Headquarters U.S. Air Force Integrity - Service - Excellence Next-Generation Systems and Software Cost Estimation Wilson Rosa Technical Advisor Air Force Cost Analysis Agency (AFCAA) October 28, 2008 Problem Statement Emerging technologies such as • • • • • • Systems of Systems (SoS) Model Driven Architecture (MDA) Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) Services Reuse-Driven (RUSE) are complicating AFCAA's job of producing accurate software cost estimates UNCLASSIFIED I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 2 Next-Generation System Challenges 1. Lines of Code not appropriate for Model Driven Architecture COTS-Based Systems (SOA, ERP, etc.) 2. No guidelines for estimating beyond software design Infrastructure (servers, LAN, routers, etc.) Concurrent Users Enterprise Services (collaboration, discovery, portal, etc.) Data Migration, External Interfaces Interoperability and Interdependency 3. Unfamiliar with total system cost drivers 4. Lack of Empirical Research – SOA, ERP, SoS, MDA 3 UNCLASSIFIED I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Data Challenges AFCAA has multiple software datasets Unable to combine software datasets because of inconsistencies and lack of standardization Schedule seems to be reported at program and not CSCI level -- all CSCI’s have same schedule No reporting of % re-design, % re-coding, % re-test No common counting method – logical, physical, etc. No standard application type definitions No common code counting tool Product size only reported in lines of code No reporting of COCOMO, SEER, PRICE parameters No reporting of quality measures – defects, MTBF, etc. UNCLASSIFIED I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 4 Parametric Model Challenges Most AF program offices rely on cost models Have these models been calibrated with the most recent DoD data? (2002-2008) Most models only cover a fraction, not total system costs – infrastructure, users, etc. Model calibration with recent data will help reduce the program office estimating error rate UNCLASSIFIED I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 5 Consequence: Significant Cost Growth (%) Statistics Total System* Software Only** Minimum -64% -80% Mean 45% 37% Median 27% 8% High 471% 623% Standard Deviation 71% 107% Milestone Phase Development Development Sample Size 137 111 Year of Data 1993-2003 2002-2008 Source : *John McCrillis, 36th DOD Cost Analysis Symposium (2003) **Defense Automated Cost Information System UNCLASSIFIED I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 6 Headquarters U.S. Air Force Integrity - Service - Excellence Software Cost Metrics Manual OVERVIEW 7 Scope Cost Agencies in conjunction with University of Southern California will publish a manual to help analysts develop quick software estimates using reliable metrics from recent programs UNCLASSIFIED I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 8 Software Cost Manual Content Chapter 1: Basic Software Estimation Chapter 2: Product Size Estimation Chapter 3: Schedule and Cost Growth Chapter 4: Default ESLOC Parameters Chapter 5: Historical Productivity Chapter 6: Default COCOMO/SEER/True-S Parameters Chapter 7: SLIM-ESTIMATE Calibration Chapter 8: Risk and Uncertainty Parameters Chapter 9: Data Normalization Chapter 10: Space Software Cost Guide Chapter 11: Software Maintenance UNCLASSIFIED I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 9 Data Sources Commodity Source Format Year Projects CSCIs Space, Ground, Air Software Resource Data Reports DD-Form 2630 2002-2008 32 103 Space AEHF SEER 2008 6 53 Air F-22 EMD and Increment II Boeing 2004 13 112 Space MILSTAR SEER 1990s 4 28 Space FAB-T DD-Form 2630 2008 7 21 Space NPOESS SEER 2008 3 67 Space TSAT DD-Form 2630 2007 3 3 Air, Ground Northrop Grumman COCOMO, SEER 1997-2008 15 32 Space, Ground Raytheon COCOMO 1997-2008 33 49 Air, Ship, Ground Naval Center for Cost Analysis TECHNOMICS 1992-2001 21 68 Air Lockheed Martin COCOMO 1996-2004 2 2 Air Army Cost and Economics Analysis Center TECHNOMICS 2001-2004 16 16 Ground Future Combat System DD-Form 2630 2003-2008 13 42 Space, Intel Intelligence Community (NRO, NGA, DNI) SEER TBD TBD TBD Space, Ground Aerospace, Space & Missile System Center Unknown Unknown TBD TBD Space NASA JPL Unknown Unknown TBD TBD Space, Air, Ground USC Affiliates Unknown Unknown TBD TBD >168 >598 Note: Expecting over 1600 CSCIs by 2010 UNCLASSIFIED I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 10 Data Normalization USC will interview program offices and developers to obtain additional information… 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Cost Model Parameters – True S, SEER, COCOMO Reuse Type – auto generated, re-hosted, translated, modified Reuse Source – in-house, third party Degree-of-Modification – %DM, %CM, %IM Method – Model Driven Architecture, Object-Oriented, Traditional Available Data 1. DoDAF – System Views, Operational Views, etc. 2. Software Resource Data Report – Software Size, Effort, Schedule 3. Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD) System Description, Users, Infrastructure, locations, interfaces, etc. UNCLASSIFIED I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 11 Chapter 4: ESLOC Parameters Default values from recent programs Based on Reuse Type and Reuse Source Design Modified Code Modified Integration Modified ESLOC Reuse Type Reuse Source Auto Generated In-House 0% 0% 50% 15% Third Party 0% 0% 100% 30% In-House 0% 0% 100% 30% Third Party 0% 24% 100% 37% In-House 0% 100% 100% 60% Third Party 15% 100% 100% 66% In-House 0% 100% 100% 60% 100% 100% 100% 100% In-House 0% 0% 32% 10% Third Party 0% 0% 100% 30% Re-Host Translated Modified Third Party Unmodified UNCLASSIFIED I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 12 Chapter 5: Historical Productivity Overview and Guidelines Historical Productivity Dataset by Application Default Productivity Ranges by Application IOC Productivity (ESLOC/MM) Raw (KSLOC) ESLOC Effort (MM) Peak Effort (FTE) Schedule (Months) CSCI Application 1999 Signal Processing Avionics 60 90000 90000 1000 69 71 2008 Spot Antenna Control Payload 39 78000 5000 2000 95 69 2008 Bootstrap Bus 44 35000 31000 800 70 60 UNCLASSIFIED I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 13 Significance of Proposed Manual Collected data can be used for Systems of Systems cost research Cost Model improvement initiatives SEER, True-S, COCOMO, etc. Understanding relationships between NextGeneration Processes and COCOMO cost drivers can encourage researchers to explore new strategies to improve available cost models… UNCLASSIFIED I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 14 Way Ahead Short Term NCCA/AFCAA Software Cost Handbook (Nov 2008) Software Cost Metrics Manual (2009) Long Term Cost Risk and Uncertainty Handbook Volume II (2011) ERP Cost Guide (2010) Impact of MDA on Cost Modeling (2010) SOA Cost Study (2012) Data Center Cost Study (2010) Note: Any data you provide will not be attributed to your company or program, but will be combined with like data from other sources and generic zed" UNCLASSIFIED I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 15 Backup Slides Integrity - Service - Excellence 16 UNCLASSIFIED I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e