Constructive System of Systems Integration Cost Model (COSOSIMO)******************Tutorial

Jo Ann Lane, jolane@usc.edu

USC Center for Systems & Software Engineering

http://csse.usc.edu23 October 2006

2

Overview

COSOSIMO Background

System of Systems (SoS) and SoS Engineering (SoSE) Environment

Current COSOSIMO Cost Estimation Approach

Conclusions

References

3

COCOMO Cost Model Suite Overview*

* Barry Boehm, Ricardo Valerdi, Jo Ann Lane, and Winsor Brown, “COCOMO Suite Methodology and Evolution”, CrossTalk, April 2005.

4

Analyze existing literature

Step 1 Perform Behavioral analysesStep 2 Identify relative

significance

Step 3 Perform expert-judgment Delphi assessment, formulate a-priori modelStep 4

Gather project data

Step 5

Determine Bayesian A-Posteriori modelStep 6

Gather more data; refine modelStep 7

Concurrency and feedback implied…

USC-CSE Modeling Methodology*

* Boehm, et. al., Software Cost Estimation with COCOMOII, 2000.

5

Goal of Research

Develop a cost model (COSOSIMO) to – Support the estimation of effort associated with

System-of-System Engineering (SoSE) May be performed by one or more Lead System

Integrator (LSI) organizations– Complement the other USC CSE cost models for

software development, system engineering (SE), and Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) integration, leading toward a more comprehensive and unified cost model to support the much broader system of interest life cycleCOSOSIMO will not estimate the total SoS development

costs, but rather just the SoSE costs at the SoS level…

6

History of COSOSIMO Model

Early 2003 Potential need for SoSE cost model identified

Fall/Winter 2003 Initial model developed based on software size

Fall 2004 Early design model based of SoS architecture characteristics (not software size)

Spring/Summer 2005

EIA 632-based survey conducted to determine SoSE differences from traditional systems engineering

Fall 2005 SoSE WBS analysis

Fall/Winter 2005 2-submodel version of COSOSIMO investigated

Spring/Summer 2006

SoSE-specific characteristics captured from SoSE conferences/workshops

Spring 2006 3-submodel version of COSOSIMO proposed

7

What is a “System-of-Systems”?

Very large systems developed by creating a framework or architecture to integrate component systems

SoS component systems independently developed and managed– New or existing systems– Have their own purpose– Can dynamically come and go from SoS

SoS exhibits emergent behavior not otherwise achievable by component systems

SoS activities often planned and coordinated by a Lead System Integrator (LSI)

Typical domains– Business: Enterprise-wide and cross-enterprise integration to support

core business enterprise operations across functional and geographical areas

– Military: Dynamic communications infrastructure to support operations in a constantly changing, sometimes adversarial, environment

INCOSE Handbook Definition: “Systems of Systems” are defined as an interoperating collection of component systems that produce results unachievable by the individual systems alone. (Krygiel 1999)

8

What is a “Lead System Integrator”?

Organization (or set of organizations) selected to accomplish the definition and acquisition of SoS components, and the continuing integration, test, and evolution of the components and SoS

Typical activities– Lead concurrent engineering of requirements, architecture, and plans– Identify and evaluate technologies to be integrated– Conduct source selection– Coordinate supplier activities and validate SoS architecture feasibility– Integrate and test SoS-level capabilities– Manage changes at the SoS level and across the SoS-related IPTs– Manage evolving interfaces to external systems

Typically do not develop system components to be integrated (possible exception: SoS infrastructure)

9

What is SoSE

USAF SAB Report on SoSE for Air Force Capability (USAF 2005): The process of planning, analyzing, organizing, and integrating the capabilities of a mix of existing and new systems into a system-of-systems capability that is greater than the sum of the capabilities of the constituent parts. This processes emphasizes the process of discovering, developing, and implementing standards that promote interoperability among systems developed via different sponsorship, management, and primary acquisition processes.

