1 / 93

The COCOMO II Suite of Software Cost Estimation Models

2. Commercial Industry (18)Automobile Club of Southern California, C-Bridge, Daimler Chrysler, EDS, Fidelity Group, Galorath, Group Systems.Com, Hughes, IBM, Lucent, Marotz, Microsoft, Motorola, Price Systems, Rational, Sun, Telcordia, XeroxAerospace Industry (9)Boeing, Draper Labs, GDE Syste

sun
Download Presentation

The COCOMO II Suite of Software Cost Estimation Models

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. 1 The COCOMO II Suite of Software Cost Estimation Models Barry Boehm, USC TRW Presentation March 19, 2001

    2. 2 Commercial Industry (18) Automobile Club of Southern California, C-Bridge, Daimler Chrysler, EDS, Fidelity Group, Galorath, Group Systems.Com, Hughes, IBM, Lucent, Marotz, Microsoft, Motorola, Price Systems, Rational, Sun, Telcordia, Xerox Aerospace Industry (9) Boeing, Draper Labs, GDE Systems, Litton, Lockheed Martin, Northrop, Grumman, Raytheon, SAIC, TRW Government (3) FAA, US Army Research Labs, US Army TACOM FFRDC’s and Consortia (4) Aerospace, JPL, SEI, SPC International (1) Chung-Ang U. (Korea) USC-CSE Affiliates (33)

    3. 3 USC-CSE Affiliates’ Calendar June 22, 2000 July 25-26, 2000 July 27, 2000 August 24-25, 2000 September 13-15, 2000 October 24-27, 2000 February 6-9, 2001 February 21-23, 2001 February 21, 2001 March 28, 2001 May 2001 June 14, 2001 Easy WinWin Web Seminar Easy WinWin Hands-on Tutorial Tutorial: Transitioning to the CMMI via MBASE Software Engineering Internship Workshop Workshop: Spiral Development in the DoD (Washington DC; with SEI) COCOMO/Software Cost Modeling Forum and Workshop Annual Research Review, COTS-Based Systems Workshop (with SEI, CeBASE) Ground Systems Architecture Workshop (with Aerospace, SEI) LA SPIN, Ron Kohl, COTS-Based Systems Processes LA SPIN, High Dependability Computing Annual Affiliates’ Renewal Rapid Value/RUP/MBASE Seminar (with C-Bridge, Rational)

    4. 4 Outline COCOMO II Overview Overview of Emerging Extensions COTS Integration (COCOTS) Quality: Delivered Defect Density (COQUALMO) Phase Distributions (COPSEMO) Rapid Application Development Schedule (CORADMO) Productivity Improvement (COPROMO) System Engineering (COSYSMO) Tool Effects Code CountTM Related USC-CSE Research MBASE, CeBASE and CMMI Backup charts

    5. 5 1. Introduction 2. Model Definition 3. Application Examples 4. Calibration 5. Emerging Extensions 6. Future Trends Appendices Assumptions, Data Forms, User’s Manual, CD Content COCOMO II Book Table of Contents - Boehm, Abts, Brown, Chulani, Clark, Horowitz, Madachy, Reifer, Steece, Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II, Prentice Hall, 2000

    6. 6 To help people reason about the cost and schedule implications of their software decisions Purpose of COCOMO II

    7. 7 Major Decision Situations Helped by COCOMO II Software investment decisions When to develop, reuse, or purchase What legacy software to modify or phase out Setting project budgets and schedules Negotiating cost/schedule/performance tradeoffs Making software risk management decisions Making software improvement decisions Reuse, tools, process maturity, outsourcing

    8. 8 Need to ReEngineer COCOMO 81 New software processes New sizing phenomena New reuse phenomena Need to make decisions based on incomplete information

    9. 9

    10. 10

    11. 11

    12. 12

    13. 13

    14. 14

    15. 15

    16. 16

    17. 17

    18. 18

    19. 19

    20. 20

    21. 21

    22. 22

    23. 23 Results of Bayesian Update: Using Prior and Sampling Information (Step 6)

    24. 24 Status of Models

    25. 25

    26. 26 COCOTS Effort Distribution: 20 Projects

    27. 27

    28. 28

    29. 29

    30. 30 Effect of RCAP on Cost, Schedule

    31. 31

    32. 32

    33. 33

    34. 34

    35. 35

    36. 36 Code Count™

    37. 37

    38. 38 MBASE, CeBASE, and CMMI

    39. 39

    40. 40

    41. 41

    42. 42

    43. 43

    44. 44

    45. 45

    46. 46

    47. 47 CeBASE Method Coverage of CMMI - I Process Management Organizational Process Focus: 100+ Organizational Process Definition: 100+ Organizational Training: 100- Organizational Process Performance: 100- Organizational Innovation and Deployment: 100+ Project Management Project Planning: 100 Project Monitoring and Control: 100+ Supplier Agreement Management: 50- Integrated Project Management: 100- Risk Management: 100 Integrated Teaming: 100 Quantitative Project Management: 70-

    48. 48 CeBASE Method Coverage of CMMI - II Engineering Requirements Management: 100 Requirements Development: 100 Technical Solution: 60+ Product Integration: 70- Verification: 70- Validation: 80+ Support Configuration Management: 70- Process and Product Quality Assurance: 70- Measurement and Analysis: 100- Decision Analysis and Resolution: 100- Organizational Environment for Integration: 80- Causal Analysis and Resolution: 100

    49. 49

    50. 50 Backup Charts COCOMO II COCOTS COQUALMO CORADMO COSYSMO

    51. 51

    52. 52

    53. 53

    54. 54

    55. 55

    56. 56

    57. 57

    58. 58

    59. 59

    60. 60

    61. 61

    62. 62 COCOTS Backup Charts

    63. 63 COCOTS: Development Model

    64. 64 COCOTS: Draft Life-Cycle Model

    65. 65

    66. 66

    67. 67

    68. 68

    69. 69

    70. 70 COQUALMO Backup Charts Current COQUALMO system Defect removal rating scales Defect removal estimates Multiplicative defect removal model Orthogonal Defect Classification (ODC) extensions

    71. 71

    72. 72

    73. 73

    74. 74

    75. 75 “Under specified conditions, …” Peer reviews are more effective than functional testing for faults of omission and incorrect specification(UMD, USC) Functional testing is more effective than reviews for faults concerning numerical approximations and control flow(UMD,USC) Both are about equally effective for results concerning typos, algorithms, and incorrect logic(UMD,USC)

    76. 76

    77. 77 Extend COQUALMO to cover major ODC categories Collaborate with industry ODC users IBM, Motorola underway Two more sources being explored Obtain first-hand experience on USC digital library projects Completed IBM ODC training Initial front-end data collection and analysis

    78. 78 CORADMO Backup Charts Rapid Application Development (RAD) context RAD Opportunity Tree and CORADMO schedule drivers RAD Capability (RCAP) schedule driver Square-root effort-schedule model and RCAP adjustment

    79. 79 RAD Context RAD a critical competitive strategy Market window; pace of change Non-RAD COCOMO II overestimates RAD schedules Need opportunity-tree cost-schedule adjustment Cube root model inappropriate for small RAD projects COCOMO II: Mo. = 3.7 ł? PM

    80. 80

    81. 81

    82. 82

    83. 83 Effect of RCAP on Cost, Schedule

    84. 84

    85. 85

    86. 86

    87. 87

    88. 88

    89. 89

    90. 90

    91. 91

    92. 92

    93. 93

    94. 94

More Related