1. 10/27/20151Ian Sommerville

2.  Fundamentals of software measurement, costing and pricing  Software productivity assessment  The principles of the COCOMO 2 algorithmic cost estimation model 10/27/20152

3.  Software productivity  Estimation techniques  Algorithmic cost modelling 10/27/20153Ian Sommerville

4. 1. Software Measurement Fundamentals 10/27/20154Ian Sommerville

5.  How much effort and time are required to deliver a software? Cost estimation  What is the total cost of a software? Cost estimation  What’s the productivity rate of developer x? Productivity estimation  Project estimation and scheduling are interleaved management activities. 10/27/20155Ian Sommerville

6.  Size related measures based on some output from the software process. This may be lines of delivered source code, object code instructions, etc.  Function-related measures based on an estimate of the functionality of the delivered software. Function-points are the best known of this type of measure. 10/27/20156Ian Sommerville

7.  What's a line of code (SLOC)? ◦ Problem: one statement can span several lines, several statements can be on one line.  This model assumes that there is a linear relationship between system size and volume of documentation. 10/27/20157Ian Sommerville

8.  Object points (alternatively named application points)  The number of object points in a program is a weighted estimate of e.g. ◦ The number of separate screens that are displayed; ◦ The number of reports that are produced by the system;  They can be estimated at a early point in the development process, compared with SLOC. 10/27/20158Ian Sommerville

9.  Based on a combination of program characteristics ◦ Database transactions; ◦ user interactions; ◦ external interfaces; ◦ files used by the system; ◦ communication transactions.  A weight is associated with each of these and the function point count is computed by multiplying each raw count by the weight and summing all values. 10/27/20159Ian Sommerville

10.  UFC – Unadjusted Function-point Count  You then have to adjust the count (FC) by multiplying UFC by other weights that express: ◦ Complexity of the system, ◦ Amount of reuse, ◦ Etc. 10/27/201510Ian Sommerville

11.  FPs can be used to estimate SLOC (LOC) depending on the average number of SLOC per FP for a given language ◦ LOC = AVC * number of function points; ◦ AVC is a language-dependent factor varying from 200-300 for assemble language, to 2-40 for a 4GL;  FPs are very subjective. They depend on the estimator ◦ Automatic function-point counting is impossible. 10/27/201511Ian Sommerville

12. 2. Software Productivity (we started/ finished developing the SW) 10/27/201512

13.  Two concepts: ◦ Duration or time = the amount of calendar time ◦ Effort = is the number of working hours (or months or years)  One week of effort is 40 hours, one month of effort is about 168 hours.  May have units of man-months  SW productivity = rate at which developers produce software and associated documentation. 10/27/201513

14.  Real-time embedded systems, 40-160 LOC/P-month.  Systems programs, 150-400 LOC/P-month.  Commercial applications, 200-900 LOC/P-month.  In object points, productivity has been measured between 4 and 50 object points/month depending on tool support and developer capability. 10/27/201514Ian Sommerville

15. 10/27/201515Ian Sommerville

16. 3. Software Estimation (we are in the beginning of the SW project) 10/27/201516

17.  No simple way to make an accurate estimate of the effort ◦ Initial estimates are based on incomplete requirements; ◦ May be new technology; ◦ The people in the project may be unknown.  Pricing to win.  Top-down/ bottom-up  Estimation by analogy.  Expert judgement.  Algorithmic cost modelling. 10/27/201517Ian Sommerville

18.  The project costs whatever the customer has to spend on it.  Advantages: ◦ You get the contract.  Disadvantages: ◦ The customer may not get the system he wants. 10/27/201518Ian Sommerville

19.  Any of these approaches may be used top- down or bottom-up.  Top-down ◦ Start at the system level and assess the overall system functionality and how this is delivered through sub-systems.  Bottom-up ◦ Start at the component level and estimate the effort required for each component. Add these efforts to reach a final estimate. 10/27/201519Ian Sommerville

20.  Takes into account costs such as integration and documentation.  Can underestimate the cost of solving difficult low-level technical problems. 10/27/201520Ian Sommerville

