1. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Top Enablers and Inhibitors of Affordable Systems Supannika Koolmanojwong, Jo Ann Lane, Rachchabhorn Wongsaroj,Thammanoon Kawinfruangfukul, and Barry Boehm COCOMO Forum October 22, 2013

2. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Overview Affordability Tradespace Affordability Opportunity Tree Cost Model Parameters Reflect Tradespace Decisions Enablers and Inhibitors of the Affordable systems 2

3. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Affordability “The balance of system performance, cost, and schedule constraints over the system life cycle, while satisfying mission needs in concert with strategic and organizational needs.” Affordable system is achievable via faster engineering and less rework. 3 INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook, version 3.2.2. NDIA 8th Annual Disruptive Technologies Conference

4. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Expedited System Development Capability development schedule from concept to delivery Market window opportunity Need to balance –shortcuts, one-time solution, maintainability 4 Faster, Faster, & FASTER! We have time !!

5. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering One-time solution Everything for everyone System Flexibility Design for reuse Easily evolve in the future to meet future (unknown) needs Interoperate with future systems Need to balance –Performance issues, total ownership costs 5

6. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Untidy, poor structured Easy to maintain Technical Debt Extra works to fix under par jobs Intentional or unintentional debts Need to balance –Get it done now, Refactor later, evolutionary plan 6

7. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Affordability Tradespace Schedule Capability Flexibility Technical Debt Technical Debt Tradespace: Schedule Capability Flexibility Technical Debt Technical Debt Typical results: Schedule Capability Flexibility Tech Debt Tech Debt Desired balance:

8. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Example Framework: Affordability Opportunity Tree Eliminate Tasks (Expedite) Eliminate Scrap, Rework (Expedite, Minimize Tech Debt) Staffing, Incentivizing, Teambuilding Kaizen (continuous improvement) Work and Oversight Streamlining Collaboration Technology Early Risk and Defect Elimination Modularity Around Sources of Change Incremental, Evolutionary Development Affordability Improvements and Tradeoffs Get the Best from People (Expedite, Minimize Tech Debt) Make Tasks More Efficient (Expedite) Facilities, Support Services Tools and Automation Lean and Agile Methods Evidence-Based Decision Gates Model-Based Product Generation Value-Based, Agile Process Maturity  Risk-Based Prototyping Task Automation

9. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Example Framework: Affordability Opportunity Tree Composable Components,Services, COTS Legacy System Repurposing Risk-Based Prototyping Satisficing vs. Optimizing Performance Value-Based Capability Prioritization Affordability Improvements and Tradeoffs Simplify Products (KISS) (Expedite) Reuse Components (Expedite) Domain Engineering and Architecture Reduce Operations, Support Costs (Minimize Tech Debt) Streamline Supply Chain Design for Maintainability, Evolvability Automate Operations Elements Anticipate, Prepare for Change Value- and Architecture-Based Tradeoffs and Balancing (Longer-term investment, min Tech Debt) 

10. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Affordability Analysis with Cost Models

11. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering

12. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering

13. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Pilot Study: Data Collection Software Engineering-related Classes –60 graduate students ~ 20%: full-time employee with 2-20 years experience ~80%: Newly graduates, 0-5 years experience –59 undergraduate students 0-3 years experience (internship, co-op) Information sources –Lectures, papers, class workshops List enablers and inhibitors for –Technical Debt, Expedited Sys Development, Flexibility 13

14. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Top Enablers Expedited Sys DevelopmentFlexibilityTechnical Debt 1Rapid PrototypingReuse, Use of NDI / COTSGood/ proper documentation 2Agile/Lean ApproachesCommon Standard / Interfaces / Services Refactoring 3Reuse, Use of NDI/COTSUse OO DesignAgile / Lean Approach 4Incremental test and feedbackStrong leadership and skill empowerment Incremental test and feedback 5Strong leadership and skill empowerment Component-based designProper system architecture / foundations 6Requirements FlexibilityGood/ proper documentationPair programming 7Team CohesionUse of architectural patterns and styles Rapid Prototyping 8Tools, Automation, SimulationAgile / Lean ApproachTest-Driven Development 9Decision making authorityRequirements FlexibilityStrong leadership and skill empowerment 10Minimize set of featuresIncremental test and feedbackExplicit list of debt; Known Technical Debt inventory 14

15. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Top Enablers Expedited Sys DevelopmentFlexibilityTechnical Debt 1Rapid PrototypingReuse, Use of NDI / COTSGood/ proper documentation 2Agile/Lean ApproachesCommon Standard / Interfaces / Services Refactoring 3Reuse, Use of NDI/COTSUse OO DesignAgile / Lean Approach 4Incremental test and feedbackStrong leadership and skill empowerment Incremental test and feedback 5Strong leadership and skill empowerment Component-based designProper system architecture / foundations 6Requirements FlexibilityGood/ proper documentationPair programming 7Team CohesionUse of architectural patterns and styles Rapid Prototyping 8Tools, Automation, SimulationAgile / Lean ApproachTest-Driven Development 9Decision making authorityRequirements FlexibilityStrong leadership and skill empowerment 10Minimize set of featuresIncremental test and feedbackExplicit list of debt; Known Technical Debt inventory 15

16. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Top Enablers Expedited Sys DevelopmentFlexibilityTechnical Debt 1Rapid PrototypingReuse, Use of NDI / COTSGood/ proper documentation 2Agile/Lean ApproachesCommon Standard / Interfaces / Services Refactoring 3Reuse, Use of NDI/COTSUse OO DesignAgile / Lean Approach 4Incremental test and feedbackSkilled team membersIncremental test and feedback 5Skilled team membersComponent-based designProper system architecture / foundations 6Requirements FlexibilityGood/ proper documentationPair programming 7Team CohesionUse of architectural patterns and styles Rapid Prototyping 8Tools, Automation, SimulationAgile / Lean ApproachTest-Driven Development 9Decision making authorityRequirements FlexibilitySkilled team members 10Minimize set of featuresIncremental test and feedbackExplicit list of debt; Known Technical Debt inventory 16

17. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Common Enablers 17 Technical Debt Expedited Sys Dev System Flexibility Agile / Lean Approaches Incremental test and Feedback Skilled team members Reuse, Use of NDI / COTS Incremental test and Feedback Requirements Flexibility Incremental test and Feedback Rapid Prototyping

18. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Top Inhibitors Expedited Sys DevelopmentFlexibilityTechnical Debt 1Requirements VolatilityLack of / Poor documentation 2Inexperience team members Parallel Development 3UnprecedentednessUnrealistic expectationsBusiness Pressure 4Vague requirementsRequirements VolatilityDelayed Refactoring 5Delayed authority to proceedOrganizational impedimentsInadequate testing, lack of unified testing method 6Unrealistic expectationsTechnology immaturity/volatilityShortcuts, poor dev practices 7Technology immaturity/volatilityNot-invented-here syndrome; Need full architectural control Tight coupling code 8Lack of domain knowledge / experience Relying on Third-Party SoftwareLack of process understanding 9High number external/internal dependencies Vague requirementsInexperience team members 10Conflicting stakeholdersUnplanned/poor/inflexible architecture Unrealistic expectations 18

19. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Top Inhibitors Expedited Sys DevelopmentFlexibilityTechnical Debt 1Requirements VolatilityLack of / Poor documentation 2Inexperience team members Parallel Development 3UnprecedentednessUnrealistic expectationsBusiness Pressure 4Vague requirementsRequirements VolatilityDelayed Refactoring 5Delayed authority to proceedOrganizational impedimentsInadequate testing, lack of unified testing method 6Unrealistic expectationsTechnology immaturity/volatilityShortcuts, poor dev practices 7Technology immaturity/volatilityNot-invented-here syndrome; Need full architectural control Tight coupling code 8Lack of domain knowledge / experience Relying on Third-Party SoftwareLack of process understanding 9High number external/internal dependencies Vague requirementsInexperience team members 10Conflicting stakeholdersUnplanned/poor/inflexible architecture Unrealistic expectations 19

20. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Top Inhibitors Expedited Sys DevelopmentFlexibilityTechnical Debt 1Requirements VolatilityLack of / Poor documentation 2Inexperience team members Parallel Development 3UnprecedentednessUnrealistic expectationsBusiness Pressure 4Vague requirementsRequirements VolatilityDelayed Refactoring 5Delayed authority to proceedOrganizational impedimentsInadequate testing, lack of unified testing method 6Unrealistic expectationsTechnology immaturity/volatilityShortcuts, poor dev practices 7Technology immaturity/volatilityNot-invented-here syndrome; Need full architectural control Tight coupling code 8Lack of domain knowledge / experience Relying on Third-Party SoftwareLack of process understanding 9High number external/internal dependencies Vague requirementsInexperience team members 10Conflicting stakeholdersUnplanned/poor/inflexible architecture Unrealistic expectations 20

21. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Common Inhibitors 21 Technical Debt Expedited Sys Dev System Flexibility Inexperience Team Members Unrealistic expectations Technology Immaturity / Volatility Requirements Volatility Lack of / Poor documentation

22. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Two sides of the same coin Reuse, Use of NDI / COTS –Enable and inhibit at the same time for all three aspects Lack of documentation Enable the Expedition, but inhibit the TD management and flexibility Agile/Lean Approach –Enable the Expedition, but inhibit the TD management and flexibility 22

23. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering Conclusions High similarity of the affordability enablers from Opportunity tree, cost model, and class workshop –Get the best people –Incremental development Top inhibitors –Inexperienced people –Unrealistic expectation Wildcard –Reuse, use of COTS/ NDI –Agile/Lean –Lack of documentation 23

24. University of Southern California Center for Systems and Software Engineering References INCOSE, Systems Engineering Handbook, version 3.2.2. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). INCOSE- TP-2003-002-03.2, December 2011. Robert Neches, Engineered Resilient Systems (ERS) S&T Priority Description and Roadmap, NDIA 8th Annual Disruptive Technologies Conference, 8 November 2011 24