COSYSMO CO nstructive SYS tems Engineering Cost MO del

INCOSE IWFebruary 2003

USC

C S E University of Southern CaliforniaCenter for Software Engineering

COSYSMOCOnstructive SYStems Engineering Cost MOdel

Tampa, FL

February 3, 2003Dr. Barry BoehmRicardo Valerdi

University of Southern CaliforniaCenter for Software Engineering (CSE)

INCOSE IW Workshop


USC


Outline• Workshop Agenda• Background on CSE, COSYSMO, and COCOMO II• COSYSMO Overview

– Operational concept and scope– Prototype demo

• Model Progress to Date– Front end sizing and drivers – Full life cycle sizing and drivers

• New proposed drivers• Action items


USC


Workshop Agenda• Proposed drivers

– Process maturity– # of recursive levels of design– Technology risk (different ratings on the

viewpoints)– Length of life cycle– Quality Attributes (ie., documentation)– Manufacturability/Producibility– Degree of Distribution

• Discontinuity of members• ISO/IEC 15288 expertise in the working group• Preparation for Delphi Round 2• Preliminary data collection


USC


USC Center for Software Engineering (CSE)• Researches, teaches, and practices CMMI-based

Software engineering – Systems and software engineering fully integrated

• Focuses on better models to guide integrated systems and software engineering – Success models: stakeholder win-win, business

cases – Product models: requirements, architectures, COTS– Process models: spiral extensions, value-based RUP

extensions – Property models: cost, schedule, quality

• Applies and extends research on major programs (DARPA/Army, FCS, FAA ERAM, NASA Missions)


USC


• Commercial Industry (15)

– Daimler Chrysler, Freshwater Partners, Galorath, Group Systems.Com, Hughes, IBM, Cost Xpert Group, Microsoft, Motorola, Price Systems, Rational, Reuters Consulting, Sun, Telcordia, Xerox

• Aerospace Industry (6)

– Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, SAIC, TRW

• Government (8)

– DARPA, DISA, FAA, NASA-Ames, NSF, OSD/ARA/SIS, US Army Research Labs, US Army TACOM

• FFRDC’s and Consortia (4)

– Aerospace, JPL, SEI, SPC

• International (1)

– Chung-Ang U. (Korea)

USC-CSE Affiliates (34)


USC


• Commercial Industry (1)– Galorath

• Aerospace Industry (5)– Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman*,

Raytheon, SAIC, TRW• Government (1)

– US Army Research Labs• FFRDC’s and Consortia (2)

– Aerospace, SPC

INCOSE Companies actively involved with COSYSMO

*Most recentaddition


USC


Key Members of the COSYSMO Working Group

Karen Owens, Marilee WheatonEvin StumpGarry Roedler, Gary HafenGary Thomas, John RieffTony Jordano, Don GreenleeChris MillerCheryl JonesBarry Boehm, Elliot Axelband,

Don Reifer, Ricardo Valerdi

Aerospace Corp.Galorath

LMCORaytheon

SAICSPC

US Army/PSSMUSC

underline = will participate in Monday’s Workshop

Italics = SE experience


USC


USC-CSE Cost, Schedule, and Quality Models

• Build on experience with COCOMO 1981, COCOMO II – Most widely used software cost models worldwide– Developed with Affiliate funding, expertise, data support

• Collaborative efforts between Computer Science (CS) and Industrial Systems Engineering (ISE) Depts.– 3 CS PhD’s, 2 ISE PhD’s to date– Valerdi an ISE PhD student– Boehm joint appointment in CS, ISE

• COCOMO Suite of models– Cost, schedule: COCOMO II, CORADMO, COCOTS– Quality: COQUALMO– Systems Engineering: COSYSMO