21.  This can be an accurate method if the system has been designed in detail.  It may underestimate the costs of system level activities such as integration and documentation. 10/27/201521Ian Sommerville

22.  This technique is applicable when other projects in the same application domain have been completed. The cost of a new project is estimated by analogy with these completed projects. 10/27/201522Ian Sommerville

23.  Several experts on the proposed software development techniques and the application domain are consulted. They each estimate the project cost. These estimates are compared and discussed. The estimation process iterates until an agreed estimate is reached. 10/27/201523Ian Sommerville

24.  Cost is estimated as a mathematical function of product, project and process attributes whose values are estimated by project managers: ◦ Effort = A  Size B  M ◦ A is an organisation-dependent constant, B reflects the effort for large projects and M is a multiplier reflecting product, process and people attributes.  The most commonly used product attribute for cost estimation is code size.  Most models are similar but they use different values for A, B and M. 10/27/201524Ian Sommerville

25.  An empirical model based on project experience.  Well-documented, ‘independent’ model which is not tied to a specific software vendor.  Long history from initial version published in 1981 (COCOMO-81) through various instantiations to COCOMO 2.  COCOMO 2 takes into account different approaches to software development, reuse, etc. 10/27/201525Ian Sommerville

26. 10/27/201526Ian Sommerville

27.  COCOMO 81 was developed with the assumption that a waterfall process would be used and that all software would be developed from scratch.  Since its formulation, there have been many changes in software engineering practice and COCOMO 2 is designed to accommodate different approaches to software development. 10/27/201527Ian Sommerville

28.  COCOMO 2 incorporates a range of sub-models that produce increasingly detailed software estimates.  The sub-models in COCOMO 2 are: ◦ Application composition model. Used when software is composed from existing parts. ◦ Early design model. Used when requirements are available but design has not yet started. ◦ Reuse model. Used to compute the effort of integrating reusable components. ◦ Post-architecture model. Used once the system architecture has been designed and more information about the system is available. 10/27/201528Ian Sommerville

29. 10/27/201529Ian Sommerville

30.  Supports prototyping projects and projects where there is extensive reuse.  Based on standard estimates of developer productivity in application (object) points/month.  Takes CASE tool use into account.  Formula is ◦ PM = ( NAP  (1 - %reuse/100 ) ) / PROD ◦ PM is the effort in person-months, NAP is the number of application points and PROD is the productivity. 10/27/201530Ian Sommerville

31. 10/27/201531Ian Sommerville

32.  Estimates can be made after the requirements have been agreed.  Based on a standard formula for algorithmic models ◦ PM = A  Size B  M where ◦ M = PERS  RCPX (Relblty and cmplxty)  RUSE  PDIF (pltfrm diffclty)  PREX (Psnel exp)  FCIL (fclty supprt)  SCDL ; ◦ A = 2.94 in initial calibration, Size in KLOC, B varies from 1.1 to 1.24 depending on novelty of the project, development flexibility, risk management approaches and the process maturity. 10/27/201532Ian Sommerville

33. 10/27/201533Ian Sommerville

34.  Applying COCOMO2 needs a lot of experience and accurate past project data  The organization has to calibrate the model  A few organizations adopted this model 10/27/201534Ian Sommerville

35.  The size of a software system can only be known accurately when it is finished.  Several factors influence the final size ◦ Use of COTS and components; ◦ Programming language; ◦ Distribution of system.  As the development process progresses then the size estimate becomes more accurate. 10/27/201535Ian Sommerville

36. 10/27/201536Ian Sommerville

37. 4. Software costing and pricing 10/27/201537Ian Sommerville

38.  Hardware and software costs.  Travel and training costs.  Effort costs (the dominant factor in most projects) ◦ The salaries of engineers involved in the project;  Effort costs must take into account ◦ Costs of building, heating, lighting. ◦ Costs of networking and communications. ◦ Costs of shared facilities (e.g. library, staff restaurant, etc.). 10/27/201538Ian Sommerville

39.  No simple relationship between the development cost and the price charged to the customer.  Broader organisational, economic and business considerations influence the price charged. 10/27/201539Ian Sommerville

40. 10/27/201540Ian Sommerville