System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) Cost Estimation Jo Ann Lane jolane at usc.edu Presented by...
-
date post
20-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of System of Systems Engineering (SoSE) Cost Estimation Jo Ann Lane jolane at usc.edu Presented by...
System of SystemsEngineering (SoSE) Cost Estimation
Jo Ann Lanejolane at usc.edu
Presented by Marilee Wheaton
November 2010
2
Overview
Key definitionsCurrent SE cost model capabilitiesExtensions for complex systemsExtensions for SoSsAlternatives for “# of requirements” size driverUsing SoSE cost model to evaluate alternativesSummary
3
Net-Centric SoS Net-CentricConnectivity
What is a “System of Systems”?
Very large systems using a framework or architecture to integrate constituent systems Exhibits emergent behavior not otherwise achievable by constituent systemsSoS constituent systems (CS)
• Independently developed and managed• New or existing systems in various stages• May include multiple COTS products• Have their own purpose• Can dynamically come and go from SoS
Typical domains• Business: Enterprise-wide and cross-enterprise
integrations• Military/Crisis Response: Dynamic
communications infrastructure
Based on Mark Maier’s SoS definition [Maier, 1998]
Laboratory System
Imaging Management System
PharmacySystem
PatientManagementSystem
TelemetrySystem
Health Care Network
SoS SE Taxonomy in Order of Increasing Authority and Responsibility
Virtual [Maier, 1998]• Ad hoc
Collaborative [Maier, 1998]• No formal management at SoS level
Acknowledged [Dahmann, 2008]• SoS SE team to guide SoS SE efforts
Directed [Maier, 2008]• SoS SE efforts managed through formal
mechanisms
Net- Centric SoS Net-CentricConnectivity
Laboratory System
Imaging Management System
PharmacySystem
PatientManagementSystem
TelemetrySystem
Health Care Network
Internet
Future Combat Systems
5
SourceSelection
● ● ●
ValuationExploration Architecting Develop Operation
ValuationExploration Architecting Develop Operation
ValuationExploration Architecting Develop Operation
OperationDevelop Operation Operation Operation
System A
System B
System C
System x
LCO-typeProposal &Feasibility Info
Candidate Supplier/ Strategic Partner n
● ●●
Candidate Supplier/Strategic Partner 1
SoS-Level ValuationExploration Architecting Develop
FCR1 DCR1
Operation
OCR1
Rebaseline/Adjustment FCR1 OCR2
OCRx1
FCRB DCRB OCRB1
FCRA DCRA
FCRC DCRC OCRC1
OCRx2 OCRx3 OCRx4 OCRx5
OCRC2
OCRB2
OCRA1
Example: SoSE (Directed)
6
SourceSelection?Existing collaborative SoS?
● ● ●
ValuationExploration Architecting Develop Operation
ValuationExploration Architecting Develop Operation
ValuationExploration Architecting Develop Operation
OperationDevelop Operation Operation Operation
System A
System B
System C
System x
Candidate Supplier/ Strategic Partner n
● ●●
Candidate Supplier/Strategic Partner 1
SoS-Level ValuationExploration Architecting Develop
FCR1 DCR1
Operation
OCR1
Rebaseline/Adjustment FCR1 OCR2
OCRx1
FCRB DCRB OCRB1
FCRA DCRA
FCRC DCRC OCRC1
OCRx2 OCRx3 OCRx4 OCRx5
OCRC2
OCRB2
OCRA1
Example: SoSE (Acknowledged)
7
● ● ●
ValuationExploration Architecting Develop Operation
ValuationExploration Architecting Develop Operation
ValuationExploration Architecting Develop Operation
OperationDevelop Operation Operation Operation
System A
System B
System C
System x
SoS-Level ValuationExploration Architecting Develop
FCR1 DCR1
Operation
OCR1
Rebaseline/Adjustment FCR1 OCR2
OCRx1
FCRB DCRB OCRB1
FCRA DCRA
FCRC DCRC OCRC1
OCRx2 OCRx3 OCRx4 OCRx5
OCRC2
OCRB2
OCRA1
Example: SoSE (Collaborative)X
8
Translating capability objectives Translating capability objectives
Translating capability objectives
Addressing new requirements & options
Addressing new requirements & options
Addressingrequirements & solution options
Understanding systems & relationships(includes plans)
Understanding systems & relationships(includes plans)
Understanding systems & relationships
External Environment
Developing, evolving and maintaining SoS design/arch
Developing, evolving and maintaining SoS design/arch
Developing& evolvingSoS architecture
Assessing (actual) performance to capability objectives
Assessing (actual) performance to capability objectives
Assessing performance to capability objectives
Orchestrating upgrades to SoS
Orchestrating upgrades to SoS
Orchestrating upgrades to SoS
Monitoring & assessing changes
Monitoring & assessing changes
Monitoring & assessing changes