• Uses mature 7-step model development methodology


USC


7-step Modeling MethodologyAnalyze Existingliterature

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

PerformBehavioral Analysis

Identify RelativeSignificance

Perform Expert-Judgement, DelphiAssessment

Gather Project Data

Determine BayesianA-Posteriori Update

Gather more data;refine model

A-PRIORI MODEL +

SAMPLING DATA =

A-POSTERIORI MODEL


USC


Parametric Cost Model Critical PathUsual # Months*

6 Converge on cost drivers, WBS

6 Converge on detailed definitions and rating scales

12 Obtain initial exploratory dataset (5-10 projects)

6 Refine model based on data collection & analysis experience

12+ Obtain IOC calibration dataset (30 projects)

9 Refine IOC model and tool

Critical Path Task

*Can be shortened and selectively overlapped


USC


COSYSMO: Overview• Parametric model to estimate system

engineering costs• Covers full system engineering lifecycle• Focused on use for Investment Analysis,

Concept Definition phases estimation and tradeoff analyses– Input parameters can be determined in

early phases


USC


COSYSMO

SizeDrivers

EffortMultipliers

Effort

Duration

Calibration

# Requirements# Interfaces# Scenarios# Algorithms

+Volatility Factor

- Application factors-5 factors

- Team factors-7 factors

- Schedule driverWBS guided by EIA/ANSI 632 & ISO/IEC 15288

COSYSMO Operational Concept


USC


Previous COSYSMO Evolution Path

Inception Elaboration Construction TransitionOper Test & Eval

1. COSYSMO-IP

2. COSYSMO-C4ISR

3. COSYSMO-Machine

4. COSYSMO-SoS

IP (Sub)system

C4ISR System

Physical MachineSystem

System of Systems (SoS)


USC


Revised View of COSYSMO Evolution Path(Results from last week’s meeting)

Oper Test & Eval

1. COSYSMO-IP

2. COSYSMO-C4ISR

3. COSYSMO-Machine

4. COSYSMO-SoS

Global Command and Control System

Satellite Ground Station

Joint Strike Fighter

Future Combat Systems

Initiate data collection for all and let the amount of data received determine what is included.

Include ISO/IEC 15288 Stages

DevelopConceptualizeTransition to Operation

Operate, Maintain, or Enhance

Replace or Dismantle


USC


EIA/ANSI 632

EIA/ANSI 632 - Provide an integrated set of fundamental processes to aid a developer in the engineering or re-engineering of a system

Breadth and Depth of Key SE StandardsSystem life

ISO/IEC 15288

Level of

deta

il

Conceptualize DevelopTransition to

Operation

Operate,Maintain,

or EnhanceReplace

or Dismantle

Processdescription

High levelpractices

Detailedpractices

ISO/IEC 15288 - Establish a common framework for describing the life cycle of systems

Purpose of the Standards:Purpose of the Standards:

IEEE 1

220

IEEE 1220 - Provide a standard for managing systems engineering

Input to 632/1220

Source : Draft Report ISO Study Group May 2, 2000


USC


ISO/IEC 15288 Key Terms• System

– a combination of interacting elements organized to achieve one or more stated purposes

• System-of-Interest– the system whose life cycle is under consideration in the context of this

International Standard

• System Element– a member of a set of elements that constitutes a system

– NOTE: A system element is a discrete part of a system that can be implemented to fulfill specified requirements

• Enabling System– a system that complements a system-of-interest during its life cycle

stages but does not necessarily contribute directly to its function during operation

– NOTE: For example, when a system-of-interest enters the production stage, an enabling production system is required

Source: ISO/IEC 15288.Source: ISO/IEC 15288.


USC


Systemelement

System-of-interest

Systemelement

Systemelement

SystemelementSystem

Systemelement

Systemelement

Systemelement

System

Systemelement

Systemelement

Systemelement

System

Systemelement

Systemelement

SystemelementSystem

Systemelement

Systemelement

System

Systemelement

Systemelement

System

Systemelement

Systemelement System

Systemelement

Systemelement

Systemelement

ISO/IEC 15288 System of Interest Structure

Make orbuy

Source: ISO/IEC 15288.Source: ISO/IEC 15288.