National Centers for Systems of Systems Engineering (NCOSOSE): The design, deployment, operation, and transformation of metasystems that must function as an integrated complex system to produce desirable results. These metasystems are themselves comprised of multiple autonomous embedded complex systems that can be diverse in technology, context, operation, geography, and conceptual frame. (http://www.eng.odu.edu/ncsose/what_is_SOSE.shtml)

10

What is SoSE (continued)

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_Systems_Engineering): SoSE is a set of developing processes and methods for designing and implementing solutions to System-of-Systems problems. SoSE is relatively new term being used in Department of Defense applications, but is increasingly being applied to non-military/security related problems (e.g. transportation, healthcare, internet, search and rescue, space exploration). SoSE is more than systems engineering of complex systems because design for System-of-Systems problems is performed under some level of uncertainty in the requirements and the constituent systems, and it involves considerations in multiple levels and domains.

SoSE and Systems Engineering are related but different fields of study. Where as systems engineering addresses the development and operations of products, SoSE addresses the development and operations of programs. In other words, traditional systems engineering seeks to optimize an individual system (i.e., the product), while SoSE seeks to optimize network of various systems brought together to meet specific program's (i.e., the SoS problem's) objectives. SoSE enables decision-makers to understand the implications of various choices; thus, SoSE methodology seeks to prepare the decision-makers for effective architecting of System-of-Systems problems.

Due to varied methodology and areas of applications in existing literature, there is no unified consensus for processes involved in System-of-Systems Engineering. One of the proposed SoSE frameworks, by Dr. Daniel A. DeLaurentis, recommends a three-phase method where a SoS problem is defined (understood), abstracted, modeled and analyzed for behavioral patterns.

11

SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities

Traditional SE Activities (EIA/ANSI 632) – Acquisition and supply

Product Supply Product Acquisition Supplier Performance

– Technical management Process Implementation Strategy Technical Effort Definition Schedule and Organization Technical Plans Work Directives Progress Against Plans and Schedules Progress Against Requirements Technical Reviews Outcomes Management Information Dissemination

– System design Acquirer Requirements Other Stakeholder Requirements System Technical Requirements Logical Solution Representations Physical Solution Representations Specified Requirements

Traditional SE Activities (continued)

– Product realization Implementation Transition to Use

– Technical evaluation Effectiveness Analysis Tradeoff Analysis Risk Analysis Requirements Statements Validation Acquirer Requirements Validation Other Stakeholder Requirements

Validation System Technical Requirements

Validation Logical Solution Representations

Validation Design Solution Verification End Product Verification Enabling Product Readiness End Products Validation

12

SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities (continued)

Key Areas Where SoSE Activities Differ From Traditional Systems Engineering – Architecting composability vs. decomposition (Meilich

2006)– Added “ilities” such as flexibility, adaptability, composability

(USAF 2005)– Net-friendly vs. hierarchical (Meilich 2006)– First order tradeoffs above the component systems level

(e.g., optimization at the SoS level, instead of at the component system level) (Garber 2006)

– Early tradeoffs/evaluations of alternatives (Finley 2006)– Human as part of the SoS (Siel 2006, Meilich 2006, USAF

2005)– Discovery and application of convergence protocols (USAF

2005)

13

SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities (continued)

Key Areas Where SoSE Activities Differ From Traditional Systems Engineering (continued)

– Organizational scope defined at runtime instead of at system development time (Meilich 2006)

– Dynamic reconfiguration of architecture as needs change (USAF 2005)

– Modeling and simulation, in particular to better understand “emergent behaviors” (Finley 2006)

– Component systems separately acquired and continue to be managed as independent systems (USAF 2005)

– Intense concept phase analysis followed by continuous anticipation; aided by ongoing experimentation (USAF 2005)

14

SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities (continued)

Key Challenges for SoSE– Business model and incentives to encourage working

together at the SoS level (Garber 2006)– Doing the necessary tradeoffs at the SoS level (Garber

