University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Course Overview
and ICSM Principle 1
CS 510
Software Management and Economics
Fall 2015
Barry Boehm, USC
Lecture delivered by Jim Alstad, USC
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
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?
• Overview of Course
– Programmatics, schedule, academic integrity
• Current and future software and management
challenges
• ICSM Overview
– Principle 1: Stakeholder value-based guidance
• Enterprise Success Theorem
• Enterprise Success Realization Theorem
• This Week’s Assignment
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
2
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
What Does A Successful Software
Manager 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, clouds, apps, widgets, big data…
• Organizations and Cultures: top management, marketing,
sales, development, finance, customer/user organizations, …
• Changes in all of the above
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
3
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
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?
• Overview of Course
– Programmatics, schedule, academic integrity
• Current and future software and management
challenges
• ICSM Overview
– Principle 1: Stakeholder value-based guidance
• Enterprise Success Theorem
• Enterprise Success Realization Theorem
• This Week’s Assignment
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
4
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Comparison of CS 510 and CS 577a
CS 510
CS 577a
• VBSE Theory, Practice
• COCOMO II Extensions
• Microeconomics • ICSM Principles and
Practices
– Decision Theory
• WinWin
• Agile and Rapid
– Risk Management
Development
•Planning & Control
• People Management
– COCOMO II
• Business Case
• 2 Midterms, Final
Analysis
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
• S/W - System
Architecting
• Operational Concept &
Rqts. Definition
– Winbook System
– Prototyping
• OO Analysis & Design
– Visual Paradigm
•Team Project
(DEN: IV&V)
5
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
CS 510 Course Schedule Overview
• Aug 24 – Sep 21
•
•
•
•
•
ICSM Principles and Practices,
COCOMO II, Cost Estimation,
Business Case Analysis
Sep 23
Midterm Exam I
Sep 28– Nov 4 Software Microeconomics, Risk
Management, ICSM Stages and Phases
Nov 9
Midterm Exam II
Nov 11 – Dec 2 Contracting, Ethics, Maturity Models,
Past and Future Trends
Dec 9
Final Exam
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
6
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
CS 510 Programmatics - I
Basis of grade. Final Exam, 30%; 2 midterms: 20%;
Homework exercises: 50%.
Text. Boehm, Lane, Koolmanojwong, Turner, The Incremental
Commitment Spiral Model, Addison Wesley, 2014
Instructor. Prof. Barry Boehm, SAL 328, (213) 740-8163, Fax
(213) 740-4927; boehm@usc.edu
Office hours: Monday and Wednesday, 11am -12noon or
by appointment.
Teaching Assistants and Office Hours.
Jim Alstad, MW 10-11am or by appointment
Anandi Hira, Thursday 2-4pm or by appointment
Email: csci510@usc.edu
Web page: http://csse.usc.edu/classes_wp/csci-510-fall-2015/
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
7
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
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: ______________________________________________
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
8
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
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
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
9
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
We are Serious About Plagiarism
– And experienced in finding it
ID
32
8
46
39
30
36
44
42
35
23
8/24/2015
Critique Individual Total Team Total
182
453.25
715.4
160
454
708.875
185
450
708.875
182
430.55
715.4
140
428.5
708.875
186
461.75
674.4
0
136
674.4
165
456.875
674.4
190
452.08
674.4
185
433.25
674.4
© USC-CSSE
Total
Final Grade
1168.65
B+
1162.875
B+
1158.875
B+
1145.95
B+
1137.375
B+
1136.15
B+
810.4
F
1131.275
B+
1126.48
B+
1107.65
B
10
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
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?
