COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.1. Object Point (OP) Data [Banker et al., 1991]
Project
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Year
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Total
OP’s
1768
144
499
600
271
523
231
87
123
376
124
276
2258
1262
2023
163
2698
3657
1915
New OP’s
(NOP)
410
144
271
211
165
258
111
81
118
259
56
126
601
438
591
127
623
589
628
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
Person
Months(PM)
59
41
27
29
72
16
26
8
24
48
8
13
38
21
26
5
36
13
23
NOP/PM
7
4
10
7
2
16
4
10
5
5
7
10
16
21
23
25
17
45
27
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.2. Application Point Estimation Accuracy on Calibration Data
Pred (.30)
Pred (X2)
Year 1
Projects
42%
83%
Year 2
Projects
57%
100%
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
All
Projects
47%
89%
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
able 5.3. RVHL rating scale.
Very
Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
none
On average,
personnel have
experience on less
than one recent
project using Rapid
Prototyping
most personnel have
worked on more
than one project
using Rapid
Prototyping
on average,
personnel have
worked on more
than two projects
using Rapid
Prototyping
all personnel have
worked on at least
three projects using
Rapid Prototyping
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.4. RVHL multiplier values.
Schedule and Effort
Multipliers
Rapid Prototyping Experience Level
VL
L
N
H
VH
Inception
1.04
1.0
.98
.94
.90
Elaboration
1.02
1.0
.99
.97
.95
Construction
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.5. Subjective determinants of bureaucracy.
Number of approvals
required per task
Time taken per approval
Reduced task
dependencies, critical path
tasks
Follow-up to expedite task
completion
Process measurement &
streamlining
VL
Excessive
L
Occasionally
reduced
N
Mature
H
Actively
Reduced
VH
Actively
Minimized
Excessive
Mature
None
Occasionally
reduced
Little
Actively
Minimized
Pioneering
None
Little
Mature
Tech.
Adopted
Encouraged
Actively
Reduced
Advanced
Tech.
Adopted
Emphasized
None
Little
Mature
Tech.
Adopted
Advanced
Tech.
Adopted
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
Strongly
Emphasized
Pioneering
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.6. DPRS rating scale.
Very Low
Heavily
Bureaucratic
Low
Bureaucratic
Nominal
Basic good business
practices
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
High
Partly streamlined
Very High
Fully
streamlined
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.7. DPRS multiplier values for each rating.
Schedule and Effort Multipliers
Inception
Elaboration
Construction
VL - Heavily Bureaucratic
1.20
1.15
1.15
L - Bureaucratic
1.08
1.06
1.06
N - Basic good business practices
1.0
1.0
1.0
H - Partly streamlined
.96
.98
.98
VH - Fully streamlined
.90
.95
.95
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.8. CLAB contributing components.
VL
TEAM
SITE
PREX
L
N
H
VH
EH
<=== <=== <=== COCOMO II Scale Factor Ratings ===> ===> ===>
<== COCOMO II Post-Arch. Ratings ==>
plus negotiation/tradeoff tools
basic
advanced
(EL & VL) <=== <=== <=== COCOMO II Early Design Ratings ===> ===> ===>
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.9. TEAM rating scale.
TEAM for Very Low
Low
CORADMO
Very difficult some
interactions
difficult
interactions
Nominal
High
Very High Extra High
Basically cooperative largely
highly
seamless
interactions
cooperative cooperative interactions
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.10. SITE rating scale.
Very Low
SITE:
Collocation
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
Extra High
International
Multi-city
and Multicompany
Multi-city or
Multicompany
Same city or
metro area
Same building or
complex
Fully
collocated
SITE:
Communications
Some
phone, mail
Individual
phone, FAX
Narrowband
email
Wideband
electronic
communication
Wideband elect.
comm., occasional
video conference
Interactive
multimedia
SITE for
CORADMO
Very Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
Extra High
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.11. PREX rating scale.
PREX
Extra Low
Very Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
Extra High
Applications,
platform,
language, and
tool
experience
<= 3 months
5 months
9 months
1 year
2 years
4 years
6 years
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.12. APEX rating scale.
