230 likes | 427 Views
Systems Engineering Cost Estimation Systems Engineering Day, São José dos Campos, Brazil. Dr. Ricardo Valerdi Massachusetts Institute of Technology June 6, 2011 [rvalerdi@mit.edu]. Theory is when you know everything, but nothing works.
E N D
Systems Engineering Cost Estimation Systems Engineering Day, São José dos Campos, Brazil Dr. Ricardo Valerdi Massachusetts Institute of Technology June 6, 2011 [rvalerdi@mit.edu]
Theory is when you know everything, but nothing works. Practice is when everything works, but no one knows why. Harvard is where theory and practice come together... Nothing works and no one knows why. - on the door of a laboratory at Harvard
The Delphic Sybil Michelangelo Buonarroti Capella Sistina, Il Vaticano (1508-1512)
Cost Commitment on Projects Blanchard, B., Fabrycky, W., Systems Engineering & Analysis, Prentice Hall, 1998.
Cone of Uncertainty 4x 2x Relative Size Range x 0.5x Initial Operating Capability OperationalConcept Life Cycle Objectives Life Cycle Architecture 0.25x Feasibility Plans/Rqts. Design Develop and Test Phases and Milestones Boehm, B. W., Software Engineering Economics, Prentice Hall, 1981.
How is Systems Engineering Defined? • Product Realization • Implementation Process • Transition to Use Process • Technical Evaluation • Systems Analysis Process • Requirements Validation Process • System Verification Process • End Products Validation Process • Acquisition and Supply • Supply Process • Acquisition Process • Technical Management • Planning Process • Assessment Process • Control Process • System Design • Requirements Definition Process • Solution Definition Process EIA/ANSI 632, Processes for Engineering a System, 1999.
COSYSMO Scope • Addresses first four phases of the system engineering lifecycle (per ISO/IEC 15288) • Considers standard Systems Engineering Work Breakdown Structure tasks (per EIA/ANSI 632) Conceptualize Operate, Maintain, or Enhance Replace or Dismantle Transition to Operation Oper Test & Eval Develop
COSYSMO Operational Concept # Requirements # Interfaces # Scenarios # Algorithms + 3 Adj. Factors Size Drivers COSYSMO Effort Effort Multipliers • Application factors • 8 factors • Team factors • 6 factors Calibration
COSYSMO Model Form Where: PMNS = effort in Person Months (Nominal Schedule) A = calibration constant derived from historical project data k = {REQ, IF, ALG, SCN} wx = weight for “easy”, “nominal”, or “difficult” size driver = quantity of “k” size driver E = represents diseconomies of scale EM = effort multiplier for the jth cost driver. The geometric product results in an overall effort adjustment factor to the nominal effort.
UNDERSTANDING FACTORS Requirements understanding Architecture understanding Stakeholder team cohesion Personnel experience/continuity COMPLEXITY FACTORS Level of service requirements Technology Risk # of Recursive Levels in the Design Documentation Match to Life Cycle Needs OPERATIONS FACTORS # and Diversity of Installations/Platforms Migration complexity Cost Driver Clusters • PEOPLE FACTORS • Personnel/team capability • Process capability • ENVIRONMENT FACTORS • Multisite coordination • Tool support
Stakeholder team cohesion Represents a multi-attribute parameter which includes leadership, shared vision, diversity of stakeholders, approval cycles, group dynamics, IPT framework, team dynamics, trust, and amount of change in responsibilities. It further represents the heterogeneity in stakeholder community of the end users, customers, implementers, and development team.
Technology Risk The maturity, readiness, and obsolescence of the technology being implemented. Immature or obsolescent technology will require more Systems Engineering effort.
Migration complexity This cost driver rates the extent to which the legacy system affects the migration complexity, if any. Legacy system components, databases, workflows, environments, etc., may affect the new system implementation due to new technology introductions, planned upgrades, increased performance, business process reengineering, etc.
Effort Profiling Transition to Operation Operational Test & Evaluation Conceptualize Develop ISO/IEC 15288 ANSI/EIA 632 Acquisition & Supply Technical Management System Design Product Realization Technical Evaluation
Prediction Accuracy PRED(30) PRED(25) PRED(20) PRED(30) = 100% PRED(25) = 57%
Impact 10 theses Academic Curricula Model Academic prototype Commercial Implementations Intelligence Community Sheppard Mullin, LLC Policy & Contracts Proprietary Implementations SEEMaP COSYSMO-R SECOST
Contact Ricardo Valerdi MIT rvalerdi@mit.edu (617) 253-8583 http://rvalerdi.mit.edu