nom
High
3.5
VH
1.6
XH
Composite Defect Removal Rating
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
24
USC
C S E
Outline
11/8/06
COCOMO II Overview


USC-CSSE
25
USC
C S E
COCOMO II RAD Extension

(CORADMO)
RVHL
DPRS
CLAB
COCOMO II
cost drivers
(except SCED)
Language
Level,
experience,...
11/8/06
COCOMO II
Baseline
effort,
schedule
Phase
Distributions
(COPSEMO)
Effort,
RESL
PPOS
RCAP
RAD
Extension
schedule
by stage
RAD effort,
schedule
by phase
USC-CSSE
26
USC
C S E
Effect of RCAP on Cost, Schedule

16
14
12
10
8
RCAP = XL
6
4
RCAP = XH
2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
PM
3.7*(Cube root)
11/8/06
3*(Cube root)
USC-CSSE
Square root
27
USC
C S E
COPROMO (Productivity) Model

Uses COCOMO II model and extensions as
assessment framework
Well-calibrated to 161 projects for effort, schedule
Subset of 106 1990s projects for current-practice baseline
Extensions for Rapid Application Development formulated
Determines impact of technology investments on

model parameter settings
Uses these in models to assess impact of
technology investments on cost and schedule
Effort used as a proxy for cost
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
28
USC
C S E
The COPLIMO Model
Constructive Product Line Investment Model

Based on COCOMO II software cost model
Statistically calibrated to 161 projects, representing 18 diverse

organizations
Based on standard software reuse economic terms

RCR: Relative cost of reuse
RCWR: Relative cost of writing for reuse
Avoids overestimation
Avoids RCWR for non-reused components

Adds life cycle cost savings
Provides experience-based default parameter values

Simple Excel spreadsheet model
Easy to modify, extend, interoperate
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
29
USC
C S E
COPLIMO Estimation Summary

Part I: Product Line Development Cost Estimation Summary:
0
0
0
0
0
294
444
-150
-1.00
588
589
-1
-0.01
882
735
147
0.98
1176
881
295
1.97
1470
1026
444
2.96
Product Line Development Cost Estimation

600
Net development
effort savings
# of Products
Effort (PM)
No Reuse
Product Line
Product Line Savings
ROI
400
200
0
-200
# of products in product line
Product Line Annualized Life Cycle Cost

Estim ation
Net Product Line Effort Savings
Part II: Product Line Annualized Life Cycle Cost Estimation Summary:
# of Products 0
1
2
3
4
5
AMSIZE-P 0
8.1
16.2
24.2
32.3
40.4
AMSIZE-R 0
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
AMSIZE-A 0
6.1
7.7
9.3
11.0
12.6
Total Equiv. KSLOC 0
20.2
29.9
39.6
49.3
59.1
Effort (AM) (*2.94) 0
59.4
88.0
116.5
145.1
173.7
5-year Life Cycle PM 0
296.9
439.8
582.6
725.4
868.3
PM(N, 5)-R (+444) 0
740.9
883.7 1026.5 1169.4 1312.2
PM(N, 5)-NR 0
590.9 1181.9 1772.8 2363.8 2954.7
Product Line Savings (PM) 0
-149.9 298.2
746.3 1194.4 1642.5
ROI 0
-1.00
1.99
4.98
7.97
10.96
Devel. ROI 0
-1.00
-0.01
0.98
1.97
2.96
3-year Life Cycle 0
-142.0 120.0
480.0
800
700
5-year Life Cycle
600
500
400
3-year Life Cycle
300
200
Development
100
0
-100 0
-200
# of products
AMSIZE: Annually Maintained Software Size
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
30
USC
C S E
Outline
11/8/06
COCOMO II Overview


USC-CSSE
31
USC
C S E
Model Differences
COCOMO II
Software
Development phases
20+ years old
200+ calibration points
23 Drivers
Variable granularity
3 anchor points
Size is driven by SLOC
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
COSYSMO
Systems Engineering
Entire Life Cycle
3 years old
60 calibration points
18 drivers
Fixed granularity
No anchor points
Size is driven by
requirements, I/F, etc
32
USC
C S E
COSYSMO Operational Concept

