Constructive system of systems integration cost model cososimo tutorial
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 34

Constructive System of Systems Integration Cost Model (COSOSIMO) ****************** Tutorial PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 123 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

COSOSIMO. Constructive System of Systems Integration Cost Model (COSOSIMO) ****************** Tutorial. Jo Ann Lane, [email protected] USC Center for Systems & Software Engineering http://csse.usc.edu 23 October 2006. Overview. COSOSIMO Background

Download Presentation

Constructive System of Systems Integration Cost Model (COSOSIMO) ****************** Tutorial

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Constructive system of systems integration cost model cososimo tutorial

COSOSIMO

Constructive System of Systems Integration Cost Model (COSOSIMO)******************Tutorial

Jo Ann Lane, [email protected]

USC Center for Systems & Software Engineering

http://csse.usc.edu23 October 2006


Overview

Overview

  • COSOSIMO Background

  • System of Systems (SoS) and SoS Engineering (SoSE) Environment

  • Current COSOSIMO Cost Estimation Approach

  • Conclusions

  • References


Cocomo cost model suite overview

COCOMO Cost Model Suite Overview*

* Barry Boehm, Ricardo Valerdi, Jo Ann Lane, and Winsor Brown, “COCOMO Suite Methodology and Evolution”, CrossTalk, April 2005.


Usc cse modeling methodology

USC-CSE Modeling Methodology*

Analyze existing literature

Step 1

Concurrency and

feedback implied…

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 A-Posteriori model

Step 6

Gather more data; refine model

Step 7

* Boehm, et. al., Software Cost Estimation with COCOMOII, 2000.


Goal of research

Goal of Research

  • Develop a cost model (COSOSIMO) to

    • Support the estimation of effort associated with System-of-System Engineering (SoSE)

      • May be performed by one or more Lead System Integrator (LSI) organizations

    • Complement the other USC CSE cost models for software development, system engineering (SE), and Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) integration, leading toward a more comprehensive and unified cost model to support the much broader system of interest life cycle

COSOSIMO will not estimate the total SoS development

costs, but rather just the SoSE costs at the SoS level…


History of cososimo model

History of COSOSIMO Model


What is a system of systems

What is a “System-of-Systems”?

  • Very large systems developed by creating a framework or architecture to integrate component systems

  • SoS component systems independently developed and managed

    • New or existing systems

    • Have their own purpose

    • Can dynamically come and go from SoS

  • SoS exhibits emergent behavior not otherwise achievable by component systems

  • SoS activities often planned and coordinated by a Lead System Integrator (LSI)

  • Typical domains

    • Business: Enterprise-wide and cross-enterprise integration to support core business enterprise operations across functional and geographical areas

    • Military: Dynamic communications infrastructure to support operations in a constantly changing, sometimes adversarial, environment

  • INCOSE Handbook Definition: “Systems of Systems” are defined as an interoperating collection of component systems that produce results unachievable by the individual systems alone. (Krygiel 1999)


What is a lead system integrator

What is a “Lead System Integrator”?

  • Organization (or set of organizations) selected to accomplish the definition and acquisition of SoS components, and the continuing integration, test, and evolution of the components and SoS

  • Typical activities

    • Lead concurrent engineering of requirements, architecture, and plans

    • Identify and evaluate technologies to be integrated

    • Conduct source selection

    • Coordinate supplier activities and validate SoS architecture feasibility

    • Integrate and test SoS-level capabilities

    • Manage changes at the SoS level and across the SoS-related IPTs

    • Manage evolving interfaces to external systems

  • Typically do not develop system components to be integrated (possible exception: SoS infrastructure)


What is sose

What is SoSE

  • USAF SAB Report on SoSE for Air Force Capability (USAF 2005):The process of planning, analyzing, organizing, and integrating the capabilities of a mix of existing and new systems into a system-of-systems capability that is greater than the sum of the capabilities of the constituent parts. This processes emphasizes the process of discovering, developing, and implementing standards that promote interoperability among systems developed via different sponsorship, management, and primary acquisition processes.

