Chapter 5: Principles of Project Management II Eric Braude and Michael Bernstein

Learning goals of this chapter Planning Maintenance Learning goals of this chapter How do you estimate the cost of a software job? What are good ways to go about creating a project schedule? What does a Software Project Management Plan look like? How are projects planned in practice? Testing The Software Development Lifecycle Requirements analysis Implementation Design Phase most relevant to this chapter is shown in bold

Range of Errors in Estimating Cost $4 Rough range of cost estimates after conceptualization phase. Assumes eventual, actual cost of $1 Conceptual- ization phase $1 $3 25c Rough range of cost estimates after requirements analysis Requirements analysis $1 $2 $1 Design Range of Errors in Estimating Cost $1 Implementation Integration/Test

A Cost Estimation Roadmap 1 Use comparisons with past jobs to estimate cost & duration directly or to estimate lines of code. and / or Use function point method to estimate lines of code .1 Compute un-adjusted function points. .2 Apply adjustment process. 2 Use lines of code estimates to compute labor and duration using COCOMO (II) formulas.

Function Point Computation for a Single Function (IFPUG) External Inquiries (EIN) Internal Logical Files (ILF)* Function Logical group of user data Logical group of user data Logical group of user data External Outputs (EO) External Inputs (EI) External Logical Files (ELF) file * Internal logical grouping of user data into files file file

Function Point Computations (IFPUG) (Unadjusted -- to be followed by applying adjustment process) PARAMETER simple complex Ext. inputs EI … 3 or… 4 or ... 6 = ___ Ext. outputs EO … 4 or … 5 or ... 7 = ___ Ext. inquiries EIN … 3 or … 4 or ... 6 = ___ Int. logical files ILF ... 7 or …10 or ... 15 = ___ Ext. logical files ELF ... 5 or …7 or ... 10 = ___ countTotal

Unadjusted Function Point Computation for First Encounter Functions:“Set up Player Character”

Unadjusted Function Point Computation for Second Encounter Functions: “Encounter Foreign Character”

General Characteristics for FP Adjustment 1-7 incidental average essential 1 2 3 4 5 none moderate significant Case study 1. Requires backup/recovery? 0-2 2. Data communications required? 0-1 3. Distributed processing functions? 0 4. Performance critical? 3-4 5. Run on existing heavily utilized environment? 0-1 6. Requires on-line data entry? 5 7. Multiple screens for input? 4-5

General Characteristics for FP Adjustment 8-14 incidental average essential 1 2 3 4 5 none moderate significant Case study 8. Master fields updated on-line? 3-4 9. Inputs, outputs, inquiries of files complex? 1-2 10. Internal processing complex? 1-3 11. Code designed for re-use? 2-4 12. Conversion and installation included? 0-2 13. Multiple installation in different orgs.? 1-3 14. Must facilitate change & ease-of-use by user? 4-5

COCOMO I Constructive Cost Model Created by Barry Boehm in 1981 Essentially: Effort = a*SIZEb Based on large number of 70’s projects Very simple estimation tool which may or may not work depending on how closely project fit in with original study

Estimating is hard to do

Basic Idea Small Project (Small team 2-3 person) Large Project Effort = a*SIZE+b Large Project Effort = a*SIZEb Variable a and b are scaling factors Effort -> Person months SIZE -> DSI or SLOC DSI (Delivered Source Instructions) is a physical lines SLOC (Source Line of Code) is a statement For example, "if-then-else" counted as one SLOC, but might be counted as several DSI

Project Type Organic Routine project Well understood domain Team works well and efficiently together Project expected to run smoothly Typically a smaller system

Project Type Semi-Detached In the middle Complex system, but something the company is familiar with Team may be made up of experienced and inexperienced members System not huge, but not small either

Project Type Embedded Difficulties expected Project that is hard (control software for nuclear plant, or spacecraft) Team has little experience in domain New or inexperienced team Tend to be large projects with lots of constraints

What is a and b? Organic Semi-Detached Embedded More Adjustable Person-months = 2.4*KDSI1.05 Semi-Detached Person-months = 3.0*KDSI1.12 Embedded Person-months = 3.6*KDSI1.20 More Adjustable Person-months = EAF*a*SIZEb EAF (Effort Adjustment Factor)

Using COCOMO I to Estimate Encounter Effort

COCOMO II Effort Equation Schedule Equation Effort = a*EAF*SIZEE EAF = multiplication of 17 Cost Drivers (EMi) E = summation of 5 Scale Drivers (SFi) Schedule Equation Duration = b*EffortSE SE = summation of 5 Scale Drivers of Schedule