# Requirements
# Interfaces
# Scenarios
# Algorithms
+
Volatility Factor
Size
Drivers
Effort
Multipliers
- Application factors
-8 factors
- Team factors
-6 factors
- Schedule driver
11/8/06
COSYSMO
Effort
Calibration
USC-CSSE
WBS guided by
ISO/IEC 15288
33
USC
C S E
Size Drivers
COSOSIMO Operational Concept
Interface-related eKSLOC
Number of logical
interfaces at SoS level
Number of operational
scenarios
Number of components
Exponential Scale Factors
11/8/06
Integration simplicity
Integration risk resolution
Integration stability
Component readiness
Integration capability
Integration processes
COSOSIMO
SoS
Definition and
Integration
Effort
Calibration
USC-CSSE
34
USC
C S E
Security Impact on Engineering Effort
For software developers:
For systems engineers:

Effort to develop
system increases
Source lines of code

increases
Effort to generate
software increases
Security functional
requirements
Security assurance
requirements
Effort to transition also

increases
More documentation
Additional certification and
accreditation costs
Being addressed by COSECMO
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
Network defense
requirements
Network defense
operational concepts
Program protection
requirements
Anti-tamper
implementation
Effort to transition also

increases
DITSCAP and red
teaming
Being addressed by CONIPMO
35
USC
C S E
Backup Charts
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
36
USC
C S E
Purpose of COCOMO II
To help people reason about the
cost and schedule implications of
their software decisions
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
37
USC
C S E
Major Decision Situations

Helped by COCOMO II
Software investment decisions
When to develop, reuse, or purchase

What legacy software to modify or phase out
11/8/06
Setting project budgets and schedules

Negotiating cost/schedule/performance tradeoffs
Making software risk management decisions
Making software improvement decisions
Reuse, tools, process maturity, outsourcing
USC-CSSE
38
USC
C S E
Relations to MBASE*/Rational
Anchor Point Milestones
App.
Compos.
Inception
LCO,
LCA
Sys
Devel
Waterfall
Rqts.
Inception
Phase
IOC
SRR
LCO
Transition
Elaboration, Construction
SAT
PDR
Prod. Des.
Development
Elaboration
Construction
LCA
Trans.
IOC
*MBASE: Model-Based (System) Architecting and Software Engineering

11/8/06
USC-CSSE
39
USC
C S E
Post-Architecture EMs-Product:
Required
Reliability
(RELY)
Very Low
Low
Nominal
High
slight
inconvenience
(0.82)
Low, easily
recoverable
losses (0.92)
Moderate,
easily
recoverable
losses (1.00)
10<D/P<100
High financial
loss (1.10)
Risk to
human life
(1.26)
100<D/P<
D/P>1000
DB
bytes/Pgm
SLOC<10
Database Size
(DATA)
Complexity
(CPLX)
Required
Reuse (RUSE)
Documentation
Match to
Lifecycle
(DOCU)
11/8/06
_
None
Many lifecycle
needs
uncovered
Some
lifecycle
needs
uncovered
Very High
Extra High
1000
See
Complexity
Table
Across
project
Across
program
Across
product line
Right-sized
to lifecycle
needs
Excessive for
lifecycle
needs
Very
excessive for
lifecycle
needs
USC-CSSE
_
Across
multiple
product lines
40
USC
C S E
Post-Architecture Complexity
Control Operations
Computation al
Operations
Very Low
Low
Nominal
High
Mostly simple nesting.