• Overview of Course
– Programmatics, schedule, academic integrity
• Current and future software and management
challenges
• ICSM Overview
– Principle 1: Stakeholder value-based guidance
• Enterprise Success Theorem
• Enterprise Success Realization Theorem
• This Week’s Assignment
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
11
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Current and Future Process Challenges-I
The Four D’s: Dynamism, Dependability, Doubt, Diversity
• Dynamism: Rapid pace of change
– In competition, mission priorities, technology, widgets,
apps, Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS), cloud services
– Need incremental development to avoid obsolescence
– Need concurrent vs. sequential processes
– Need both prescience and rapid adaptability
• Dependability: Always-on, never-fail systems
– Need well-controlled, high-assurance processes
– Need to synchronize and stabilize concurrency
– Need to balance assurance and agility
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
12
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Dynamism: Increasing Pace of Change
Technology change
Related infrastructure and
services change
Marketplace dynamics
Competition dynamics
Organizational change
Software is critical
User agility aids critical
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
13
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Dependability: Cost of Downtime Survey
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Industry Sector
Lost Revenue/Hour: 2000
Energy
$2.8 million
Telecommunications $2.0 million
Manufacturing
$1.6 million
Financial Institutions $1.4 million
Information Technology $1.3 million
Insurance
$1.2 million
Retail
$1.1 million
Pharmaceuticals
$1.0 million
Banking
$996,000
•
Source: IT Performance Engineering & Measurement Strategies:
Quantifying Performance Loss, Meta Group, October 2000.
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
14
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Current and Future Process Challenges-II
The Four D’s: Dynamism, Dependability, Doubt, Diversity
• Doubt: Emergence and human-intensiveness
–
–
–
–
Requirements not pre-specifiable
Budgets and schedules not pre-specifiable
Need for evolutionary growth
Need to manage uncertainty and risk
• Diversity: Enterprises and systems of systems (SoS)
– Integrated supply chain: strategic planning, marketing,
merchandising, outsourcing, just-in-time manufacturing,
logistics, finance, customer relations management
– Over 50 separately evolving external systems or services
– Need to satisfice among multiple stakeholders
– Wide diversity of needed capabilities
– No one-size-fits-all solutions or processes
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
15
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Doubt: The Cones of Uncertainty
– Need incremental vs. one-shot development
Uncertainties in competition,
technology, organizations,
mission priorities
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
16
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Diversity: The Proliferation of Choices
Not just a million apps.
A million great apps.
Shopping the App Store is a great experience because it’s
easy to find the apps you want — and to discover new
apps you didn’t even know you wanted. Browse freely by
category. Or shop collections of apps and games
handpicked by experts. Apple reviews everything on the
App Store to guard against malware, so you’re buying and
downloading from a trusted source.
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
17
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Diversity: Avoid Procrustean Beds
One-size-fits all policies and standards
• Procrustes: Greek Mythology
– Rogue smith and bandit
– Hostel with one-size-fits-all bed
– Guests too small: stretch them to
fit
– Guests too large: lop off the
offending parts
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
18
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Software Procrustean Beds
• Pure Waterfall, Vee: Fixed Price and Spec Contract
– Lop off needed changes as requirements creep
• Pure Agile: Easiest First; Dedicated On-Site Customer
– Later scalability and assurance problems; single-failure point
• Voice of the Customer: Accept All “Requirements”
– Gold-plating; neglect voices of acquirer, developer, owner
• Piling on Incompatible Constraints: No Way Out
– Project Example: Waterfall, COTS, Ada, GOTS Reuse
• Inflexible Standards: No Choice But Tailoring Down
– MIL-STD-498: choice of 23, 6, or 1 DID denied
• Overconstrained Maturity Models: Excluding Expertise
– Software CMM: Exclude software group from system rqts.
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
19
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Current System Acquisition Methods
Too easy to misinterpret as one-size-fits-all
• V-Model1
• Spiral Model2
High level guidance assumes that acquirers have extensive acquisition experience...
Without experience, too easy to misinterpret and auger in with disastrous results...
1
2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-Model
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_model
20
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Procrustean Example: DoD Acquisition Process
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
21
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
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?
• Overview of Course
– Programmatics, schedule, academic integrity
• Current and future software and management
challenges
• ICSM Overview
– Principle 1: Stakeholder value-based guidance
• Enterprise Success Theorem
• Enterprise Success Realization Theorem
• This Week’s Assignment
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
22
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
What is the ICSM?