Basic COCOMO II Cost Drivers Due to http://sunset.usc.edu/research/COCOMOII/

Estimating Story Points 10 Upper bound Estimated size in story points Actual size in person-hours 1. Compute past error % 2. Estimate using comparison, 3. factored by trend in past errors % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cycle #

Velocity in Agile Development Definition: Number of story points team can execute per cycle Relies on history of performance and consistency of story points Within this project and past ones Depends on accurate story points

Building a Schedule 1: Setting Milestones

Building a Schedule 2: Showing Phases

Building a Schedule 3: Showing Work Breakdown Structure

Dependencies in Schedules Dependencies: subset of schedule Critical paths: sequences of dependencies

IEEE 1058-1998 SPMP Table of Contents 1. Overview 1.1 Project summary 1.2 Evolution of the SPMP 2. References 3. Definitions 4. Project organization 4.1 External interfaces 4.2 Internal structure 4.3 Roles and responsibilities 5. Managerial process plans 5.1 Project startup plan 5.2 Work plan 5.3 Control plan 5.4 Risk management plan 5.5 Project closeout plan 6. Technical process plans 6.1 Process model 6.2 Methods, tools and techniques 6.3 Infrastructure plan 6.4 Product acceptance plan 7. Supporting process plans 7.1 Configuration management plan 7.2 Verification and validation plan 7.3 Documentation plan 7.4 Quality assurance plan 7.5 Reviews and audits plan 7.6 Problem resolution plan 7.7 Subcontractor management plans 7.8 Process improvement plan 8. Additional plans

Gaming Industries Consolidated President IV&V . . . VP Marketing VP Engineering Software Engineering Labs . . . Game Lab . . . Game 123 Encounter SQA

Encounter Project Responsibilities' Mem-ber Team leader CM Leader QA leader Require-ments manage-ment leader Design leader Implementa-tion Leader   Liaison Respon-sibility VP Engi-neering Market-ing Software engineer-ing lab Docu-ment Respon-sibility SPMP SCMP SQAP STP SRS SDD Code base

Maximum of minimums and maximum of maximums. Method* Mini Max Comment (1) 7.5** 170   (2) 4.2 300 (3) 11.4 46 1.9 - 2.3 for two identified functions: 6-20 times as many in complete application Most conservative Maximum of minimums and maximum of maximums. Least conservative Minimum of minimums and minimum of maximums. Widest range Minimum of minimums and maximum of maximums. Narrowest range Maximum of minimums and minimum of maximums. Very Rough Estimate of Application Size Prior to Requirements Analysis

Program Monitoring & Control

Implemen- tation Leader Name Team Leader CM Leader QA Leader Requ. Mngmnt Leader Design Leader Implemen- tation Leader Ed Braun X   Al Pruitt Fern Tryfill Hal Furnass Karen Peters Liaison with VP Eng. Market- ing Soft. Eng. Lab Encounter Staffing Plan

Encounter Project Responsibilities Member Team leader CM Leader QA leader Require-ments manage-ment leader Design leader Implemen-tation Leader   Liaison respon-sibility VP Engin-eering Marketing Software engineer-ing lab Docu-ment responsi-bility SPMP SCMP SQAP STP SRS SDD Code base

High-Level Task Chart with Fixed Delivery Date: Order of Completion Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 SCMP complete Begin system testing SQAP complete Milestones Delivery SPMP rel. 1 complete Freeze requirements Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Risk identification & retirement Prep. for maintenance

Work Breakdown Structure Excluding Secretarial Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 SCMP Complete testing Milestones SQAP Freeze requirements Delivery SPMP rel. 1 Iteration 1 Tasks Risk I&R Iteration 2 E. Braude 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J. Pruitt 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F. Tryfill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H. Furnass 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 K. Peters 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F. Smith (tech support) .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 TOTAL 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5

Sample Risk Analysis for Encounter Case Study #  Risk title (details given above) Like-lihood 1-10  1=least likely Im-pact 1=least impact Retire-ment cost 1-10 1=lowest cost Pri-ority  lowest number handled first Retirement / mitigation plan Respon-sible engineer Target com-pletion date   1 Super-imposing images 3 10 8 Experiment with Java images. P. R. 2/1/99  2 Deficient Java skills 9 6 80 H.T., K.M., V.I. and L.D. to attend training course beginning 1/5/99 at Ultra Training Corp, obtain Java level 2 certification by 3/1/99 and level 3 certification by 4/15/99 H. L. 4/15/99 Alan Gray may be pulled off this project 7 288 Susan Ferris to inspect all of Alan's work S.F. Contin-ual .. ...

http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse%20Development%20Process%202003_11_09%20FINAL.pdf