Some intermodule
control. Decision
tables. Simple
callbacks or message
passing, including
middleware-supported
distributed
processing.
Devicedependent
Operations
Data
Management
Operations
User Interface
Management
Operations
I/O processing
includes
device
selection,
status
checking and
error
processing.
Multi-file input
and single file
output. Simple
structural
changes, simple
edits. Complex
COTS-DB
queries, updates.
Use of standard
math and
statistical
routines. Basic
matrix/vector
operations.
Simple use of
widget set.
Very High
Extra
High
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
41
USC
C S E
Post-Architecture EMs-Platform:
Very Low
Nominal
High
Very High
Extra High
Execution
Time
Constraint
(TIME)
< 50% use of

available
execution
time
70%
85%
95%
Main Storage
Constraint
(STOR)
< 50% use of

available
storage
70%
85%
95%q
Major: 6 mo.;
minor: 2 wk.
Major: 2 mo.;
minor: 1 wk.
Major: 2 wk.;
minor: 2 days
Platform
Volatility
(PVOL)
11/8/06
Low
Major change
every 12 mo.;
minor change
every 1 mo.
USC-CSSE
42
USC
C S E
Post-Architecture EMs-Personnel:
Analyst
Capability
(ACAP)
Programmer
Capability
(PCAP)
Personnel
Continuity
(PCON)
Application
Experience
(AEXP)
Platform
Experience
(PEXP)
Language
and Tool
Experience
(LTEX)
11/8/06
Very Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
15th
percentile
35th
percentile
55th
percentile
75th
percentile
90th
percentile
15th
percentile
35th
percentile
55th
percentile
75th
percentile
90th
percentile
48%/year
24%/year
12%/year
6%/year
3%/year
<2 months
6 months
1 year
3 years
6 years
<2 months
6 months
1 year
3 years
6 years
<2 months
6 months
1 year
3 years
6 years
USC-CSSE
Extra High
43
USC
C S E
Post-Architecture EMs-Project:
Very Low
Use of Software
Tools (TOOL)
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
Strong, mature,
proactive
lifecycle tools,
well integrated
with processes,
methods, reuse
Same building
or complex
Edit, code,
debug
Simple,
frontend,
backend
CASE, little
integration
Basic
lifecycle
tools,
moderately
integrated
Strong, mature
lifecycle tools,
moderately
integrated
International
Multi-city
and Multicompany
Multi-city or
Multicompany
Same city or
metro. Area
Multisite
Development:
Communications
(SITE)
Some phone,
mail
Individual
phone, FAX
Narrowband
email
Wideband
electronic
communication
Required
Development
Schedule
(SCED)
75% of
nominal
85%
100%
130%
Multisite
Development:
Collocation
Extra High
Fully
collocated
(SITE)
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
Wideband
elect. Comm,
occasional
video conf.
Interactive
multimedia
160%
44
USC
C S E
Other Model Refinements
Initial Schedule Estimation
)
0.280.2(B
0.91
SCED %
TDEV 3.67 PM
100
where PM estimated person months excluding Schedule

multiplier effects
Output Ranges
Stage
Application Composition
Early Design
Post-Architecture
Optimistic Estimate
0.50 E
0.67 E
0.80 E
Pessimistic Estimate
2.0 E
1.5 E
1.25 E
- 80% confidence limits: 10% of time each below

Optimistic, above Pessimistic
- Reflect sources of uncertainty in model inputs
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
45
USC
C S E
Early Design vs. Post-Arch EMs:

Early Design Cost Driver
Counterpart Combined Post

Architecture Cost Drivers
Product Reliability and Complexity RELY, DATA, CPLX, DOCU
Required Reuse
11/8/06
RUSE
Platform Difficulty
TIME, STOR, PVOL
Personnel Capability
ACAP, PCAP, PCON
Personnel Experience
AEXP, PEXP, LTEX
Facilities
TOOL, SITE
Schedule
SCED
USC-CSSE
46
USC
C S E
Outline
COCOMO II Overview
11/8/06