• Risk-driven framework for determining and
evolving best-fit system life-cycle process
• Integrates the strengths of phased and riskdriven spiral process models
• Synthesizes together principles critical to
successful system development
– Stakeholder value-based guidance
– Incremental commitment and accountability
– Concurrent multidiscipline engineering
– Evidence and risk-driven decisions
Principles
trump
diagrams…
Principles used by 60-80% of CrossTalk Top-5 projects, 2002-2005
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
23
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
The Incremental Commitment Spiral Model
Cumulative Level of Understanding, Product and Process
Detail (Risk-Driven)
Concurrent
Engineering of
Products and
Processes
OPERATION2
DEVELOPMENT3
FOUNDATIONS4
OPERATION1
DEVELOPMENT2
FOUNDATIONS3
DEVELOPMENT1
FOUNDATIONS2
FOUNDATIONS
RISK-BASED
STAKEHOLDER
COMMITMENT
REVIEW
POINTS:
VALUATION
EXPLORATION
6
5
4
3
2
1
Opportunities to
proceed, skip
phases
backtrack, or
terminate
Risk-Based Decisions
Evidence-Based Review Content
- A first-class deliverable
- Independent expert review
- Shortfalls are uncertainties and risks
Acceptable
Negligible
Risk
High, but
Addressable
8/24/2015
Too High,
Unaddressable
24
© USC-CSSE
1
Exploration Commitment Review
2
Valuation Commitment Review
3
Foundations Commitment Review
4
Development Commitment Review
5
Operations1 and Development2
Commitment Review
6
Operations2 and Development3
Commitment Review
24
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
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
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
25
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
The Incremental Commitment Spiral Process: Phased View
Anchor Point
Milestones
Synchronize, stabilize concurrency via FEDs
Risk patterns
determine life
cycle process
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
26
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
ICSM Activity
Levels for
Complex
Systems
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
27
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Anchor Point Feasibility Evidence Descriptions
• 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
• Synchronizes and stabilizes concurrent activities
Can be used to strengthen current schedule- or event-based reviews
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
28
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
29
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
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?
• Overview of Course
– Programmatics, schedule, academic integrity
• Current and future software and management
challenges
• ICSM Overview
– Principle 1: Stakeholder value-based guidance
• Enterprise Success Theorem
• Enterprise Success Realization Theorem
• This Week’s Assignment
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
30
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Principle 1 and Enterprise Success Theorem
Stakeholder value-based guidance
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.
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
31
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Win-lose Generally Becomes Lose-lose
Proposed Solution
“Winner”
Loser
Quick, Cheap,
Sloppy Product
Developer &
Customer
User
Lots of “bells and
whistles”
Developer & User Customer
Driving too hard a
bargain
Customer & User
Developer
Actually, nobody wins in these situations
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
32
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
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)
–
2.
Dependency theory
You determine how the SCSHs want to win
–
3.
Utility theory
You help the SCSHs determine and commit to a win-win
course of action and solution
–
4.
Decision theory
You adaptively control the course of action to continue to
realize a win-win solution
–
8/24/2015
Control theory
© USC-CSSE
33
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
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 Boston.
– 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?