Traditional SE and SoSE Activities
Traditional SE (Defense Acquisition Guide [DoD, 2006] View)
SoSE (SoS SE Guidebook View Based onInterviews and Analysis of 18 DoD SoSs in Various Stages)
9
SoSE Compared to Traditional SE Activities: Key Challenges for SoSE
People Challenges• Business model and incentives to encourage working together at the
SoS level• Removing multiple decision making layers • Requiring accountability at the enterprise level
Process Challenges• Determining what to manage and what to leave to the CSs• Doing the necessary tradeoffs at the SoS level • Human-system integration
Technical Challenges• Commonality of data, architecture, and business strategies at the
SoS level• Evolution management • Maturity of technology
10
COCOMO Cost Model Suite Overview*
* Barry Boehm, Ricardo Valerdi, Jo Ann Lane, and Winsor Brown, “COCOMO Suite Methodology and Evolution”, CrossTalk, April 2005.
11
SoSE Cost Model Background
Early attempts to develop a “directed” SoS cost model were not successful
• Seldom start with greenfield development• Not enough directed SoSs to calibrate a cost model
SoS cost model needs• Cost estimation associated with a new capability• Cost tradeoffs to support decisions
• Example: Migrate collaborative SoS to an acknowledged SoS
12
Size Drivers
Cost DriversSEEffort
Calibration
• Number of requirements• Number of interfaces • Number of algorithms• Number of operational
scenarios
• 8 Application factors• 6 Team factors• Schedule driver
COSYSMO
Current Systems Engineering Cost Model *Capabilities
Prediction AccuracyAcademic version
• Single system cost model calibrated with data from multiple organizations:
PRED(30)=75% Local calibration versions
• Anecdotal evidence: PRED(30)=85%
* COSYSMO [Valerdi, 2005]
General Form of General Form of academicacademicCOSYSMO EquationCOSYSMO Equation Effort (person months) = [38.55 * EM * (size)1.06] / 152
where • 38.55 and 1.06 are the academicCOSYSMO calibration factors• EM is computed from cost drivers
13
COSYSMO Limitations for Complex Systems and SoSs
Limitations for complex systems and SoS• Single set of cost drivers for system does not support
definition of multiple components with different characterizations
Additional limitations for SoS• Does not address constituent system oversight effort
at SoS level • Does not address constituent system engineering
contributions to SoSE
14
Modifications for Complex Systems
Additional modifications• The academic calibration constants can be adjusted to provide more
accurate estimates by performing a local calibration• Reuse factors [Wang et al., 2008] can be added for each component
Effort (person months) = 38.55*∑EMi*(parti size/total size)*(total size)1.06/152where
38.55 and 1.06 are the academicCOSYSMO calibration factors
i ranges from 1 to the number of components within the complex system
15
Extensions for SoSs
16
Systems Engineering Requirements Categoriesfor SoSE in an Acknowledged SoS
Requirements related to SoS capabilities• Initially engineered at SoS level by SoSE team with support from
constituent system engineers for those systems impacted by the SoS capability, then allocated to constituent systems for further SE
Non-SoS requirements related to constituent system stakeholder needs• Must be monitored by SoSE team to identify changes that might
adversely impact SoS• Represents on-going volatility at the constituent system level that
is occurring in parallel with SoS capability changes
17
Key SoSE Characteristics Used to Develop COSYSMO SoS Extensions
SoSE sub-model• SoSE oversight of constituents can be characterized by using the appropriate
COSYSMO reuse factor• Other non-traditional SE activities performed by SoSE team can be handled
through COSYSMO cost factors• Two types of requirements (SoS and constituent system non-SoS requirements)
modeled together using different effort multipliers for each set*
Constituent system sub-model• Each constituent system within the SoS is independently owned and managed• Constituent system SE effort to support the SoSE team can be characterized by
including extra design effort for the SoS requirements• Two types of requirements (SoS and constituent system non-SoS requirements)
modeled together using different effort multipliers for each set or component*
* Use of multiple effort multipliers allows one to model the diseconomy of scale as the SoS becomes larger through the integration of components with different characteristics....
