כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח An Overview of Software Development Effort and Cost Estimation Techniques Professor Ron Kenett Tel Aviv University School of Engineering.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Estimation using COCOMO More Science, Less Art. COCOMO History COCOMO History Constructive Cost Model Dr. Barry Boehm TRW in 1970s COCOMO
Advertisements

Copyright 2000, Stephan Kelley1 Estimating User Interface Effort Using A Formal Method By Stephan Kelley 16 November 2000.
Software Cost Estimation Main issues:  What factors determine cost/effort?  How to relate effort to development time?
May 18, 2004CS WPI1 CS 562 Advanced SW Engineering Lecture #6 Tuesday, May 18, 2004.
University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC COSYSMO: Constructive Systems Engineering Cost Model Barry Boehm, USC CSE Annual.
University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC ©USC-CSE 10/23/01 1 COSYSMO Portion The COCOMO II Suite of Software Cost Estimation.
Ch8: Management of Software Engineering. 1 Management of software engineering  Traditional engineering practice is to define a project around the product.
1 COST ESTIMATION Basics, COCOMO, FP. 2 What is estimated? TIME MONEY TIME: –duration, chronological weeks, months, years –effort, person-month (man-month)
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Assessing the IDPD Factor: Quality Management Platform Project Thomas Tan.
1 CORADMO in 2001: A RAD Odyssey Cyrus Fakharzadeh 16th International Forum on COCOMO and Software Cost Modeling University of Southern.
Measuring process attributes. Good Estimates Predictions are needed for software development decision-making (figure 12.1) A prediction is useful only.
SOFTWARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COST ESTIMATION © University of LiverpoolCOMP 319slide 1.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 1 An Analysis of Changes in Productivity and COCOMO Cost.
Chapter 23 – Project planning Part 2. Estimation techniques  Organizations need to make software effort and cost estimates. There are two types of technique.
1 Cost Estimation CIS 375 Bruce R. Maxim UM-Dearborn.
Information System Economics Software Project Cost Estimation.
Cost22 1 Question of the day u If you were the boss, what would you do for cost estimation?
1 ECE 453 – CS 447 – SE 465 Software Testing & Quality Assurance Lecture 22 Instructor Paulo Alencar.
Dr. M. Shamim HossainSWE 211 Effort, Duration and Cost Lec 3 1.
Project Management Estimation. LOC and FP Estimation –Lines of code and function points were described as basic data from which productivity metrics can.
Software Cost and Schedule Estimation Dr. Harry R. Erwin University of Sunderland.
CEN th Lecture CEN 4021 Software Engineering II Instructor: Masoud Sadjadi Effort estimation.
By K Gopal Reddy.  Metrics in software are of two types.direct and indirect.  Function points as indirect metrics.  Function points are used to measure.
CS /39 Illinois Institute of Technology CS487 Software Engineering David A. Lash.
A Brief Introduction to COCOMO Hossein Saiedian EECS810: Software Engineering.
1 Software Cost Estimation. Outline  Introduction  Inputs and Outputs  Methods of Estimation  COCOMO  Conclusion 2.
Group Members: Ayush Newatia, Barry Foye, Billy Felton, Kevin Anderson, Shahnaz Begum and Adam Jasinski Constructive Cost Model is a technique used to.
Cost13 1 Cost Estimation Estimates based on LOC. cost13 2 Boehm's COCOMO u Software Engineering Economics u Prentice-Hall c1981 u type COCOMO in a search.
T. E. Potok - University of Tennessee CS 594 Software Engineering Lecture 3 Dr. Thomas E. Potok
Cost Estimation What is estimated? –resources (humans, components, tools) –cost (person-months) –schedule (months) Why? –Personnel allocation –Contract.
Project Estimation Model By Deepika Chaudhary. Factors for estimation Initial estimates may have to be made on the basis of a high level user requirements.
SFWR ENG 3KO4 Slide 1 Management of Software Engineering Chapter 8: Fundamentals of Software Engineering C. Ghezzi, M. Jazayeri, D. Mandrioli.
Software Project Estimation IMRAN ASHRAF
Overview of COCOMO Reporter:Hui Zhang
Cost9a 1 Software Estimating Technology: A Survey Richard Stutzke Crosstalk, May96 text pp
©Ian Sommerville, adapted by Werner Wild 2004Project Management Slide 1 Software cost estimation u Predicting the resources required for a software development.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2010, USC-CSSE 1 Trends in Productivity and COCOMO Cost Drivers over the.
Estimation using COCOMO
Function Points Synthetic measure of program size used to estimate size early in the project Easier (than lines of code) to calculate from requirements.
Estimating “Size” of Software There are many ways to estimate the volume or size of software. ( understanding requirements is key to this activity ) –We.
Effort Estimation In WBS,one can estimate effort (micro-level) but needed to know: –Size of the deliverable –Productivity of resource in producing that.
The COCOMO model An empirical model based on project experience. Well-documented, ‘independent’ model which is not tied to a specific software vendor.
بشرا رجائی برآورد هزینه نرم افزار.
COCOMO Software Cost Estimating Model Lab 4 Demonstrator : Bandar Al Khalil.
Estimation Questions How do you estimate? What are you going to estimate? Where do you start?
Software Engineering.
Software Estimating Technology: A Survey
SOFTWARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COST ESTIMATION
PROJECT LIFE CYCLE AND EFFORT ESTIMATION
Metrics and Terms SLOC (source lines of code)
Cost Estimation with COCOMO II
Tutorial: Software Cost Estimation Tools – COCOMO II and COCOTS
Constructive Cost Model
Software Engineering.
SOFTWARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COST ESTIMATION
Chapter 26 Estimation for Software Projects
Cost Estimation with COCOMO II
Software Systems Cost Estimation
COCOMO Model Basic.
More on Estimation In general, effort estimation is based on several parameters and the model ( E= a + b*S**c ): Personnel Environment Quality Size or.
COCOMO Models.
Cost Estimation with COCOMO II
COCOMO 2 COCOMO 81 was developed with the assumption that a waterfall process would be used and that all software would be developed from scratch. Since.
Chapter 23 Software Cost Estimation
Cost Estimation with COCOMO II
Cost Estimation with COCOMO II
Software Cost Estimation
Software Cost Estimation
COnstructive COst MOdel
Software cost estimation
Presentation transcript:

כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח An Overview of Software Development Effort and Cost Estimation Techniques Professor Ron Kenett Tel Aviv University School of Engineering

Software Cost Estimation Models כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח Software Cost Estimation Models TRW Doty Boeing IBM-FSD Rayleigh SLIM RCA Price/S COCOMO 81 JPL

Software Cost Estimation Models כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח Software Cost Estimation Models Doty - 14 factors IBM-FSD - 29 factors COCOMO 81 - 15 factors JPL - 40 factors

Cost Adjustment Factors כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח Cost Adjustment Factors TRW Easy 0.8 Medium 1.0 Hard 1.2 New module 1.0 Old module 0.7

Development Efforts (MM) כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח Development Efforts (MM) IBM-FSD W = 5.2 L^0.91 RADC W = 4.86 L^0.976 Doty W = 5.25 L^1.057 JPL W = 2.43 L^0.962

Staffing Size (Persons) כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח Staffing Size (Persons) IBM-FSD S = 0.409 W^0.65 RADC S = 0.388 W^0.641

Project Duration (Months) כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח Project Duration (Months) IBM-FSD T = 2.47 W^0.35 RADC T = 3.59 W^0.358 T = 4.55 L^0.349

COnstructive COst Model כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח COnstructive COst Model Barry Boehm Software Engineering Economics Prentice Hall, 1981

Basic COCOMO 81 Organic MM = 2.4 (KDSI)^1.05 TDEV = 2.5 (MM)^0.38 כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח Basic COCOMO 81 Organic MM = 2.4 (KDSI)^1.05 TDEV = 2.5 (MM)^0.38 Semidetached MM = 3.0 (KDSI)^1.12 TDEV = 2.5 (MM)^0.35 Embedded MM = 3.6 (KDSI)^1.20 TDEV = 2.5 (MM)^0.32

Intermediate COCOMO 81 Organic (MM)nom = 3.2 (KDSI)^1.05 כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח Intermediate COCOMO 81 Organic (MM)nom = 3.2 (KDSI)^1.05 TDEV = 2.5 (MM)^0.38 Semidetached (MM)nom = 3.0 (KDSI)^1.12 TDEV = 2.5 (MM)^0.35 Embedded (MM)nom = 2.8 (KDSI)^1.20 TDEV = 2.5 (MM)^0.32

COCOMO 81

COCOMO 81

COCOMO 81

COCOMO II, 1997 Challenges faced in calibrating COCOMO II כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח COCOMO II, 1997 Challenges faced in calibrating COCOMO II GUI builders, COTS, 4GL’s, reuse – Need to rethink size metrics Distributed interactive applications – Web- based, object- oriented, event- based – Middleware effects New process models (evolutionary, incremental, spiral) – Phases overlap – Where are cost measurement endpoints? Lack of good data – not enough data (i. e. very little degrees of freedom) – lack of dispersion – heteroskedasticity

כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח COCOMO II The 1997 version – Multivariate Linear Regression with 10%weighted average of expert- determined and data-determined The 1998 version – Bayesian Regression Analysis – Model more Data- Determined The 19??/ 20?? version – 100% Data- Determined

כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח COCOMO II COCOMO II. 1997 Calibration Process Began with expert- determined a- priori model parameters – Iterated with Affiliates (Result => Original Post Architecture Model) - Collected Data - Identified and consolidated highly correlated model parameters - Statistically determined estimates of consolidated model parameters from data – Using logarithms to linearize regression - Used data determined model parameters to adjust a- priori model parameters – Experimented with weighting factors

כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח COCOMO II

כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח COCOMO II

COCOMO II Consolidated Highly Correlated Parameters כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח COCOMO II Consolidated Highly Correlated Parameters TIME 1.0000 0.6860 -0.2855 -0.2015 STOR 0.6860 1.0000 -0.0769 -0.0027 ACAP -0.2855 -0.0769 1.0000 0.7339 PCAP -0.2015 -0.0027 0.7339 1.0000 TIME STOR ACAP PCAP • What do we do? Þ Combine : TIME & STOR to give RCON (Resource Constraints) ACAP & PCAP to give PERS (Personnel Factors) Thus, 15 effort multipliers instead of 17 for calibration

כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח COCOMO II Process Maturity does effect effort. A one increment change in PMAT (Level 1 Upper to Level 2, Level 2 to Level 3, etc.) results in a 7% to 21% reduction in effort for a 30 KDSI project. Effect is larger for larger products Using it as a scale factor appears to provide a stronger influence on effort than as a multiplicative factor. Its influence is less than the personnel capability of the team, about the same as product complexity (CPLX), and higher than other COCOMO cost drivers. Process Maturity should be in all Software Cost Estimation Models; it is well defined and measurable. Some Observations on Effects of Process Maturity on Effort

כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח COCOMO II

כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח COCOMO II

כ"ז/שבט/תשע"ח COCOMO II