1. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Integrating Systems and Software Engineering (IS&SE) with the Incremental Commitment Model (ICM): ICM Lessons Learned Barry Boehm and Jo Ann Lane, USC-CSSE IS&SE with ICM Workshop II July 17, 2008

2. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering ICM Assumptions and Critical Success Factors The project can establish milestones at which it can synchronize and stabilize its elements –May exclude some classes of systems of systems Ad-hoc, collaborative, some acknowledged –But ICM principles can be applied to tailor variants The project can invest enough up front to generate and evaluate feasibility evidence and address risks The project can acknowledge and manage its risks –Risk-taking essential for many classes of projects Unprecedentedness, emergence, rapid change, immature technology DARPA: 100% success rate is not doing your job Commercial: 40% failure rate acceptable for new ventures 15 July 2008©USC-CSSE2

3. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering July 2008 ©USC-CSSE 3 Example: SoSE Synchronization Points

4. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering 18 June 2007 ©USC-CSSE 4 Leadership/Incentives target area Recognizing Authority/Responsibility Mismatch Responsibility Authority Stronger Leaders, Incentive Structures Weaker Leaders, Incentive Structures Traditional Methods Infeasible Directed SoS Collaborative SoS Acknowledged SoS Ad-hoc SoS

5. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering 03/19/2008 ©USC-CSSE 5 How Much Architecting is Enough? - Larger projects need more Percent of Project Schedule Devoted to Initial Architecture and Risk Resolution Added Schedule Devoted to Rework (COCOMO II RESL factor) Total % Added Schedule 10000 KSLOC 100 KSLOC 10 KSLOC Sweet Spot Sweet Spot Drivers: Rapid Change: leftward High Assurance: rightward

6. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering ICM Assumptions and Critical Success Factors - II The program office has enough expertise to evaluate feasibility evidence and assess risks –If not in-house, need to contract for it Feasibility evidence is a first-class deliverable –Needs plans, EVMS monitoring of progress vs. plans Appropriate contracting mechanisms and incentive structures are available for executing ICM approach –Concurrent stabilized development, change rebaselining, V&V –Collaborative systems of systems –Competitive prototyping Representative examples are needed to clarify concepts –Ideally, success stories with excursions to show pitfalls 15 July 2008©USC-CSSE6

7. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering ©USC-CSSE 7 15 July 2008 ICM Stage II: Increment View A radical idea? No; a commercial best practice and part of DoDI 5000.2

8. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Bottom Line Tremendously valuable workshop –Complementary perspectives, but remarkable compatibility –Value of insights much broader than ICM Better understanding of underlying assumptions –Not every program fits the basic ICM/DoD milestone framework –But ICM principles can be applied to tailor variants –Need to clarify expectations, especially for SoSs Rework chapter on application to SoSs Rework overview to define assumptions and implications Increase effort on representative examples –Will inform content of guidelines –Looking for good examples to use, further feedback on content Will post results on Workshop web site –And establish ICM work-in-progress web site for review –Look forward to your participation in Oct 29-30 USC workshop 15 July 2008©USC-CSSE8