COnstructive COst MOdel (COCOMO) developed by Barry Boehm for estimation of software project

COCOMO: Basic Effort and Schedule Estimating Formulas

P1
Effort = C1 EAF (Size)
Effort = number of staff-months
EAF = product of 15 effort adjustment factors (Table B-1)
Size =
1.05
1 Organic mode: Effort = 3.2 EAF (Size)
1.12
2 Semidetached mode: Effort = 3.0 EAF (Size)
1.2
3 Embedded mode: Effort = 2.8 EAF (Size)
Table-B-1 COCOMO project characterization parameters
Identifier
1 RELY Required realibility
2 DATA Database size
3 CPLX Product complexity
4 TIME Execution time constraint
5 STOR Main storage constraint
number of delivered source instructions (in units of
thousands of line of code)
Effort Adjustment Factor - EAF
6 VIRT Virtual machine volatility
7 TURN Computer turnaround time
8 ACAP Analyst capability
9 AEXP Applications experience
10 PCAP Programmer capability
11 VEXP Virtual machine experience
12 LEXP Language experience
13 MODP Use of modern practices
14 TOOL Use of software tools
15 SCED Required development schedule
Each parameter is assessed as "very low", "low", "nominal", "high", and "very high"
ASSUMPTIONS in COCOMO formulas
1 The development life cycle starte at the beginning of product design and ends with
acceptance test at the conclusion of the integration and test phase
2 The requirements analysis effort and schedules are estimated seperately as an additional
percentage of the development estimate
3 The activities include directly charged project efforts & exclude typical overhead activities
such as; administrative support, facilities, and capital equipment
4 A staff-month consiste of 152 hours say 19 working days/month @ 8 staff-hours/working day
5 The project will be well managed
6 The project will experience stable requirements
COCOMO Life-cycle description
Phase-1 Plans and Requirements Phase
Phase-2 Product Design Phase
Phase-3 Detailed Design Phase
Phase-4 Code and Unit Test Phase
Phase-5 Integration and Test Phase
Table B-2: Effort and Schedule partition across conventional life-cycle phases
Effort % Sch. %
Plans & requirements (+)8% (+)36%
Product design 18% 36%
Detailed design 25% 18%
Code & unit test 26% 18%
Integration & test 31% 28%
COCOMO software WBS
Table B-3: Default effort allocations across COCOMO WBS activities (at top level)
Requirement analysis
Product design
Programming (incl: detailed design, coding, unit testing, & integration
Test planning
Verification & validation
Project office functions (management & administration)
Configuration management & quality assurance
Manuals
A typical COCOMO Project Profile
Example: 100,000 SLOC - Control of power plant project
Identifier
1 RELY Required realibility
2 DATA Database size
3 CPLX Product complexity
Effort Adjustment Factor - EAF
Activity
Activity
4 TIME Execution time constraint
5 STOR Main storage constraint
6 VIRT Virtual machine volatility
7 TURN Computer turnaround time
8 ACAP Analyst capability
9 AEXP Applications experience
10 PCAP Programmer capability
11 VEXP Virtual machine experience
12 LEXP Language experience
13 MODP Use of modern practices
14 TOOL Use of software tools
15 SCED Required development schedule
1.2
Effort = 2.8 EAF (K.Size) Staff months
1.2
Effort = 2.8 1.28 100
Effort = 2.8 1.28 251.19
Effort = 900 Staff months
Effort for Plans & requirements phase is + 8% of Effort=
Project Effort = 972 Staff months
0.32
Time = 2.5 (Effort) months
0.32
2.5 900 months
2.5 8.818
Time = 22.04 months
Time for Plans & requirements phase is + 36% of Time=
Project Time = 30 months
Staffing Profile and Activity Mix:
Activity Budget %
Requirement analysis 4%
Product design 12%
Programming (incl: detailed design, coding, unit testing, & integration 44%
Test planning 6%
Verification & validation 14%
Project office functions (management & administration) 7%
Configuration management & quality assurance 7%
Manuals 6%
Planned
Effort % Effort Sch. %
(+)8% 72 (+)36%
18% 162 36%
25% 225 18%
26% 234 18%
31% 279 28%
month efforts
1 9
2 9
3 9
4 9
5 9
6 9
7 9
8 9
9 20
10 20
11 20
12 20
13 20
Detailed design
Code & unit test
Integration & test
Plans & requirements
Activity
Plans & requirements
Product design
Product design
30
40
50
60
70
E
f
f
o
r
t

