Software Cost Estimation

Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 59

Chapter 23

Software Cost Estimation

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide1

Software cost estimation

Predicting the resources required


for a software development
process

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide2

Objectives

To introduce the fundamentals of software


costing and pricing
To describe three metrics for software
productivity assessment
To explain why different techniques should be
used for software estimation
To describe the COCOMO 2 algorithmic cost
estimation model

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide3

Topics covered

Productivity
Estimation techniques
Algorithmic cost modelling
Project duration and staffing

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide4

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide5

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.)

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide6

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide7

Software pricing factors

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide8

Programmer productivity

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide9

Productivity measures

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide10

Measurement problems

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide11

Lines of code

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
IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide12

Productivity comparisons

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide13

High and low level languages

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide14

System development times

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide15

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide16

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide17

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide18

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide19

Productivity estimates

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide20

Factors affecting productivity

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide21

Quality and productivity

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
IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide22

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide23

Estimation techniques

Algorithmic cost modelling


Expert judgement
Estimation by analogy
Parkinson's Law
Pricing to win

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide24

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide25

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!

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide26

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide27

Parkinson's Law

The project costs whatever resources are


available
Advantages: No overspend
Disadvantages: System is usually unfinished

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide28

Pricing to win

The project costs whatever the customer has to


spend on it
Advantages: You get the contract
Disadvantages: The probability that the
customer gets the system he or she wants is
small. Costs do not accurately reflect the work
required

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide29

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide30

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide31

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide32

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide33

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide34

Pricing to win

This approach may seem unethical and


unbusinesslike
However, when detailed information is lacking it may
be the only appropriate strategy
The project cost is agreed on the basis of an outline
proposal and the development is constrained by that
cost
A detailed specification may be negotiated or an
evolutionary approach used for system development

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide35

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide36

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide37

Estimate uncertainty

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide38

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.

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide39

COCOMO 81

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide40

COCOMO 2 levels

COCOMO 2 is a 3 level model that allows


increasingly detailed estimates to be prepared as
development progresses
Early prototyping level

Early design level

Estimates based on object points and a simple formula is used for


effort estimation
Estimates based on function points that are then translated to LOC

Post-architecture level

Estimates based on lines of source code

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide41

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide42

Object point productivity

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide43

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide44

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide45

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.

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide46

The exponent term

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide47

Exponent scale factors

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide48

Multipliers

Product attributes

Computer attributes

constraints imposed on the software by the hardware platform

Personnel attributes

concerned with required characteristics of the software product being


developed

multipliers that take the experience and capabilities of the people


working on the project into account.

Project attributes

concerned with the


development project

IanSommerville2000

particular

characteristics

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

of

the

software

Slide49

Project cost drivers

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide50

Effects of cost drivers

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide51

Project planning

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide52

Management options

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide53

Management options costs

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide54

Option choice

Option D (use more experienced staff) appears


to be the best alternative

However, it has a high associated risk as expreienced staff may


be difficult to find

Option C (upgrade memory) has a lower cost


saving but very low risk
Overall, the model reveals the importance of staff
experience in software development

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide55

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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide56

Staffing requirements

Staff required cant 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

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide57

Key points

Factors affecting productivity include individual


aptitude, domain experience, the development
project, the project size, tool support and the
working environment
Different techniques of cost estimation should be
used when estimating costs
Software may be priced to gain a contract and
the functionality adjusted to the price

IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide58

Key points

Algorithmic cost estimation is difficult because of


the need to estimate attributes of the finished
product
The COCOMO model takes project, product,
personnel and hardware attributes into account
when predicting effort required
Algorithmic cost models support quantitative option
analysis
The time to complete a project is not proportional
to the number of people working on the project
IanSommerville2000

SoftwareEngineering,6thedition.Chapter23

Slide59

You might also like