1. Fall 2013 Barry Boehm, USC Course Overview CS 510 Software Management and Economics

2. ©USC-CSSE2 Outline Course objective –Help you learn to be a successful software manager –For a career lasting through the 2050’s. Software management learning objectives –What does a successful SW manager need to deal with? What does a successful (software) manager need to do? –Enterprise Success Theorem –Enterprise Success Realization Theorem Overview of VBSE Theory –Value-Based Software Engineering Overview of Course –Programmatics, schedule, academic integrity ICSM Overview This Week’s Assignment

3. ©USC-CSSE3 What Does A Successful Software Manager Need to Deal With?

4. ©USC-CSSE4 What Do SW Managers Need to Deal With? People: customers, users, architects, designers, programmers, testers, lawyers, venture capitalists, suppliers, politicians, … Products: requirements, designs, code, documentation, plans, tools, data, facilities, equipment, … Projects: proposals, presentations, contracts, deliverables, budgets, schedules, milestones, … Resources: time, money, space, communications, skills, … Technology: software, hardware, domain technology, COTS, OSS, … Organizations and Cultures: top management, marketing, sales, development, finance, customer/user organizations, … Changes in all of the above

5. ©USC-CSSE5 What Does A Successful Software Manager Need to Do?

6. ©USC-CSSE6 Software Management Guidelines Eclectic combinations of advice Management frameworks Maturity models People management theories: X, Y, Z Enterprise Success Theorem: Theory W Enterprise Success Realization Theorem

7. ©USC-CSSE7 Sorting out software advice Do it top-down Thorough test planning Prove everything correct Independent test teams Chief Programmer teams Early requirements baseline Build It twice Use disciplined reviews Do it outside-in Programming standards Use walk-throughs Measurable milestones Program Library Configuration management Involve the user End-item acceptance plan Structured Programming Unit development folders Project work authorizations Automated aids Design verification

8. ©USC-CSSE8 Koontz-O’Donnell Management Framework PlanningOrganizingDirectingStaffingControlling — Purpose – Contribution to goals – Commitment – Verifiability – Cost-Effectiveness – Precedence — Structure – Premises – WWWWWHHW – Synchronization — Process – Limiting Factor – Flexibility – Navigational change – Performer Participation — Purpose – Contribution to goals — Purpose – Harmony of goals — Purpose – Unity of goals – Cost- effectiveness – Span of Management — Delegation of Authority – Unity of command – Parity of authority Responsibility – Authority level – Absoluteness of responsibility — Division of Work – Form follows function People’s strengths – Functional definition – Separation — Selection – Top talent – Job matching – Career progression – Skills balance – Teamwork — Recruiting – Reward – Openness – Commitment —Retention – Reinforcement – Team building – Phase out – Backup — Purpose – Assurance of goals – Cost-effectiveness – Control responsibility — Motivation – Understanding of goals – Reflection of goals — Communication – Parity of information Responsibility – Receptiveness – Integrity — Leadership – Identification – Empathy – Sustained initiative – Integrity – Team building – Management of time — Structure – Reflection of plans – Organizational suitability – individuality — Process – Standards – Critical-point – Exception – Flexibility – Timeliness – Action

9. ©USC-CSSE9 CMMI Process Areas Staged Representation Project Planning Project Monitoring and Control Configuration Management Process & Product Quality Assurance Supplier Agreement Management Measurement and Analysis Requirements Management Organizational Process Focus Organizational Process Definition Organizational Training Integrated Project Management Risk Management Decision Analysis and Resolution Requirements Development Technical Solution Product Integration Verification Validation Quantitative Project Management Organizational Process Performance Causal Analysis and Resolution Organizational Innovation & Deployment Level 2 Managed Level 3 Defined Level 4 Quantitatively Managed Level 5 Optimizing Level 1 Performed Integrated Teaming Organizational Environment for Integration

10. ©USC-CSSE10 Theory X and Theory Y* Theory X –People inherently dislike work –They have to be coerced into working –They prefer being told what to do Theory Y –People don’t inherently dislike work –People can exercise self-direction –Commitment to objectives depends on resulting rewards –People can learn to seek responsibility –Work creativity is widely distributed –People’s potential is only partially utilized * D. McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise, 1960.

