University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 1 Reuse and Maintenance Estimation Vu Nguyen March 17, 2009.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
COST ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES AND COCOMO. Cost Estimation Techniques 1-)Algorithmic cost modelling 2-)Expert judgement 3-)Estimation by analogy 4)-Parkinsons.
Advertisements

Estimation using COCOMO More Science, Less Art. COCOMO History COCOMO History Constructive Cost Model Dr. Barry Boehm TRW in 1970s COCOMO
A Sizing Framework for DoD Software Cost Analysis Raymond Madachy, NPS Barry Boehm, Brad Clark and Don Reifer, USC Wilson Rosa, AFCAA
CSCI COCOMO Tutorial1 CS “Tutorial” Presentation: Software Cost Estimation Tools – COCOMO II and COCOTS A Winsor Brown and Ye.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Productivity Data Analysis and Issues Brad Clark, Thomas Tan USC CSSE Annual.
University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC Using COCOMO for Software Decisions - from COCOMO II Book, Section 2.6, 6.5.
Smi COCOMO II Calibration Status COCOMO Forum October 2004.
COSYSMO Reuse Extension 22 nd International Forum on COCOMO and Systems/Software Cost Modeling November 2, 2007 Ricardo ValerdiGan Wang Garry RoedlerJohn.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering 1 © USC-CSSE Unified CodeCounter (UCC) with Differencing Functionality Marilyn.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2010, USC-CSSE 1 COCOMO II Maintenance Model Upgrade Vu Nguyen, Barry Boehm.
1 Systems Engineering Reuse Principles Jared Fortune, USC Ricardo Valerdi, MIT COSYSMO COCOMO Forum 2010 Los Angeles, CA.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering 1 © USC-CSSE A Constrained Regression Technique for COCOMO Calibration Presented.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Building Cost Estimating Relationships for Acquisition Decision Support Brad.
Introduction Wilson Rosa, AFCAA CSSE Annual Research Review March 8, 2010.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Assessing the IDPD Factor: Quality Management Platform Project Thomas Tan.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 1 Assessing and Estimating Corrective, Enhancive, and Reductive.
University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC USC-CSE Annual Research Review COQUALMO Update John D. Powell March 11, 2002.
COSYSMO Reuse Extension 22 nd International Forum on COCOMO and Systems/Software Cost Modeling November 2, 2007 Ricardo ValerdiGan Wang Garry RoedlerJohn.
Copyright USC-CSSE 1 Quality Management – Lessons of COQUALMO (COnstructive QUALity MOdel) A Software Defect Density Prediction Model AWBrown.
SOFTWARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COST ESTIMATION © University of LiverpoolCOMP 319slide 1.
1 Discussion on Reuse Framework Jared Fortune, USC Ricardo Valerdi, MIT COSYSMO COCOMO Forum 2008 Los Angeles, CA.
COCOMO II Database Brad Clark Center for Software Engineering Annual Research Review March 11, 2002.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering AFCAA Database and Metrics Manual Ray Madachy, Brad Clark, Barry Boehm, Thomas.
1 COSYSMO 2.0: A Cost Model and Framework for Systems Engineering Reuse Jared Fortune University of Southern California Ricardo Valerdi Massachusetts Institute.
Local Bias and its Impacts on the Performance of Parametric Estimation Models Accepted by PROMISE2011 (Best paper award) Ye Yang, Lang Xie, Zhimin He (iTechs)
COSYSMO Reuse Extension COSYSMO Workshop – USC CSSE Annual Research Review March 17, 2008 Ricardo ValerdiGan Wang Garry RoedlerJohn Rieff Jared Fortune.
April 27, 2004CS WPI1 CS 562 Advanced SW Engineering Lecture #3 Tuesday, April 27, 2004.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 1 An Analysis of Changes in Productivity and COCOMO Cost.
University of Toronto Department of Computer Science © 2001, Steve Easterbrook CSC444 Lec22 1 Lecture 22: Software Measurement Basics of software measurement.
COCOMO-SCORM: Cost Estimation for SCORM Course Development
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.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Cost Estimation with COCOMO II Barry Boehm CS 510, Fall 2015 v3: Slide 10.
University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC Using COCOMO for Software Decisions - from COCOMO II Book, Section 2.6 Barry.
University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC Using COCOMO for Software Decisions - from COCOMO II Book, Section 2.6 Barry.
Gan Wang 22 October th International Forum on COCOMO® and Systems/Software Cost Modeling in conjunction with the Practical Software and Systems.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Vu Nguyen, Barry Boehm USC-CSSE ARR, May 1, 2014 COCOMO II Cost Driver Trends.
©Ian Sommerville 2004Software Engineering, 7th edition. Chapter 26 Slide 1 Software cost estimation 2.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2010, USC-CSSE 1 Trends in Productivity and COCOMO Cost Drivers over the.
Function Points Synthetic measure of program size used to estimate size early in the project Easier (than lines of code) to calculate from requirements.
Proposed Metrics Definition Highlights Raymond Madachy Naval Postgraduate School CSSE Annual Research Review March 8, 2010.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2010, USC-CSSE 1 A COCOMO Extension for Software Maintenance 25 th International.
+ Incremental Development Productivity Decline Ramin Moazeni, Daniel Link.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering 1 © USC-CSSE Integrating Case-Based, Analogy-Based, and Parameter-Based Estimation.
Project Planning Goal 1 - Estimates are documented for use in tracking and planning project. Goal 2 - Project Activities and commitments planned and documented.
University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Reducing Estimation Uncertainty with Continuous Assessment Framework Pongtip.
1 Using COCOMO for Software Decisions - from COCOMO II Book, Section 2.6, 6.5 LiGuo Huang Computer Science and Engineering Southern Methodist University.
COCOMO Software Cost Estimating Model Lab 4 Demonstrator : Bandar Al Khalil.
Estimate Testing Size and Effort Using Test Case Point Analysis
Using COCOMO for Software Decisions - from COCOMO II Book, Section 2.6
SOFTWARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COST ESTIMATION
Metrics and Terms SLOC (source lines of code)
Cost Estimation with COCOMO II
Tutorial: Software Cost Estimation Tools – COCOMO II and COCOTS
COCOMO II Overview Ray Madachy CSCI 510
SOFTWARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COST ESTIMATION
SLOC and Size Reporting
Cost Estimation with COCOMO II
Using COCOMO for Software Decisions - from COCOMO II Book, Section 2
Personal Software Process Software Estimation
Using COCOMO for Software Decisions - from COCOMO II Book, Section 2
Cost Estimation with COCOMO II
Cost Estimation with COCOMO II
Cost Estimation with COCOMO II
Cost Estimation with COCOMO II
Cost Estimation with COCOMO II
Software Metrics SAD ::: Fall 2015 Sabbir Muhammad Saleh.
Using COCOMO for Software Decisions - from COCOMO II Book, Section 2.6
Center for Software and Systems Engineering,
Using COCOMO for Software Decisions - from COCOMO II Book, Section 2.6
Using COCOMO for Software Decisions - from COCOMO II Book, Section 2
Presentation transcript:

