Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
A Sizing Framework for DoD Software Cost Analysis Raymond Madachy, NPS Barry Boehm, Brad Clark and Don Reifer, USC Wilson Rosa, AFCAA firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org .
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.
A Sizing Framework for DoD Software Cost AnalysisRaymond Madachy, NPSBarry Boehm, Brad Clark and Don Reifer, USCWilson Rosa, AFCAArjmadach@nps.edu, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
24th International Forum on COCOMO and Systems/Software Cost ModelingNovember 2, 2009
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.
TruePlanning® by PRICE Systems
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
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.
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
* Stutzke, Richard D, Estimating Software-Intensive Systems, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Addison Wesley, 2005
Equivalent SLOC Rules for Maintenance
Equivalent SLOC Rules for Development
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