COCOMO II/Tables List/Boehm Et Al

COCOMO II/Tables list/Boehm et al.

List of Tables

Preface

Table P1 Software Overrun Case Studies

Chapter 2

Table 2.1 User Function Types

Table 2.2 FP Counting Weights

Table 2.3 UFP Complexity Weights

Table 2.4 UFP to SLOC Conversion Ratios

Table 2.5 Rating Scale for Software Understanding Increment SU

Table 2.6 Rating Scale for Assessment and Assimilation Increment (AA)

Table 2.7 Rating Scale for Programmer Unfamiliarity (UNFM)

Table 2.8 Adapted Software Parameter Constraints and Guidelines

Table 2.9 Variation in Percentage of Automated Re-engineering

Table 2.10 Scale Drivers for COCOMO II Models

Table 2.11 Precedentedness Rating Levels

Table 2.12 Development Flexibility Rating Levels

Table 2.13 RESL Rating Levels

Table 2.14 TEAM Rating Components

Table 2.15 PMAT Ratings for Estimated Process Maturity Level (EPML)

Table 2.16 KPA Rating Levels

Table 2.17 RELY Cost Driver

Table 2.18 DATA Cost Driver

Table 2.19 Component Complexity Ratings Levels

Table 2.20 CPLX Cost Driver

Table 2.21 RUSE Cost Driver

Table 2.22 DOCU Cost Driver

Table 2.23 TIME Cost Driver

Table 2.24 STOR Cost Driver

Table 2.25 PVOL Cost Driver

Table 2.26 ACAP Cost Driver

Table 2.27 PCAP Cost Driver

Table 2.28 PCON Cost Driver

Table 2.29 APEX Cost Driver

Table 2.30 LTEX Cost Driver

Table 2.31 PLEX Cost Driver

Table 2.32 TOOL Cost Driver

Table 2.33 SITE Cost Driver

Table 2.34 SCED Cost Driver

Table 2.35 Early Design and Post-Architecture Effort Multipliers

Table 2.36 PERS Cost Driver

Table 2.37 RCPX Cost Driver

Table 2.38 PDIF Cost Driver

Table 2.39 PREX Cost Driver

Table 2.40 FCIL Cost Driver

Table 2.41 RELY Maintenance Cost Driver

Table 2.42 MCS Project Phase Distributions

Table 2.43 Effects of Reliability Level on MCS Life Cycle Costs

Table 2.44 Sizing Equation Symbol Descriptions

Table 2.45 Post-Architecture Model Symbol Descriptions

Table 2.46 Early Design Symbol Descriptions

Table 2.47 TDEV Equation Symbol Descriptions

Table 2.48 Scale Factors for COCOMO II Models

Table 2.49 Cost Driver Ratings for Post-Architecture Model

Table 2.50 COCOMO II.2000 Post-Architecture Calibrated values

Table 2.51 COCOMO II.2000 Early Design Calibrated values

Table 2.52 COCOMO II.1997 Post-Architecture Calibrated values

Table 2.53 Definition Checklist for Source Statements Counts

Table 2.54 Definition Checklist for Source Statements Counts (continued)

Table 2.55 Definition Checklist for Source Statements Counts (continued)

Table 2.56 Definition Checklist for Source Statements Counts (continued)

Table 2.57 Definition Checklist for Source Statements Counts (continued)

Table 2.58 COCOMO Model Comparisons

Chapter 3 Table 3.1 TPS Software Capabilities

Table 3.2 Size for Identified Functions

Table 3.3 COCOMO Model Scope

Table 3.4 Summary of WBS Estimate

Table 3.5 Scale Factor Ratings and Rationale

Table 3.6 Product Cost Driver Ratings and Rationale

Table 3.7 Platform Cost Driver Ratings and Rationale

Table 3.8 Personnel Cost Driver Ratings and Rationale

Table 3.9 Project Cost Driver Ratings and Rationale

Table 3.10 Risk Matrix

Table 3.11

Table 3.12

Table 3.13

Table 3.14

Table 3.15

Table 3.16 ARS Software Components

Table 3.17 ARS Prototype Application Elements

Table 3.18 ARS Prototype Sizes

Table 3.19 ARS Breadboard System Early Design Scale Drivers

Table 3.20 ARS Breadboard System Early Design Cost Drivers

Table 3.21 ARS Breadboard System Size Calculations

Table 3.22 ARS Full Development Scale Drivers

Table 3.23 ARS Full Development Cost Drivers (Top Level)

Table 3.24 ARS Full Development System Size Calculations

Table 3.25 Radar Unit Control Detailed Cost Drivers – Changes from Top-level

Table 3.26 Radar Item Processing Detailed Cost Drivers – Changes from Top-level

Table 3.27 Radar Database Detailed Cost Drivers – Changes from Top-level

Table 3.28 Display Manager Detailed Cost Drivers – Changes from Top-level

Table 3.29 Display Console Detailed Cost Drivers – Changes from Top-level

Table 3.30 Built In Test Detailed Cost Drivers – Changes from Top-level

Chapter 4 Table 4.1 Model Comparisons

Table 4.2 Converting Size Estimates

Table 4.3 Mode/Scale Factor Conversion Ratings

Table 4.4 Cost Drivers Conversions

Table 4.5 TURN and TOOL Adjustments

Table 4.6 Estimate Accuracy Analysis Results

Table 4.7 COCOMO II.1997 Highly Correlated Parameters

Table 4.8 Regression Run Using 1997 Dataset

Table 4.9a RUSE – Expert-determined a priori rating scale, consistent with 12 published studies