Dependability ROI (iDAVE)
USC-CSSE
47
USC
C S E
USC-CSE Modeling Methodology

- concurrency and feedback implied
Analyze existing literature
Step 1
Perform Behavioral
analyses
Step 2
Identify relative
significance
Step 3
Perform expert-judgment
Delphi assessment,
formulate
a-priori model
Step 4
Gather project data
Step 5
Determine Bayesian APosteriori model

Step 6
Gather more data; refine

model
Step 7
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
48
USC
C S E
Results of Bayesian Update: Using Prior and

Sampling Information (Step 6)
A-posteriori Bayesian update
1.06
1.41
1.51
1.45
A-priori
Experts Delphi
Literature,
behavioral analysis
Noisy data analysis
11/8/06
Productivity Range =
Highest Rating /
Lowest Rating
Language and Tool Experience (LTEX)

USC-CSSE
49
USC
C S E
COCOMO Model Comparisons

COCOMO
Size
Reuse
Delivered Source Instructions

(DSI) or Source Lines of
Code (SLOC)
Equivalent SLOC = Linear
(DM,CM,IM)
Ada COCOMO
COCOMO II:
Application Composition
COCOMO II:
Early Design
COCOMO II:
Post-Architecture
DSI or SLOC
Application Points
Function Points (FP) and

Language or SLOC
FP and Language or SLOC
Equivalent SLOC = Linear

(DM,CM,IM)
Implicit in Model
Equivalent SLOC = nonlinear

(AA, SU,UNFM,DM,CM,IM)
Equivalent SLOC = nonlinear

(AA, SU,UNFM,DM,CM,IM)
RVOL rating
Implicit in Model
Change % : RQEV
RQEV
ACT
Object Point ACT
(ACT,SU,UNFM)
(ACT,SU,UNFM)
Rqts. Change
Requirements Volatility
rating: (RVOL)
Maintenance
Annual Change Traffic

(ACT) =
%added + %modified
Scale (b) in
MMNOM=a(Size)b
Organic: 1.05 Semidetached:

1.12 Embedded: 1.20
Embedded: 1.04 -1.24

depending on degree of:
early risk elimination
solid architecture
stable requirements
Ada process maturity
1.0
Product Cost Drivers
RELY, DATA, CPLX
None
Platform Cost Drivers
TIME, STOR, VIRT, TURN
None
Platform difficulty: PDIF *
.91-1.23 depending on the

degree of:
precedentedness
conformity
early architecture, risk
resolution
team cohesion
process maturity (SEI)
RELY, DATA, DOCU * ,
CPLX , RUSE*
TIME, STOR, PVOL(=VIRT)
Personnel Cost
Drivers
Project Cost Drivers
ACAP, AEXP, PCAP,

VEXP, LEXP
MODP, TOOL, SCED
RELY*, DATA, CPLX *,

RUSE
TIME, STOR, VMVH,
VMVT, TURN
ACAP*, AEXP, PCAP *,
VEXP, LEXP *
MODP*, TOOL*, SCED,
SECU
.91-1.23 depending on the

degree of:
precedentedness
conformity
early architecture, risk
resolution
team cohesion
process maturity (SEI)
RCPX* , RUSE*
None
Personnel capability and

experience: PERS*, PREX*
SCED, FCIL*
ACAP*, AEXP, PCAP*,

PEXP*, LTEX *, PCON*
TOOL* , SCED, SITE*
None
* Different Multipliers
Different Rating Scale
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
50
USC
C S E
COCOMO II Experience Factory: I

Rescope
No
System objectives:
fcny, perf., quality
COCOMO 2.0
Cost,
Sched,
Risks
Corporate parameters:
tools, processes, reuse
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
Ok?
Yes
51
USC
C S E
COCOMO II Experience Factory: II

Rescope
No
System objectives:
COCOMO 2.0
Cost,
Sched,
Risks
Ok?
Yes
Execute
project
to next
Milestone
M/S
Results
Milestone plans,
resources
Milestone
expectations
Revise
Milestones,
Plans,
Resources
No
Ok?
Yes
Done?
Revised
Expectations
No
Yes
End
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
52
USC
C S E
COCOMO II Experience Factory: III