  • National Centers for Systems of Systems Engineering (NCOSOSE):The design, deployment, operation, and transformation of metasystems that must function as an integrated complex system to produce desirable results. These metasystems are themselves comprised of multiple autonomous embedded complex systems that can be diverse in technology, context, operation, geography, and conceptual frame. (http://www.eng.odu.edu/ncsose/what_is_SOSE.shtml)


What is sose continued

What is SoSE (continued)

  • Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_Systems_Engineering): SoSE is a set of developing processes and methods for designing and implementing solutions to System-of-Systems problems. SoSE is relatively new term being used in Department of Defense applications, but is increasingly being applied to non-military/security related problems (e.g. transportation, healthcare, internet, search and rescue, space exploration). SoSE is more than systems engineering of complex systems because design for System-of-Systems problems is performed under some level of uncertainty in the requirements and the constituent systems, and it involves considerations in multiple levels and domains.

  • SoSE and Systems Engineering are related but different fields of study. Where as systems engineering addresses the development and operations of products, SoSE addresses the development and operations of programs. In other words, traditional systems engineering seeks to optimize an individual system (i.e., the product), while SoSE seeks to optimize network of various systems brought together to meet specific program's (i.e., the SoS problem's) objectives. SoSE enables decision-makers to understand the implications of various choices; thus, SoSE methodology seeks to prepare the decision-makers for effective architecting of System-of-Systems problems.

  • Due to varied methodology and areas of applications in existing literature, there is no unified consensus for processes involved in System-of-Systems Engineering. One of the proposed SoSE frameworks, by Dr. Daniel A. DeLaurentis, recommends a three-phase method where a SoS problem is defined (understood), abstracted, modeled and analyzed for behavioral patterns.


Sose compared to traditional se activities

Traditional SE Activities (EIA/ANSI 632)

Acquisition and supply

Product Supply

Product Acquisition

Supplier Performance

Technical management

Process Implementation Strategy

Technical Effort Definition

Schedule and Organization

Technical Plans

Work Directives

Progress Against Plans and Schedules

Progress Against Requirements

Technical Reviews

Outcomes Management

Information Dissemination

System design

Acquirer Requirements

Other Stakeholder Requirements

System Technical Requirements

Logical Solution Representations

Physical Solution Representations

Specified Requirements

Traditional SE Activities(continued)

Product realization

Implementation

Transition to Use

Technical evaluation

Effectiveness Analysis

Tradeoff Analysis

Risk Analysis

Requirements Statements Validation

Acquirer Requirements Validation

Other Stakeholder Requirements Validation

System Technical Requirements Validation

Logical Solution Representations Validation

Design Solution Verification

End Product Verification

Enabling Product Readiness

End Products Validation

SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities


Sose compared to traditional se activities continued

SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities (continued)

  • Key Areas Where SoSE Activities Differ From Traditional Systems Engineering

    • Architecting composability vs. decomposition (Meilich 2006)

    • Added “ilities” such as flexibility, adaptability, composability (USAF 2005)

    • Net-friendly vs. hierarchical (Meilich 2006)

    • First order tradeoffs above the component systems level (e.g., optimization at the SoS level, instead of at the component system level) (Garber 2006)

    • Early tradeoffs/evaluations of alternatives (Finley 2006)

    • Human as part of the SoS (Siel 2006, Meilich 2006, USAF 2005)

    • Discovery and application of convergence protocols (USAF 2005)


Sose compared to traditional se activities continued1

SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities (continued)

  • Key Areas Where SoSE Activities Differ From Traditional Systems Engineering (continued)

    • Organizational scope defined at runtime instead of at system development time (Meilich 2006)

    • Dynamic reconfiguration of architecture as needs change (USAF 2005)

    • Modeling and simulation, in particular to better understand “emergent behaviors” (Finley 2006)

    • Component systems separately acquired and continue to be managed as independent systems (USAF 2005)

    • Intense concept phase analysis followed by continuous anticipation; aided by ongoing experimentation (USAF 2005)


Sose compared to traditional se activities continued2

SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities (continued)

