cosysmo constructive systems engineering cost model l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
COSYSMO: Constructive Systems Engineering Cost Model PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
COSYSMO: Constructive Systems Engineering Cost Model

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14

COSYSMO: Constructive Systems Engineering Cost Model - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 104 Views
  • Uploaded on

COSYSMO: Constructive Systems Engineering Cost Model. Barry Boehm, USC CSE Annual Research Review February 6, 2001. USC. University of Southern California. C. S. E. Center for Software. Engineering. Outline. Background Scope Proposed Approach Strawman Model Size & complexity

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'COSYSMO: Constructive Systems Engineering Cost Model' - teo


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
cosysmo constructive systems engineering cost model

COSYSMO: Constructive Systems Engineering Cost Model

Barry Boehm, USC

CSE Annual Research Review

February 6, 2001

slide2

USC

University of Southern California

C

S

E

Center for Software

Engineering

Outline

  • Background
  • Scope
  • Proposed Approach
  • Strawman Model
    • Size & complexity
    • Cost & schedule drivers
    • Outputs
  • Issues

©USC-CSE

background
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

©USC-CSE

cosysmo increment i scope
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

©USC-CSE

slide5

Proposed System Engineering Scope: COCOMO II

MBASE/RUP Phase and Activity Distribution

©USC-CSE

proposed approach
Proposed Approach
  • Develop strawman model
    • First iteration internally
    • Second iteration today
    • Discuss Issues (see below)
    • Initial assessment of relative cost/schedule driver influence
  • Develop, experiment with revised model
    • Find appropriate Ph D student

©USC-CSE

slide7

Strawman COSYSMO

  • Sizing model determines nominal COCOMO II SysE effort and schedule
    • Function points/use cases 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

©USC-CSE

slide8

USC Strawman Sizing Model

  • Function points, adjusted for complexity
  • Use cases, adjusted for complexity
    • flows of events; complexity of interactions
  • Rqts. Volatility factor similar to COCOMO II
  • Reuse factor simpler than COCOMO II (TBD)
  • Weighting of FP, use case quantities TBD
  • Also use pairwise comparison approach for sizing
    • Compare with known systems
  • Use COCOMO II CPLX factors for complexity (?)
    • Control, computability, device-dependent, data management, UI operations scales

©USC-CSE

evolving rational sizing model
Evolving Rational Sizing Model
  • Objective: Obtain “software mass” for COCOMO engine
  • USC “MVC” approach
    • “Model” -- number of classes of data
    • “View” -- number of use cases
    • “Control” -- distribution and algorithm complexity
  • Size new application by MVC comparison to similar applications
  • Overall, very similar to USC strawman sizing approach
    • Preparing to collaboratevia Philippe Kruchten

©USC-CSE

slide10

Cost & Schedule Drivers: Application Factors

  • Requirements understanding
  • Architecture understanding
  • Level of service rqts. criticality, difficulty
  • External interface complexity
  • Legacy transition complexity
  • COTS assessment complexity (COCOTS-overlap?)
  • Platform difficulty (PDIF - Early Design)
  • Required business process reengineering

©USC-CSE

cost schedule drivers team factors
Cost & Schedule Drivers : Team Factors
  • # of stakeholder communities
    • Average TEAM rating (COCOMO II scale factor)
    • Heterogeneity (domains, cultures)
  • Personnel capability/continuity (PERS-Early Design)
  • Personnel experience (PREX-Early Design)
  • Process maturity (PMAT)
  • Multisite coordination (SITE)
  • Degree of system engineering ceremony
  • Tool support (modified TOOL scale)

©USC-CSE

slide12

Strawman Model : Outputs

  • Effort & schedule by phase
    • By activity ?
    • By source of effort (analysis, prototypes, tools, documents)?
  • Risk assessment ?

©USC-CSE

slide13

Issues : Suggestions on Improving

  • Scope
  • Proposed Approach
  • Model Form
  • Model Elements
  • Outputs
  • Over/underlaps with COCOMO II, COCOTS, CORADMO
  • Sources of data
  • Staffing

©USC-CSE

slide14

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.

Application Factors

______ Requirements understanding

______ Architecture understanding

______ Level of service rqts. criticality, difficulty

______ Legacy transition complexity

______ COTS assessment complexity

______ Platform difficulty

______ Required business process reengineering

______ TBD

______ TBD

Team Factors

______ Number and diversity of stakeholder communities

______ Stakeholder team cohesion

______ Personnel capability/continuity

______ Personal experience

______ Process maturity

______ Multisite coordination

______ Degree of system engineering ceremony

______ Tool support

______ TBD

______ TBD

©USC-CSE