18
SoS Effort Calculations
SoSE Effort
SoSE Effort = 38.55*[((SoSCR/SoSTreq)*(SoSTreq)1.06 *EMSoS-CR)+ ((SoSMR/SoSTreq)*(SoSTreq)1.06 * EMSoS-MR)/152]
Where:
Total SoSE requirements = SoS Capability Requirements + SoS “Monitored” Requirements
SoS “monitored” reqs = [∑SE non-SoS requirements being addressed current upgrade cycles for all SoS constituent systems] * “Oversight Factor”
“Oversight Factor” = 5% , 10%, 15% (these values are based on the COSYSMO reuse work and expert judgment from various CSSE affiliates and the SoS SE Guidebook team)
SoS capability effort
Oversight of CSs
19
SoSE Effort Multiplier Example
2.50
20
Example Effort Multiplier for SoSE Monitoring of CS Requirements
0.47
21
SoS Effort Calculations (continued)
Single Constituent System Effort
Total single system reqsw-SoSE = SoS requirements allocated to system + SE reqs in upgrade cycle
Single system SE Effort in an Acknowledged SoS
= 38.55*[1.15*( (SoSCSalloc / CSTreqSoSE)*( CSTreqSoSE)1.06* EMCS-CRwSOSE) +
(CSnonSoS / CSTreqSoSE)*( CSTreqSoSE)1.06* EMCSnonSOS] /152
Computed for each constituent system in the SoS...Approach is recursive:
Can also model each constituent system as a complex system or SoS...
SoS capability effort
Constituent system upgrade effort
CS “tax” to support SoSE team
22
Total SoS SE Effort
• SoS effort includes • SoS capability effort and • Constituent system non-SoS effort associated with single system
enhancements• To compute SoS capability effort, subtract out the total constituent
system non-SoS effort • Approach incorporates the diseconomy of scale at the constituent
system level associated with the additional SoS capability requirements
SoS effort = SoSE effort + ∑ constituent system efforti
where i ranges from 1 to the number of constituent systems within the SoS
Using Alternative Size Drivers
SoSE Cost Model: Alternative Size Drivers
24
Size Drivers
Cost Factors
Estimated EngineeringEffort
Calibration
• Number of System Requirements• Number of System Interfaces• Number of Algorithms• Number of Operational Scenarios
• People characteristics• Process characteristics• Product characteristics
COSYSMO
SoSE Capability Effort Calculation Using Alternative Size Drivers
Constituent system (CS) effort depends upon • SoS alternative selected• CSi effort depends upon types of changes required for CSi
• New interface(s)/interface change(s)• Internal algorithm change(s)/data conversions
Size driver options• Number of requirements • Number of algorithms• Number of interfaces • Number of operational scenarios
Each size driver characterized with respect to complexityAll size drivers converted to equivalent # of nominal reqs
25
SoS effort = SoSE effort + ∑ constituent system efforti
SoSE Estimation Steps for New Capability
1. Understand/review current CS capabilities2. Identify new capability alternatives3. For each alternative, identify
• CSs that contribute to each alternative• For each contributing CS, changes needed to support alternative
• New interfaces/interface change(s)• Data element/algorithm change(s)• Capability size count(s) and associated complexity of each
4. Conduct alternative tradeoffs and finalize cost estimate for selected alternative
5. Identify CS changes required for desired architecture enhancements
6. Calculate COSYSMO effort multipliers at SoS and CS levels7. Calculate SoSE effort for alternative
26
SoSE Estimation Steps for New Capability: Focus of Discussion
1. Understand/review current CS capabilities2. Identify new capability alternatives3. For each alternative, identify
• CSs that contribute to each alternative• For each contributing CS, changes needed to support alternative
• New interfaces/interface change(s)• Data element/algorithm change(s)• Capability size count(s) and associated complexity of each
4. Conduct alternative tradeoffs and finalize cost estimate for selected alternative
5. Identify CS changes required for desired architecture enhancements
6. Calculate COSYSMO effort multipliers at SoS and CS levels7. Calculate SoSE effort for alternative
27
Primary SoS Core Elements Determining SoSE Size Drivers
28
SoS: A set or arrangement of systems that results when independent and useful systems are integrated into a larger system that delivers unique capabilities
SysML Models for Characterizing SoS/SoS Capabilities
Use cases• Characterize both CS and
SoS capabilities from the different user perspectives
Sequence diagrams• Characterize and analyze
the operational flow for an SoS capability
Object blocks• Characterize each SoS CS
and its capabilities
Interface classes• Describe each CS interface
Input/output entity classes• Express the associated data
attributes of each data item transferred over that interface
• May include units, coordinate system, reference frame, source algorithm, etc.