/

d
a
y

Staffing Profile & Activity Mix
14 20
15 20
16 20
17 57
18 57
19 57
20 57
21 59
22 59
23 59
24 59
25 45
26 45
27 45
28 45
29 45
30 45
Project END
Code & unit test
Integration & test
Detailed design
0
10
20
30
1357
E
f
f
o
r
t

/

d
a
y
COnstructive COst MOdel (COCOMO) developed by Barry Boehm for estimation of software project
1980's
P2
Time = C2 (Effort)
product of 15 effort adjustment factors (Table B-1)
0.38
Time = 2.5 (Effort)
0.35
Time = 2.5 (Effort)
0.32
Time = 2.5 (Effort)
1.87
1.23
2.36
1.66
1.56
0.94 - 1.16
0.70 - 1.65
1.00 - 1.66
1.00 - 1.56
number of delivered source instructions (in units of
thousands of line of code)
Potential
Range
0.75 - 1.40
Parameter
Range Setting
1.49
1.32
2.06
1.57
2.03
1.34
1.20
1.51
1.49
1.23
Each parameter is assessed as "very low", "low", "nominal", "high", and "very high"
The development life cycle starte at the beginning of product design and ends with
acceptance test at the conclusion of the integration and test phase
The requirements analysis effort and schedules are estimated seperately as an additional
The activities include directly charged project efforts & exclude typical overhead activities
such as; administrative support, facilities, and capital equipment
A staff-month consiste of 152 hours say 19 working days/month @ 8 staff-hours/working day
Table B-2: Effort and Schedule partition across conventional life-cycle phases
1.24 - 0.83
1.23 - 1.10
1.42 - 0.70
1.21 - 0.90
1.14 - 0.95
1.24 - 0.82
0.87 - 1.30
0.87 - 1.15
1.46 - 0.71
1.29 - 0.82
Table B-3: Default effort allocations across COCOMO WBS activities (at top level)
Budget %
4%
12%
44%
6%
14%
7%
7%
6%
1.00
1.00
1.00
normal
normal
normal
Parameter Potential
Range Range Setting
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.88
1.00
1.00
1.10
1.00
1.15
1.15
1.00
1.00
72 Staff months (refer Table B-2)
8 months
high
normal
normal
normal
low
normal
high
normal
normal
high
normal
normal
Staff-months
36
108
396
54
126
63
63
54
900 Planned
Schedule Effort/day
8 9
8 20
4 57
4 59
6 45
Staffing Profile & Activity Mix
Series1
79
1
1
1
3
1
5
1
7
1
9
2
1
2
3
2
5
2
7
2
9
Month
Ada COCOMO: Basic Effort and Schedule Estimating Formulas
based on the use of Ada process model
P
Effort = 2.8 EAF (Size)
Effort = number of staff-months
EAF = product of 19 effort adjustment factors (Table B-4)
Size =
Time =
P =
Table-B-4 Ada COCOMO improvememnts in Effort Adjustment factors
Identifier
1 RELY Required realibility
2 DATA Database size
3 CPLX Product complexity
4 RUSE Required level of reuse
5 SECU Security constraints
6 TIME Execution time constraint
7 STOR Main storage constraint
8 VIRT Virtual machine volatility
9 VMVH Host VM volatility
10 VMVT Target VM volatility
11 TURN Computer turnaround time
12 ACAP Analyst capability
13 AEXP Applications experience
14 PCAP Programmer capability
15 VEXP Virtual machine experience
number of delivered source instructions (in units of thousands
of line of code)
Effort Adjustment Factor - EAF
Total number of months
Process exponent ranged from 1.04 to 1.24
16 LEXP Language experience
17 MODP Use of modern practices
18 TOOL Use of software tools
19 SCED Required development schedule
Each parameter is assessed as "very low", "low", "nominal", "high", and "very high"
Critical strategy of the Ada process model
emphasis on the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) milestone, as per military standard
Substrategies of the Ada process model
1 Formation of core design team with expertize in software architecture & applications domain
2 An early focus on executable architechture skeltons for exposing risk
3 Build detail design walkthroughs rather than Critical Design Review (CDR) across the whole system
P (1.04 - 1.24) was defined from the combined effects of the following 4 parameters
1
2 Design thoroughness at PDR. "little thoroughness (20%)" to "complete thoroughness (100%)"
3 Risks eliminated at PDR. "little risk resolution (20%)" to "complete risk resolution (100%)"
4 Requirements volatility during development. "many large changes" to "no changes"
This corrosponds to:
1 Little familiarity with the Ada process model
2 Some design thoroughness at PDR (40%)
3 Some risks eliminated by PDR (40%)
4 Frequent but moderate requirements changes
By keeping the design team smaller, and establishing a more tangible architecture description
at PDR, the Ada process model attempted to:
1 optimize interpersonal communications
2 avoid late downstream rework
3 encouraged ealier requirements convergence
Ada process model experience from "no-familirity" with the process to "successfully employed on
multiple projects".
20
30
40
50
60
70
E
f
f
o
r
t

