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