Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 32
Software Project Planning
The Constructive Cost Model (COCOMO)
Constructive Cost model (COCOMO)
Basic
Intermediate
Detailed
Model proposed by B. W. Boehms through his book Software Engineering Economics in 1981 1
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Software Project Planning
COCOMO applied to
Organic mode
Semidetached mode
Embedded mode
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Software Project Planning
Mode
Organic
Project size
Typically 2-50 KLOC
Semi detached
Typically 50-300 KLOC
Embedded Typically over
300 KLOC
Nature of Project
Innovation
Deadline of the project
Small size project, experienced developers in the familiar environment. For example, pay roll, inventory projects etc.
Little
Not tight
Medium size project, Medium
size team, Average previous experience on similar project. For example: Utility systems like compilers, database systems, editors etc.
Medium
Medium
Large project, Real time
systems, Complex interfaces, Very little previous experience. For example: ATMs, Air Traffic Control etc.
Significant
Tight
Table 4: The comparison of three COCOMO modes
3
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Development Environment Familiar & In house
Medium
Complex Hardware/ customer Interfaces required
Software Project Planning
Basic Model Basic COCOMO model takes the form
E ab ( KLOC )
D cb ( E )
bb
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). 4
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Software Project Planning
ab
bb
cb
db
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
Software Project
Table 4(a): Basic COCOMO coefficients
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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 KLOC / PM Productivity ( P ) E
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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.
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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.
10
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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 11
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Software Project Planning
KLOC 200 Productivity
0.1765 KLOC / PM E 1133 .12
P 176 LOC / PM
12
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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 13
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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 14
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Software Project Planning
Multipliers of different cost drivers Cost Drivers
RATINGS Very low
Low
Nominal
High
Very high
Extra high
0.75
0.88
1.00
1.15
1.40
--
--
0.94
1.00
1.08
1.16
--
0.70
0.85
1.00
1.15
1.30
1.65
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
--
Product Attributes RELY DATA CPLX Computer Attributes
15
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Table 5: Multiplier values for effort calculations
16
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Software Project Planning
Intermediate COCOMO equations
E ai ( KLOC ) bi * EAF D ci ( E ) d i 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
17
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Software Project Planning
Detailed COCOMO Model Detailed COCOMO
Phase-Sensitive effort multipliers Cost drivers
Three level product
hierarchy Modules subsystem
design & test
System level
Manpower allocation for
each phase 18
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Software Project Planning
Development Phase Plan / Requirements EFFORT
: 6% to 8%
DEVELOPMENT TIME : 10% to 40%
% depend on mode & size
19
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Software Project Planning
Design Effort Time
: :
16% to 18% 19% to 38%
Programming Effort Time
: :
48% to 68% 24% to 64%
Integration & Test
Effort Time
: :
16% to 34% 18% to 34%
20
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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
21
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Software Project Planning
Lifecycle Phase Values of Mode & Code Size
Plan & Requirements
System Design
Detailed Design
Module Code & Test
Integration & Test
Organic Small S2
0.06
0.16
0.26
0.42
0.16
Organic medium S32
0.06
0.16
0.24
0.38
0.22
Semidetached medium S32
0.07
0.17
0.25
0.33
0.25
Semidetached large S128
0.07
0.17
0.24
0.31
0.28
Embedded large S128
0.08
0.18
0.25
0.26
0.31
Embedded extra large S320
0.08
0.18
0.24
0.24
0.34
Table 7 : Effort and schedule fractions occurring in each phase of the lifecycle 22
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Software Project Planning
Lifecycle Phase Values of Mode & Code Size
Plan & Requirements
System Design
Detailed Design
Module Code & Test
Integration & Test
Organic Small S2
0.10
0.19
0.24
0.39
0.18
Organic medium S32
0.12
0.19
0.21
0.34
0.26
Semidetached medium S32
0.20
0.26
0.21
0.27
0.26
Semidetached large S128
0.22
0.27
0.19
0.25
0.29
Embedded large S128
0.36
0.36
0.18
0.18
0.28
Embedded extra large S320
0.40
0.38
0.16
0.16
0.30
Table 7 : Effort and schedule fractions occurring in each phase of the lifecycle 23
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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 24
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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 ?
25
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Software Project Planning
Solution This is the case of embedded mode and model is intermediate COCOMO.
E ai ( KLOC )
Hence
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 26
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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.
27
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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. 28
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
Software Project Planning
Solution Size of five modules are: Screen edit
= 4 KLOC
Command language interpreter
File input and output
= 2 KLOC
= 1 KLOC
Cursor movement
= 2 KLOC
Screen movement
= 3 KLOC
Total
= 12 KLOC 29
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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
30
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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 31
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
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 32
Software Engineering (3rd ed.), By K.K Aggarwal & Yogesh Singh, Copyright New Age International Publishers, 2007