APEX
Very Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
 2 months
6 months
1 year
3 years
6 years
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.13. PLEX rating scale.
Very Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
 2 months
6 months
1 year
3 years
6 years
PLEX
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.14. LTEX rating scale.
Very Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
 2 months
6 months
1 year
3 years
6 years
LTEX
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.15. PREX rating scale.
PREX
Extra Low Very Low
Sum of APEX, PLEX and LTEX ratings
3, 4
Applications, Platform, Language and
Tool Experience
 3 mo.
5, 6
Low
Nominal
7, 8
9
10, 11
12, 13
14, 15
1 year
2 years
4 years
6 years
5 months 9 months
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
High Very High Extra High
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.16. CLAB rating scale.
Very Low
SITE
Low
Nominal
High
<== COCOMO II Post-Arch. Ratings ==>
Very High
Extra High
High plus negotiation/tradeoff tools
basic
|
advanced
TEAM
<=== <=== <=== COCOMO II Scale Factor Ratings ===> ===> ===>
PREX
(EL & VL) <=== <=== <=== COCOMO II Early Design Ratings ===> ===> ===>
Fuzzy Average
CLAB
Very Low
Low
<==
Nominal
High
Very High
Pick most appropriate rating level based on fuzzy average
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
Extra High
==>
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.17. CLAB multiplier values for each rating
Schedule & Effort
Multipliers
VL
L
N
H
VH
EH
Inception
1.21
1.10
1.00
0.93
0.86
0.80
Elaboration
1.15
1.07
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.86
Construction
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.98
0.95
0.93
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.18. RESL rating scale based on percentage of risks mitigated.
Very Low
Low
Nominal
little (20%)
some (40%)
often (60%)
High
Very High
Extra High
RESL
generally (75%) mostly (90%)
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
full (100%)
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.19. RESL rating scale based on design thoroughness/risk elimination by PDR.
Characteristic
Very
Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very
High
Extra
High
Risk Management Plan identifies all critical
risk items, establishes milestones for resolving
them by PDR.
None
Little
Some
Generally
Mostly
Fully
Schedule, budget, and internal milestones
through PDR compatible with Risk
Management Plan
None
Little
Some
Generally
Mostly
Fully
Percent of development schedule devoted to
establishing architecture, given general product
objectives
5
10
17
25
33
40
Percent of required top software architects
available to project
20
40
60
80
100
120
None
Little
Some
Good
Strong
Full
Some
Little
Very
Little
Tool support available for resolving risk items,
developing and verifying architectural specs
Level of uncertainty in Key architecture
drivers: mission, user interface, COTS,
hardware, technology, performance.
Extreme
Number and criticality of risk items
> 10
Critical
RESL for
CORADMO
Very Low
Low
Significant Considerable
5-10
Critical
Nominal
2-4
Critical
High
1
Critical
> 5 Non- < 5 NonCritical
Critical
Very High
Extra High
< == Use COCOMO II’s RESL Rating Level == >
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.20. RESL multiplier values for each rating.
Schedule Multipliers
(Effort Unchanged)
VL
L
N
H
VH
EH
Inception
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Elaboration
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Construction
1.0
1.0
1.0
.91
.83
.75
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.21. PPOS rating scale.
PPOS
Nominal
High
Very High
Extra High
Basic project
legacy, no
tailoring
Some
prepositioning &
tailoring
Key items
prepositioned &
tailored
All items
prepositioned &
tailored
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.22. PPOS multiplier values for each rating.
PM/M=P
Multipliers
Rating
N
Basic project legacy,
no tailoring
1.0/1.0=1.0
Inception
1.0/1.0=1.0
Elaboration
1.0/1.0=1.0
Construction
H
VH
EH
Some prepositioning Key items prepositioned All items prepositioned
& tailoring
& tailored
& tailored
1.03/.93=1.11
1.06/.86=1.23
1.1/.80=1.37
1.03/.93=1.11
1.06/.86=1.23
1.1/.80=1.37
1.03/.93=1.11
1.06/.86=1.23
1.1/.80=1.37
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.23. PERS rating scale.
