1 coradmo in 2001: a rad odyssey cyrus fakharzadeh [email protected] 16th international forum on...

1

CORADMO in 2001: A RAD Odyssey

Cyrus Fakharzadeh

[email protected]

16th International Forum on COCOMO and Software Cost Modeling

University of Southern CaliforniaCenter for Software EngineeringC S E

USC

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2

IntroductionRAD (Rapid Application Development)• an application of any of a number of

techniques or strategies to reduce software development cycle time

CORADMO • COCOMO II model extension• Focuses on software development schedules

and costs using RAD techniques


USC

3

Constructive Rapid Application Development Model

• Calculates/predicts – schedule (months, M) – personnel (P)– adjusted effort (person-months, PM)

• Based on– Effort and schedule distribution to the various phases– Selected schedule driver ratings impacts on the M, P,

and PM of each phase.


USC

4

Six Classes of Strategies for RAD

• Reuse, Very High-level Languages (RVHL)

• Development Process Reengineering (DPRS)

• Collaboration Support (CLAB)

• Architecture, Risk Resolution (RESL)

• Prepositioning Assets (PPOS)

• RAD Capability of Personnel (RCAP)


USC

5

RAD Opportunity Tree


USC

Better People and Incentives More RAD experience - RCAP Transition to Learning Organization - O

Reducing Time Per Task Tools and automation - O

Work streamlining (80-20) - O

Increasing parallelism - RESL

Reducing Single-Point Failure Risks Reducing failures - RESL

Reducing their effects - RESL

Reducing Backtracking

Early error elimination - RESL

Process anchor points - RESL

Improving process maturity - O

Collaboration support - CLAB

Minimizing task dependencies - DPRS Activity Network Streamlining Avoiding high fan-in, fan-out - DPRS

Reducing task variance - DPRS

Removing tasks from critical path - DPRS

Increasing Effective Workweek Prepositioning resources - PPOS

Nightly builds, testing - PPOS

Weekend warriors, 24x7 development - PPOS

O: covered by classic cube root model

Eliminating Tasks

Development process reengineering - DPRS

Reusing assets - RVHL

Applications generation - RVHL

Design-to-schedule - O

Business process reengineering - O

6

BackgroundCOCOMO II Schedule shortfalls:• Reflects projects optimized for minimum cost • Model does not address RAD strategies

COCOMO II.2000 Duration Calculation

Cube Root Law: Months ~ 3.67 (Person-Months)f

where 0.28 f 0.34

CORADMO differs from COCOMO: • A square root instead in computing the number of months

needed to complete a small project • Square root law (i.e. f = 0.5)


USC

7

COPSEMOConstructive Phased Schedule and Effort Model Inputs: the baseline effort and schedule from

COCOMO II Outputs: the effort and schedule by phase needed

for CORADMO. Phases: Inception, Elaboration, Construction, and

Transition Source: MBASE/RUP (Model-Based Architecting

& Software Engineering/Rational Unified Process) life-cycle model


USC

8


USC

COPSEMO Months as F(PM)

0.00

4.00

8.00

12.00

16.00

20.00

0 16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 144

Effort (PM)

Mo

nth

s (M

)

CII-M [Cube Root]Original COPSEMO-MNew COPSEMO-M [Square Root]

~3*cube-root COCOMO II(minumum cost)

Square root(minimum schedule)small projects

Previous RAD/COCOMO bridge for large projects

9

Physical Model

(C O P S E M O E x te n s io n )

C O C O M O II .2 0 0 0 v ia

C O C O M O _ c h a r ts .x ls

P h a s e

D is tr ib u t io n s

R A D E x te n s io n

(C o R A D M o .x ls )

R A D e f fo r t , s c h e d u le

b y p h a s e

C O C O M O II c o s t d r iv e r s

R V H L

D P R S

C L A B

P P O S

R C A P R E S L ; B a s e l in e

e f fo r t , s c h e d u le

E f fo r t , s c h e d u le

b y p h a s e ; N o S C E D

S c h e d u le c a lc u la te d ; S C E D re m o v e d ; P M & M d is t r ib u te d p e r p h a s e

B a s e lin e E f fo r t & S c h e d .

R E S L


USC

10

Results• Delphi Exercise Forms distributed

• Experts from Academia, Industry and Government– Affiliates, Professors, and Researchers

• EMR (Effort Multiplier Range) – Highest divided by Lowest across the rating scale for

effort

• SMR (Schedule Multiplier Range) – Highest divided by Lowest across the rating scale.


