1. Multi-Build Software Cost Estimation Using COINCOMO
Ramin Moazeni
CS 510
Fall 2013

2. Goals of Presentation
Describe the current state and motivate next steps
Vision(s) & Fundamentals
DBA COCOMO
COINCOMO today
©USC-CSSE

3. Why Multiple Builds
Simplest: Early Functionality in the hands of ALL users
Architecture/Core plus some functionality
Implies Full Qualification/Acceptance Sw Testing each software build so systems can go into Integration & Test earlier
Increasingly Complex Systems
Multiple, diverse "platforms"
Different "foci" of functionality (in each build)
Network Centric Systems Operation
Evolution/federation of legacy systems
System of Systems by design
©USC-CSSE

4. Multi-Build COCOMO II
©USC-CSSE

5. MBASE/RUP Concurrent Activities
©USC-CSSE

6. Overlap across Builds
©USC-CSSE

7. Multiple Subsystems Overlapping Builds
©USC-CSSE

8. Multi-Build COCOMO II
Guidance on how to Carry forward
©USC-CSSE

9. COINCOMO Background COCOMO II + COPSEMO
COCOMO: Constructive Cost Model
COPSEMO: Phase Schedule and Effort Model
Provides a phased distribution of effort to support incremental rapid application development
Calculates/predicts the
Schedule (months, M)
Personnel (P)
Adjusted effort (person-months, PM)
©USC-CSSE

10. COCOMO + COPSEMO
©USC-CSSE

11. COPSEMO
©USC-CSSE

12. COINCOMO
Vision
build a base to integrate all of the components of the COCOMO "suite" of software development estimation tools
cover all software development activities
accommodate the multiple (from different organizations), builds (or deliveries) and systems
COCOMO model as a base: estimated the software Effort (PM) and Schedule (M) for each module
COPSEMO model to separate the man power loading across Elaboration and Construction phases
COPSEMO model to add additional effort and schedule for Inception and Transition phases
©USC-CSSE

13. COINCOMO Naming Convention
COINCOMO Systems, Sub-Systems and Components
System is conceptual aggregator of Sub-Systems
Sub-System is aggregator for (software) Components
Component = COCOMO Project
Sub-Component = COCOMO Module
©USC-CSSE

14. COINCOMO Naming Convention
A CSV output of COINCOMO facilitates “aggregation” using a spreadsheet
Schedule after anchor point alignment
Effort per phase per build after anchor point alignment
©USC-CSSE

15. COINCOMO Component
©USC-CSSE

16. COINCOMO’s COPSEMO
©USC-CSSE

17. Generated Spreadsheet
©USC-CSSE

18. Context: F6
Future Fast, Flexible, Fractionated, Free-Flying Spacecraft united by Information eXchange
©USC-CSSE

19. Software Cost Estimation for F6
Hypothesized (builds, capabilities and SLOC/build)
Common Operating Environment
Service Based Architecture Middleware
Common Services
Small satellites
Power Generation
Space-Ground (S/G) Communication
Micro satellites
A Sensor Payload
A Radar Payload
An Actuator Payload
©USC-CSSE

20. Software Capabilities of F6 Modules
©USC-CSSE

21. Software Capabilities of F6 Modules
©USC-CSSE

22. Software Capabilities of F6 Modules
©USC-CSSE

23. Software Cost Estimation Approach for F6
Using the COINCOMO 2.0 tool
COCOMO model as a base: estimated the software Effort (PM) and Schedule (M) for each module
COPSEMO model to separate the man power loading across Elaboration and Construction phases
COPSEMO model to add additional effort and schedule for Inception and Transition phases
©USC-CSSE

24. Software Cost Estimation Approach for F6
Used a spreadsheet to combine efforts AFTER aligning the beginning of Elaboration with the end of Construction
Used COINCOMO for a monolithic equivalent
COCOMO calculates effort and schedule for the Elaboration and Construction phases of a build with new code and code carried forward from the previous build treated as re-used code with very favorable re-use parameters.
©USC-CSSE

25. Monolithic Counterpart
Effort and Schedule Estimates for a Single Build, Monolithic, Conventional Satellite
The monolithic satellite is expected to have three payloads: Sensor, Radar and an Actuator. Including a satellite bus of 75K SLOC, and three payloads each with 50K SLOC, the monolithic satellite would fly with 225K SLOCs of software.
©USC-CSSE

26. Sw Cost Estimation Conclusions
COCOMO II, or some other cost model,
Along with
COPSEMO, or its equivalent in some other cost model,
Had to be used for each build because
Nobody has experience with developing software for an F6
Traditional Cost Estimating Ratios (CERs) don't work without sufficient data
©USC-CSSE

27. Sw Cost Estimation Conclusions - 2
Complications in parametric estimates for F6
Differences between the teams producing the software
Amounts of carried code and their reuse factors change with the number of times the code is carried (these factors influence what software cost estimators call "Equivalent SLOC", or ESLOC, for the carried code which in-turn impacts the effort and schedule)
©USC-CSSE

28. Sw Cost Estimation Conclusions - 3
When calculating the total schedule in a multi-build approach, only the parts up to an overlap are counted.
Total Efforts are additive
Schedule is cumulative (at the longest subsystem build)
©USC-CSSE

29. Refernces COINCOMO Tool COPSEMO COCOMO
COPSEMO
COCOMO
©USC-CSSE