USC







USC


Recent developments• Developed a project plan• Reduced drivers from 24 to 18• Expanded the model to cover the later phases

of the life cycle• Replaced EIA 632 with ISO 15288• Introduced new drivers to reflect full life cycle

scope • Changed name from COSYSMO-IP (Information

Processing) to COSYSMO• Revised the evolution path to allow the data to

drive the scope of the model


USC


4 Size Drivers1. Number of System Requirements

2. Number of Major Interfaces

3. Number of Operational Scenarios

4. Number of Unique Algorithms

• Each weighted by complexity, volatility, and degree of reuse


USC


Number of System RequirementsThis driver represents the number of requirements that are typically taken from the system or marketing specification. A requirement is a statement of capability containing a normative verb such as “shall” or “will.” It may be functional, performance, feature, or service-oriented in nature depending on the methodology used for specification. System requirements can typically be quantified by counting the number of applicable “shall’s” or “will’s” in the system or marketing specification.

Easy Nominal Difficult

No. of System Requirements

- 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 what’s needed to satisfy and verify requirements

- General understanding of what’s needed to satisfy and verify requirements

- Poor understanding of what’s needed to satisfy and verify requirements


USC


Number of Major InterfacesThis driver represents the number of shared major physical and logical boundaries between system components or functions (internal interfaces) and those external to the system (external interfaces). These interfaces typically can be quantified by counting the number of interfaces identified in either the system’s context diagram and/or by counting the significant interfaces in all applicable Interface Control Documents.


No. of Major Interfaces

- Well defined - Loosely defined - Ill defined

- Uncoupled - Loosely coupled - Highly coupled

- Cohesive - Moderate cohesion - Low cohesion

- Well behaved - Predictable behavior - Poorly behaved


USC


Number of Operational ScenariosThis driver represents the number of operational scenarios that a system must satisfy. Such threads typically result in end-to-end test scenarios that are developed to validate the system satisfies all of its requirements. The number of scenarios can typically be quantified by counting the number of end-to-end tests used to validate the system functionality and performance. They can also be calculated by counting the number of high-level use cases developed as part of the operational architecture.


No. of Operational Scenarios

- Well defined - Loosely defined - Ill defined

- Few end-to-end scenarios (< 10)

- Modest no. of end-to-end scenarios (10 < OS < 30)

- Many end-to-end scenarios (> 30)

- Timelines not an issue - Timelines a constraint - Tight timelines through scenario network


USC


Number of Unique AlgorithmsThis driver represents the number of newly defined or significantly altered functions that require unique mathematical algorithms to be derived in order to achieve the system performance requirements. As an example, this could include a complex aircraft tracking algorithm like a Kalman Filter being derived using existing experience as the basis for the all aspect search function. Another example could be a brand new discrimination algorithm being derived to identify friend or foe function in space-based applications. The number can be quantified by counting the number of unique algorithms needed to support each of the mathematical functions specified in the system specification or mode description document (for sensor-based systems).


No. of Unique Algorithms

- Existing algorithms - Some new algorithms - Many new algorithms

- Basic math - Algebraic by nature - Difficult math (calculus)

- Straightforward structure - Nested structure with decision logic - Recursive in structure with distributed control

- Simple data - Relational data - Persistent data

- Timing not an issue - Timing a constraint - Dynamic, with timing issues

- Library-based solution - Some modeling involved - Simulation and modeling involved


USC


12 Cost Drivers

1. Requirements understanding

2. Architecture complexity

3. Level of service requirements

4. Migration complexity

5. Technology Risk

Application Factors (5)


USC


Requirements understanding This cost driver rates the level of understanding of the system requirements by all stakeholders including the systems, software, hardware, customers, team members, users, etc…