11. ©USC-CSSE11 Theory Z: Japanese-Style Management People work best toward goals which they have helped establish Once people have bought into goals, you can trust them to perform If people share a common set of values, they can develop workable project goals

12. ©USC-CSSE12 Theory W: Enterprise Success Theorem – And informal proof 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.

13. ©USC-CSSE13 Win-lose Generally Becomes Lose-lose Actually, nobody wins in these situations Proposed Solution“Winner”Loser Quick, Cheap, Sloppy Product Developer & Customer User Lots of “bells and whistles” Developer & UserCustomer Driving too hard a bargain Customer & UserDeveloper

14. ©USC-CSSE14 Enterprise Success Realization Theorem Theorem: Your enterprise can realize success if and only if 1.You identify and involve all of the success critical stakeholders (SCSHs) –Dependency theory 2.You determine how the SCSHs want to win –Utility theory 3.You help the SCSHs determine and commit to a win-win course of action and solution –Decision theory 4.You adaptively control the course of action to continue to realize a win-win solution –Control theory

15. Case Study: Personnel Assignment You are running a project to develop a supply chain management system for a company in Boston –Need to select a system engineer (SE) to work with the client people in Bo ston. –Two primary candidates, Ann and George. –Both are equally capable, and very much want the job. Here is how a Theory X, Y, or Z manager would likely decide: –Theory X. I'm the boss. George was a good friend and classmate at USC. I'll give him the job. –Theory Y. I'll ask them for their most creative suggestions for doing the job, and pick the most creative. –Theory Z. We are a team, and don't want any favoritism. Each should have an equal chance. I'll flip a coin to decide. All three produce win-lose outcomes. How could you come up with a win- win approach? ©USC-CSSE15

16. Personnel Selection: A Win-Win Approach Step 1. Identify the success-critical stakeholders (SCSHs): Ann and George Step 2. Determine how they want to win –Ann: I'd like a career path to marketing, and the SE job would be a good step in that direction. –George: my daughter is just starting college in the Boston area, and the Boston job would be an ideal way to keep in touch with her, along with being professionally satisfying. Step 3. Help the SCSHs find a win-win situation –Find a comparable marketing job for Ann, and a comparable Boston job for George –Determine which selection works best for both Ann and George ©USC-CSSE16

17. ©USC-CSSE17 VBSE Theory 4+1 Structure

18. ©USC-CSSE18 VBSE Component Theories Theory W (Stakeholder win-win) –Enterprise Success Theorem, Win-Win Achievement Theorem Dependency Theory (Product, process, people interdependencies) –Systems architecture/performance theory, costing and scheduling theory; organization theory Utility Theory –Utility functions, bounded rationality, Maslow need hierarchy, multi-attribute utility theory Decision Theory –Statistical decision theory, game theory, negotiation theory, theory of Justice Control Theory –Observability, predictability, controllability, stability theory

19. ©USC-CSSE19 Initial VBSE Theory: 4+1 Process – With a great deal of concurrency and backtracking

20. ©USC-CSSE20 Outline Course objective –Help you learn to be a successful software manager –For a career lasting through the 2040’s. Software management learning objectives –What does a successful SW manager need to deal with? What does a successful (software) manager need to do? –Enterprise Success Theorem –Enterprise Success Realization Theorem Overview of VBSE Theory –Value-Based Software Engineering Overview of Course –Programmatics, schedule, academic integrity ICSM Overview This Week’s Assignment

21. ©USC-CSSE21 Comparison of CS 510 and CS 577a COCOMO II Extensions Microeconomics – Decision Theory Agile and Rapid Development People Management 2 Midterms, Final VBSE Framework ICSM WinWin Spiral – Risk Management Planning & Control – COCOMO II Business Case Analysis S/W - System Architecting Operational Concept & Rqts. Definition – WinWin System – Prototyping OO Analysis & Design – Visual Paradigm Team Project (DEN: IV&V) CS 510 CS 577a VBSE Theory, Practice