/

d
a
y

Staffing Profile & Activity Mix
0
10
20
1357
1985 First used to bid for defense software such as;next generation missile warning system
0.32
Time = 2.5 (Effort)
product of 19 effort adjustment factors (Table B-4)
Ada COCOMO improvememnts in Effort Adjustment factors
No change
Deleted & split into 9, & 10
New effect
number of delivered source instructions (in units of thousands
of line of code)
Ada COCOMO Potential
Range Perturbations
Changes to have +ve impact
New effect
No change
New effect
No change
Changes to have less impact
No change
New level of +ve impact
Changes to have +ve impact
Process exponent ranged from 1.04 to 1.24
Changes to have +ve impact
No change
New effect
Each parameter is assessed as "very low", "low", "nominal", "high", and "very high"
emphasis on the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) milestone, as per military standard
Formation of core design team with expertize in software architecture & applications domain
An early focus on executable architechture skeltons for exposing risk
Build detail design walkthroughs rather than Critical Design Review (CDR) across the whole system
P (1.04 - 1.24) was defined from the combined effects of the following 4 parameters
Design thoroughness at PDR. "little thoroughness (20%)" to "complete thoroughness (100%)"
Risks eliminated at PDR. "little risk resolution (20%)" to "complete risk resolution (100%)"
Requirements volatility during development. "many large changes" to "no changes"
By keeping the design team smaller, and establishing a more tangible architecture description
Ada process model experience from "no-familirity" with the process to "successfully employed on
multiple projects".
Changes to have more impact
Changes to have more impact
Changes to have less impact
New level of automation support
Staffing Profile & Activity Mix
Series1
79
1
1
1
3
1
5
1
7
1
9
2
1
2
3
2
5
2
7
2
9
Month
First used to bid for defense software such as;next generation missile warning system
Series1
COCOMO - II: is an Effort and Schedule Estimating Formulas
Objectives:
1 Provides range estimates rather than point estimates
2 Range estimates vary over the project life cycle (refer figure B-2)
3 Figure B-3 maps these models to these phases of an iterative life cycle
P
Effort = C1 EAF (Size)
Effort =number of staff-months
E Arch =product of 7 early design effort adjustment factor (Table B-5)
Size:
E App =product of 17 post architecture effort adjustment factor (Table B-6)
Size:
1 Early design model: Effort = 2.45 E Arch
2 Post-architecture model Effort = 2.5 E App
Figure: B-2 Software estimation over Project Life Cycle
number of function points (preferred) or KSLOC
number of KSLOC (preferred) or function points
Overestimated
Figure: B-3 COCOMO II estimation over a Project Life Cycle
1
2
3
4
Table B-5: Early Design Model Effort Adjustment Factors
1 Product complexity RELY-DATA-CPLX-DOCU
2 Required reuse REUSE
Well understood requirements
Well understood architecture
Prototyping Model Early Design Model
IDENTIFIER Composite Effort Adjustment Factors
Coarse inputs
Low-fedility estimates
Rough estimates
Architecture concept
Well understood project
Moderate fidelity estimates
Underestimated
Inception Elaboration
Cunstruction Elaboration Inception
3 Platform difficulty TIME-STOR-PVOL
4 Personnel experience AEMP-PEXP-LTEX
5 Personnel capability ACAP-PCAP-PCON
6 Facilities TOOL-SITE
7 Schedule SCED
Table-B-6 COCOMO II post-architecture model updates to Ada COCOMO & COCOMO
Identifier
1 RELY Required realibility
2 DATA Database size
3 CPLX Product complexity
4 RUSE Required reuse
5 DOCU Documentation
6 TIME Execution time constraint
7 STOR Main storage constraint
8 PVOL Platform volatility
9 ACAP Analyst capability
10 AEXP Applications experience
11 PCAP Programmer capability
12 PEXP Platform experience
13 PCON Personnal continuity
14 LTEX Language / Tool experience
15 SITE Multiple-site development, Team communications
16 TOOL Use of software tools
17 SCED Required development schedule
Effort Adjustment Factor - EAF
The effect of each parameter setting very-low, low, nominal, high, very-high is a multiplier
ranges from 0.5 to 1.5. The product of these 17 effects is used to compute the effort in the
cost equation.
Table B-7