Very low Low Nominal High Very High

Poor, unprecedented system

Minimal, many undefined areas

Reasonable, some undefined areas

Strong, few undefined areas

Full understanding of requirements, familiar system


USC


Architecture complexity This cost driver rates the relative difficulty of determining and managing the system architecture in terms of platforms, standards, components (COTS/GOTS/NDI/new), connectors (protocols), and constraints. This includes tasks like systems analysis, tradeoff analysis, modeling, simulation, case studies, etc…


Poor understanding of architecture and COTS, unprecedented system

Minimal understanding of architecture and COTS, many undefined areas

Reasonable understanding of architecture and COTS, some weak areas

Strong understanding of architecture and COTS, few undefined areas

Full understanding of architecture, familiar system and COTS

2 level WBS 3-4 level WBS 5-6 level WBS >6 level WBS


USC


Level of service requirementsThis cost driver rates the difficulty and criticality of satisfying the Key Performance Parameters (KPP). For example: security, safety, response time, the “illities”, etc…


Difficulty Simple requirements

Low difficulty Moderately complex

Difficult requirements

Really complex

Criticality Slight inconvenience

Easily recoverable losses

Some loss High financial loss

Risk to human life


USC


Migration complexity This cost driver rates the complexity of migrating the system from previous system components, databases, workflows, etc, due to new technology introductions, planned upgrades, increased performance, business process reengineering etc…


Introduction of requirements is transparent

Difficult to upgrade Very difficult to upgrade


USC


Technology RiskThe maturity, readiness, and obsolescence of the technology(ies) being implemented. This may include

Viewpoint Rating

VL L N H VH

Technology Maturity Level

Technology proven and widely used throughout industry

Proven through actual use and ready for widespread adoption

Proven on pilot projects and ready to roll-out for production jobs

Ready for pilot use Still in the laboratory

Technology Readiness Level

Mission proven (TRL 9)

Concept qualified (TRL 8) Concept has been demonstrated (TRL 7)

Proof of concept validated (TRL 5 & 6)

Concept defined (TRL 3 & 4)

Technology Obsolescence Level

- Technology is the state-of-the-practice- Emerging technology could compete in future

- Technology is stale- New and better technology is on the horizon in the near-term

- Technology is outdated and use should be avoided in new systems- Spare parts supply is scarce

We need to supply guidelines on how to compose the readiness and obsolescence into a single factor.


USC


12 Cost Drivers (cont.)

1. Stakeholder team cohesion

2. Personnel capability

3. Personnel experience/continuity

4. Process maturity

5. Multisite coordination

6. Formality of deliverables

7. Tool support

Team Factors (7)


USC


Stakeholder team cohesion Represents a multi-attribute parameter which includes leadership, shared vision, diversity of stakeholders, approval cycles, group dynamics, IPT framework, team dynamics, trust, and amount of change in responsibilities. It further represents the heterogeneity in stakeholder community of the end users, customers, implementers, and development team.

VL L N H VH

Highly heterogeneous stakeholder communities with diverse objectivesMultiple stakeholders with diverse expertise, task nature, language, culture, infrastructureSystem involving major changes in stakeholder roles & responsibilities

Heterogeneous stakeholder community with converging organizational objectivesSystem involves some changes in stakeholder roles & responsibilities

Common shared organizational objectivesFunctional team

Strong team cohesionHigh stakeholder trust levelClear roles & responsibilities

Virtually homogeneous stakeholder communitiesInstitutionalized, shared project cultureStrong team dynamics


USC


Personnel capability Systems Engineering’s ability to perform in their duties and the quality of human capital.

Very Low Low Nominal High Very High

15th percentile 35th percentile 55th percentile 75th percentile 90th percentile

Personnel experience/continuity The applicability and consistency of the staff over the life of the project with respect to the customer, user, technology, domain, etc…


Less than 2 months 1 year continuous experience, other technical experience in similar job

3 years of continuous experience




USC


Process maturity Maturity per EIA/IS 731, SE CMM or CMMI.

