Constructive System of Systems Integration Cost Model (COSOSIMO) ****************** Tutorial

1. COSOSIMO Constructive System of Systems Integration Cost Model (COSOSIMO)******************Tutorial Jo Ann Lane, jolane@usc.edu USC Center for Systems & Software Engineering http://csse.usc.edu23 October 2006

2. Overview • COSOSIMO Background • System of Systems (SoS) and SoS Engineering (SoSE) Environment • Current COSOSIMO Cost Estimation Approach • Conclusions • References

3. COCOMO Cost Model Suite Overview* * Barry Boehm, Ricardo Valerdi, Jo Ann Lane, and Winsor Brown, “COCOMO Suite Methodology and Evolution”, CrossTalk, April 2005.

4. USC-CSE Modeling Methodology* Analyze existing literature Step 1 Concurrency and feedback implied… Perform Behavioral analyses Step 2 Identify relative significance Step 3 Perform expert-judgment Delphi assessment, formulate a-priori model Step 4 Gather project data Step 5 Determine Bayesian A-Posteriori model Step 6 Gather more data; refine model Step 7 * Boehm, et. al., Software Cost Estimation with COCOMOII, 2000.

5. Goal of Research • Develop a cost model (COSOSIMO) to • Support the estimation of effort associated with System-of-System Engineering (SoSE) • May be performed by one or more Lead System Integrator (LSI) organizations • Complement the other USC CSE cost models for software development, system engineering (SE), and Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) integration, leading toward a more comprehensive and unified cost model to support the much broader system of interest life cycle COSOSIMO will not estimate the total SoS development costs, but rather just the SoSE costs at the SoS level…

6. History of COSOSIMO Model

7. What is a “System-of-Systems”? • Very large systems developed by creating a framework or architecture to integrate component systems • SoS component systems independently developed and managed • New or existing systems • Have their own purpose • Can dynamically come and go from SoS • SoS exhibits emergent behavior not otherwise achievable by component systems • SoS activities often planned and coordinated by a Lead System Integrator (LSI) • Typical domains • Business: Enterprise-wide and cross-enterprise integration to support core business enterprise operations across functional and geographical areas • Military: Dynamic communications infrastructure to support operations in a constantly changing, sometimes adversarial, environment • INCOSE Handbook Definition: “Systems of Systems” are defined as an interoperating collection of component systems that produce results unachievable by the individual systems alone. (Krygiel 1999)

8. What is a “Lead System Integrator”? • Organization (or set of organizations) selected to accomplish the definition and acquisition of SoS components, and the continuing integration, test, and evolution of the components and SoS • Typical activities • Lead concurrent engineering of requirements, architecture, and plans • Identify and evaluate technologies to be integrated • Conduct source selection • Coordinate supplier activities and validate SoS architecture feasibility • Integrate and test SoS-level capabilities • Manage changes at the SoS level and across the SoS-related IPTs • Manage evolving interfaces to external systems • Typically do not develop system components to be integrated (possible exception: SoS infrastructure)

9. What is SoSE • USAF SAB Report on SoSE for Air Force Capability (USAF 2005):The process of planning, analyzing, organizing, and integrating the capabilities of a mix of existing and new systems into a system-of-systems capability that is greater than the sum of the capabilities of the constituent parts. This processes emphasizes the process of discovering, developing, and implementing standards that promote interoperability among systems developed via different sponsorship, management, and primary acquisition processes. • National Centers for Systems of Systems Engineering (NCOSOSE):The design, deployment, operation, and transformation of metasystems that must function as an integrated complex system to produce desirable results. These metasystems are themselves comprised of multiple autonomous embedded complex systems that can be diverse in technology, context, operation, geography, and conceptual frame. (http://www.eng.odu.edu/ncsose/what_is_SOSE.shtml)

10. What is SoSE (continued) • Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_Systems_Engineering): SoSE is a set of developing processes and methods for designing and implementing solutions to System-of-Systems problems. SoSE is relatively new term being used in Department of Defense applications, but is increasingly being applied to non-military/security related problems (e.g. transportation, healthcare, internet, search and rescue, space exploration). SoSE is more than systems engineering of complex systems because design for System-of-Systems problems is performed under some level of uncertainty in the requirements and the constituent systems, and it involves considerations in multiple levels and domains. • SoSE and Systems Engineering are related but different fields of study. Where as systems engineering addresses the development and operations of products, SoSE addresses the development and operations of programs. In other words, traditional systems engineering seeks to optimize an individual system (i.e., the product), while SoSE seeks to optimize network of various systems brought together to meet specific program's (i.e., the SoS problem's) objectives. SoSE enables decision-makers to understand the implications of various choices; thus, SoSE methodology seeks to prepare the decision-makers for effective architecting of System-of-Systems problems. • Due to varied methodology and areas of applications in existing literature, there is no unified consensus for processes involved in System-of-Systems Engineering. One of the proposed SoSE frameworks, by Dr. Daniel A. DeLaurentis, recommends a three-phase method where a SoS problem is defined (understood), abstracted, modeled and analyzed for behavioral patterns.