2006)– Human-system integration (Siel 2006, Meilich 2006)– Commonality of data, architecture, and business strategies

at the SoS level (Pair 2006)– Removing multiple decision making layers (Pair 2006)– Requiring accountability at the enterprise level (Pair 2006)– Evolution management (Meilich 2006)– Maturity of technology (Finley 2006)

For the most part, SoSE appears to be SE+

15

Sample Dynamic SoS:Metropolitan Area Crisis Management System

Net - Centric SoS Net-CentricConnectivity

16

Sample “Steady-State” SoS: Enterprise Wide Integration of Core Business Applications

Supplier 1 Supplier n

•••

•••

Net-CentricConnectivity

Net-CentricConnectivity

Net-CentricConnectivity

• • •

17

System of Systems Cost Estimation

SOS

SmS2 (SoS)S1

S11 S12 S1n S21 S22 S2n Sm1 Sm2 Smn

……

…… …… ……

Level 0

Level 1

Level 2

Activity Levels Cost Model

SoS Lead System Integrator Effort (SoS scoping, planning, requirements, architecting; source selection; teambuilding, re-architecting, feasibility assurance with selected suppliers; incremental acquisition management; SoS integration and test; transition planning, preparation, and execution; and continuous change, risk, and opportunity management)

Level 0, and other levels if lower level systems components are also SoSs (e.g., S2)

COSOSIMO

Development of SoS Software-Intensive Infrastructure and Integration Tools Level 0 COCOMO II

System Engineering for SoS Components Levels 1-n COSYSMO

Software Development for Software-Intensive Components Levels 1-n COCOMO II

COTS Assessment and Integration for COTS-based Components Levels 1-n COCOTS

18

System of Systems Cost Model

Size Drivers

Cost Drivers

SoSDefinition andIntegrationEffort

Calibration

COSOSIMO

Characteristics of SoSs supported by cost model– Strategically-oriented stakeholders interested in tradeoffs and costs– Long-range architectural vision for SoS– Developed and integrated by an LSI– System component independence

Size drivers and cost drivers– Based on product characteristics, processes that impact LSI effort,

and LSI personnel experience and capabilities

19

Proposed Size Drivers

Number of SoS-related requirements Number of of distinct interface protocols to be provided by the SoS

framework Number of independent system component organizations that are providing

system components that will operate within the SoS framework Number of SoS user scenarios Number of unique component systems

S1

S2

S3

S4Each weighted by complexity…

20

Conceptual LSI Effort Profile

Planning, Requirements Management, and Architecting

Source Selection and Supplier Oversight

SoS Integration and Testing

Inception Elaboration Construction Transition

• LSI activities focus on three somewhat independent activities, performed by relatively independent teams

• A given LSI may be responsible for one, two, or all activity areas• Some SoS programs may have more than one organization performing LSI

activities

21

Planning, Requirements Management,

and Architecting (PRA)

Source Selection and Supplier

Oversight (SO)

SoS Integrationand Testing

(I&T)

Size Drivers

Cost Drivers

SoSDefinition andIntegrationEffort

COSOSIMO Reduced Parameter Sub-Model Overview

22

Planning, Requirements Management,

and Architecting

Size Drivers• # SoS-related requirements• # SoS interface protocols

Cost Drivers• Requirements understanding• Level of service requirements• Stakeholder team cohesion• SoS team capability• Maturity of LSI processes• Tool support• Cost/schedule compatibility• SoS risk resolution

COSOSIMO: PRA Sub-Model

LSI PRAEffort

23

COSOSIMO PRA Effort Estimation

m n

SoS PRAPM = APRA[ CREQi + CIPj]BPRA

i=1 j=1Where:

PRAPM LSI Planning, Requirements Management, and Analysis effort in person-

monthsAPRA Constant derived from PRA historical dataCREQi Complexity factor associated with the ith SoS requirement

CIPj Complexity factor associated with the jth SoS interface protocol

m Number of SoS-related “sea-level” requirementsn Number of interface protocols supported by the SoS architectureBPRA Effort exponent based on the PRA exponential scale factors. The geometric

product of the scale factors results in an overall exponential effort adjustment factor to the nominal PRA effort