Very low Low Nominal High Very High Extra High

Level 1 (lower half)

Level 1 (upper half)

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Multisite coordination Location of stakeholders, team members, resources (travel).

Very low Low Nominal High Very High Extra High

SITE: Collocation

International Multi-city and multi-national

Multi-city or multi-company

Same city or metro area

Same building or complex

Fully located

SITE: Communications

Some phone, mail

Individual phone, FAX

Narrowband e-mail

Wideband electronic communication

Wideband electronic communication, occasional video conference

Interactive multimedia

Add Collaboration barriers row (time zone, security, export restrictions, language, culture, competition, Intellectual property, contractual)

Revisit, should include more detailUnder process levels, process improvementcommitment


USC


Formality of deliverables The breadth and depth of documentation required to be formally delivered.


General goals Some conformity Some relaxation Partially streamlined process, occasional relaxation

Rigorous, follows customer requirements

Tool support Use of tools in the System Engineering environment.


No SE tools Simple SE tools, little integration

Basic SE tools integrated (throughout the systems process)

Strong, mature SE tools, integrated (integrated with other disciplines)

Strong, mature proactive SE tools integrated with process (Model-based SE and management systems)

Right size of documentation to the life cycle needsThe

Right size

Breadth depth

Reviews?


USC







USC


# and diversity of installations/platformsThe number of different platforms that the system will be hosted and installed on. The complexity in the operating environment (space, sea, land, fixed, mobile, portable, information assurance/security). For example, in a wireless network it could be the number of unique installation sites and the number of types of fixed clients, mobile clients, and servers.

Viewpoint N H VH

Sites/installations Few # of installations or many similar installations

Moderate # of installations or some amount of multiple types of installations

Numerous # of installations with many unique aspects

Operating environment Not a driving factor Moderate environmental constraints

Multiple complexities/constraints caused by operating environment

No. of Different Platforms

Few types of platforms (< 5) Modest types of no. of platforms (5 < P <10)

Many types of platforms (> 10)

Homogeneous Mixed Heterogeneous

Typically networked using a single protocol

Typically networked using several consistent protocols

Typically networked using different protocols

Include phase out


USC


# of recursive levels in the designNew cost driver. Can capture the number of boundaries in the SOI (System of Interest). Number of recursive levels that require SE. For example, a system with a single level of design may have lower numbers of recursive levels in the design. On the other hand, a system with a system integrator (system of systems level), a prime (system level), a subcontractor (segment level), second-tier subcontractor (subsystem level), and third-tier contractor (component/box level) would have 5 levels of recursive design. Includes internal design/subsystem levels. Note: this driver depends on what level your enabling system lies.Revision: Has system-wide multiplicative effect vs. incremental additive effect. Better handled in two cost drivers: Architecture Complexity (technical aspects) & Multisite Coordination (management aspects).


USC


# and diversity of installations/platforms

New size driver. Can capture the number of varied and multiple installations and/or platforms. This is in light of the discussion to cover the full system life cycle. This driver is especially important in later implementation/deployment stages.Revision: Its effect on effort is additive but the amount of added effort per type of installation/platform is a multiplier of the baseline effort. Probably best covered by a formula like:(# of diverse installation/platform types) * (Avg extra % of systems engineering effort per type)


USC


The number of different processing platforms that the system will be hosted and installed on. For example, in a network it could be the number of unique installation sites and the number of workstations and servers.