29
Example SoS: Regional Area Crisis Response SoS (RACRS)
30Command Control Center (CCC) Context Diagram
Mission Scenarios: Use Cases and Sequence Diagrams
CCC Interface Class andEvacuate Area I/O Entities by Actor
Using SoSE Cost Model to Evaluate Alternatives: Collaborative vs. Acknowledged SoS
34
Systems Engineering Requirements Categories
Requirements related to SoS capabilitiesa) Acknowledged SoS: Initially engineered at SoS level by SoSE team with
support from CS engineers for those systems impacted by the SoS capability, then allocated to CSs for further SE
b) Collaborative SoS: Not engineered at the SoS level, but must be engineered fully at the CS level through collaborative efforts with other CS engineers
Non-SoS requirements related to CS stakeholder needs• Must be monitored by SoSE team to identify changes that might
adversely impact SoS• Represents on-going volatility at the CS level that is occurring in
parallel with SoS capability changes
35
System Capability
Effort for a “collaborative”SoS
Effort using an “acknowledged” SoSE teamEquivalent
set of “sea-level” requirements
Conversion to COSYSMO size units
Calculations based on SoS characteristics/size and capability implementation approach using COSYSMO algorithm
Overview of SoSE Comparative Model
36
Summary of Comparative Model Effort Multipliers
EM Value* Modified Cost ParametersSoSE effort 2.50 Requirements understanding (low)
Level of service requirements (high)# of recursive levels in the design (high)Multisite coordination (low)
SoSE monitoring of CS Reqs 0.47 Technology risk (very low)Documentation (very low)Personnel/team capability (high)
Capability SE at CS level with SoSE Support 1.06 Architecture understanding (high)Level of service requirements (high)
Capability SE at CS level without SoSE Support
1.79 Requirements understanding (low)Level of service requirements (high)
SE of non-SoS reqs 0.72 Architecture understanding (high)# of recursive levels in the design (low)
* Default value: 1.0 (all cost parameters set to nominal)
37
SoSE Effort Calculations
SoSE Effort = 38.55*[((SoSCR/SoSTreq)*(SoSTreq)1.06 *EMSoS-CR)+ ((SoSMR/SoSTreq)*(SoSTreq)1.06 * EMSoS-MR)/152]
Where:
Total SoSE requirements = SoS Capability Requirements + SoS “Monitored” Requirements
SoS “monitored” reqs = [∑SE non-SoS requirements being addressed current upgrade cycles for all SoS constituent systems] * “Oversight Factor”
“Oversight Factor” = 5% , 10%, 15% (these values are based on the COSYSMO reuse work and expert judgment from various CSSE affiliates and the SoS SE Guidebook team)
SoS capability effort
Oversight of CSs
38
Single CS Effort Calculation (Acknowledged)
Total single system reqsw-SoSE = SoS requirements allocated to system + SE reqs in upgrade cycle
Effort = 38.55*[1.15*( (SoSCSalloc / CSTreqSoSE)*( CSTreqSoSE)1.06* EMCS-CRwSOSE) + (CSnonSoS / CSTreqSoSE)*( CSTreqSoSE)1.06* EMCSnonSOS] /152
SoS capability effort
CS upgrade effort
CS “tax” to support SoSE team
39
Total SoS SE Effort (Acknowledged)
• SoS effort includes • SoS capability effort and • CS non-SoS effort associated with single system enhancements
• Approach incorporates the diseconomy of scale at the CS level associated with the additional SoS capability requirements
SoS effort = SoSE effort + ∑ CS efforti
where i ranges from 1 to the number of CSs within the SoS