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
34
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
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
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
35
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Principle 1 Failure Story:
The Too-Good Road Surface Assessment Robot
• Success-Critical Stakeholders
– Roadbuilding Company
• Top Management: Profitability, Reputation
• Roadbuilders: Efficiency, Quality
• Quality Assurance: Quality, Reputation
– Carnegie Mellon U. Robotics institute
• Strong robotics research, transition to usage
• Improvement Opportunity
– Manual road assessment expensive, inaccurate
– Robotic technology could cut costs, catch defects
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
36
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Road Surface Assessment Project
• Year 1. Alternative Operational Concepts, Designs
– Best design: likely 100:1 cost savings, improved accuracy
• Year 2: Selection of Components, Detailed Design
• Year 3: Robot Development and Test
– 100:1 cost and time savings, all deviations caught
– 100x more deviations; 99% non-threatening
– Requirement to report all deviations threatened reputation;
unacceptable to quality assurance, top management
• Net result: Cancellation of production project
– Huge technical success; sociotechnical failure
– Kept in storage for 5 years; revived under new criteria
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
37
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Principle 1 Success Story:
Symbiq Medical Infusion Pump
Winner of 2006 HFES Best New Design Award
Described in NRC HSI Report, Chapter 5
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
38
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Symbiq IV Pump ICSM Process - I
• Exploration Phase
–
–
–
–
Stakeholder needs interviews, field observations
Initial user interface prototypes
Competitive analysis, system scoping
Commitment to proceed
• Valuation Phase
–
–
–
–
–
Feature analysis and prioritization
Display vendor option prototyping and analysis
Top-level life cycle plan, business case analysis
Safety and business risk assessment
Commitment to proceed while addressing risks
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
39
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Symbiq IV Pump ICSM Process - II
• Foundations Phase
–
–
–
–
–
–
Modularity of pumping channels
Safety feature and alarms prototyping and iteration
Programmable therapy types, touchscreen analysis
Failure modes and effects analyses (FMEAs)
Prototype usage in teaching hospital
Commitment to proceed into development
• Development Phase
–
–
–
–
Extensive usability criteria and testing
Iterated FMEAs and safety analyses
Patient-simulator testing; adaptation to concerns
Commitment to production and business plans
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
40
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
Principles Satisfaction: Symbiq IV Pump
1. Stakeholder value-based guidance
– Extensive involvement of multiple stakeholders
– Extensive use of prototyping, safety analysis methods
2. Incremental commitment and accountability
– Expanding system definition and evidence elaboration
– Decision to start with composable 1- and 2-channel pumps
3. Concurrent multidiscipline engineering
– Concurrent evaluation of display, alarm, pump suppliers
– Concurrent definition, evaluation of safety and business cases
4. Evidence and risk-driven decisions
– Evidence-based reviews of technical and business feasibility
– Outstanding risks covered by next-phase risk mitigation plans
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
41
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
First Homework: Due Wed. Sept. 2
• Identify the multiple success-critical stakeholders
of the Hospira Infusion Pump project, and good
examples of Principle 1 practiced in the project.
• Identify approaches for avoiding the failure of the
Too Good Robot project
– Concise bulleted recommendations acceptable
8/24/2015
© USC-CSSE
42
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
References - I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Beck, K., Extreme Programming Explained, Addison Wesley, 1999.
Boehm, B., "Some Future Software Engineering Opportunities and Challenges," In
Sebastian Nanz (Ed.): The Future of Software Engineering, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
2011, pp. 1-32.
Boehm, B., Brown, W., Basili, V., and Turner, R., “Spiral Acquisition of SoftwareIntensive Systems of Systems, CrossTalk, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 4-9, 2004.
Boehm, B. and Lane J., "21st Century Processes for Acquiring 21st Century SoftwareIntensive Systems of Systems." CrossTalk: Vol. 19, No. 5, pp.4-9, 2006.
Boehm, B., and Lane, J., “Using the ICSM to Integrate System Acquisition, Systems
Engineering, and Software Engineering,” CrossTalk, October 2007, pp. 4-9.
Boehm, B., and Lane, J., “A Process Decision Table for Integrated Systems and
Software Engineering,” Proceedings, CSER 2008, April 2008.
Boehm, B. et al., Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II, Prentice Hall, 2000.
Boehm, B. and Lane, J., "Evidence-Based Software Processes," New Modeling
Concepts for Today's Software Processes, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, 2010, Volume 6195/2010, pp. 62-73.
Boehm, B., Lane, J., Koolmanojwong, S., and Turner, R., “An Evidence-Based SE Data
Item Description,” Proceedings, CSER 2013, Elsevier, www.sciencedirect.com
Boehm, B., Lane, J., Koolmanojwong, S., and Turner, R., The Incremental Commitment
Spiral Model: Principles and Practices for Successful Systems and Software, Addison
Wesley, 2014.
Checkland, P., Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, 1980 (2nd ed., 1999).
Electronic Industries Alliance (1999); EIA Standard 632: Processes for Engineering a
System
Highsmith, J., Adaptive Software Development, Dorset House, 2000
Huang, L., Boehm, B., Hu, H., Lv,J., and Qian, C., “Applying Value-Based Software
Process: an ERP Example,” Intl. J. Software and informatics, July 2008, pp. 1-15.
