1. Towards COSYSMO 2.0: Update on Reuse
USC ARR 2009 Los Angeles, CA
Jared Fortune, USC
Ricardo Valerdi, MIT

2. Outline COSYSMO 2.0 Introduction & Status Reuse Process
Reuse of SE Artifacts
Reuse Scenarios
Reuse in Cost Drivers
Organizational Impacts of Reuse
Next Steps

3. Reuse Overview Systems engineering activities are support-focused
Do not produce physical products (HW, SW, etc.)
Produce architectures, requirements, test plans, and other technical documents
Systems engineering products can be viewed as “artifacts”
Encapsulation of systems engineering knowledge in a document or process
Representative of systems engineering effort
Reuse of an artifact should reduce the expected systems engineering effort for the development of a new system

4. Guidance for COSYSMO 2.0 COSYSMO introduced in 2005
Successful, implemented by both academia and industry
Not without its limitations
Relies on a “built from scratch” assumption
Lack of reuse estimation capability cited as a potential source of error
Need to develop reuse estimation capability for COSYSMO 2.0
Reuse Considerations
Reuse Observations
Revised Drivers
Literature Review
Industry Survey
COSYSMO 2.0

5. Reuse Literature Observations
Reuse is done for the purpose of economic benefit, intending to shorten schedule, reduce cost, and/or increase performance.
Reuse is not free, upfront investment is required to understand the technical opportunities and limitations.
Products, processes, and knowledge are all reusable artifacts.
Reuse needs to be planned from the conceptualization phase of programs.
Reuse is as much of an organizational issue as it is a technical one.
Reuse is knowledge that must be deliberately captured in order to be beneficial.
The benefits of reuse are limited to closely related domains.
The benefits of reuse do not scale linearly

6. Reuse Survey Results
Requirements reuse is only performed occasionally, but has the largest “benefit” associated with it.
Reuse occurs more frequently early in the life cycle than later.
Cost savings is the most promoted benefit for reuse, but benefits also exist in risk, schedule, and performance.
The proposed five categories of reuse are reasonable in characterizing systems engineering reuse.
Experienced personnel is a key factor for successful reuse.

7. COSYSMO Operational Concept
# Requirements
# Interfaces
# Scenarios
# Algorithms
Size
Drivers
COSYSMO
Effort
Effort
Multipliers
Application factors
8 factors
Team factors
6 factors
Calibration

8. Proposed COSYSMO 2.0 Operational Concept
4+1 Reuse Categories
# Requirements
# Interfaces
# Scenarios
# Algorithms
Size
Drivers
COSYSMO 2.0
Effort
Effort
Multipliers
Application factors
8 factors (+1)
Team factors
6 factors (+1)
Calibration

9. 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
Managed: Artifacts that are incorporated unmodified and untested
Deleted: Artifacts that are removed from a system
4 or 5 categories

10. Which Methodology Provides Better Estimation Power?
Methodology A
Methodology B
Reuse Extensions (4+1 categories)
Reuse Extensions (4+1 categories) +
Reuse Cost Drivers (Revised set)

11. COSYSMO 2.0 Status Dissertation proposal approved in October 2008
In data collection/model validation phase
Aiming for COSYSMO 2.0 delivery in Spring 2010
Determine model updates needed to account for reuse
4+1 Reuse Categories (Size Drivers)
4+1 Reuse Categories & Revised Cost Drivers
Mining the COSYSMO calibration data set
58% of projects have some reuse data
Data provided as percentage of number of E/N/D value for each size driver

12. Reuse Process Objectives Improvements to the process
Prescriptive guidance
Illustrates a way for an organization to think about reuse from a larger perspective (strategy, organization, etc.)
Helps an organization that wants to do reuse, establish a foundation
Improvements to the process
Is this the right sequence?
Are these the right steps?
What happens in each step?
Are there any other feedback loops?

13. Reuse Process Identify reuse strategy Reuse intangibles
Identify reuse artifacts
Define classes of reuse
Size drivers
Cost drivers
Risk assessment
Document future reuse opportunities
Will be discussed in detail
Populate reuse repository

14. Reuse of SE Artifacts
Survey results identified frequency of SE artifacts that are reused
Requirements
Architecture/design models
Test data/procedures
Documentation/templates
What are other SE artifacts that are reused?

15. Reuse Scenarios
What are some example scenarios of reusing systems engineering artifacts?
Ex: Block II of a satellite program; many requirements already defined, interfaces are known, test procedures exist.

16. Reuse in the Cost Drivers
Previous research/discussion focused on reuse in the size drivers
4+1 reuse categories, reuse continuum
On-going research will provide additional insight on this issue
What is the impact of reuse on the cost drivers?
Survey revealed non-technical, personnel factors significantly influenced success of reuse
Potential
Definition changes?
Rating scale changes?
Modified set of drivers?

17. Capturing Reuse in the Cost Drivers
Reuse Impact On?
Impact On Reuse?
Application Factors
Requirements Understanding
Architecture Understanding
Level of Service Requirements
Migration Complexity
Technology Risk
Documentation to Match Life Cycle Needs
# and Diversity of Installations/Platforms
# of Recursive Levels in the Design
Team Factors
Stakeholder Team Cohesion
Personnel/Team Capability
Personnel Experience/Continuity
Process Capability
Multisite Coordination
Tool Support

18. Organizational Impacts of Reuse
What do systems engineering departments need to do differently in order to support “strategic” reuse?
Survey indicated “strategic” reuse is much more successful and effective than “ad hoc” reuse; reuse needs to be planned early in the lifecycle
What mechanisms enable/hinder reuse?
How do SE departments handle strategic vs. ad hoc reuse?
To what degree does either strategy affect the SE department?
What feedback loops exist in the reuse process?

19. Next Steps COSYSMO 2.0 data collection Expert survey
Call for participation
Expert survey
Validate reuse size driver weights & cost driver adjustments

20. Call for Participation
Background
The USC Center for Systems and Software Engineering (CSSE) and Lean Advancement Initiative (LAI) at MIT in collaboration with the INCOSE Measurement Working Group have initiated the next phase of development of a Systems Engineering Cost Model called COSYSMO. Since the first version of the model was completed in 2005, COSYSMO has been widely accepted and adopted by over a dozen industrial and government organizations. To continually address the needs of the user community, an incremental update to the model is currently underway. This update, called COSYSMO 2.0, will improve the estimation power of the model by accounting for systems engineering reuse. To perform an industry calibration, we are seeking industry data in the form of labor actuals on various types of systems engineering projects that involved a significant amount of reuse.
Benefits
By providing data for this model your organization will:
ensure that your particular application domain is addressed by COSYSMO 2.0
learn to tailor and calibrate the updated model for their specific application domain
enable the quantification of varying degrees of systems engineering reuse on project estimates
be able to claim in CMMI reviews that your systems engineering cost estimates are based on calibrated industry models
Proven Methodology
COSYSMO (Constructive Systems Engineering Cost Model) employs a proven methodology developed for the COCOMO (Constructive Cost Model), the most widely used software cost model in the world.
Proven Process
USC-CSSE and LAI at MIT have proven processes in place to ensure the confidentiality of the data with its Corporate Affiliates and Consortium Members. Successful data protection has enabled it to attract the participation of several organizations in this effort including Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, SAIC, L-3 Communications, BAE Systems, and the US Air Force Space & Missile Systems Center.
Contact
Jared Fortune
Ricardo Valerdi 20