(ACAP)
Very Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
15th percentile
35th percentile
55th percentile
75th percentile
90th percentile
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.24. PCAP rating scale.
PCAP
Very Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
15th percentile
35th percentile
55th percentile
75th percentile
90th percentile
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.25. PCON rating scale.
PCON
Very Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
48%/year
24%/year
12%/year
6%/year
3%/year
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.26. PERS rating scale for CORADMO.
PERS for
CORADMO
Very Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
< == Use minimum of ACAP, PCAP and PCON == >
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.27a Multiplier ratings (best schedule compression).
Multipliers
RVHL
DPRS
CLAB
RESL
PPOS

PM
0.90
0.90
0.80
1.00
1.10
0.71
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Inception
M
=
0.90 =
0.90 =
0.80 =
1.00 =
0.80 =
0.52 =
P
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.38
1.38
PM
0.95
0.95
0.86
1.00
1.10
0.85
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
Elaboration
/
M
=
/ 0.95 =
/ 0.95 =
/ 0.86 =
/ 1.00 =
/ 0.80 =
/ 0.62 =
P
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.38
1.38
PM
1.00
0.95
0.93
1.00
1.10
0.97
Construction
/
M
=
/ 1.00 =
/ 0.95 =
/ 0.93 =
/ 0.75 =
/ 0.80 =
/ 0.53 =
P
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.33
1.38
1.83
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.27b Results for a 32 KSLOC project (effort: 120 person-months/schedule: 12.0 months).
Baseline

RAD
Inception
PM / M = P
16.8 / 9.8 = 1.7
0.71 / 0.52 = 1.38
12.0 / 5.1 = 2.4
Elaboration
PM / M = P
33.6 / 4.8 = 7.0
0.85 / 0.62 = 1.38
28.7 / 3.0 = 9.6
Construction
Total for E&C
PM / M = P
PM / M = P
86.4 / 7.2 = 12.0 120.0 / 12.0 = 10.0
0.97 / 0.53 = 1.83
84.0 / 3.8 = 22.0 112.7 / 6.8 = 16.6
Total for I&E&C 124.63 / 6.80 = 18.34
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.27c Results for a 512 KSLOC project (effort: 2580 person-months/schedule: 34.3 months).
Baseline

RAD
Inception
Elaboration
PM / M = P
PM / M =
361.0 / 13.7 = 26.4 722.0 / 13.7 =
0.71 / 0.52 = 1.38 0.85 / 0.62 =
257.3 / 7.1 = 36.2 616.4 / 8.5 =
Construction
Total for E&C
P
PM / M = P
PM / M = P
52.7 1868.0 / 20.6 = 90.7 2580.0 / 34.3 = 75.2
1.38
0.97 / 0.53 = 1.83
72.5 1815.4 / 10.9 = 166.2 2689.2 / 26.5 = 101.4
Total for I&E&C 2932.0 / 28.2 = 104.0
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.28 COTS assessment attributes.
Correctness
accuracy
correctness
Availability/Robustness
availability
fail safe
fail soft
fault tolerance
input error tolerance
redundancy
reliability
robustness
safety
Security
access related
sabotage related
Product Performance
execution performance
information/data capacity
precision
memory performance
response time
throughput
Understandability
documentation quality
simplicity
testability
Ease of Use
usability/human factors
Version Compatibility
downward compatibility
upward compatibility
Intercomponent Compatibility
with other components
interoperability
Flexibility
extendibility
flexibility
Installation/Upgrade Ease
installation ease
upgrade/refresh ease
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
Portability
portability
Functionality
functionality
Price
initial purchase or lease
recurring costs
Maturity
product maturity
vendor maturity
Vendor Support
response time for critical problem
support
warranty
Training
user training
Vendor Concessions
will escrow code
will make modifications
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.29 Dimensions of tailoring difficulty.
Tailoring
Activities
& Aids
Parameter
Spec.
Script
Writing
I/O Report
Layout
Individual Activity & Tool Aid Complexity Ratings
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
Very Low
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
GUI
Screen
Spec.