COCOMO II uses the same exponent (P) for the Early-design and the Post-architecture
models. The process exponent (P) can range from 1.01 .. 1.26) and is defined as the
combined effects of the following 5 parameters
Table B-7 summarizes the parameter ratings. The actual exponent for COCOMO II is
determined by summing the effects for each parameter.
The combined impact of these process parameters can be very high (value of P is never be less than 1)
The economy of scale is achieved through corresponding reductions in size resulting from use of
commercial components, resuable components, CASE tools, and Object-oriented technologies.
Very Low
Low
(0.00) (0.01)
1 Application precedentedness
2 Process flexibility
3 Architecture risk resolution
Little 20% Some 40%
4 Team cohesion
Some
difficult
interactions
the degree of technical feasibility
demonstrated before commitment to full scale
production
Largely
unprecented
Occasional
relaxation
the degree of cooperation and shared
visonamong stakeholders (buyers,
developers, users, and maintainers, and
among others.
Thorougly
unprecented
Rigorous
the degree of domain experience of the
development organization
the degree of contractual rigor, ceremony, &
change freedom inherent in the project
contract, life-cycle activities & stakeholder
communications
Very difficult
interactions
Parameter
5 Process maturity
Level 1 Level 2
the maturity level of the development
organization by CMM
COCOMO - II: is an Effort and Schedule Estimating Formulas 1997
Provides range estimates rather than point estimates
Range estimates vary over the project life cycle (refer figure B-2)
Figure B-3 maps these models to these phases of an iterative life cycle
P
Time = C2 (Effort)
product of 7 early design effort adjustment factor (Table B-5)
product of 17 post architecture effort adjustment factor (Table B-6)
P P
(Size) Time = 2.5 (Effort)
P P
(Size) Time = 2.5 (Effort)
Figure: B-2 Software estimation over Project Life Cycle
number of function points (preferred) or KSLOC
number of KSLOC (preferred) or function points
Figure: B-3 COCOMO II estimation over a Project Life Cycle
Table B-5: Early Design Model Effort Adjustment Factors
RELY-DATA-CPLX-DOCU
Well understood requirements
Well understood architecture Stable architecture baseline
Construction Transition
Post-Architecture Model
Detailed project characterization
High fidelity estimates
Early Design Model
Composite Effort Adjustment Factors
Well understood project
Moderate fidelity estimates
Stable requirements baseline
Elaboration
Cunstruction Transition
TIME-STOR-PVOL
AEMP-PEXP-LTEX
ACAP-PCAP-PCON
COCOMO II post-architecture model updates to Ada COCOMO & COCOMO
Multiple-site development, Team communications
No change from COCOMO
Changed to include both tool & language exp.
No change from COCOMO
No change from COCOMO
Expanded platform experience
New parameter
New parameter
No change from COCOMO
Combined VMVH & VMVT of Ada COCOMO
No change from COCOMO
No change from COCOMO
No change from COCOMO
No change from Ada COCOMO
Added, suitability to PLC
No change from COCOMO
Effort Adjustment Factor - EAF COCOMO II Perturbations
No change from COCOMO
No change from COCOMO
The effect of each parameter setting very-low, low, nominal, high, very-high is a multiplier
ranges from 0.5 to 1.5. The product of these 17 effects is used to compute the effort in the
COCOMO II uses the same exponent (P) for the Early-design and the Post-architecture
models. The process exponent (P) can range from 1.01 .. 1.26) and is defined as the
Table B-7 summarizes the parameter ratings. The actual exponent for COCOMO II is
determined by summing the effects for each parameter.
The combined impact of these process parameters can be very high (value of P is never be less than 1)
The economy of scale is achieved through corresponding reductions in size resulting from use of
commercial components, resuable components, CASE tools, and Object-oriented technologies.
Nominal High Very Extra
High High
(0.02) (0.03) (0.04) (0.05)
Often 60% Generally
75%
Mostly 90% Full 100%
Basically
cooperative
Largely
cooperative
Highly
cooperative
Seemless
interactions
Generally
familiar
Largely
familiar
Thoroughly
familiar
Somewhat
unprecented
Some relaxation General
conformity
Some
conformity
General Goals
Level 2+ Level 3 Level 4 Level 5