11. Traditional SE Activities (EIA/ANSI 632) Acquisition and supply Product Supply Product Acquisition Supplier Performance Technical management Process Implementation Strategy Technical Effort Definition Schedule and Organization Technical Plans Work Directives Progress Against Plans and Schedules Progress Against Requirements Technical Reviews Outcomes Management Information Dissemination System design Acquirer Requirements Other Stakeholder Requirements System Technical Requirements Logical Solution Representations Physical Solution Representations Specified Requirements Traditional SE Activities(continued) Product realization Implementation Transition to Use Technical evaluation Effectiveness Analysis Tradeoff Analysis Risk Analysis Requirements Statements Validation Acquirer Requirements Validation Other Stakeholder Requirements Validation System Technical Requirements Validation Logical Solution Representations Validation Design Solution Verification End Product Verification Enabling Product Readiness End Products Validation SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities

12. SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities (continued) • Key Areas Where SoSE Activities Differ From Traditional Systems Engineering • Architecting composability vs. decomposition (Meilich 2006) • Added “ilities” such as flexibility, adaptability, composability (USAF 2005) • Net-friendly vs. hierarchical (Meilich 2006) • First order tradeoffs above the component systems level (e.g., optimization at the SoS level, instead of at the component system level) (Garber 2006) • Early tradeoffs/evaluations of alternatives (Finley 2006) • Human as part of the SoS (Siel 2006, Meilich 2006, USAF 2005) • Discovery and application of convergence protocols (USAF 2005)

13. SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities (continued) • Key Areas Where SoSE Activities Differ From Traditional Systems Engineering (continued) • Organizational scope defined at runtime instead of at system development time (Meilich 2006) • Dynamic reconfiguration of architecture as needs change (USAF 2005) • Modeling and simulation, in particular to better understand “emergent behaviors” (Finley 2006) • Component systems separately acquired and continue to be managed as independent systems (USAF 2005) • Intense concept phase analysis followed by continuous anticipation; aided by ongoing experimentation (USAF 2005)

14. SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities (continued) • Key Challenges for SoSE • Business model and incentives to encourage working together at the SoS level (Garber 2006) • Doing the necessary tradeoffs at the SoS level (Garber 2006) • Human-system integration (Siel 2006, Meilich 2006) • Commonality of data, architecture, and business strategies at the SoS level (Pair 2006) • Removing multiple decision making layers (Pair 2006) • Requiring accountability at the enterprise level (Pair 2006) • Evolution management (Meilich 2006) • Maturity of technology (Finley 2006) For the most part, SoSE appears to be SE+

15. Sample Dynamic SoS:Metropolitan Area Crisis Management System Net-Centric Connectivity Net - Centric SoS

16. • • • Supplier 1 Supplier n • • • Net-Centric Connectivity Net-Centric Connectivity • • • Net-Centric Connectivity Sample “Steady-State” SoS: Enterprise Wide Integration of Core Business Applications

17. Level 0 SOS Level 1 S1 S2 (SoS) …… Sm Level 2 S11 S12 S1n S21 S22 S2n Sm1 Sm2 Smn …… …… …… System of Systems Cost Estimation

18. System of Systems Cost Model • Characteristics of SoSs supported by cost model • Strategically-oriented stakeholders interested in tradeoffs and costs • Long-range architectural vision for SoS • Developed and integrated by an LSI • System component independence • Size drivers and cost drivers • Based on product characteristics, processes that impact LSI effort, and LSI personnel experience and capabilities COSOSIMO Size Drivers SoS Definition and Integration Effort Cost Drivers Calibration

19. Proposed Size Drivers • Number of SoS-related requirements • Number of of distinct interface protocols to be provided by the SoS framework • Number of independent system component organizations that are providing system components that will operate within the SoS framework • Number of SoS user scenarios • Number of unique component systems S2 S1 S4 Each weighted by complexity… S3