Viewpoint N H VH

Sites/installations Few # of installations or many similar installations

Moderate # of installations or

some amount of multiple types of

installations

Numerous # of installations with

many unique aspects

Operating environment

Not a driving factor

Moderate environmental

constraints

Multiple complexities/const

raints caused by operating

environment

# of Different Platforms

Few platforms (< 5)

Modest no. of platforms

(5 < P <10)

Many platforms (> 10)

Homogeneous Mixed Heterogeneous

Typically networked using a single protocol

Typically networked using several consistent

protocols

Typically networked using

different protocols


USC


# of years in operational life cycle

Revision: Another additive factor where the added effort is a multiplier of the baseline effort. Probably best covered by a formula like:(# of years in operational life cycle) * (Avg annual % of continuing systems engineering effort)

• Evolutionary acquisition• # of independently evolving interoperating systems• Upgrade to prior models


USC


# and diversity of installations/platforms phased out

Revision: Its effect on effort is additive but

the amount of added effort per

installation/platform being phased out is a

multiplier of the baseline effort. Probably

best covered by a formula like:

(# of diverse installation/platform types) * (Avg extra % of systems engineering effort per type being phased out)


USC


Rationale: Reliability, availability and maintainability requirements for certain classes of systems often drive their costs. This is true for military as well as commercial systems. A cost driver aimed at assessing the impact of varying these requirements is therefore needed.Quality Attributes: Represents a measure of the extent to which the system must perform its intended requirements (reliability), be available (availability) and facilitate change, modification and repair (maintainability) over time.

Viewpoint Rating

VL L N H VH

Reliability Errors led to slight inconvenience

Errors led to easily recoverable loss

Errors led to moderate recoverable loss

Errors led to high financial loss

Safety critical

Availability < 70% availability

Between 70% and 90%

availability

> 90% availability

24/7 with schedulable

downtime (for PM)

24/7 with negligible downtime

Maintainability

Difficult to change, modify and/or repair

Can change, modify and/or repair with effort

Easily changed, modified and repaired

Reconfigurable Self healing

Quality Attributes


USC


Rationale: The ability to manufacture/produce the system can drive the costs especially when advances in manufacturing technology are needed to field the system.Manufacturability/Producibility: Represents the ability of contractors to manufacture/produce the system in specific quantity to meet the market demand.

Viewpoint Rating

VL L N H VH

Manufacturability

New technology needed to manufacture system

Facilities needed to manufacture systems

Technology/facilities in place to manufacture system

Can meet 100% of peak manufacturing demand

Have excess manufacturing capability

Producibility Can meet less than 70% of

peak demand

Can meet between 70 and 90% of

peak demand

Can meet 90% of peak demand

Can meet 100% of peak demand

Have excess

production capability

Manufacturability/Producibility

DFMADesign for “x”Design trades

Revisit


USC


Rationale: The degree of partitioning and distribution of the system impacts its cost. This cost driver how interoperable the system must be.Degree of Distribution: Characterizes how distributed the architecture is.

Viewpoint Rating

VL L N H VH

Distribution Self-contained with limited distribution

Distribution via LANs/direct links

Distribution via LANs/WANs

Network of networks

System of systems

Interoperability Self-contained with no

interoperability

Interoperates with fewer

than 3 systems

Interoperates with between 3 to 5 systems

Interoperates with 5 to 10

systems

Interoperates with more than 10 systems

Degree of Distribution


USC


Levels & complexity of V&V

RevisitMight be under # of Requirements (under VH)


USC


632 - 20(Implement-

ation)632 - 21

(Transition)632 - 31

(Verification)632 - 32

(Readiness)632 - 33b

(Validation)15288

(Operations)

15288 (Maintenance or Support)

15288 (Retirement)

# System Requirements x x x x x# Major Interfaces x x x x x# Unique Algorithms x x x x# Operational Scenarios x x x x x x# Recursive Levels in the Design x x x x # Systems being Phased Out (Covered by Migration Complexity?) x x x# Operators / Maintainers x x# Training Courses x# Installations

# System Elements

# Length of Lifecycle

Size Drivers vs. EIA/ANSI 632 & ISO/IEC 15288 Stages Late in the Life Cycle

LegendBold = existing driverItalics = proposed addition


USC


Application factors

632 - 20(Implement-

ation)632 - 21




(Validation)15288

(Operations)