24

Source Selection and

Supplier Oversight

Size Drivers• # independent component

system organizations

Cost Drivers• Requirements understanding• Architecture maturity• Level of service requirements• SoS team capability• Maturity of LSI processes• Tool support• Cost/schedule compatibility• SoS risk resolution

COSOSIMO: SO Sub-Model

LSI SOEffort

25

COSOSIMO SO Effort Estimation

n

SoS SOPM = ASO[ CSCOj]BSO

j=1Where:

SOPM LSI Source Selection and Supplier Oversight effort in person-months

ASO Constant derived from SO historical dataCSCOj Complexity factor associated with the jth SoS component system organization

n Number of organizations providing independently developed and maintained system components for the SoS

BSO Effort exponent based on the SoS SO exponential scale factors. The geometric product of the scale factors results in an overall exponential effort adjustment factor to the nominal SO effort

26

SoS Integrationand Testing

Size Drivers• # SoS interface protocols• # SoS scenarios• # unique component systems

Cost Drivers• Requirements understanding• Architecture maturity• Level of service requirements• SoS team capability• Maturity of LSI processes• Tool support• Cost/schedule compatibility• SoS risk resolution• Component system maturity and

stability• Component system readiness

COSOSIMO: I&T Sub-Model

LSI I&TEffort

27

COSOSIMO I&T Effort Estimation

q r s

SoS I&TPM = AI&T[ CIPi + CSCENj + CSCOk]BI&T

i=1 j=1 k=1Where:

I&TPM LSI Integration and Test effort in person-months

AI&T Constant derived from I&T historical dataCIPi Complexity factor associated with the ith SoS interface protocol

CSCENj Complexity factor associated with the jth SoS interface protocolCSCOk Complexity factor associated with the kth SoS component system organization

q Number of interface protocols supported by the SoS architecturer Number of SoS scenarioss Number of organizations providing independently developed and maintained

system components for the SoSBI&T Effort exponent based on the I&T exponential scale factors. The geometric

product of the scale factors results in an overall exponential effort adjustment factor to the nominal I&T effort

28

COSOSIMO Total SoSE Effort Estimation

SoSEPM = PRAPM + SOPM + I&TPM

Where:

PRAPM LSI Planning, Requirements Management, and Analysis effort in person-

months

SOPM LSI Source Selection and Supplier Oversight effort in person-months

I&TPM LSI Integration and Test effort in person-months

29

SoS Schedule Estimation

Customer,Users

LSI – Agile

LSI IPTs – Agile

Suppliers – Agile

Suppliers – PD – V&V

LSI – Integrators

RFP, SOW, Evaluations, ContractingEffort/Staff

Proposals

Similar, withadded change

traffic fromusers…

Ass

ess

co

mpati

bili

ty,

short

-fa

lls

Rew

ork

LC

O

LC

APack

ages

at

all

levels

COSOSIMO-like

Assess sources of change;

Negotiate rebaselined

LCA2 package at all levels

COSOSIMO-like

Similar, withadded re-

baselineing risks and rework…

InceptionElaboration

Source SoS Selection Architecting

Increment 1 Increments 2,… n

Develop to spec, V&V

CORADMO-like

Degree of Completeness

risks, rework

Proposal Feasibility

LCO LCA

LCA1

IOC1

Effort/staffat all levels

risks, rework

Risk-manage slow-

performer, completenes

s

risks, rework

Integrate

COSOSIMO-like

LCA2 shortfalls

risks, rework

Effort COSYSMO-like.

