COCOMO Model
Lecture – 10
Outline of the talk
• COCOMO Model
• Types of COCOMO Model
• COCOMO – II
Software Project Planning
The Constructive Cost Model (COCOMO)
Constructive Cost model
(COCOMO)
Basic Intermediate Detailed
Model proposed by
B. W. Boehm’s
through his book
Software Engineering Economics in 1981
3
Software Project Planning
COCOMO applied to
Semidetached
Organic mode Embedded
mode mode
4
Software Project Planning
Mode Project size Nature of Project Innovation Deadline of Development
the project Environment
Organic Typically Small size project, experienced Little Not tight Familiar & In
developers in the familiar house
2-50 KLOC
environment. For example, pay
roll, inventory projects etc.
Semi Typically Medium size project, Medium Medium Medium Medium
detached size team, Average previous
50-300 KLOC
experience on similar project.
For example: Utility systems
like compilers, database
systems, editors etc.
Embedded Typically over Large project, Real time Significant Tight Complex
systems, Complex interfaces, Hardware/
300 KLOC customer
Very little previous experience.
For example: ATMs, Air Traffic Interfaces
Control etc. required
Table 4: The comparison of three COCOMO modes
5
Software Project Planning
Basic Model
Basic COCOMO model takes the form
E ab ( KLOC) bb
D cb ( E ) db
where E is effort applied in Person-Months, and D is the development time in
months. The coefficients ab, bb, cb and db are given in table 4 (a).
6
Software Project Planning
Software ab bb cb db
Project
Organic 2.4 1.05 2.5 0.38
Semidetached 3.0 1.12 2.5 0.35
Embedded 3.6 1.20 2.5 0.32
Table 4(a): Basic COCOMO coefficients
7
Software Project Planning
When effort and development time are known, the average staff size to complete
the project may be calculated as:
E
Average staff size ( SS ) Persons
D
When project size is known, the productivity level may be calculated as:
KLOC
Productivity ( P) KLOC / PM
E
8
Software Project Planning
Example: 4.5
Suppose that a project was estimated to be 400 KLOC.
Calculate the effort and development time for each of the
three modes i.e., organic, semidetached and embedded.
9
Software Project Planning
Solution
The basic COCOMO equation take the form:
E ab ( KLOC)bb
D cb ( KLOC) db
Estimated size of the project = 400 KLOC
(i) Organic mode
E = 2.4(400)1.05 = 1295.31 PM
D = 2.5(1295.31)0.38 = 38.07 PM
10
Software Project Planning
(ii) Semidetached mode
E = 3.0(400)1.12 = 2462.79 PM
D = 2.5(2462.79)0.35 = 38.45 PM
(iii) Embedded mode
E = 3.6(400)1.20 = 4772.81 PM
D = 2.5(4772.8)0.32 = 38 PM
11
Software Project Planning
Example: 4.6
A project size of 200 KLOC is to be developed. Software development team has
average experience on similar type of projects. The project schedule is not very
tight. Calculate the effort, development time, average staff size and productivity of
the project.
12
Software Project Planning
Solution
The semi-detached mode is the most appropriate mode; keeping in view the size,
schedule and experience of the development team.
Hence E = 3.0(200)1.12 = 1133.12 PM
D = 2.5(1133.12)0.35 = 29.3 PM
E
Average staff size ( SS ) Persons
D
1133.12
38.67 Persons
29.3
13
Software Project Planning
KLOC 200
Productivity 0.1765 KLOC / PM
E 1133.12
P 176 LOC / PM
14
Software Project Planning
Intermediate Model
Cost drivers
(i) Product Attributes
Required s/w reliability
Size of application database
Complexity of the product
(ii) Hardware Attributes
Run time performance constraints
Memory constraints
Virtual machine volatility
Turnaround time
15
Software Project Planning
(iii) Personal Attributes
Analyst capability
Programmer capability
Application experience
Virtual m/c experience
Programming language experience
(iv) Project Attributes
Modern programming practices
Use of software tools
Required development Schedule
16
Software Project Planning
Multipliers of different cost drivers
Cost Drivers RATINGS
Very low Low Nominal High Very Extra
high high
Product Attributes
RELY 0.75 0.88 1.00 1.15 1.40 --
DATA -- 0.94 1.00 1.08 1.16 --
CPLX 0.70 0.85 1.00 1.15 1.30 1.65
Computer Attributes
TIME -- -- 1.00 1.11 1.30 1.66
STOR -- -- 1.00 1.06 1.21 1.56
VIRT -- 0.87 1.00 1.15 1.30 --
TURN -- 0.87 1.00 1.07 1.15 --
17
Software Project Planning
Cost Drivers RATINGS