15288 (Retirement)

–Requirements understanding x x x x x–Architecture complexity x x x x x x x–Level of service requirements, criticality, difficulty x x x x x–Migration complexity x x–Technology risk (maturity & obsolescence) x x- Operational Complexity x

Cost Drivers vs. EIA/ANSI 632 & ISO/IEC 15288 Stages Late in the Life Cycle



USC


Team factors

632 - 20(Implement-

ation)632 - 21




(Validation)15288

(Operations)


15288 (Retirement)

–Stakeholder team cohesion x x–Personnel capability x x x x x x x x

–Personnel experience/continuity x x x x x x x x–Process maturity x x x x x–Multi-site coordination x x x x x x x x–Formality of deliverables x x x x x x–Tool support x x

Cost Drivers vs. EIA/ANSI 632 & ISO/IEC 15288 Stages Late in the Life Cycle



USC


Action Items from Last WG Meeting1. Develop a project Plan2. Address technology maturity/obsolescence3. Refine driver definitions to incorporate

ISO/IEC 15288 definitions4. Incorporate System and People idea5. Refine drivers applicability matrix6. Develop data collection strategy7. Generate Data Collection Form8. Update Stakeholder Cohesion to include

diversity, identification and trust


USC


Calendar of Activities: 2003

2003 2004

INCOSE 2003

USC CSE Annual Research Review

INCOSEFall Workshop

COCOMO Forum

Conference on Systems Integration

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Paper & tutorial

submitted

Practical Software & Systems Measurement Workshop

Paper submitted

ISPA


USC


Points of ContactDr. Barry Boehm[[email protected]]

Dr. Elliot Axelband[[email protected]]

Don Reifer[[email protected]]

Ricardo Valerdi[[email protected]]

Websitehttp://sunset.usc.edu


USC


Backup Charts


USC


USC-CSE Research ($10M backlog)

• DARPA/Army: Model applications and extensions for Future Combat Systems

• DARPA: Architectures for mobile distributed systems (DASADA)

• FAA: Acquisition processes; COCOMO security extensions

• NASA: Empirical methods for High Dependability Computing

• NSF: Center for Empirically-Based Software Engineering (with U. of Maryland)

• NSF: Strategic Design (with CMU, Virginia, Washington)

• Industry Affiliates’ program


USC


General Affiliate Benefits• Affiliates-only Web portal

– Early access to tools, methods, papers, talks, student resumes

• Tools: COCOMO Suite, Architecture tools, WinWin• Technical Report series• Workshops on Affiliate-prioritized topics• Annual Research Review and Steering Group

meeting• Annual one-day professor-visit• Bilateral visit arrangements; internships• Conferences and special workshops• Monthly LA SPIN meetings• Tutorials and eWorkshops


USC


Collaboration Modes and Special Benefits• Software architecting assistance

-Aerospace, Hughes, JPL, Northrop Grumman, TACOM, TRW, Xerox

• Software process/cost/quality/cycle time assistance-Aerospace, Litton, Microsoft, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, SAIC, Sun, TACOM, TRW, Xerox

• Management reviews of critical projects-Litton, Motorola, SAIC, SEI, TRW

• Reviews of corporate research programs-Daimler Chrysler, Draper Labs, Lockheed Martin, SAIC, SEI, SPC, Telcordia, TRW

• Joint research contracts-Aerospace, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, SEI, SPC, TRW

• Aid in commercializing USC-CSE research -C-Bridge, Galorath, Group Systems.com, Marotz, Price Systems, Rational


USC


Collaboration Modes and Special Benefits - II

• Special Projects-Aerospace, Auto Club, FAA, Fidelity, IBM, JPL, Litton, Northrop Grumman, Telcordia