8/24/2015
Copyright
© USC-CSSE
© USC-CSSE
43
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
References -II
•International Standards Organization, Information Technology Software Life Cycle
Processes, ISO/IEC 12207, 1995
•ISO, Systems Engineering – System Life Cycle Processes, ISO/IEC 15288, 2008.
•Krygiel, A., Behind the Wizard’s Curtain; CCRP Publication Series, July, 1999, p. 33
•Lane, J. and Boehm, B., "System of Systems Cost Estimation: Analysis of Lead System
Integrator Engineering Activities", Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 20, No.
2, pp. 23-32, 2007.
•Lane, J. and Valerdi, R., “Synthesizing SoS Concepts for Use in Cost Estimation”,
Proceedings of IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Conference, 2005.
•Madachy, R., Boehm, B., Lane, J., "Assessing Hybrid Incremental Processes for SISOS
Development", USC CSSE Technical Report USC-CSSE-2006-623, 2006.
•Maier, M., “Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems”; Systems Engineering, Vol. 1,
No. 4 (pp 267-284).
•Maier, M., “System and Software Architecture Reconciliation,” Systems Engineering 9 (2),
2006, pp. 146-159.
•Northrop, L., et al., Ultra-Large-Scale Systems: The Software Challenge of the Future,
Software Engineering Institute, 2006.
•Pew, R. W., and Mavor, A. S., Human-System Integration in the System Development
Process: A New Look, National Academy Press, 2007.
•Rechtin, E. Systems Architecting, Prentice Hall, 1991.
•Schroeder, T., “Integrating Systems and Software Engineering: Observations in Practice,”
OSD/USC Integrating Systems and Software Engineering Workshop,
http://csse.usc.edu/events/2007/CIIForum/pages/program.html, October 2007.
•USC CSSE, ICSM Electronic Process Guide,
http://greenbay.usc.edu/IICMSw/index.htm#publish.icm.baseusc/customcategories/icm_welcome_page_D99DA7B2.html
8/24/2015
Copyright
© USC-CSSE
© USC-CSSE
44
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
List of Acronyms
B/L
C4ISR
CD
CDR
COTS
DCR
DI
DoD
ECR
EVMS
FCR
FED
FMEA
FRP
GAO
GUI
8/24/2015
Baselined
Command, Control, Computing, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance,
Reconnaissance
Concept Development
Critical Design Review
Commercial Off-the-Shelf
Development Commitment Review
Development Increment
Department of Defense
Exploration Commitment Review
Earned Value Management System
Foundations Commitment Review
Feasibility Evidence Description
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
Full-Rate Production
Government Accountability Office
Graphical User Interface
Copyright
© USC-CSSE
© USC-CSSE
45
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
List of Acronyms
HMI
HSI
HW
ICSM
IOC
IRR
IS&SE
LCO
LRIP
MBASE
NDI
NRC
OC
OCR
OO&D
OODA
O&M
8/24/2015
(continued)
Human-Machine Interface
Human-System Interface
Hardware
Incremental Commitment Model
Initial Operational Capability
Inception Readiness Review
Integrating Systems and Software Engineering
Life Cycle Objectives
Low-Rate Initial Production
Model-Based Architecting and Software Engineering
Non-Developmental Item
National Research Council
Operational Capability
Operations Commitment Review
Observe, Orient and Decide
Observe, Orient, Decide, Act
Operations and Maintenance
Copyright
© USC-CSSE
© USC-CSSE
46
University of Southern California
Center for Systems and Software Engineering
List of Acronyms
PDR
PM
PR
PRR
RUP
SoS
SoSE
SSE
SW
SwE
SysE
Sys Engr
S&SE
USD (AT&L)
VCR
V&V
WBS
WMI
8/24/2015
(continued)
Preliminary Design Review
Program Manager
Public Relations
Product Release Review
Rational Unified Process
System of Systems
System of Systems Engineering
Systems and Software Engineering
Software
Software Engineering
Systems Engineering
Systems Engineer
Systems and Software Engineering
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Validation Commitment Review
Verification and Validation
Work Breakdown Structure
Warfighter-Machine Interface
Copyright
© USC-CSSE
© USC-CSSE
47