20. Conceptual LSI Effort Profile • LSI activities focus on three somewhat independent activities, performed by relatively independent teams • A given LSI may be responsible for one, two, or all activity areas • Some SoS programsmay have more than one organization performing LSI activities

21. COSOSIMO COSOSIMO Reduced Parameter Sub-Model Overview Planning, Requirements Management, and Architecting (PRA) Size Drivers SoS Definition and Integration Effort Source Selection and Supplier Oversight (SO) Cost Drivers SoS Integration and Testing (I&T)

22. COSOSIMO: PRA Sub-Model • Size Drivers • # SoS-related requirements • # SoS interface protocols Planning, Requirements Management, and Architecting LSI PRA Effort • Cost Drivers • Requirements understanding • Level of service requirements • Stakeholder team cohesion • SoS team capability • Maturity of LSI processes • Tool support • Cost/schedule compatibility • SoS risk resolution

23. COSOSIMO PRA Effort Estimation m n SoS PRAPM = APRA[ CREQi +  CIPj]BPRA i=1 j=1 Where: PRAPMLSI Planning, Requirements Management, and Analysis effort in person-months APRAConstant derived from PRA historical data CREQiComplexity factor associated with the ith SoS requirement CIPjComplexity factor associated with the jth SoS interface protocol mNumber of SoS-related “sea-level” requirements nNumber of interface protocols supported by the SoS architecture BPRA Effort exponent based on the PRA exponential scale factors. The geometric product of the scale factors results in an overall exponential effort adjustment factor to the nominal PRA effort

24. COSOSIMO: SO Sub-Model • Size Drivers • # independent component system organizations Source Selection and Supplier Oversight LSI SO Effort • Cost Drivers • Requirements understanding • Architecture maturity • Level of service requirements • SoS team capability • Maturity of LSI processes • Tool support • Cost/schedule compatibility • SoS risk resolution

25. COSOSIMO SO Effort Estimation n SoS SOPM = ASO[ CSCOj]BSO j=1 Where: SOPMLSI Source Selection and Supplier Oversight effort in person-months ASOConstant derived from SO historical data CSCOjComplexity factor associated with the jth SoS component system organization nNumber of organizations providing independently developed and maintained system components for the SoS BSO Effort exponent based on the SoS SO exponential scale factors. The geometric product of the scale factors results in an overall exponential effort adjustment factor to the nominal SO effort

26. COSOSIMO: I&T Sub-Model • Size Drivers • # SoS interface protocols • # SoS scenarios • # unique component systems SoS Integration and Testing LSI I&T Effort • Cost Drivers • Requirements understanding • Architecture maturity • Level of service requirements • SoS team capability • Maturity of LSI processes • Tool support • Cost/schedule compatibility • SoS risk resolution • Component system maturity and stability • Component system readiness

27. COSOSIMO I&T Effort Estimation q r s SoS I&TPM = AI&T[ CIPi +  CSCENj + CSCOk]BI&T i=1 j=1 k=1 Where: I&TPMLSI Integration and Test effort in person-months AI&TConstant derived from I&T historical data CIPiComplexity factor associated with the ith SoS interface protocol CSCENj Complexity factor associated with the jth SoS interface protocol CSCOkComplexity factor associated with the kth SoS component system organization qNumber of interface protocols supported by the SoS architecture r Number of SoS scenarios sNumber of organizations providing independently developed and maintained system components for the SoS BI&T Effort exponent based on the I&T exponential scale factors. The geometric product of the scale factors results in an overall exponential effort adjustment factor to the nominal I&T effort

28. COSOSIMO Total SoSE Effort Estimation SoSEPM = PRAPM + SOPM + I&TPM Where: PRAPMLSI Planning, Requirements Management, and Analysis effort in person-months SOPM LSI Source Selection and Supplier Oversight effort in person-months I&TPM LSI Integration and Test effort in person-months

29. LCO LCA IOC1 Elaboration Source SoS Selection Architecting Increments 2,… n Inception Increment 1 Customer, Users Effort COSYSMO-like. Schedule = Effort/Staff RFP, SOW, Evaluations, Contracting Assess sources of change; Negotiate rebaselined LCA2 package at all levels Similar, with added change traffic from users… LSI – Agile Try to model ideal staff size Effort/Staff Rework LCO  LCA Packages at all levels Assess compatibility, short-falls LSI IPTs – Agile COSOSIMO -like Effort/staff at all levels COSOSIMO -like Suppliers – Agile LCA1 LCA2 Develop to spec, V&V Suppliers – PD – V&V Similar, with added re- baselineing risks and rework… Proposals CORADMO -like risks, rework risks, rework risks, rework Risk-manage slow-performer, completeness LSI – Integrators Degree of Completeness Integrate risks, rework COSOSIMO -like Proposal Feasibility LCA2 shortfalls SoS Schedule Estimation