Rescope
No
System objectives:
COCOMO 2.0
Cost,
Sched,
Risks
Ok?
Yes
Execute
project
to next
Milestone
M/S
Results
Milestone plans,
resources
Milestone
expectations
Recalibrate
COCOMO 2.0
Accumulate
COCOMO 2.0
calibration
data
Revise
Milestones,
Plans,
Resources
No
Ok?
Yes
Done?
Revised
Expectations
No
Yes
End
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
53
USC
C S E
COCOMO II Experience Factory: IV

Rescope
No
System objectives:
COCOMO 2.0
Improved
Corporate
Parameters
Ok?
Yes
M/S
Results
Milestone plans,
resources
Cost, Sched,
Quality drivers
Evaluate
Corporate
SW
Improvement
Strategies
Cost,
Sched,
Risks
Execute
project
to next
Milestone
Recalibrate
COCOMO 2.0
Milestone
expectations
Accumulate
COCOMO 2.0
calibration
data
Revise
Milestones,
Plans,
Resources
No
Ok?
Yes
Done?
Revised
Expectations
No
Yes
End
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
54
USC
C S E
New Glue Code Submodel Results

Current calibration looking reasonably good
Excluding projects with very large,
very small amounts of glue code (Effort Pred):
[0.5 - 100 KLOC]: Pred (.30) = 9/17 = 53%
[2 - 100 KLOC]: Pred (.30) = 8/13 = 62%
For comparison, calibration results shown at ARR 2000:
[0.1 - 390 KLOC]: Pred (.30) = 4/13 = 31%
Propose to revisit large, small, anomalous projects
A few follow-up questions on categories of code & effort
Glue code vs. application code
Glue code effort vs. other sources
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
55
USC
C S E
Current Insights into Maintenance Phase Issues

Priority of Activities by Effort Involved and/or Criticality
Higher
training
SC
configuration management
C
operations support
C
integration analysis
S
requirements management
SC
S - spikes around
Medium
refresh cycle
certification
anchor points
S
market watch
C C - continuous
distribution
S
vendor management
C
business case evaluation
S
Lower
administering COTS licenses
C
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
56
USC
C S E
RAD Context
RAD a critical competitive strategy
Market window; pace of change
Non-RAD COCOMO II overestimates

RAD schedules
Need opportunity-tree cost-schedule

adjustment
Cube root model inappropriate for small
RAD projects
COCOMO II:
11/8/06
Mo. = 3.7 PM
USC-CSSE
57
USC
C S E
Eliminating Tasks
Reducing Time Per Task
RAD
Reducing Risks of Single-Point

Failures
RAD Opportunity Tree

Development process reengineering - DPRS
Reusing assets - RVHL
Applications generation - RVHL
Schedule as Independent Variable Process
Tools and automation - O
Work streamlining (80-20) - O
Increasing parallelism - RESL
Reducing failures - RESL
Reducing their effects - RESL
Early error elimination - RESL
Reducing Backtracking
Activity Network Streamlining
Process anchor points - RESL

Improving process maturity - O
Collaboration technology - CLAB
Minimizing task dependencies - DPRS
Avoiding high fan-in, fan-out - DPRS
Reducing task variance - DPRS
Removing tasks from critical path - DPRS
Increasing Effective Workweek
24x7 development - PPOS

Nightly builds, testing - PPOS
Weekend warriors - PPOS
Better People and Incentives
RAD Capability and experience - RCAP
11/8/06
O: covered by
USC-CSSE
58
USC
C S E
RCAP:RAD Capability of Personnel
RATING
FACTOR
XL
VL
VH
XH
PERS-R
10%
25%
40%
55%
70%
85%
95%
PREX-R
2mo
4 mo
6 mo
1 yr
3 yrs
6 yrs
10 yrs
I,E, C
Multipliers
PM
1.20
1.13
1.06
1.0
.93
.86
.80
1.40
1.25
1.12
1.0
.82
.68
.56
P=PM/M
.86
.90
.95
1.0
1.13
1.26
1.43
PERS-R is the Early Design Capability rating, adjusted to reflect the performers
capability to rapidly assimilate new concepts and material, and to rapidly adapt to
change.
11/8/06
PREX-R is the Early Design Personnel Experience rating, adjusted to reflect the
performers experience with RAD languages, tools, components, and COTS
integration.
USC-CSSE
59
USC
C S E
RCAP Example
RCAP = Nominal PM = 25, M = 5, P = 5