1
2
3
4
5
Security
/Access
Protocol
Initializatio
n
& Set-up
Availability
of COTS
Tailoring
Tools
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Point Value
Total Points:
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.30 Final tailoring activity complexity rating scale.
5 to 7 points
8 to 12 points
13 to 17 points
18 to 22 points
23 to 25 points
Very Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very High
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.31 COTS glue code effort adjustment factors.
Personnel Drivers
1) ACIEP - COTS Integrator Experience with Product
2) ACIPC - COTS Integrator Personnel Capability
3) AXCIP - Integrator Experience with COTS Integration Processes
4) APCON - Integrator Personnel Continuity
COTS Component Drivers
5) ACPMT - COTS Product Maturity
6) ACSEW - COTS Supplier Product Extension Willingness
7) APCPX - COTS Product Interface Complexity
8) ACPPS - COTS Supplier Product Support
9) ACPTD - COTS Supplier Provided Training and Documentation
Application/System Drivers
10) ACREL - Constraints on Application System/Subsystem Reliability
11) AACPX - Application Interface Complexity
12) ACPER - Constraints on COTS Technical Performance
13) ASPRT - Application System Portability
Nonlinear Scale Factor
AAREN - Application Architectural Engineering
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.32 Defect introduction drivers.
Category
Platform
Product
Personnel
Project
Post-Architecture Model
Required Software Reliability (RELY)
Data Base Size (DATA)
Required Reusability (RUSE)
Documentation Match to Life-Cycle Needs (DOCU)
Product Complexity (CPLX)
Execution Time Constraint (TIME)
Main Storage Constraint (STOR)
Platform Volatility (PVOL)
Analyst Capability (ACAP)
Programmer Capability (PCAP)
Applications Experience (AEXP)
Platform Experience (PEXP)
Language and Tool Experience (LTEX)
Personnel Continuity (PCON)
Use of Software Tools (TOOL)
Multisite Development (SITE)
Required Development Schedule (SCED)
Precedentedness (PREC)
Architecture/Risk Resolution (RESL)
Team Cohesion (TEAM)
Process Maturity (PMAT)
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.33 Programmer Capability (PCAP) differences in defect introduction.
PCAP level
Requirements
VH
N/A
1.0
Code
Fewer Coding defects due to
fewer detailed design reworks,
conceptual misunderstandings,
coding mistakes
0.76
1.0
Nominal
VL
N/A
Initial Defect Introduction Range
Range - Round 1
Median - Round 1
Range - Round 2
Final Defect Introduction Range
(Median-Round 2)
PCAP
Design
Fewer Design defects due
to easy interaction with
analysts
Fewer defects introduced
in fixing defects
0.85
Very Low
15th percentile
1.0
1.0
1-1.2
1
1-1.1
1.0
Low
35th percentile
More Design defects due to
less easy interaction with
analysts
More defects introduced in
fixing defects
1.17
1.23
1-1.75
1.4
1.1-1.75
1.38
Nominal
55th percentile
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
More Coding defects due to
more detailed design reworks,
conceptual misunderstandings,
coding mistakes
1.32
High
75th percentile
1.77
1.3-2.2
1.75
1.5-2.2
1.75
Very High
90th percentile
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.34 Initial data analysis on the Defect Introduction model.
Type of
Artifact
1970’s
Baseline
DIRs
Quality
Adjustment
Factor (QAFj)
Predicted
DIR
Reqts
Design
Code
5
25
15
0.5
0.44
0.5
2.5
11
7.5
Actual
DIR;
1990's
project
4.5
8.4
16.6
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
Baseline DIR
Adjustment
Factor (Aj)
1990’s
Baseline
DIRs
1.8
0.77
2.21
9
19
33
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.35 The defect removal profiles.
Rating
Automated Analysis
Peer Reviews
Execution Testing and Tools
Simple compiler syntax
checking.
Basic compiler capabilities for
static module-level code
analysis, syntax, type-checking.
Some compiler extensions for
static module and inter-module
level code analysis, syntax,
type-checking.
Basic requirements and design
consistency, traceability
checking.
Intermediate-level module and
inter-module code syntax and
semantic analysis.
Simple requirements/design
view consistency checking.