30. COSOSIMO Conclusions • Traditional systems engineering takes too long and too much effort • LSIs are finding better ways to engineering SoSs (SoSE) • Many combine agile with traditional approaches • Increases concurrency • Reduces risk • Compresses schedules • Reduced-parameter set COSOSIMO captures effects of new processes in three key areas • Planning, requirements management, and architecting • Source selection and supplier oversight • SoS integration and testing • Sub-models have fewer parameters that are more tailored to associated SoSE activities • Allows LSIs to estimate areas of interest and conduct “what ifs” comparisons of different development strategies

31. COSOSIMO Conclusions (continued) • With the addition of a new COSOSIMO cost model to existing cost model tools, it will be possible to get more complete estimates of the SoS development effort • Key to this process is • Having an SoS architecture sufficiently defined so that component system modifications to support operation in the SoS environment can be made with few dependencies on other SoS development efforts • Structuring the WBS so that • SoS and component system tasks can be decomposed into parts that can be estimated using the existing cost model tools • Parts not covered by cost models can be clearly identified and estimated using non-parametric methods • Expected COSOSIMO availability: Fall 2007 “All models are wrong, but some of them are useful” (W. E. Deming)

32. What is Needed to Support Fall 2007 Availability • Participation in current SoSE surveys • Data from both SoS and SE programs • Process descriptions to help understand the differences between SoSE and SE • Effort data to calibrate COSOSIMO (either standalone model or special calibration of COSYSMO) For those organizations that provide SoSE effort from at least 3 SoS projects, a local calibration will be provided…

33. COSOSIMO-Related References Boehm, B., et al. (2000); Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II; Prentice Hall Boehm,B., Valerdi, R., Lane, J., and Brown, W. (2005); COCOMO Suite Methodology and Evolution; CrossTalk, Vol. 18, No. 5 (pp. 20-25) Boehm, B., and J. Lane (2006); “21st Century Processes for Acquiring 21st Century Systems of Systems; CrossTalk Vol. 19, No. 5 (pp. 4-9) Lane, J. (2005); System of Systems Lead System Integrators: Where do They Spend Their Time and What Makes them More/Less Efficient; USC-CSE-TR-2005-508 Lane, J. (2005); Factors Influencing System-of-Systems Architecting and Integration Costs; Conference on Systems Engineering Research Lane, J (2006); COSOSIMO Parameter Definitions, USC-CSE-TR-2006-606 Lane, J and Boehm, B. (2006); Synthesis of Existing Cost Models to Meet System of Systems Needs; Conference on Systems Engineering Research Lane, J and Boehm, B. (2006); System-of-Systems Cost Estimation: Analysis of Lead System Integrator Engineering Activities; InterSymposium Symposium on Information Systems Research and Systems Approach Lane, J and Valerdi, R (2005); Synthesizing SoS Concepts for Use in Cost Estimation; IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics

34. SoSE-Related References Carlock, P.G., and R.E. Fenton, "System of Systems (SoS) Enterprise Systems for Information-Intensive Organizations," Systems Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 242-261, 2001 DiMario, Mike (2006); “System of Systems Characteristics and Interoperability in Joint Command Control”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference Electronic Industries Alliance (1999); EIA Standard 632: Processes for Engineering a System Finley, James (2006); “Keynote Address”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference Garber, Vitalij (2006); “Keynote Presentation”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference INCOSE (2006); Systems Engineering Handbook, Version 3, INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03 Krygiel, A. (1999); Behind the Wizard’s Curtain; CCRP Publication Series, July, 1999, p. 33 Maier, M. (1998); “Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems”; Systems Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 4 (pp 267-284) Meilich, Abe (2006); “System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) and Architecture Challenges in a Net Centric Environment”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference Pair, Major General Carlos (2006); “Keynote Presentation”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference Proceedings of AFOSR SoSE Workshop, Sponsored by Purdue University, 17-18 May 2006 Proceedings of Society for Design and Process Science 9th World Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology, San Diego, CA, 25-30 June 2006 Siel, Carl (2006); “Keynote Presentation”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (2005); Report on System-of-Systems Engineering for Air Force Capability Development; Public Release SAB-TR-05-04