COCOMO Suite Model Unification Tool
Ray Madachy
rjmadach@nps.edu
23rd International Forum on COCOMO and
Systems/Software Cost Modeling
October 27, 2008
Agenda
• Introduction
• Demonstration
• References
10/27/08
2
Background
• The COCOMO suite of models collectively estimate systems
and software engineering effort and schedule, software
defects, dependability return-on-investment, and productivity
improvement.
– Other special extensions also estimate program risk.
• They are all primarily derived from the COCOMO II software
cost estimation model and share some common inputs,
algorithmic approaches, and output types.
• However there are distinct differences and reconciling them
for single program application is sometimes problematic.
• A web-based tool is under development that unifies them in a
single application to explore their interactions and refine the
models.
10/27/08
3
Model Unification Goals
• Allow more
comprehensive cost
exploration with respect to
• Affiliate request: Provide a
single unified tool to allow
users to
– Development decisions
– Investment decisions
– Established project budget and
schedules
– Client negotiations and
requested changes
– Cost, schedule, performance,
and functionality tradeoffs
– Risk management decisions
– Process improvement decisions
10/27/08
– Specify
• System and software
components comprising the
software system of interest
• Composition and characteristics
of components
– Receive
• A set of comprehensive outputs
for system engineering, software
development, and system-ofsystems integration
• Adjusted using the appropriate
special-purpose extensions
4
Model Unification Main Issues
For each individual model as well as the unified model:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Objectives and strategies
Inputs/scope of work
Output/scope of estimate
Assumptions of each model
Stakeholders for each model
Counting rules
Data sources
10/27/08
5
COCOMO Suite Quantities
Estimated
Effort
Effort
by
Phase
Schedule
COCOMO II
X
X
X
COQUALMO
X
Model
X
iDAVE
Defects
ROI
Improvement
Graphs
X
X
COPLIMO
X
CORADMO
X
X
COPROMO
X
X
COCOTS
X
COSYSMO
X
COSOSIMO
X
X
X
X
6
Typical Model Usage
Use…
When scope of work to be performed is…
COCOMO II
Development of software components (software development)
COCOTS
Assessment, tailoring, and integration of COTS products
COSYSMO
Design, specification, and integration (system engineering) of system components to
be separately developed for a single system
COSOSIMO
Specification, procurement, and integration of two or more separately systemengineered and developed systems
COCOMO II with COCOTS
Development of software components (software development), and a software
system including assessment, tailoring and glue-code for integration of COTS
COSYSMO and COCOMO II
System engineering and software development for a single system with softwareintensive components
COSYSMO and COSOSIMO
System engineering of individual systems and integration of the multiple systems
COCOMO II, COSYSMO,
COCOTS, and COSOSIMO
System engineering, software development, and integration of multiple softwareintensive systems and COTS products
10/27/08
7
Assumptions of Each Model
Model
Life Cycle Stages
COCOMO II
COCOTS
COSYSMO
COSOSIMO
10/27/08
8
Long Term Vision
COSOSIMO
COSYSMO
Unified
Interface
COCOMOII/
COQUALMO
COCOTS
COCOMOII extensions
•RAD, security
•Incremental, phase/activity
•Agile, risk, Monte Carlo
•ROI (product line,
dependability)
•Maintenance
Unified Model
10/27/08
9
Output
Analysis
and Report
Generation
COCOMO Suite Models in
Current Tool
COCOMO Suite
COSYSMO
System size
Systems cost drivers
Systems
Effort
Model
COCOMO II
Software size
Software cost and defect
introduction drivers
Defect removal capability
levels
10/27/08
Software
Effort and
Schedule
Model
COQUALMO
Defect
Introduction
Model
Defect
Removal
Model
Systems engineering effort by
phase/activity
Integrated systems and
software effort by
phase/activity
Software development effort
and schedule by
phase/activity
Software defect levels by type
10
Agenda
• Introduction
• Demonstration
• References
10/27/08
11
Demo
• Demonstration of tool available at:
http://csse.usc.edu/tools/COCOMOSuite.php
10/27/08
12
Agenda
• Introduction
• Demonstration
• References
10/27/08
13
References
•
Abts C., “Extending The COCOMO II Software Cost Model To Estimate Effort And Schedule For
Software Systems Using Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Software Components: The COCOTS
Model”, USC PhD dissertation, May 2004
•
Boehm B., Abts C., Brown W., Chulani S., Clark B., Horowitz E., Madachy R., Reifer D., Steece B.,
Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II, Prentice-Hall, 2000
•
Boehm B., Valerdi R., Lane J., Brown W., “COCOMO Suite Methodology and Evolution”,
Crosstalk, 2005
•
Chulani S., Boehm B., “Modeling software defect introduction and removal: COQUALMO
(COnstructive QUALity MOdel)”, University of Southern California Center for Software
Engineering, USC-CSE Technical Report 99-510, 1999
•
Lane J. “Constructive Cost Model for System-of-System Integration,” 3rd ACM-IEEE International
Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, Redondo Beach, CA, August, 2004
•
Madachy R., “Heuristic Risk Assessment Using Cost Factors”, IEEE Software, May 1997
•
Madachy R., Valerdi R., “Knowledge-Based Systems Engineering Risk Assessment”, University of
Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Technical Report, USC-CSSE2008-818, 2008
•
Madachy R., Boehm B., “Assessing Quality Processes with ODC COQUALMO”, Proceedings of the
2008 International Conference on Software Process, Liepzig, Germany, 2008
•
Madachy R., “COCOMO Suite”, CS510 Presentation, University of Southern California, September
2005
•
Valerdi R., Systems Engineering Cost Estimation with COSYSMO, Wiley, 2009
•
Yang Y., Boehm B., Madachy R., “COPLIMO: A Product-Line Investment Analysis Model,
Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Forum on COCOMO and Software Cost Modeling”,
10/27/08
14
USC, Los Angeles, CA, October 2003