The square root law: 5 people for 5 months: 25 PM
RCAP = XH
PM = 20, M = 2.8, P = 7.1
A very good team can put on 7 people and finish in 2.8 months: 20 PM
RCAP = XL
PM = 30, M = 7, P = 4.3
Trying to do RAD with an unqualified team makes them less efficient (30 PM) and
gets the schedule closer to the cube root law:
(but not quite:
11/8/06
= 9.3 months > 7 months)
USC-CSSE
60
USC
C S E
COPLIMO Inputs and Outputs

As functions of # products,
# years in life cycle
For current set of

similar products,
Average product size,
COCOMO II cost drivers
Percent mission-unique,
reused-with-mods,
Non-product line effort
COPLIMO
black-box reuse
RCR, RCWR factors,
Product line investment,

effort
Product line savings, ROI
annual change traffic

11/8/06
USC-CSSE
61
USC
C S E
4 Size Drivers
1.
2.
3.
4.
Number of System Requirements

Number of Major Interfaces
Number of Operational Scenarios
Number of Critical Algorithms
Each weighted by complexity, volatility, and degree of reuse
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
62
USC
C S E
Number of System Requirements

This driver represents the number of requirements for the system-of-interest at a
specific level of design. Requirements may be functional, performance, feature,
or service-oriented in nature depending on the methodology used for
specification. They may also be defined by the customer or contractor. System
requirements can typically be quantified by counting the number of applicable
shalls or wills in the system or marketing specification. Do not include a
requirements expansion ratio only provide a count for the requirements of the
system-of-interest as defined by the system or marketing specification.
Easy
11/8/06
Nominal
Difficult
- Well specified
- Loosely specified
- Poorly specified
- Traceable to source
- Can be traced to source with some

effort
- Hard to trace to source
- Simple to understand
- Takes some effort to understand
- Hard to understand
- Little requirements overlap
- Some overlap
- High degree of requirements

overlap
- Familiar
- Generally familiar
- Unfamiliar
- Good understanding of
whats needed to satisfy and
verify requirements
- General understanding of whats

needed to satisfy and verify
requirements
- Poor understanding of whats

needed to satisfy and verify
requirements
USC-CSSE
63
USC
C S E
14 Cost Drivers
Application Factors (8)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
11/8/06
Requirements understanding
Architecture complexity
Level of service requirements
Migration complexity
Technology Maturity
Documentation Match to Life Cycle Needs
# and Diversity of Installations/Platforms
# of Recursive Levels in the Design
USC-CSSE
64
USC
C S E
Level of service (KPP) requirements

This cost driver rates the difficulty and criticality of satisfying the ensemble of Key
Performance Parameters (KPP), such as security, safety, response time,
interoperability, maintainability, the ilities, etc.
Viewpoint
Very low
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
Difficulty
Simple
Low difficulty,
coupling
Moderately
complex, coupled
Difficult, coupled
KPPs
Very complex,
tightly coupled
Criticality
Slight inconvenience
Easily recoverable
losses
Some loss
High financial
loss
Risk to human life
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
65
USC
C S E
14 Cost Drivers (cont.)
Team Factors (6)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
11/8/06
Stakeholder team cohesion

Personnel/team capability
Personnel experience/continuity
Process maturity
Multisite coordination
Tool support
USC-CSSE
66
USC
C S E
4. Rate Cost Drivers - Application
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
67
USC
C S E
9. *Time Phase the Estimate Overall Staffing
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
68
USC
C S E
Proposed COSOSIMO Size Drivers
Subsystem size of interface software measured in effective KSLOC (eKSLOC)