Very low Low Nominal High Very Extra
high high
Personnel Attributes
ACAP 1.00 0.86 0.71 --
1.46 1.19
AEXP --
1.29 1.13 1.00 0.91 0.82
PCAP 0.86 0.70 --
1.42 1.17 1.00
VEXP -- --
1.21 1.10 1.00 0.90
LEXP 1.14 -- --
1.07 1.00 0.95
Project Attributes
MODP --
1.24 1.10 1.00 0.91 0.82
TOOL 1.24 1.10 0.83 --
1.00 0.91
SCED
1.23 1.08 1.00 1.04 1.10 --
Table 5: Multiplier values for effort calculations
18
Software Project Planning
Intermediate COCOMO equations
E ai ( KLOC)bi * EAF
D ci ( E ) di
Project ai bi ci di
Organic 3.2 1.05 2.5 0.38
Semidetached 3.0 1.12 2.5 0.35
Embedded 2.8 1.20 2.5 0.32
Table 6: Coefficients for intermediate COCOMO
19
Software Project Planning
Detailed COCOMO Model
Detailed COCOMO
Phase-Sensitive Three level
effort multipliers product hierarchy
Cost Modules
driver design subsystem
System level
s & test
Manpower allocation for
each phase
20
Software Project Planning
Development Phase
Plan / Requirements
EFFORT : 6% to 8%
DEVELOPMENT TIME : 10% to 40%
% depend on mode & size
21
Software Project Planning
Design
Effort : 16% to 18%
Time : 19% to 38%
Programming
Effort : 48% to 68%
Time : 24% to 64%
Integration & Test
Effort : 16% to 34%
Time : 18% to 34%
22
Software Project Planning
Principle of the effort estimate
Size equivalent
As the software might be partly developed from software already existing (that is,
re-usable code), a full development is not always required. In such cases, the parts
of design document (DD%), code (C%) and integration (I%) to be modified are
estimated. Then, an adjustment factor, A, is calculated by means of the following
equation.
A = 0.4 DD + 0.3 C + 0.3 I
The size equivalent is obtained by
S (equivalent) = (S x A) / 100
Ep pE
Dp p D
23
Software Project Planning
Lifecycle Phase Values of p
Mode & Code Plan & System Detailed Module Integration
Size Requirements Design Design Code & Test & Test
Organic Small
0.06 0.16 0.26 0.42 0.16
S≈2
Organic
0.06 0.16 0.24 0.38 0.22
medium S≈32
Semidetached
0.07 0.17 0.25 0.33 0.25
medium S≈32
Semidetached
0.07 0.17 0.24 0.31 0.28
large S≈128
Embedded
0.08 0.18 0.25 0.26 0.31
large S≈128
Embedded
extra large 0.08 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.34
S≈320
Table 7 : Effort and schedule fractions occurring in each phase of the
lifecycle 24
Software Project Planning
Lifecycle Phase Values of p
Mode & Code Plan & System Detailed Module Code Integration
Size Requirements Design Design & Test & Test
Organic Small
0.10 0.19 0.24 0.39 0.18
S≈2
Organic
0.12 0.19 0.21 0.34 0.26
medium S≈32
Semidetached
0.20 0.26 0.21 0.27 0.26
medium S≈32
Semidetached
0.22 0.27 0.19 0.25 0.29
large S≈128
Embedded
0.36 0.36 0.18 0.18 0.28
large S≈128
Embedded
extra large 0.40 0.38 0.16 0.16 0.30
S≈320
Table 7 : Effort and schedule fractions occurring in each phase of the
lifecycle 25
Software Project Planning
Distribution of software life cycle:
1. Requirement and product design
(a) Plans and requirements
(b)System design
2. Detailed Design
(a) Detailed design
3. Code & Unit test
(a) Module code & test
4. Integrate and Test
(a) Integrate & Test
26
Software Project Planning
Example: 4.7
A new project with estimated 400 KLOC embedded system has to
be developed. Project manager has a choice of hiring from two
pools of developers: Very highly capable with very little experience
in the programming language being used
Or
Developers of low quality but a lot of experience with the
programming language. What is the impact of hiring all developers
from one or the other pool ?
27
Software Project Planning
Solution
This is the case of embedded mode and model is intermediate
COCOMO.
Hence E ai ( KLOC) di
= 2.8 (400)1.20 = 3712 PM
Case I: Developers are very highly capable with very little experience
in the programming being used.
EAF = 0.82 x 1.14 = 0.9348
E = 3712 x .9348 = 3470 PM
D = 2.5 (3470)0.32 = 33.9 M
28
Software Project Planning
Case II: Developers are of low quality but lot of experience with the
programming language being used.
EAF = 1.29 x 0.95 = 1.22
E = 3712 x 1.22 = 4528 PM
D = 2.5 (4528)0.32 = 36.9 M
Case II requires more effort and time. Hence, low quality developers
with lot of programming language experience could not match with
the performance of very highly capable developers with very litter
experience.
