Se-Lecture-6.ppt

©Ian Sommerville 2000 Software Engineering, 6th edition. Chapter 23 Slide 1
Software cost estimation
 Predicting the resources
required for a software
development process

Fundamental estimation questions
 How much effort is required to complete an
activity?
 How much calendar time is needed to complete
an activity?
 What is the total cost of an activity?
 Project estimation and scheduling and interleaved
management activities

Software cost components
 Hardware and software costs
 Travel and training costs
 Effort costs (the dominant factor in most
projects)
• salaries of engineers involved in the project
• Social and insurance costs
 Effort costs must take overheads into account
• costs of building, heating, lighting
• costs of networking and communications
• costs of shared facilities (e.g library, staff restaurant, etc.)

Costing and pricing
 Estimates are made to discover the cost, to the
developer, of producing a software system
 There is not a simple relationship between the
development cost and the price charged to the
customer
 Broader organisational, economic, political and
business considerations influence the price
charged

 A measure of the rate at which individual
engineers involved in software development
produce software and associated
documentation
 Not quality-oriented although quality assurance
is a factor in productivity assessment
 Essentially, we want to measure useful
functionality produced per time unit
Programmer productivity

 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
Productivity measures

 Estimating the size of the measure
 Estimating the total number of programmer
months which have elapsed
 Estimating contractor productivity (e.g.
documentation team) and incorporating this
estimate in overall estimate
Measurement problems

 What's a line of code?
• The measure was first proposed when programs were typed on
cards with one line per card
• How does this correspond to statements as in Java which can
span several lines or where there can be several statements on
one line
 What programs should be counted as part of the
system?
 Assumes linear relationship between system
size and volume of documentation
Lines of code

 The lower level the language, the more
productive the programmer
• The same functionality takes more code to implement in a
lower-level language than in a high-level language
 The more verbose the programmer, the higher
the productivity
• Measures of productivity based on lines of code suggest that
programmers who write verbose code are more productive than
programmers who write compact code
Productivity comparisons

High and low level languages
Analysis Design Coding Validation
Low-level language
Analysis Design Coding Validation
High-level language

System development times
Analysis Design Coding Testing Documentation
Assembly code
High-level language
3 weeks
3 weeks
5 weeks
5 weeks
8 weeks
8 weeks
10weeks
6 weeks
2 weeks
2 weeks
Size Effort Productivity
Assembly code
High-level language
5000lines
1500lines
28weeks
20weeks
714 lines/month
300 lines/month

Function points
 Based on a combination of program
characteristics
• external inputs and outputs
• user interactions
• external interfaces
• files used by the system
 A weight is associated with each of these
 The function point count is computed by
multiplying each raw count by the weight and
summing all values

Function points
 Function point count modified by complexity of
the project
 FPs can be used to estimate LOC depending on
the average number of LOC 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

Object points
 Object points are an alternative function-related
measure to function points when 4Gls or similar
languages are used for development
 Object points are NOT the same as object classes
 The number of object points in a program is a
weighted estimate of
• The number of separate screens that are displayed
• The number of reports that are produced by the system
• The number of 3GL modules that must be developed to
supplement the 4GL code

Object point estimation
 Object points are easier to estimate from a
specification than function points as they are
simply concerned with screens, reports and 3GL
modules
 They can therefore be estimated at an early point
in the development process. At this stage, it is
very difficult to estimate the number of lines of
code in a system

 Real-time embedded systems, 40-160
LOC/P-month
 Systems programs , 150-400 LOC/P-month
 Commercial applications, 200-800
LOC/P-month
 In object points, productivity has been measured
between 4 and 50 object points/month depending
on tool support and developer capability
Productivity estimates

 All metrics based on volume/unit time are
flawed because they do not take quality into
account
 Productivity may generally be increased at the
cost of quality
 It is not clear how productivity/quality metrics
are related
 If change is constant then an approach based on
counting lines of code is not meaningful
Quality and productivity

Estimation techniques
 There is no simple way to make an accurate
estimate of the effort required to develop a
software system
• Initial estimates are based on inadequate information in a user
requirements definition
• The software may run on unfamiliar computers or use new
technology
• The people in the project may be unknown
 Project cost estimates may be self-fulfilling
• The estimate defines the budget and the product is adjusted to
meet the budget

Estimation techniques
 Algorithmic cost modelling
 Expert judgement
 Estimation by analogy
 Parkinson's Law
 Pricing to win

Algorithmic code modelling
 A formulaic approach based on historical cost
information and which is generally based on the
size of the software
 Discussed later in this chapter

Expert judgement
 One or more experts in both software
development and the application domain use
their experience to predict software costs.
Process iterates until some consensus is
reached.
 Advantages: Relatively cheap estimation
method. Can be accurate if experts have direct
experience of similar systems
 Disadvantages: Very inaccurate if there are no
experts!

