1. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC ©USC-CSE 10/23/01 1 COSYSMO Portion The COCOMO II Suite of Software Cost Estimation Models Garry Thomas, Raytheon and Barry Boehm, USC COCOMO/SCM 16 -- Oct. 23, 2001

2. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC ©USC-CSE 10/23/01 2 COSYSMO Background Scope Strawman Model –Size & complexity –Cost & schedule drivers –Outputs Issues University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC

3. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC ©USC-CSE 10/23/01 3 Background Topic of breakout group at October 2000 COCOMO/SCM Forum Decided on incremental approach –Increment I: front-end costs of information systems engineering Coordinating with development of INCOSE-FAA systems engineering maturity data repository Also coordinating with Rational sizing metrics effort

4. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC ©USC-CSE 10/23/01 4 Expand COCOMO II to information system engineering front end costs –Excluding aircraft, printer, etc. system engineering sensors a gray area –Excluding Transition effort for now –All of Inception and Elaboration effort –Construction: Requirements; Deployment; 50% of Design effort COSYSMO Increment I : Scope

5. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC ©USC-CSE 10/23/01 5 Proposed System Engineering Scope: COCOMO II MBASE/RUP Phase and Activity Distribution

6. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC ©USC-CSE 10/23/01 6 Strawman COSYSMO Sizing model determines nominal COCOMO II SysE effort and schedule –Function points/use cases/other for basic effort –Tool and document preparation separate (?) “source of effort” –Factor in volatility and reuse –Begin with linear effort scaling with size (?) Cost & Schedule drivers multiplicatively adjust nominal effort and schedule by phase, source of effort (?) –Application factors –Team factors

7. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC ©USC-CSE 10/23/01 7 COSYSMO Model Parameters Comments (Additions from Raytheon and TRW drivers, USC/CSE application and team factors) System Size Complexity rating (from Raytheon) 1 trivial, 3 simple, 7 normal, 10 very complex System Functional Requirements System Performance & Service Requirements (TPMs) System Scenarios & Ops Concept operational threads, use cases System External & Internal Interfaces System Integration & Testnumber of test cases, number of procedures, special test equipment, test tools, KSLOC of I&T support SW, number of problem reports, number of SDFs, number of test locations, number of COTS packages integrated System Architecture & Platforms Including Security Requirements number of HWCIs, CSCIs, subsystems, processors Note: Security requirement an effort driver versus a sizing parameter? Consolidated USC, SAIC, TRW Parameters - I

8. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC ©USC-CSE 10/23/01 8 COSYSMO: Factor Importance Rating Rate each factor H, M, or L depending on its relatively high, medium, or low influence on system engineering effort. Use an equal number of H’s, M’s, and L’s. Application Factors __H___Requirements understanding _M - H_Architecture understanding _L - H_ Level of service rqts. criticality, difficulty _L - M_ Legacy transition complexity _L – M COTS assessment complexity _L - H_ Platform difficulty _L – M_Required business process reengineering ______ TBD :Ops. concept understanding (N=H) ______ TBD Team Factors _L - M_Number and diversity of stakeholder communities _M - H_Stakeholder team cohesion _M - H_Personnel capability/continuity __ H__ Personnel experience _L - H_ Process maturity _L - M_Multisite coordination _L - H_Degree of system engineering ceremony _L - M_Tool support ______ TBD N=6 3.0 2.5 2.3 1.5 1.7 1.5 2.7 3.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.3

9. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC ©USC-CSE 10/23/01 9 Raytheon Survey (21 responses) : COSYSMO Application Factors

10. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC ©USC-CSE 10/23/01 10 Raytheon Survey (21 responses) : COSYSMO Team Factors

11. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC ©USC-CSE 10/23/01 11 COSYSMO Model Parameters Comments (Additions from Raytheon and TRW drivers, USC/CSE application and team factors) Effort Drivers Technology Readiness & Maturity number of simulations, prototypes, tool development, engineering studies, life cycle support studies (LCC & RAM analyses) legacy transition, required business process re- engineering, process maturity Stakeholders & Cohesion Number and diversity of stakeholder communities, stakeholder team cohesion, multi- site coordination Formality of Deliverables number of traceability levels, formality of test program, level of service requirements criticality/difficulty Stabilityrequirements volatility, schedule aggressiveness Understandinginterface repeats, prior use, learning curve, reuse requirements and architecture understanding personnel experience and personnel capability/continuity Consolidated USC, SAIC, TRW Parameters - II

12. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC ©USC-CSE 10/23/01 12 Raytheon Survey (8 responses) : What constitutes SE Effort at your site?

13. University of Southern California Center for Software Engineering CSE USC ©USC-CSE 10/23/01 13 Issues : Suggestions on Improving Scope Proposed Approach Model Form Model Elements Outputs Over/underlaps with COCOMO II, COCOTS, CORADMO Sources of data Staffing