29
Software Project Planning
Example: 4.8
Consider a project to develop a full screen editor. The major
components identified are:
I. Screen edit
II. Command Language Interpreter
III. File Input & Output
IV. Cursor Movement
V. Screen Movement
The size of these are estimated to be 4k, 2k, 1k, 2k and 3k
delivered source code lines. Use COCOMO to determine
1. Overall cost and schedule estimates (assume values for
different cost drivers, with at least three of them being
different from 1.0)
2. Cost & Schedule estimates for different phases. 30
Software Project Planning
Solution
Size of five modules are:
Screen edit = 4 KLOC
Command language interpreter = 2 KLOC
File input and output = 1 KLOC
Cursor movement = 2 KLOC
Screen movement = 3 KLOC
Total = 12 KLOC
31
Software Project Planning
Let us assume that significant cost drivers are
i. Required software reliability is high, i.e.,1.15
ii. Product complexity is high, i.e.,1.15
iii. Analyst capability is high, i.e.,0.86
iv. Programming language experience is low,i.e.,1.07
v. All other drivers are nominal
EAF = 1.15x1.15x0.86x1.07 = 1.2169
32
Software Project Planning
(a) The initial effort estimate for the project is obtained from the
following equation
E = ai (KLOC)bi x EAF
= 3.2(12)1.05 x 1.2169 = 52.91 PM
Development time D = Ci(E)di
= 2.5(52.91)0.38 = 11.29 M
(b) Using the following equations and referring Table 7, phase wise
cost and schedule estimates can be calculated.
Ep pE
Dp p D
33
Software Project Planning
Since size is only 12 KLOC, it is an organic small model. Phase wise
effort distribution is given below:
System Design = 0.16 x 52.91 = 8.465 PM
Detailed Design = 0.26 x 52.91 = 13.756 PM
Module Code & Test = 0.42 x 52.91 = 22.222 PM
Integration & Test = 0.16 x 52.91 = 8.465 Pm
Now Phase wise development time duration is
System Design = 0.19 x 11.29 = 2.145 M
Detailed Design = 0.24 x 11.29 = 2.709 M
Module Code & Test = 0.39 x 11.29 = 4.403 M
Integration & Test = 0.18 x 11.29 = 2.032 M
34
Software Project Planning
COCOMO-II
The following categories of applications / projects are identified
by COCOMO-II and are shown in fig. 4 shown below:
Application
generators &
composition
aids
End user Application Infrastructure
programming composition
System
integration
Fig. 4 : Categories of applications / projects
35
Software Project Planning
Stage Model Name Application for the Applications
No types of projects
Stage I Application composition Application composition In addition to application
estimation model composition type of projects, this
model is also used for prototyping
(if any) stage of application
generators, infrastructure & system
integration.
Stage II Early design estimation Application generators, Used in early design stage of a
model infrastructure & system project, when less is known about
integration the project.
Stage III Post architecture Application generators, Used after the completion of the
estimation model infrastructure & system detailed architecture of the project.
integration
Table 8: Stages of COCOMO-II
36
Software Project Planning
Application Composition Estimation Model
Fig.5: Steps for the estimation of effort in person months
37
Software Project Planning
i. Assess object counts: Estimate the number of screens, reports and
3 GL components that will comprise this application.
ii. Classification of complexity levels: We have to classify each
object instance into simple, medium and difficult complexity levels
depending on values of its characteristics.
Table 9 (a): For screens
38
Software Project Planning
Table 9 (b): For reports
39
Software Project Planning
iii. Assign complexity weight to each object : The weights are used
for three object types i.e., screen, report and 3GL components using
the Table 10.
Table 10: Complexity weights for each level
40
Software Project Planning
iv. Determine object points: Add all the weighted object instances to
get one number and this known as object-point count.
v. Compute new object points: We have to estimate the percentage
of reuse to be achieved in a project. Depending on the percentage
reuse, the new object points (NOP) are computed.
(object points) * (100-%reuse)
NOP = -------------------------------------------
100
NOP are the object points that will need to be developed and differ from
the object point count because there may be reuse.
41
Software Project Planning
vi. Calculation of productivity rate: The productivity rate can be
calculated as:
Productivity rate (PROD) = NOP/Person month
Table 11: Productivity values
42
Software Project Planning
vii. Compute the effort in Persons-Months: When PROD is known,
we may estimate effort in Person-Months as:
NOP
Effort in PM = ------------
PROD
43
Software Project Planning
Example: 4.9
Consider a database application project with the following
characteristics:
I. The application has 4 screens with 4 views each and 7 data
tables for 3 servers and 4 clients.
II. The application may generate two report of 6 sections each
from 07 data tables for two server and 3 clients. There is
10% reuse of object points.
The developer’s experience and capability in the similar
environment is low. The maturity of organization in terms of
capability is also low. Calculate the object point count, New object
points and effort to develop such a project.
44
Software Project Planning
Solution
This project comes under the category of application composition
estimation model.
Number of screens = 4 with 4 views each
Number of reports = 2 with 6 sections each
From Table 9 we know that each screen will be of medium
complexity and each report will be difficult complexity.
Using Table 10 of complexity weights, we may calculate object point
count.
= 4 x 2 + 2 x 8 = 24
24 * (100 -10)
NOP = -------------------- = 21.6
100
45
Software Project Planning
Table 11 gives the low value of productivity (PROD) i.e. 7.
NOP
Efforts in PM = -----------
PROD
21.6
Efforts = ----------- = 3.086 PM
7
46
Assignment
• Explain COCOMO Model in detail
47
Research Work
• Cost Models for Future Software
Life Cycle Processes: COCOMO 2