Estimation by analogy
 The cost of a project is computed by comparing
the project to a similar project in the same
application domain
 Advantages: Accurate if project data available
 Disadvantages: Impossible if no comparable
project has been tackled. Needs systematically
maintained cost database

Parkinson's Law
 The project costs whatever resources are
available
 Advantages: No overspend
 Disadvantages: System is usually unfinished

Top-down and bottom-up estimation
 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

Top-down estimation
 Usable without knowledge of the system
architecture and the components that might be
part of the system
 Takes into account costs such as integration,
configuration management and documentation
 Can underestimate the cost of solving difficult
low-level technical problems

Bottom-up estimation
 Usable when the architecture of the system is
known and components identified
 Accurate method if the system has been designed
in detail
 May underestimate costs of system level activities
such as integration and documentation

Estimation methods
 Each method has strengths and weaknesses
 Estimation should be based on several methods
 If these do not return approximately the same
result, there is insufficient information available
 Some action should be taken to find out more in
order to make more accurate estimates
 Pricing to win is sometimes the only applicable
method

Experience-based estimates
 Estimating is primarily experience-based
 However, new methods and technologies may
make estimating based on experience inaccurate
• Object oriented rather than function-oriented development
• Client-server systems rather than mainframe systems
• Off the shelf components
• Component-based software engineering
• CASE tools and program generators

Algorithmic cost modelling
 Cost is estimated as a mathematical function of
product, project and process attributes whose
values are estimated by project managers
• Effort = A  SizeB  M
• A is an organisation-dependent constant, B reflects the
disproportionate effort for large projects and M is a multiplier
reflecting product, process and people attributes
 Most commonly used product attribute for cost
estimation is code size
 Most models are basically similar but with
different values for A, B and M

Estimation accuracy
 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

Estimate uncertainty
x
2x
4x
0.5x
0.25x
Feasibility Requirements Design Code
Delivery

The COCOMO model
 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.

COCOMO 81
Project
complexity
Formula Description
Simple PM =2.4 (KDSI)1.05  M Well-understood applications
developed by small teams.
Moderate PM =3.0 (KDSI)1.12  M More complex projects where
team members may have limited
experience of related systems.
Embedded PM =3.6 (KDSI)1.20  M Complex projects where the
software is part of a strongly
coupled complex of hardware,
software, regulations and
operational procedures.

COCOMO 2 levels
 COCOMO 2 is a 3 level model that allows
increasingly detailed estimates to be prepared as
development progresses
 Early prototyping level
• Estimates based on object points and a simple formula is used for
effort estimation
 Early design level
• Estimates based on function points that are then translated to LOC
 Post-architecture level
• Estimates based on lines of source code

Early prototyping level
 Supports prototyping projects and projects where
there is extensive reuse
 Based on standard estimates of developer
productivity in object points/month
 Takes CASE tool use into account
 Formula is
• PM = ( NOP  (1 - %reuse/100 ) ) / PROD
• PM is the effort in person-months, NOP is the number of object
points and PROD is the productivity

Object point productivity
Deve loper’s
experience and
capabilit y
Very low Low Nominal High Veryhigh
ICASE maturity and
capabilit y
Very low Low Nominal High Veryhigh
PROD (NOP/month) 4 7 13 25 50

Early design level
 Estimates can be made after the requirements
have been agreed
 Based on standard formula for algorithmic
models
• PM = A  SizeB  M + PMm where
• M = PERS  RCPX  RUSE  PDIF  PREX  FCIL  SCED
• PMm = (ASLOC  (AT/100)) / ATPROD
• A = 2.5 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

Multipliers
 Multipliers reflect the capability of the
developers, the non-functional requirements, the
familiarity with the development platform, etc.
• RCPX - product reliability and complexity
• RUSE - the reuse required
• PDIF - platform difficulty
• PREX - personnel experience
• PERS - personnel capability
• SCED - required schedule
• FCIL - the team support facilities
 PM reflects the amount of automatically
generated code

Post-architecture level
 Uses same formula as early design estimates
 Estimate of size is adjusted to take into account
• Requirements volatility. Rework required to support change
• Extent of possible reuse. Reuse is non-linear and has associated
costs so this is not a simple reduction in LOC
• ESLOC = ASLOC  (AA + SU +0.4DM + 0.3CM +0.3IM)/100
» ESLOC is equivalent number of lines of new code. ASLOC is the
number of lines of reusable code which must be modified, DM is the
percentage of design modified, CM is the percentage of the code that is
modified , IM is the percentage of the original integration effort
required for integrating the reused software.
» SU is a factor based on the cost of software understanding, AA is a
factor which reflects the initial assessment costs of deciding if software
may be reused.