  • Key Challenges for SoSE

    • Business model and incentives to encourage working together at the SoS level (Garber 2006)

    • Doing the necessary tradeoffs at the SoS level (Garber 2006)

    • Human-system integration (Siel 2006, Meilich 2006)

    • Commonality of data, architecture, and business strategies at the SoS level (Pair 2006)

    • Removing multiple decision making layers (Pair 2006)

    • Requiring accountability at the enterprise level (Pair 2006)

    • Evolution management (Meilich 2006)

    • Maturity of technology (Finley 2006)

For the most part, SoSE appears to be SE+


Sample dynamic sos metropolitan area crisis management system

Sample Dynamic SoS:Metropolitan Area Crisis Management System

Net-Centric

Connectivity

Net

-

Centric SoS


Sample steady state sos enterprise wide integration of core business applications

• • •

Supplier 1

Supplier n

Net-Centric

Connectivity

Net-Centric

Connectivity

Net-Centric

Connectivity

Sample “Steady-State” SoS: Enterprise Wide Integration of Core Business Applications


System of systems cost estimation

Level 0

SOS

Level 1

S1

S2 (SoS)

……

Sm

Level 2

S11

S12

S1n

S21

S22

S2n

Sm1

Sm2

Smn

……

……

……

System of Systems Cost Estimation


System of systems cost model

System of Systems Cost Model

  • Characteristics of SoSs supported by cost model

    • Strategically-oriented stakeholders interested in tradeoffs and costs

    • Long-range architectural vision for SoS

    • Developed and integrated by an LSI

    • System component independence

  • Size drivers and cost drivers

    • Based on product characteristics, processes that impact LSI effort, and LSI personnel experience and capabilities

COSOSIMO

Size Drivers

SoS

Definition and

Integration

Effort

Cost Drivers

Calibration


Proposed size drivers

Proposed Size Drivers

  • Number of SoS-related requirements

  • Number of of distinct interface protocols to be provided by the SoS framework

  • Number of independent system component organizations that are providing system components that will operate within the SoS framework

  • Number of SoS user scenarios

  • Number of unique component systems

S2

S1

S4

Each weighted

by complexity…

S3


Conceptual lsi effort profile

Conceptual LSI Effort Profile

  • LSI activities focus on three somewhat independent activities, performed by relatively independent teams

  • A given LSI may be responsible for one, two, or all activity areas

  • Some SoS programsmay have more than one organization performing LSI activities


Cososimo reduced parameter sub model overview

COSOSIMO

COSOSIMO Reduced Parameter Sub-Model Overview

Planning,

Requirements

Management,

and Architecting

(PRA)

Size Drivers

SoS

Definition and

Integration

Effort

Source Selection

and Supplier

Oversight (SO)

Cost Drivers

SoS Integration

and Testing

(I&T)


Cososimo pra sub model

COSOSIMO: PRA Sub-Model

  • Size Drivers

  • # SoS-related requirements

  • # SoS interface protocols

Planning,

Requirements

Management,

and Architecting

LSI PRA

Effort

  • Cost Drivers

  • Requirements understanding

  • Level of service requirements

  • Stakeholder team cohesion

  • SoS team capability

  • Maturity of LSI processes

  • Tool support

  • Cost/schedule compatibility

  • SoS risk resolution


Cososimo pra effort estimation

COSOSIMO PRA Effort Estimation

m n

SoS PRAPM = APRA[ CREQi +  CIPj]BPRA

i=1 j=1

Where:

PRAPMLSI Planning, Requirements Management, and Analysis effort in person-months

APRAConstant derived from PRA historical data

CREQiComplexity factor associated with the ith SoS requirement

CIPjComplexity factor associated with the jth SoS interface protocol

mNumber of SoS-related “sea-level” requirements

nNumber of interface protocols supported by the SoS architecture

BPRA Effort exponent based on the PRA exponential scale factors. The geometric product of the scale factors results in an overall exponential effort adjustment factor to the nominal PRA effort