USC

11

% Effort per phase Original Delphi

MeanDelphi

Standard Deviation

Inception – I 6.0 10.29 4.75

Elaboration – E 24.0 23.71 5.38

Construction – C 76.0 71.29 12.00

Total I, E, & C 118.0 105.29 4.24


USC

12

% Schedule per phase Original Delphi

MeanDelphi

Standard Deviation

Inception – I 12.5 15.71 4.99

Elaboration – E 37.5 29.86 5.64

Construction – C 62.5 63.14 11.94

Total I, E, & C 112.5 108.71 6.94


USC

13

Reuse, Very High-level Languages

RVHL EMR SMR

OriginalDelphi Mean

Delphi Standard

DeviationOriginal

Delphi Mean

Delphi Standard

Deviation

Inception 1.16 1.25 0.08 1.16 1.22 0.06

Elaboration 1.07 1.25 0.09 1.07 1.24 0.08

Construction

1.00 1.16 0.11 1.00 1.13 0.09


USC

Degree to which re-use of artifacts other than code and/or very high-level languages are utilized

14

Development Process Reengineering


USC

Measures the degree to which the project and organization allow and encourage streamlined or reengineered development processes

DPRS EMR SMR

OriginalDelphi Mean

Delphi Standard

DeviationOriginal

Delphi Mean

Delphi Standard

Deviation

Inception 1.33 1.32 0.02 1.33 1.25 0.05

Elaboration 1.21 1.24 0.04 1.21 1.21 0.02

Construction 1.21 1.30 0.06 1.21 1.22 0.04

15

Collaboration Support


USC

Accounts for Multisite tool support plus special collaboration tools, yields a reduced effect on schedule and effort

CLAB EMR SMR

OriginalDelphi Mean

Delphi Standard

DeviationOriginal

Delphi Mean

Delphi Standard

Deviation

Inception 1.51 1.34 0.09 1.51 1.27 0.13

Elaboration 1.34 1.23 0.07 1.34 1.23 0.06

Construction

1.18 1.23 0.08 1.18 1.21 0.05

16

Architecture, Risk Resolution


USC

Same as COCOMO II RESL

RESL EMR SMR

OriginalDelphi Mean

Delphi Standard

DeviationOriginal

Delphi Mean

Delphi Standard

Deviation

Inception 1.00 1.24 0.34 1.00 1.21 0.35

Elaboration 1.00 1.24 0.34 1.00 1.23 0.35

Construction

1.00 1.27 0.33 1.33 1.35 0.29

17

Prepositioning Assets


USC

Degree to which assets are pre-tailored to a project and furnished to the project for use on demand

PPOS EMR SMR

OriginalDelphi Mean

Delphi Standard

DeviationOriginal

Delphi Mean

Delphi Standard

Deviation

Inception 1.10 1.13 0.02 1.25 1.22 0.02

Elaboration 1.10 1.14 0.04 1.25 1.23 0.02

Construction

1.10 1.20 0.04 1.25 1.26 0.03

18

RAD Capability of Personnel


USC

Accounts for the effects of RAD personnel capability & experience in RAD projects

RCAP EMR SMR

OriginalDelphi Mean

Delphi Standard

DeviationOriginal

Delphi Mean

Delphi Standard

Deviation

Inception 1.50 1.48 0.15 3.00 2.48 0.26

Elaboration 1.50 1.44 0.14 3.00 2.48 0.25

Construction

1.50 1.46 0.14 3.00 2.49 0.25

19

Example


USC

With RCAP = Nominal => PM=25, M=5, P=5 Result: The square root law: 5 people for 5 months: 25 PM

With RCAP=XH (Extra High) => PM=20, M=2.8, P=7.1Result: A super team can put on 7 people and finish in 2.8

months: 20 PM With RCAP = XL (Extra Low) => PM=30, M=7, P=4Result: Trying to do RAD with an unqualified team makes them

less efficient (30 PM)

20

RCAP Effort/Schedule Effect


USC

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 10 20 30 40 50

PM

M

3.7*(Cube root) 3*(Cube root) Square root

RCAP = XL

RCAP = XH

21

Next Steps


USC

Complete another Delphi Round• Gather more RAD data

Please contact me if you have some• Analyze Data from RAD projects• Bayesian Analysis • Calibrate Model

22

Issues for Breakout Group


USC

Complete another Delphi Round• Treatment of square root, cube root models • Treatment of RAD drivers• Relevance to your RAD experience• Expediting data collection

1 coradmo in 2001: a rad odyssey cyrus fakharzadeh [email protected] 16th international forum on...

Documents

software development

effort model inputs

rad strategies cocomo

effort personmonths

schedule distribution

schedule shortfalls

baseline effort

model extension