• Joint workshops on key topics-Aerospace, Motorola, Rational, DOD/SIS, SEI, SPC

• Focused working groups (COSYSMO) -Aerospace, Galorath, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, SAIC, SPC, TRW

• Visiting collaborators-Aerospace, Chung-Ang, C-Bridge, IBM, JPL, Litton, Northrop Grumman, SEI, TRW

• Corporate State-of-the-art tutorials-Boeing, Chung-Ang, Daimler Chrysler, Draper, EDS, FAA, Fidelity, IBM, JPL, Litton, Lockheed Martin, Lucent, Motorola, Microsoft, Raytheon, SAIC, SEI, SPC, Sun, TRW, Xerox


USC


Mapping of Old to New COSYSMO-IP Drivers

Number of System Requirements Number of Major InterfacesNumber of Technical Performance

MeasuresNumber of Operational ScenariosNumber of Modes of OperationNumber of Different PlatformsNumber of Unique Algorithms

Old (7) New (4)

Number of System Requirements Number of Major Interfaces

Number of Operational Scenarios

Number of Unique Algorithms

Siz

e F

acto

rs

Level of Service Requirements

Architecture complexity


USC


Delphi Round 1 HighlightsRange of sensitivity for Size Drivers

# A

lgo

rith

ms

# R

eq

uir

emen

ts

# In

terf

aces

# T

PM

’s

# S

cen

ario

s

# M

od

es

# P

latf

orm

s

5.57

Relative

Effort

1

2.232.54

2.212.10

6.48

6

4

2


USC


Requirements understanding Architecture complexity Level of service requirementsLegacy Transition complexity COTS assessment complexity Platform difficulty Required business process

reengineering Technology Maturity Physical system/information subsystem tradeoff analysis complexity

Requirements understanding Architecture complexity Level of service requirementsMigration complexity

Technology Maturity

Ap

pli

cati

on

Co

st F

acto

rs


# of TPMs # of Platforms

Old (9) New (5)


USC


Delphi Round 1 Highlights (cont.)

Range of sensitivity for Cost Drivers (Application Factors)

EMR

1.93

2.812.13

2.432.24

4

2

Req

uir

em

ents

un

d.

Arc

hit

ectu

re u

nd

.

Lev

el o

f se

rvic

e re

qs.

Leg

acy

tra

nsi

tio

n

CO

TS

Pla

tfo

rm d

iffi

cult

y

Bu

s. p

roce

ss r

een

g.

1.741.13


USC


Number and diversity of stakeholder communities Stakeholder team cohesion Personnel capability Personnel experience/continuity Process maturity Multisite coordination Formality of deliverables Tool support

Old (8) New (7)

Stakeholder team cohesion Personnel capability Personal experience/continuity Process maturity Multisite coordination Formality of deliverables Tool support

Reqs Und


Tea

m C

ost

Fac

tors


USC


Delphi Round 1 Highlights (cont.)Range of sensitivity for Cost Drivers (Team Factors)

1.28

2.461.91 2.161.94

1.25

To

ol

sup

po

rt

Sta

keh

old

er c

om

m.

Sta

keh

old

er c

oh

esio

n

Per

son

nel

cap

ab

ilit

y

Per

son

al

exp

erie

nce

Pro

cess

mat

uri

ty

Mu

ltis

ite

coo

rd.

Fo

rmal

ity

of

del

iv.

1.841.78

EMR4

2


USC


COSYSMO/COCOMO II MappingPrevious candidate starting point

Development EIA Stage Inception

Elaboration

Construction

Transition Management

14

12

10

14 Environment/CM

10

8

5

5 Requirements

38

18

8

4 Design

19

36

16

4 Implementation

8

13

34

19 Assessment

8

10

24

24 Deployment

3

3

3

30 TBD TBD TBD

= COCOMOII = COSYSMO-IP

When doingCOSYSMO-IP andCOCOMOII, Subtract grey areasprevent doublecounting.

TBD