Cososimo so sub model

COSOSIMO: SO Sub-Model

  • Size Drivers

  • # independent component system organizations

Source Selection

and

Supplier

Oversight

LSI SO

Effort

  • Cost Drivers

  • Requirements understanding

  • Architecture maturity

  • Level of service requirements

  • SoS team capability

  • Maturity of LSI processes

  • Tool support

  • Cost/schedule compatibility

  • SoS risk resolution


Cososimo so effort estimation

COSOSIMO SO Effort Estimation

n

SoS SOPM = ASO[ CSCOj]BSO

j=1

Where:

SOPMLSI Source Selection and Supplier Oversight effort in person-months

ASOConstant derived from SO historical data

CSCOjComplexity factor associated with the jth SoS component system organization

nNumber of organizations providing independently developed and maintained system components for the SoS

BSO Effort exponent based on the SoS SO exponential scale factors. The geometric product of the scale factors results in an overall exponential effort adjustment factor to the nominal SO effort


Cososimo i t sub model

COSOSIMO: I&T Sub-Model

  • Size Drivers

  • # SoS interface protocols

  • # SoS scenarios

  • # unique component systems

SoS

Integration

and Testing

LSI I&T

Effort

  • Cost Drivers

  • Requirements understanding

  • Architecture maturity

  • Level of service requirements

  • SoS team capability

  • Maturity of LSI processes

  • Tool support

  • Cost/schedule compatibility

  • SoS risk resolution

  • Component system maturity and stability

  • Component system readiness


Cososimo i t effort estimation

COSOSIMO I&T Effort Estimation

q r s

SoS I&TPM = AI&T[ CIPi +  CSCENj + CSCOk]BI&T

i=1 j=1 k=1

Where:

I&TPMLSI Integration and Test effort in person-months

AI&TConstant derived from I&T historical data

CIPiComplexity factor associated with the ith SoS interface protocol

CSCENj Complexity factor associated with the jth SoS interface protocol

CSCOkComplexity factor associated with the kth SoS component system organization

qNumber of interface protocols supported by the SoS architecture

rNumber of SoS scenarios

sNumber of organizations providing independently developed and maintained system components for the SoS

BI&T Effort exponent based on the I&T exponential scale factors. The geometric product of the scale factors results in an overall exponential effort adjustment factor to the nominal I&T effort


Cososimo total sose effort estimation

COSOSIMO Total SoSE Effort Estimation

SoSEPM = PRAPM + SOPM + I&TPM

Where:

PRAPMLSI Planning, Requirements Management, and Analysis effort in person-months

SOPM LSI Source Selection and Supplier Oversight effort in person-months

I&TPMLSI Integration and Test effort in person-months


Sos schedule estimation

LCO

LCA

IOC1

Elaboration

Source SoS Selection Architecting

Increments

2,… n

Inception

Increment 1

Customer,

Users

Effort COSYSMO-like.

Schedule = Effort/Staff

RFP, SOW, Evaluations, Contracting

Assess sources of change; Negotiate rebaselined LCA2 package at all levels

Similar, with

added change

traffic from

users…

LSI –

Agile

Try to model

ideal staff size

Effort/Staff

Rework LCO  LCA

Packages at all levels

Assess

compatibility, short-falls

LSI IPTs –

Agile

COSOSIMO

-like

Effort/staff

at all levels

COSOSIMO

-like

Suppliers –

Agile

LCA1

LCA2

Develop to spec, V&V

Suppliers –

PD – V&V

Similar, with

added re-

baselineing risks

and rework…

Proposals

CORADMO

-like

risks,

rework

risks,

rework

risks,

rework

Risk-manage slow-performer, completeness

LSI –

Integrators

Degree of Completeness

Integrate

risks,

rework

COSOSIMO

-like

Proposal Feasibility

LCA2 shortfalls

SoS Schedule Estimation


Conclusions

COSOSIMO

Conclusions

  • Traditional systems engineering takes too long and too much effort

  • LSIs are finding better ways to engineering SoSs (SoSE)

  • Many combine agile with traditional approaches

    • Increases concurrency

    • Reduces risk

    • Compresses schedules

  • Reduced-parameter set COSOSIMO captures effects of new processes in three key areas

