1. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC ICSM Principles for Successful Software and Systems Engineering Barry Boehm, JoAnn Lane, Sue Koolmanojwong, USC Richard Turner, Stevens CS 510, Fall 2013 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE1

2. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC Outline How the ICSM clarifies the VBSE 4+1 process –Using stakeholder values, success risks to drive process –Using decision milestones to synchronize, stabilize process For success, principles trump diagrams –But for application, diagrams easier to use (and misuse) –Spiral Model (SM) examples The 4 Incremental Commitment SM (ICSM) Principles –Stakeholder value-based system definition and evolution –Incremental commitment and accountability –Concurrent multidiscipline system definition and development –Evidence-based and risk-based decision making 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE2

3. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE3 Initial VBSE Theory: 4+1 Process – When, how much to prototype, do tradeoffs

4. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE4 Original Spiral and Misinterpretations Common Misinterpretations –Hack some prototypes –Fit spiral into waterfall –Incremental waterfalls –Suppress risk analysis –No concurrency, feedback –One-size-fits-all model

5. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC Principles Trump Diagrams: Spiral Several US Government Programs 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE5 Increment or Block 2 Increment or Block 3 Where’s analysis of alternatives, concurrency, risk?

6. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC Milestone View of Incremental Commitment Spiral Model 8/30/20136copyright USC-CSSE

7. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC Outline How the ICSM clarifies the VBSE 4+1 process –Using stakeholder values, success risks to drive process –Using decision milestones to synchronize, stabilize process For success, principles trump diagrams –But for application, diagrams easier to use (and misuse) –Spiral Model (SM) examples The 4 Incremental Commitment SM (ICSM) Principles –Stakeholder value-based system definition and evolution –Incremental commitment and accountability –Concurrent multidiscipline system definition and development –Evidence-based and risk-based decision making 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE7

8. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE8 Principle 1 and Enterprise Success Theorem Stakeholder value-based system definition and evolution Theorem: Your enterprise will succeed if and only if it makes winners of your success-critical stakeholders Proof of “if”: Everyone that counts is a winner. Nobody significant is left to complain. Proof of “only if”: Nobody wants to lose. Prospective losers will refuse to participate, or will counterattack. The usual result is lose-lose.

9. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE9 Theory W: WinWin Achievement Theorem Making winners of your success-critical stakeholders requires: i.Identifying all of the success-critical stakeholders (SCSs). ii.Understanding how the SCSs want to win. iii.Having the SCSs negotiate a win-win set of product and process plans. iv.Controlling progress toward SCS win-win realization, including adaptation to change.

10. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC Principle 1 Failure Story: The Too-Good Robot CMU Road Surface Assessment Robot –Roadbuilder needed faster, more accurate method vs. existing manual process Robot provided 100x more speed, accuracy Greater speed made roadbuilder look good Greater accuracy made roadbuilder look bad –Required to report, fix all identified defects –Most defects trivial, didn’t affect ride quality –Fixing them would cost too much, lose reputation Result: Robot was never used in practice 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE10

11. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013 Principle 1 Success Story: Symbiq Medical Infusion Pump Winner of 2006 HFES Best New Design Award Described in NRC HSI Report, Chapter 5 11copyright USC-CSSE

12. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013 Symbiq IV Pump ICM Process - I Exploration Phase –Stakeholder needs interviews, field observations –Initial user interface prototypes –Competitive analysis, system scoping –Commitment to proceed Valuation Phase –Feature analysis and prioritization –Display vendor option prototyping and analysis –Top-level life cycle plan, business case analysis –Safety and business risk assessment –Commitment to proceed while addressing risks 12copyright USC-CSSE

13. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013 Symbiq IV Pump ICM Process - II Architecting Phase –Modularity of pumping channels –Safety feature and alarms prototyping and iteration –Programmable therapy types, touchscreen analysis –Failure modes and effects analyses (FMEAs) –Prototype usage in teaching hospital –Commitment to proceed into development Development Phase –Extensive usability criteria and testing –Iterated FMEAs and safety analyses –Patient-simulator testing; adaptation to concerns –Commitment to production and business plans 13copyright USC-CSSE

14. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC Outline How the ICSM clarifies the VBSE 4+1 process –Using stakeholder values, success risks to drive process –Using decision milestones to synchronize, stabilize process For success, principles trump diagrams –But for application, diagrams easier to use (and misuse) –Spiral Model (SM) examples The 4 Incremental Commitment SM (ICSM) Principles –Stakeholder value-based system definition and evolution –Incremental commitment and accountability –Concurrent multidiscipline system definition and development –Evidence-based and risk-based decision making 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE14

15. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC Principle 2 Success Story: The TRW Software Productivity System Exploration Phase: explore policy, management, facilities, technology options –Technical career path; flex time –Interactive network-based support environment Valuation Phase: costs, benefits of private offices, individual workstations, development support tools –$10K per performer; preference for TRW network support –COCOMO cost drivers used to validate sofware costs, savings Foundations Phase: Develop, validate architecture, plans –Select 50-person pilot project as initial users Incremental Development Stage 2: 15 person team –Doubled productivity; identified future improvements 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE15

16. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE16 Principle 2 Failure Story: Master Net - Total commitment to User value propositions

17. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC Outline How the ICSM clarifies the VBSE 4+1 process –Using stakeholder values, success risks to drive process –Using decision milestones to synchronize, stabilize process For success, principles trump diagrams –But for application, diagrams easier to use (and misuse) –Spiral Model (SM) examples The 4 Incremental Commitment SM (ICSM) Principles –Stakeholder value-based system definition and evolution –Incremental commitment and accountability –Concurrent multidiscipline system definition and development –Evidence-based and risk-based decision making 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE17

18. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013 12/31/2007 ©USC-CSSE 18 Principle 3 Failure, Success Stories: Agent-based remotely piloted vehicle control 18copyright USC-CSSE

19. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013 12/31/2007 ©USC-CSSE 19 Sequential vs. Concurrent Engineering – 4:1 RPV Sequential Engineering –Agent technology demo and PR: Can do 4:1 for $1B –Winning bidder: $800M; PDR in 120 days; 4:1 capability in 40 months –PDR: many outstanding risks, undefined interfaces –$800M, 40 months: “halfway” through integration and test –1:1 IOC after $3B, 80 months Concurrent Engineering [with a number of competing teams] –$25M, 6 mo. to VCR [4]: may beat 1:2 with agent technology, but not 4:1 –$75M, 8 mo. to FCR [3]: agent technology may do 1:1; some risks –$225M, 10 mo. to DCR [2]: validated architecture, high-risk elements –$675M, 18 mo. to IOC [1]: viable 1:1 capability –1:1 IOC after $1B, 42 months 19copyright USC-CSSE

20. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013 ICSM Activity Levels for Complex Systems 20copyright USC-CSSE

21. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC Outline How the ICSM clarifies the VBSE 4+1 process –Using stakeholder values, success risks to drive process –Using decision milestones to synchronize, stabilize process For success, principles trump diagrams –But for application, diagrams easier to use (and misuse) –Spiral Model (SM) examples The 4 Incremental Commitment SM (ICSM) Principles –Stakeholder value-based system definition and evolution –Incremental commitment and accountability –Concurrent multidiscipline system definition and development –Evidence-based and risk-based decision making 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE21

22. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013 Principle 4. Evidence- and risk-based decision making Evidence provided by developer and validated by independent experts that: If the system is built to the specified architecture, it will –Satisfy the requirements: capability, interfaces, level of service, and evolution –Support the operational concept –Be buildable within the budgets and schedules in the plan –Generate a viable return on investment –Generate satisfactory outcomes for all of the success-critical stakeholders All major risks resolved or covered by risk management plans (shortfalls in evidence are uncertainties and risks) Serves as basis for stakeholders’ commitment to proceed Can be used to strengthen current schedule- or event-based reviews 22copyright USC-CSSE

23. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013 The Incremental Commitment Spiral Process: Phased View Anchor Point Milestones Synchronize, stabilize concurrency via FEDs Risk patterns determine life cycle process 23copyright USC-CSSE

24. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013 The Incremental Commitment Spiral Process: Stages I and II Anchor Point Milestones Concurrently engr. OpCon, rqts, arch, plans, prototypes Concurrently engr. Incr.N (ops), N+1 (devel), N+2 (arch) 24copyright USC-CSSE

25. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE25 Decision Milestone Feasibility Evidence Evidence provided by developer and validated by independent experts that: If the system is built to the specified architecture, it will –Satisfy the requirements: capability, interfaces, level of service, and evolution –Support the operational concept –Be buildable within the budgets and schedules in the plan –Generate a viable return on investment –Generate satisfactory outcomes for all of the success-critical stakeholders All major risks resolved or covered by risk management plans Serves as basis for stakeholders’ commitment to proceed

26. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE26 Principle 4 Failure Story: 1980s Query-Response System $100M $50M Arch. A: Custom many cache processors Arch. B: Modified Client-Server 12 3 4 5 Response Time (sec) Original Spec After Prototyping

27. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering C S E USC Principle 4 Success Story: USAF/ESC-TRW CCPDS-R Project* 8/30/2013copyright USC-CSSE27 When investments made in architecture, average time for change order becomes relatively stable over time… * Walker Royce, Software Project Management: A Unified Framework. Addison-Wesley, 1998.