University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 1 Reuse and Maintenance Estimation Vu Nguyen March 17, 2009 Center for Systems and Software Engineering University of Southern California

Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 2 Reuse and Maintenance – A Source Code Perspective Acquired Pieces Exiting System’s Pieces Reused Pieces (Unmodified) New Pieces Adapted Pieces (modified, deleted, added) Project Execution

University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 3 COCOMO II Reuse and Maintenance Models Reuse Model Maintenance Model Size = (Size Added + Size Modified) * (1 + SU*UNFM/100)

University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 4 Limitations The two models do not converge although reuse and maintenance are indistinguishable Unclear how to determine the “actual” equivalent SLOC from a completed system Determining the models’ parameters DM, CM, IM, Adapted SLOC, etc. is difficult Difficult to calibrate the models Exploratory results –Smoothed AAM factor –Revised equivalent SLOC

University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 5 Adaptation Adjustment Modifier (AAM) Relative Cost New AAM formula: AAM worse case: AA = 8 UNFM = 1 SU = 50 Relative # of interfaces checked New AAM formula Old AAM formula Relative Amount of Modification (AAF)

University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 6 Calculating Actual Equivalent SLOC Based on CodeCount Tool Equivalent Adapted KSLOC (EKSLOC adapted ) –Determining “actual” DM adapted, CM adapted, IM adapted DM adapted = CM adapted = IM adapted = KSLOC modified /KSLOC adapted AAF adapted = KSLOC modified /KSLOC adapted –EKSLOC adapted = KSLOC adapted * AAM adapted Equivalent Reused KSLOC (EKSLOC reused ) DM reused = CM reused = 0 (no modification needed) AAM reused = AAF reused = 0.3 * IM reused –EKSLOC reused = 0.3 KSLOC reused * IM reused Total Equivalent KSLOC EKSLOC = KSLOC added + EKSLOC adapted + EKSLOC reused

University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 7 Product Factor A product often has multiple releases –Each release is delivered by a project Each release is based on a baseline release –Unmodified modules are reused –Modified modules are adapted –New modules are added –Some modules are deleted –Inherit overall software complexity Leverage some environments, processes, personnel, and hence productivity pattern (e.g., decrease or increase)

University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 8 Product Factor (cont’d) Calibration with product factor –Each product has multiple releases –Each project is corresponding to a release Regression equation (2) log(PM i ) – [SF i * log(Size i ) + log(EAF i )] = [  0 +  1 *log(Size i )] *  f i (j) j Where productN  f i (j) = 1 if product(i) = j j=product1 = 0 otherwise

University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 9 Validation Models –R1: Use existing COCOMO II Reuse Model, A = 2.94, and B = 0.91 –R2: Use the modified formulas above and calibrate A and B values –R3: Same as R2 plus applying the “product factor” using the regression equation (2) Calculate MMRE, PRED(.25), and PRED(.30) from the three models Use dataset of 29 releases

University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 10 Dataset A dataset from CSSE’s Affiliate –6 products –29 releases –Application types data processing Military – Ground Test Product No # of Releases

University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 11 Results Models –R1: Use existing COCOMO II Reuse Model, A = 2.94, and B = 0.91 –R2: Use the modified formulas above and calibrate A and B values –R3: Same as R2 plus applying the “product factor” using the regression equation (2) ModelMMREPRED25PRED30 R R R

University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 12 Results (cont’d) The results suggest that the calibrated model generates better estimates Calibrated model using data from projects for the same product (Model R3) potentially has best performance Limitations of Model R3 –Calibrated A and B values are unstable, high variant –Calibrated A and B values are sometimes counter- intuitive (e.g., A < 1, B < 0)

University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering © 2009, USC-CSSE 13 Next steps Modify the AAM formula –Apply regression to determine the coefficients for KSLOC added, EKSLOC adapted, EKSLOC reused Perform Delphi survey to determine the constant values of SU, UNFM, DM, CM, IM Determine the weights of Added, Modified, and Deleted SLOC in adapted modules Collect more data to calibrate COCOMO cost driver values for maintenance and reuse model –Explore causes of variation in “product factor” –May discover an explanatory driver