No peer review.
No testing.
Ad-hoc informal walkthroughs
Minimal preparation, no
follow-up.
Well-defined sequence of
preparation, review, minimal
follow-up.
Informal review roles and
procedures.
Ad-hoc testing and debugging.
Basic text-based debugger
Formal review roles with all
participants well-trained and
procedures applied to all
products using basic checklists,
follow up.
Very
High
More elaborate
requirements/design view
consistency checking.
Basic distributed-processing
and temporal analysis, model
checking, symbolic execution.
Extra
High
Formalized* specification and
verification.
Advanced distributed
processing and temporal
analysis, model checking,
symbolic execution.
Formal review roles with all
participants well-trained and
procedures applied to all
product artifacts & changes
(formal change control boards).
Basic review checklists, root
cause analysis.
Formal follow-up.
Use of historical data on
inspection rate, preparation
rate, fault density.
Formal review roles and
procedures for fixes, change
control.
Extensive review checklists,
root cause analysis.
Continuous review process
improvement.
User/Customer involvement,
Statistical Process Control.
Well-defined test sequence tailored to
organization (acceptance / alpha / beta /
flight / etc.) test.
Basic test coverage tools, test support
system.
Basic test process management.
More advanced test tools, test data
preparation, basic test oracle support,
distributed monitoring and analysis,
assertion checking.
Metrics-based test process management.
Very
Low
Low
Nominal
High
*Consistency-checkable preconditions and post-conditions,
but not mathematical theorems.
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
Basic unit test, integration test, system test
process.
Basic test data management, problem
tracking support.
Test criteria based on checklists.
Highly advanced tools for test oracles,
distributed monitoring and analysis,
assertion checking
Integration of automated analysis and test
tools.
Model-based test process management.
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.36 Results of 2-round Delphi exercise for defect removal fractions.
Automated Analysis
Very
Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very
High
Extra
High
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Median
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.33
0.30
0.33
0.50
0.48
0.40
0.58
0.55
Round 1
Range (min | max)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.45
0.05
0.45
0.10
0.60
0.10
0.65
0.10
0.60
0.10
0.85
0.15
0.85
0.15
0.75
0.20
0.90
0.20
0.90
0.15
0.85
Median
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.13
0.20
0.27
0.28
0.30
0.34
0.44
0.48
0.40
0.50
0.55
Round 2
Range (min | max)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.45
0.05
0.45
0.10
0.60
0.10
0.65
0.10
0.60
0.15
0.85
0.15
0.85
0.15
0.75
0.20
0.90
0.20
0.90
0.20
0.85
People Reviews
Round 1
Very
Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very
High
Extra
High
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Median
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.30
0.30
0.40
0.40
0.48
0.50
0.54
0.60
0.54
0.68
0.73
0.63
0.75
0.83
Range (min | max)
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.20
0.05
0.30
0.05
0.40
0.05
0.40
0.05
0.65
0.10
0.70
0.05
0.70
0.05
0.75
0.15
0.75
0.40
0.80
0.05
0.85
0.30
0.85
0.48
0.90
0.05
0.95
0.35
0.95
0.56
0.95
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
Round 2
Median
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.40
0.40
0.48
0.50
0.54
0.60
0.58
0.70
0.73
0.70
0.78
0.83
Range (min | max)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.30
0.05
0.40
0.05
0.40
0.05
0.65
0.10
0.70
0.05
0.70
0.10
0.75
0.30
0.75
0.40
0.80
0.20
0.85
0.40
0.85
0.48
0.90
0.30
0.95
0.48
0.95
0.56
0.95
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.36 (Cont'd).