Table 4.9b RUSE – Data-determined rating scale, contradicting 12 published studies

Table 4.10 COCOMO II.1997 Values

Table 4.11 Prediction Accuracy of COCOMO II.1997

Table 4.12 COCOMO II.2000 “A-Priori” Rating Scale for Develop for Reusability (RUSE)

Table 4.13 Regression Run Using 2000 Dataset

Table 4.14 COCOMO II.2000 Values

Table 4.15 Prediction Accuracies of Bayesian A-Posteriori COCOMOII.2000

Table 4.16 Prediction Accuracies Using the Pure-Regression, the 10% Weighted-Average

Multiple-Regression and the Bayesian Based Models Calibrated Using the 1997

dataset of 83 datapoints and Validated Against 83 and 161 datapoints

Table 4.17 Calibrating the Multiplicative Constant to Project Data

Table 4.18 Regression Run: Calibrating Multiplicative Constant to Project Data

Table 4.19 Improvement in Accuracy of COCOMO II.2000 Using Locally Calibrated

Multiplicative Constant, A

Table 4.20 Prediction Accuracy of COCOMO II.2000

Table 4.21 Schedule Prediction Accuracy of COCOMO II.2000

Table 4.22 Regression Run: Calibrating Multiplicative and Exponential Constants to Project

Data

Table 4.23 Improvement in Accuracy of COCOMO II.2000 Using Locally Calibrated Constants,

A and B

Table 4.24 Consolidating Analyst Capability and Programmer Capability

Chapter 5

Table 5.1 Object Point (OP) Data [Banker et al., 1991]

Table 5.2 Application Point Estimation Accuracy on Calibration Data

Table 5.3 RVHL rating scale.

Table 5.4 RVHL multiplier values.

Table 5.5 Subjective determinants of bureaucracy.

Table 5.6 DPRS rating scale.

Table 5.7 DPRS multiplier values for each rating.

Table 5.8 CLAB contributing components.

Table 5.9 TEAM rating scale.

Table 5.10 SITE rating scale.

Table 5.12 APEX rating scale.

Table 5.13 PLEX rating scale.

Table 5.14 LTEX rating scale.

Table 5.15 PREX rating scale.

Table 5.16 CLAB rating scale.

Table 5.17 CLAB multiplier values for each rating

Table 5.18 RESL rating scale based on percentage of risks mitigated.

Table 5.19 RESL rating scale based on design thoroughness/risk elimination by PDR.

Table 5.20 RESL multiplier values for each rating.

Table 5.21 PPOS rating scale.

Table 5.22 PPOS multiplier values for each rating.

Table 5.23 PERS rating scale.

Table 5.24 PCAP rating scale.

Table 5.25 PCON rating scale.

Table 5.26 PERS rating scale for CORADMO.

Table 5.27a Multiplier ratings (best schedule compression).

Table 5.27b Results for a 32 KSLOC project (effort: 120 person-months/schedule: 12.0 months).

Table 5.27c Results for a 512 KSLOC project (effort: 2580 person-months/schedule: 34.3

months).

Table 5.28 COTS assessment attributes.

Table 5.29 Dimensions of tailoring difficulty.

Table 5.30 Final tailoring activity complexity rating scale.

Table 5.31 COTS glue code effort adjustment factors.

Table 5.32 Defect introduction drivers.

Table 5.33 Programmer Capability (PCAP) differences in defect introduction.

Table 5.34 Initial data analysis on the Defect Introduction model.

Table 5.35 The defect removal profiles.

Table 5.36 Results of 2-round Delphi exercise for defect removal fractions.

Table 5.37 Defect density results from initial Defect Removal Fraction values.

Table 5.38 CORADMO Drivers

Table 5.39

Table 5.40

Table 5.41 Rationales for the SIZE factor value over time and technologies.

Appendix A

Table A.1 COCOMO II Waterfall Milestones

Table A.2 MBASE and Rational Unified Software Development Process Milestones

Table A.3 Detailed LCO and LCA Milestone Content

Table A.4 Waterfall Phase Distribution Percentages

Table A.5 MBASE and RUP Phase Distribution Percentages

Table A.6 Inception and Transition Phase Effort and Schedule Drivers

Table A.7 Software Activity Work Breakdown Structure

Table A.8 Rational Unified Process Default Work Breakdown Structure [Royce, 1998]

Table A.9 COCOMO II MBASE/RUP Default Work Breakdown Structure

Table A.10a Plans and Requirements Activity Distribution

Table A.10b Product Design Activity Distribution

Table A.10c Programming Activity Distribution

Table A.10d Integration and Test Activity Distribution

Table A.10e Development Activity Distribution

Table A.10f Maintenance Activity Distribution

Table A.11 COCOMO II MBASE/RUP Phase and Activity Distribution Values

Table A.12 Example Staffing Estimate for MCS Construction Phase

Appendix B

Table B.1 Incremental Estimation Output

Table B.2 Incremental Effort Estimation Results

End of Tables