COCOMO II

Agenda
Overall Model Definition
COCOMO II Models for the Software Marketplace Sectors
COCOMO II Model Rationale and Elaboration
Development Effort Estimates
Software Economies and Diseconomies of Scale
Previous Approaches
Scaling Drivers
Precedentedness (PREC) and Development Flexibility (FLEX)
Architecture / Risk Resolution (RESL)
Team Cohesion (TEAM)
Process Maturity (PMAT)
Adjusting Nominal Effort
Development Schedule Estimation
Using COCOMO II
Lines of Code
Function Points
Converting Function Points to Lines of Code
Breakage
Overall Model Definition
COCOMO II strategy:
Preserve the openness of the original COCOMO;
Key the structure of COCOMO II to the future
software marketplace sectors described earlier;
Key the inputs and outputs of the COCOMO II
submodels to the level of information available;
Enable the COCOMO II submodels to be
tailored to a project's particular process
strategy.

COCOMO II Models for the
Software Marketplace Sectors
COCOMO II capability for estimation
Application Generator
System Integration
Infrastructure
Two life cycle
Early Design
Post-Architecture


COCOMO II Model
Rationale and Elaboration
Three-stage
The earliest phases or spiral cycles will
generally involve prototyping, using the
Application Composition model capabilities.
The next phases or spiral cycles will generally
involve exploration of architectural alternatives
or incremental development strategies.
Once the project is ready to develop and
sustain a fielded system, it should have a life-
cycle architecture, which provides more
accurate information on cost driver inputs, and
enables more accurate cost estimates.

Development Effort
Estimates
B
nominal
(Size) A PM =
PMPerson Months
Aconstant
SizeSize of software development
unitsKSLOCunits of thousands of source lines of
code
Bscale factor
Software Economies and
Diseconomies of Scale

B1.0the project exhibits
economies of scale.
B1.0the economies and
diseconomies of scale are in balance.
B1.0the project exhibits
diseconomies of scale.
Previous Approaches
Original COCOMO
Organic B=1.05
Semidetached B=1.12
Embedded B=1.20
Ada COCOMO
EmbeddedCOCOMO B1.04~1.24
COCOMO II
combinCOCOMO and Ada COCOMO
ArcgitectureRisk Ada COCOMO
=>RESL
add Precedentedness (PREC) Development
Flexibility (FLEX) Team Cohesion (TEAM)

Scaling Drivers

+ =
i
w 0.01 0.91 B
Precedentedness (PREC) and
Development Flexibility (FLEX)
Feature Very Low Nominal
/ High
Extra
High
Precedentedness
Organizational understanding of product
objectives
General Considerable Thorough
Experience in working with related
software Systems
Moderate Considerable Extensive
Concurrent development of associated
new hardware and operational
procedures
Extensive Moderate Some
Need for innovative data processing
architectures, algorithms
Considerable Some Minimal
Development Flexibility
Need for software conformance with
preestablished requirements
Full Considerable Basic
Need for software conformance with
external interface specifications
Full Considerable Basic
Premium on early completion High Medium Low
Architecture / Risk
Resolution (RESL)
Team Cohesion (TEAM)
Process Maturity (PMAT)
organized aroundSoftware Engineering
Institutes Capability Maturity Model (CMM)
two ways of rating Process Maturity
CMM Maturity level
Overall Maturity Level
p CMM Level 1 (lower half)
p CMM Level 1 (upper half)
p CMM Level 2
p CMM Level 3
p CMM Level 4
p CMM Level 5
Key Process AreasKPAs
(

|
.
|

\
|


=
18
1
18
5
100
%
5
i
i
KPA
KPAs:
Adjusting Nominal Effort
Early Design Model


Post-Architecture Model
(

=
[
=
7
1
nominal adj usted
PM PM
i
i
EM
(

=
[
=
17
1
nominal adj usted
PM PM
i
i
EM
Development Schedule
Estimation
| |
100
%
) ( 67 . 3
) 01 . 1 2 . 0 28 . 0 (
SCED
PM TDEV
B
=
+
Using COCOMO II
Determining Size
Lines of Code

Function Points
Counting Procedure for
Unadjusted Function Points
1.Determine function counts by type.
2. Determine complexity-level
function counts.

Apply complexity weights.




Compute Unadjusted Function Points.

Converting Function Points to
Lines of Code
Breakage

= BRAK
% 20
100000
20000
: = ex