    • Planning, requirements management, and architecting

    • Source selection and supplier oversight

    • SoS integration and testing

  • Sub-models have fewer parameters that are more tailored to associated SoSE activities

  • Allows LSIs to estimate areas of interest and conduct “what ifs” comparisons of different development strategies


Conclusions continued

COSOSIMO

Conclusions (continued)

  • With the addition of a new COSOSIMO cost model to existing cost model tools, it will be possible to get more complete estimates of the SoS development effort

  • Key to this process is

    • Having an SoS architecture sufficiently defined so that component system modifications to support operation in the SoS environment can be made with few dependencies on other SoS development efforts

    • Structuring the WBS so that

      • SoS and component system tasks can be decomposed into parts that can be estimated using the existing cost model tools

      • Parts not covered by cost models can be clearly identified and estimated using non-parametric methods

  • Expected COSOSIMO availability: Fall 2007

“All models are wrong, but some of them are useful”

(W. E. Deming)


What is needed to support fall 2007 availability

What is Needed to Support Fall 2007 Availability

  • Participation in current SoSE surveys

  • Data from both SoS and SE programs

    • Process descriptions to help understand the differences between SoSE and SE

    • Effort data to calibrate COSOSIMO (either standalone model or special calibration of COSYSMO)

For those organizations that provide SoSE effort from at least 3 SoS projects, a local calibration will be provided…


Cososimo related references

COSOSIMO-Related References

Boehm, B., et al. (2000); Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II; Prentice Hall

Boehm,B., Valerdi, R., Lane, J., and Brown, W. (2005); COCOMO Suite Methodology and Evolution; CrossTalk, Vol. 18, No. 5 (pp. 20-25)

Boehm, B., and J. Lane (2006); “21st Century Processes for Acquiring 21st Century Systems of Systems; CrossTalk Vol. 19, No. 5 (pp. 4-9)

Lane, J. (2005); System of Systems Lead System Integrators: Where do They Spend Their Time and What Makes them More/Less Efficient; USC-CSE-TR-2005-508

Lane, J. (2005); Factors Influencing System-of-Systems Architecting and Integration Costs; Conference on Systems Engineering Research

Lane, J (2006); COSOSIMO Parameter Definitions, USC-CSE-TR-2006-606

Lane, J and Boehm, B. (2006); Synthesis of Existing Cost Models to Meet System of Systems Needs; Conference on Systems Engineering Research

Lane, J and Boehm, B. (2006); System-of-Systems Cost Estimation: Analysis of Lead System Integrator Engineering Activities; InterSymposium Symposium on Information Systems Research and Systems Approach

Lane, J and Valerdi, R (2005); Synthesizing SoS Concepts for Use in Cost Estimation; IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics


Sose related references

SoSE-Related References

Carlock, P.G., and R.E. Fenton, "System of Systems (SoS) Enterprise Systems for Information-Intensive Organizations," Systems Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 242-261, 2001

DiMario, Mike (2006); “System of Systems Characteristics and Interoperability in Joint Command Control”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference

Electronic Industries Alliance (1999); EIA Standard 632: Processes for Engineering a System

Finley, James (2006); “Keynote Address”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference

Garber, Vitalij (2006); “Keynote Presentation”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference

INCOSE (2006); Systems Engineering Handbook, Version 3, INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03

Krygiel, A. (1999); Behind the Wizard’s Curtain; CCRP Publication Series, July, 1999, p. 33

Maier, M. (1998); “Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems”; Systems Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 4 (pp 267-284)

Meilich, Abe (2006); “System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) and Architecture Challenges in a Net Centric Environment”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference

Pair, Major General Carlos (2006); “Keynote Presentation”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference

Proceedings of AFOSR SoSE Workshop, Sponsored by Purdue University, 17-18 May 2006

Proceedings of Society for Design and Process Science 9th World Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology, San Diego, CA, 25-30 June 2006

Siel, Carl (2006); “Keynote Presentation”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference

United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (2005); Report on System-of-Systems Engineering for Air Force Capability Development; Public Release SAB-TR-05-04


  • Login