 This depends on 5 scale factors (see next slide).
Their sum/100 is added to 1.01
 Example
• Precedenteness - new project - 4
• Development flexibility - no client involvement - Very high - 1
• Architecture/risk resolution - No risk analysis - V. Low - 5
• Team cohesion - new team - nominal - 3
• Process maturity - some control - nominal - 3
 Scale factor is therefore 1.17
The exponent term

Exponent scale factors
Scale factor Explanation
Precedentedness Reflects the previous experience of the organisation
with this type of project. Very low means no previous
experience, Extra high means that the organisation is
completely famili ar with this applicationdomain.
Deve lopment
flexibility
Reflects the degree of flexib ilit y in the development
process. Very low means a prescribed process is used;
Extra high means that the client only sets gene ral goals.
Architecture/risk
resolution
Reflects the extent of risk analysis carried out. Very low
means littl e analysis, Extra high means a complete a
thorough risk analysis.
Team cohesion Reflects how well the development team know e ach
other and work together. Very low means very diffi cult
interactions, Extra high means an integrated and
effective team withno communicationproblems.
Process maturity Reflects the process maturityof the organisation. The
computationof this value depends on the CMM
Maturity Questionna ire but an estimate can be achieved
by subtracting the CMM process maturity level from 5.

 Product attributes
• concerned with required characteristics of the software product
being developed
 Computer attributes
• constraints imposed on the software by the hardware platform
 Personnel attributes
• multipliers that take the experience and capabilities of the
people working on the project into account.
 Project attributes
• concerned with the particular characteristics of the software
development project
Multipliers

Project cost drivers
Product attributes
RELY Required system
reliability
DATA Size of database used
CPLX Complexity of system
modules
RUSE Required percentage of
reusable components
DOCU Extent of documentation
required
Computer attributes
TIME Execution time
constraints
STOR Memory constraints
PVOL Volatilit yof
development platform
Personnel attributes
ACAP Capability of project
analysts
PCAP Programmer capabilit y
PCON Personne l continuity AEXP Ana lyst experience inproject
domain
PEXP Programmer experience
inproject domain
LTEX Language and tool experience
Project attributes
TOOL Use of software tools SITE Extent of multi-site working
and qualit yof site
communications
SCED Deve lopment schedule
compression

Effects of cost drivers
Exponent value 1.17
System size (including factors for reuse
and requirements volatility)
128, 000 DSI
Initial COCOMO estimate without
cost drivers
730 person-months
Reliability Very high, multiplier= 1.39
Complexity Very high, multiplier= 1.3
Memory constraint High, multiplier = 1.21
Tool use Low, multiplier =1.12
Schedule Accelerated, multiplier = 1.29
AdjustedC OCOMO estimate 2306 person-months
Reliability Very low, multiplier = 0.75
Complexity Very low, multiplier = 0.75
Memory constraint None, multiplier = 1
Tool use Very high, multiplier= 0.72
Schedule Normal, multiplier = 1
AdjustedC OCOMO estimate 295 person-months

 Algorithmic cost models provide a basis for
project planning as they allow alternative
strategies to be compared
 Embedded spacecraft system
• Must be reliable
• Must minimise weight (number of chips)
• Multipliers on reliability and computer constraints > 1
 Cost components
• Target hardware
• Development platform
• Effort required
Project planning

Project duration and staffing
 As well as effort estimation, managers must
estimate the calendar time required to complete a
project and when staff will be required
 Calendar time can be estimated using a
COCOMO 2 formula
• TDEV = 3  (PM)(0.33+0.2*(B-1.01))
• PM is the effort computation and B is the exponent computed as
discussed above (B is 1 for the early prototyping model). This
computation predicts the nominal schedule for the project
 The time required is independent of the number
of people working on the project

Staffing requirements
 Staff required can’t be computed by diving the
development time by the required schedule
 The number of people working on a project varies
depending on the phase of the project
 The more people who work on the project, the
more total effort is usually required
 A very rapid build-up of people often correlates
with schedule slippage

Se-Lecture-6.ppt

More Related Content

Similar to Se-Lecture-6.ppt (20)

More from vishal choudhary (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Se-Lecture-6.ppt