Execution Testing and Tools
Round 1
Very
Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very
High
Extra
High
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Requirements defects
Design defects
Code defects
Median
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.28
0.40
0.40
0.45
0.60
0.50
0.55
0.73
0.60
0.68
0.83
0.70
0.78
0.90
Range (min | max)
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.60
0.20
0.70
0.10
0.75
0.15
0.80
0.30
0.90
0.10
0.90
0.15
0.93
0.35
0.96
0.10
0.97
0.15
0.98
0.45
0.99
0.10
0.99
0.20
0.992
0.50
0.995
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
Round 2
Median
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.23
0.38
0.40
0.43
0.58
0.50
0.54
0.69
0.57
0.65
0.78
0.60
0.70
0.88
Range (min | max)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.60
0.20
0.70
0.10
0.75
0.15
0.80
0.30
0.90
0.10
0.90
0.15
0.93
0.35
0.96
0.10
0.97
0.15
0.98
0.45
0.99
0.10
0.99
0.15
0.992
0.50
0.995
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.37 Defect density results from initial Defect Removal Fraction values.
Very
Low
Low
Nominal
High
Very
High
Extra
High
Automated
Analysis DRF
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.1.1.1.1.1
0.00
0.00
0.10
1.1.1.1.1.2
0.10
0.13
0.20
1.1.1.1.1.3
0.27
0.28
0.30
1.1.1.1.1.4
0.34
0.44
0.48
1.1.1.1.1.5
0.40
0.50
0.55
1.1.1.1.1.6
People
Reviews DRF
0.00
0.00
0.00
Execution Testing
and Tools DRF
0.00
0.00
0.00
Product
(1-DRFij)
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.23
0.23
0.38
0.58
0.55
0.39
0.40
0.40
0.48
0.40
0.43
0.58
0.32
0.3
0.17
0.50
0.54
0.60
0.50
0.54
0.69
0.18
0.15
0.09
0.58
0.70
0.73
0.57
0.65
0.78
0.14
0.06
0.03
0.70
0.78
0.83
0.60
0.70
0.88
0.07
0.03
0.009
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
DI/kSLOC
10
20
30
Total:
10
20
30
Total:
10
20
30
Total:
10
20
30
Total:
10
20
30
Total:
10
20
30
Total:
DRes/kSLOC
10
20
30
60
5.8
11
11.7
28.5
3.2
6
5.1
14.3
1.8
3
2.7
7.5
1.4
1.2
0.9
3.5
0.7
0.6
0.27
1.57
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.38 CORADMO Drivers
CORADMO
driver
Multipliers per set of
strategies
Phases per set of strategies
RVHL
Number
1
Reason
Schedule value =
Effort value
Number
2
DPRS
1
2
CLAB
1
RESL
1
PPOS
2
Schedule value =
Effort value
Schedule value =
Effort value
Schedule value =
Effort value
separate Schedule
& Effort values
3
1
1
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
Reason
Inception & Elaboration
phases (No Construction
impact)
Inception & Elaboration
(=Construction)
Inception, Elaboration &
Construction
Only Construction
Multipliers and
Phases per set
of strategies
2
2
3
1
Inception = Elaboration =
2
Construction
Total 10
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.39
SF
Mean
PREC FLEX RESL TEAM PMAT
3.06 3.15 3.97
2.7 3.72
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.40
EAF
Mean
RELY DATA CPLX RUSE DOCU TIME STOR PVOL ACAP PCAP PCON APEX PLEX LTEX TOOL SITE SCED
1.06 1.04 1.16 1.01 1.01 1.08 1.03 1.03 0.88 0.91 0.98
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
0.9 0.95 0.97 1.01 0.93 1.04
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
Table 5.41 Rationales for the SIZE factor value over time and technologies.
CD
KD
KG
&K
E
EK
"Commercial technology will provide better reuse infrastructure (e.g. ORBs) and some of the
componentry technology need for EHART applications. Better requirements technology will
reduce breakage somewhat. The overall effects for EHART applications will be less than the
effects for mainstream commercial applications since much of the commercial technology will
not fit EHART applications.
Significant gains will come from existing DoD initiatives such as the SEI Product Line
Systems program.
Same as CD
Significant gains over CD due to EHART domain-specific architectures, reuse, and application
generators
Similar domain-specific gains, plus additional reduced breakage due to requirements and
rationale capture technology, and reduced software understanding penalties due to software
understanding technology
Gains over E due to stronger KB application generator technology
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400
COCOMO II/Chapter 5 tables/Boehm et al.
© 1999-2000 USC Center for Software Engineering. All Rights Reserved
612944400