Number of components
Number of major interfaces
Number of operational scenarios
S2
S1
S4
S3
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
Each weighted by
Complexity
Volatility
Degree of COTS/reuse
69
USC
C S E
Proposed COSOSIMO Scale Factors

Integration risk resolution
Risk identification and mitigation efforts
Integration simplicity
Architecture and performance issues
Integration stability
How much change is expected
Component readiness
How much prior testing has been conducted on the components
Integration capability
People factor
Integration processes
Maturity level of processes and integration lab
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
70
USC
C S E
Reasoning about the Value of

Dependability iDAVE
iDAVE: Information Dependability Attribute Value
Estimator
Use iDAVE model to estimate and track software
dependability ROI
Help determine how much dependability is enough
Help analyze and select the most cost-effective combination of

software dependability techniques
Use estimates as a basis for tracking performance
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
71
USC
C S E
iDAVE Model Framework

Time-phased
information
processing
capabilities
Cost estimating relationships (CERs)

Cost = f
IP Capabilities (size),
project attributes
Cost
Dependability
attribute levels Di
Project attributes
Time-phased
dependability
investments
Time-phased
Dependability attribute estimating

relationships (DERs)
Di = gi
Value components
Vj
Dependability
investments,
project attributes
Return on
Investment
Value estimating relationships (VERs)
Vj = hj
11/8/06
IP Capabilities
dependability levels Di
USC-CSSE
72
USC
C S E
Value ($)
Typical Value Estimating Relationships

Full Value
Production Function Shape

Linear
Revenue loss per hour system downtime

Intel: $275K
Cisco: $167K
Dell: $83K
Amazon.com: $27K
E*Trade: $8K
ebay: $3K
Investment
High-Returns
Diminishing Returns
1.0
Availability
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
73
USC
C S E
ROI Analysis Results Comparison
11/8/06
USC-CSSE
74

The Cocomo II Suite-Forum21

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Cocomo II Suite-Forum21

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

USC

University of Southern California

Center for Software Engineering

The COCOMO II Suite of Software

University of Southern California

Center for Software Engineering

Thanks to USC-CSSE Affiliates (33)

Aerospace Industry (8)

FFRDCs and Consortia (6)

University of Southern California

Center for Software Engineering

USC-CSSE Affiliates Program

Synergetic with USC distance education programs

University of Southern California

Center for Software Engineering

Overview of Emerging Extensions

Motivation and Context

COTS Integration (COCOTS)

University of Southern California

Center for Software Engineering

COCOMO Baseline Overview I

ance cost and schedule estimates

University of Southern California

Center for Software Engineering

COCOMO II Book Table of Contents

Assumptions, Data Forms, Users Manual, CD Content

CD: Video tutorials, USC COCOMO II.2000, commercial tool

University of Southern California

Center for Software Engineering

Need to ReEngineer COCOMO 81

New software processes

University of Southern California

Center for Software Engineering

COCOMO II Model Stages

Phases and Milestones

University of Southern California

Center for Software Engineering

Overview of Emerging Extensions

Motivation and Context

COTS Integration (COCOTS)

University of Southern California

Center for Software Engineering

Early Design and Post-Architecture Model

Process Scale Factors

Environment: Product, Platform, People,

Schedule Multiplier Effort

Process Scale Factors

University of Southern California

Center for Software Engineering

New Scaling Exponent Approach

University of Southern California

Center for Software Engineering

Project Scale Factors

largely familiar throughly

University of Southern California

Center for Software Engineering

Nonlinear Reuse Effects

University of Southern California

Center for Software Engineering

Reuse and Reengineering Effects

Add software understanding increment (SU)

- To cover nonlinear software understanding effects

Results in revised Equivalent Source Lines of Code

University of Southern California