22. ©USC-CSSE22 CS 510 Course Schedule Overview Aug 27 – Oct 3 VBSE, ICSM, Agility and Discipline, People Management, COCOMO II Oct 4 Midterm Exam I Oct 10 – Nov 2Software Microeconomics, Risk and Business Case Analysis Nov 4 Midterm Exam II Nov 7 – Dec 7 COTS Integration, Planning & Control, Maturity Models, Case Studies Dec 11 Final Exam

23. ©USC-CSSE23 CS 510 Programmatics - I Basis of grade. Final Exam, 30%; 2 midterms: 20%; Homework exercises: 50%. Texts. Boehm et al., Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II, Prentice Hall, 2000; Selby, Software Engineering: Barry W. Boehm ’ s Lifetime Contributions to Software Development, Management and Research, Wiley, 2007; Boehm and Turner, Balancing Agility and Discipline, Addison and Wesley, 2004 Instructors. Prof. Barry Boehm, SAL 328, (213) 740-8163, Fax (213) 740-4927; boehm@usc.edu. Dr.Sue Koolmanojwong, SAL334 (213)-740-5931 Office Hours. Boehm: Monday and Wednesday, 10am -12noon or by appointment. Koolmanojwong: Wednesday and Friday, 10am – 12noon or by appointment Teaching Assistants. Ramin Moazeni, Anandi Hira TA Office Hours. TBD or by appointment Web page: http://sunset.usc.edu/classes/cs510_2013

24. ©USC-CSSE24 CS 510 Questionnaire and Acknowledgement Please fill out and return. Name: _________________________________________________ Student ID #: ___________________________________________ Dept./Degree Program: __________________________________ Job, Employer: _________________________________________ Software Work Experience (years): _______________________ Phone, fax numbers: ____________________________________ E-mail Address: ________________________________________ Acknowledgement: I acknowledge the importance of USC's academic integrity standards (with respect to plagiarism, referencing others' work, etc.), and agree to abide by them. Signature: ______________________________________________

25. ©USC-CSSE25 Academic Integrity Acknowledgement Single most-serious offense: Plagiarism –Using other people’s work without crediting them –Homework, exams, class exercises, individual assignments Minor first offense: You lose one grade level –E.g., B+ instead of A- Major first offense or second offense: F for the course

26. ©USC-CSSE26 We are Serious About Plagiarism –And experienced in finding it

27. ©USC-CSSE27 Outline Course objective –Help you learn to be a successful software manager –For a career lasting through the 2040’s. Software management learning objectives –What does a successful SW manager need to deal with? What does a successful (software) manager need to do? –Enterprise Success Theorem –Enterprise Success Realization Theorem Overview of VBSE Theory –Value-Based Software Engineering Overview of Course –Programmatics, schedule, academic integrity ICSM Overview This Week’s Assignment

28. ©USC-CSSE28 15 July 2008©USC-CSSE28 The Incremental Commitment Life Cycle Process: Overview Stage I: DefinitionStage II: Development and Operations Anchor Point Milestones Synchronize, stabilize concurrency via FEDs Risk patterns determine life cycle process

29. ©USC-CSSE29 Anchor Point Feasibility Evidence Description 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 Can be used to strengthen current schedule- or event-based reviews

30. ©USC-CSSE30 Process Model Principles Principles trump diagrams The Four ICSM Principles –Stakeholder value-based system definition and evolution. –Incremental commitment and accountability. –Concurrent multidiscipline system definition and development. –Evidence and risk-based decision-making. Used by 60-80% of CrossTalk Top-5 projects, 2002-2005

31. ©USC-CSSE31 Incremental Commitment in Gambling Total Commitment: Roulette –Put your chips on a number E.g., a value of a key performance parameter –Wait and see if you win or lose Incremental Commitment: Poker, Blackjack –Put some chips in –See your cards, some of others’ cards –Decide whether, how much to commit to proceed

32. ©USC-CSSE32 Scalable remotely controlled operations

33. ©USC-CSSE33 Total vs. Incremental Commitment – 4:1 RPV Total Commitment –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 Incremental Commitment [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 ACR [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

34. ©USC-CSSE34 First Week’s Assignments Homework 1 Today: Sign and turn in questionnaire and acknowledgement By September 06, 2013, 12 Noon: –What is ICSM? –Infusion Pump Case Study Identify, turn in bulleted lists of how each of the ICSM four principles is used in the infusion pump case study.