1 Results of Reuse Survey Jared Fortune, USC Ricardo Valerdi, MIT Gan Wang, BAE COSYSMO COCOMO Forum 2008 Los Angeles, CA

2 Outline Research Background State of the Practice Survey Results Implications for COSYSMO 2.0

3 COSYSMO Reuse Development Timeline

4 COSYSMO 2.0 Development Literature review helped formulate survey questions Survey results guided proposed COSYSMO 2.0 revisions Reuse Considerations Literature Review Reuse Observations Industry Survey Revised Drivers COSYSMO 2.0

5 State of the Practice Survey How does industry handle reuse? COSYSMO 2.0 Reuse Survey Eight responses, representing eleven subject matter experts

6 Survey Results (1) …it varies Selected responses “No formal definitions” “Use of all or part of systems engineering work products” “Use of design, pattern, template, handbook, or other engineering effort that shifts the way engineering is done” “Use of assets developed or acquired in response to requirements for one application, in whole or in part to satisfy requirements for another application” How does your organization define reuse? Use of existing systems engineering products in a new application

7 Survey Results (2) General Specific What are the systems engineering artifacts your organization reuses and how frequently are they reused?

8 Survey Results (3) Which of the artifacts listed above is the most effective at providing a net benefit when reused? Requirements are the home run of reuse

9 Survey Results (4) To what extent does the reuse of systems engineering artifacts occur? Similar to distribution of systems engineering effort

10 Survey Results (5) What are the reasons for reuse successes? –Artifact reused with minimum or no change –Product lines with significant similarities –Requirements management  Utilization of personnel with experience on the project that developed artifact What are the reasons for reuse failures? –Underestimated modification required for reuse –New requirements placed on a modified product –Customer didn’t modify expectation of risk  Lack of knowledge/understanding

11 Survey Results (6) What are the most frequently promoted benefits as justification for systems engineering reuse? Cost benefits implied in others?

12 Survey Results (7) How frequently is systems engineering reuse mentioned in an RFP for a new system? Few instances of systems developed without reuse

13 Survey Results (8) How do the expected savings from reusing systems engineering artifacts scale? Other is a combination of linear and non-linear Consensus was non- linearly decreasing as the number of interfaces grows

14 Survey Results (9) Evaluate the expected effort from utilizing a systems engineering artifact classified in the first category, compared to the second.

15 Implications to COSYSMO 2.0 Effects of systems engineering reuse are more than what is captured in the size drivers –Survey results identify personnel, processes, and platform factors Reuse needs to be accounted for in both the size and cost drivers –Size drivers: previously proposed reuse extensions (Valerdi, Gaffney, Wang) –Cost drivers: newly proposed additional cost drivers (Fortune)

16 Proposed Size Driver Extensions New: Artifacts that are completely new Modified: Artifacts that are inherited, but are tailored Adopted: Artifacts that are incorporated unmodified, also known as “black box” reuse Deleted: Artifacts that are removed from a system Managed: Artifacts that are incorporated unmodified and untested Based on survey results

17 Proposed Additional Cost Drivers Reuse UnderstandingArtifact Unfamiliarity

18 Conclusion Thanks to all who participated in the reuse survey Detailed discussion on the COSYSMO 2.0 model to follow in the “Reuse Framework” presentation