Schedule = Effort/Staff

Try to model ideal staff size

LCA2

30

Conclusions

Traditional systems engineering takes too long and too much effort LSIs are finding better ways to engineering SoSs (SoSE) Many combine agile with traditional approaches

– Increases concurrency– Reduces risk– Compresses schedules

Reduced-parameter set COSOSIMO captures effects of new processes in three key areas– Planning, requirements management, and architecting– Source selection and supplier oversight– SoS integration and testing

Sub-models have fewer parameters that are more tailored to associated SoSE activities

Allows LSIs to estimate areas of interest and conduct “what ifs” comparisons of different development strategies

31

Conclusions (continued)

With the addition of a new COSOSIMO cost model to existing cost model tools, it will be possible to get more complete estimates of the SoS development effort

Key to this process is – Having an SoS architecture sufficiently defined so that component

system modifications to support operation in the SoS environment can be made with few dependencies on other SoS development efforts

– Structuring the WBS so that SoS and component system tasks can be decomposed into parts

that can be estimated using the existing cost model tools Parts not covered by cost models can be clearly identified and

estimated using non-parametric methods Expected COSOSIMO availability: Fall 2007

“All models are wrong, but some of them are useful” (W. E. Deming)

32

What is Needed to Support Fall 2007 Availability

Participation in current SoSE surveys Data from both SoS and SE programs

– Process descriptions to help understand the differences between SoSE and SE

– Effort data to calibrate COSOSIMO (either standalone model or special calibration of COSYSMO)

For those organizations that provide SoSE effort from at least 3 SoS projects,

a local calibration will be provided…

33

COSOSIMO-Related References

Boehm, B., et al. (2000); Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II; Prentice HallBoehm,B., Valerdi, R., Lane, J., and Brown, W. (2005); COCOMO Suite Methodology and

Evolution; CrossTalk, Vol. 18, No. 5 (pp. 20-25)Boehm, B., and J. Lane (2006); “21st Century Processes for Acquiring 21st Century

Systems of Systems; CrossTalk Vol. 19, No. 5 (pp. 4-9)Lane, J. (2005); System of Systems Lead System Integrators: Where do They Spend

Their Time and What Makes them More/Less Efficient; USC-CSE-TR-2005-508Lane, J. (2005); Factors Influencing System-of-Systems Architecting and Integration

Costs; Conference on Systems Engineering Research Lane, J (2006); COSOSIMO Parameter Definitions, USC-CSE-TR-2006-606Lane, J and Boehm, B. (2006); Synthesis of Existing Cost Models to Meet System of

Systems Needs; Conference on Systems Engineering ResearchLane, J and Boehm, B. (2006); System-of-Systems Cost Estimation: Analysis of Lead

System Integrator Engineering Activities; InterSymposium Symposium on Information Systems Research and Systems Approach

Lane, J and Valerdi, R (2005); Synthesizing SoS Concepts for Use in Cost Estimation; IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics

34

SoSE-Related References

Carlock, P.G., and R.E. Fenton, "System of Systems (SoS) Enterprise Systems for Information-Intensive Organizations," Systems Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 242-261, 2001

DiMario, Mike (2006); “System of Systems Characteristics and Interoperability in Joint Command Control”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering Conference

Electronic Industries Alliance (1999); EIA Standard 632: Processes for Engineering a SystemFinley, James (2006); “Keynote Address”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering

Conference Garber, Vitalij (2006); “Keynote Presentation”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems

Engineering ConferenceINCOSE (2006); Systems Engineering Handbook, Version 3, INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03Krygiel, A. (1999); Behind the Wizard’s Curtain; CCRP Publication Series, July, 1999, p. 33Maier, M. (1998); “Architecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems”; Systems Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 4 (pp

267-284)Meilich, Abe (2006); “System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) and Architecture Challenges in a Net Centric

Environment”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering ConferencePair, Major General Carlos (2006); “Keynote Presentation”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of

Systems Engineering Conference Proceedings of AFOSR SoSE Workshop, Sponsored by Purdue University, 17-18 May 2006Proceedings of Society for Design and Process Science 9th World Conference on Integrated Design and

Process Technology, San Diego, CA, 25-30 June 2006Siel, Carl (2006); “Keynote Presentation”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual System of Systems Engineering

ConferenceUnited States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (2005); Report on System-of-Systems Engineering for Air

Force Capability Development; Public Release SAB-TR-05-04