Some Preliminary Results Ricardo Valerdi Center for Software Engineering University of Southern California Disclaimer: Please do not distribute outside of COSYSMO Working Group. These results are very preliminary. me if you have questions or need clarification. me

Functional Size vs. SE Effort 20 data points displayed (out of a dataset of 22) Included here is “raw” unadjusted data Most points are intra-company homogeneous Project size and hours are log transformed Common differences in counting requirements and operational scenarios Breaking point may tell us something about the diseconomies of scale in Systems Engineering

Size Driver Influence on Effort # of Interfaces and # of Algorithms drivers proved to be insignificant

Life Cycle Scope of the Model From ISO/IEC15288 Most of the project data reported for COSYSMO covers the first 4 phases of the ISO lifecycle

COSYSMO Data Sources Still hopeful for: Aerospace Corp. (El Segundo, CA), BAE Systems IEWS (Nashua, NH), SAIC (McLean, VA), Boeing (Long Beach, CA), Northrop Grumman TASC (Chantilly, VA) Raytheon Intelligence & Information Systems (Garland, TX) Northrop Grumman Mission Systems (Redondo Beach, CA) Lockheed Martin Transportation & Security Solutions (Rockville, MD) Integrated Systems & Solutions (Valley Forge, PA) Systems Integration (Owego, NY) Aeronautics (Marietta, GA) Maritime Systems & Sensors (Manassas, VA) General Dynamics Maritime Digital Systems/AIS (Pittsfield, MA) Surveillance & Reconnaissance Systems/AIS (Bloomington, MN) BAE Systems National Security Solutions/ISS (San Diego, CA)

Thanks to: Gary Thomas, Raytheon John Rieff, Raytheon Garry Roedler, LMCO Jim Cain, BAE Systems Merrill Palmer, BAE Systems Paul Frenz, General Dynamics Sheri Molineaux, General Dynamics Steven Wong, Northrop Grumman

Target delivery date for COSYSMO: August 2005 We All Want This Phase To End!