40
Single CS Effort Calculation (Collaborative)
Total single system reqsw-SoSE = SoS requirements + SE reqs in upgrade cycle
Effort = 38.55*[( (SoSCR / CSTreqwoSoSE)*( CSTreqwoSoSE)1.06* EMCS-CRnSoSE) + (CSnonSoS / CSTreqwoSoSE)*( CSTreqwoSoSE)1.06* EMCSnonSOS] /152
SoS capability effort w/o SoSE support
CS upgrade effort
41
Range of SoS Complexity Factor Values
SoSE Model Parameter
Description Range of Values
SoS Size Number of constituent systems within the SoS
2-200
SoS Capability Size Number of equivalent nominal requirements as defined by COSYSMO
1-1000
Constituent System Volatility
Number of non-SoS changes being implemented in each constituent system in parallel with SoS capability changes
0-2000
Scope of SoS Capability
Number of constituent systems that must be changed to support capability
One to SoS Size (total number of constituents systems within the SoS)
SoSE Oversight Factor Oversight adjustment factor to capture SoSE effort associated with monitoring constituent system non-SoS changes
5%, 10%, and 15%
42
Model Results
Relative Cost of Collaborative and Acknowledged SoSECapability Affects Half of the Systems
System Volatility = 100 Reqs and SoS Capability = 100 Reqs
-300.00
0.00
300.00
600.00
900.00
1200.00
1500.00
1800.00
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Systems
Sav
ing
s (P
erso
n M
on
ths)
OSF 5%
OSF 10%
OSF 15%
Relative Cost of Collaborative and Acknowledged SoSECapability Affects Half of the Systems
System Volatility = 100 Reqs and SoS Capability = 50 Reqs
-200.00
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Systems
Sa
vin
gs
(P
ers
on
Mo
nth
s)
OSF 5%
OSF 10%
OSF 15%
Scenario 1 (SoS Size Varies) Scenario 2 (SoS Size Varies)
Each graph shows for each OSF value: (SoSE effort + ∑Acknowledged CSi effort*) – (∑Collaborative CSi effort *)
* CS effort is the sum of the SoS capability effort and the non-SoS requirements effort
0
Cost savings with SoSE Team
Extra cost of SoSE TeamP
erso
n M
on
ths
43
Model Results (continued)
Relative Cost of Collaborative and Acknowledged SoSECapability Affects One-Fourth of the Systems
System Volatility = 100 Reqs and SoS Capability = 100 Reqs
-400.00
0.00
400.00
800.00
1200.00
1600.00
2000.00
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Systems
Sa
vin
gs
(P
ers
on
M
on
ths
) OSF 5%
OSF 10%
OSF 15%
Relative Cost of Collaborative and Acknowledged SoSECapability Affects Half of the Systems
System Volatility = 100 Reqs and SoS Capability = 25 Reqs
-200.00
-100.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Systems
Sa
vin
gs
(P
ers
on
Mo
nth
s)
OSF 5%
OSF 10%
OSF 15%
Scenario 3 (SoS Size Varies) Scenario 4 (SoS Size Varies)
Scenario 5 (SoS Size Varies) Scenario 6 (SoS Size Varies)
Relative Cost of Collaborative and Acknowledged SoSECapability Affects Half of the Systems
System Volatility = 2000 Reqs and SoS Capability = 100 Reqs
-15000.00
-10000.00
-5000.00
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Systems
Sav
ing
s (P
erso
n M
on
ths)
OSF 5%
OSF 10%
OSF 15%
Relative Cost of Collaborative and Acknowledged SoSECapability Affects All of the Systems
System Volatility = 2000 Reqs and SoS Capability = 100 Reqs
-10000.00
-8000.00
-6000.00
-4000.00
-2000.00
0.00
2000.00
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Systems
Sav
ing
s (P
erso
n M
on
ths)
OSF 5%
OSF 10%
OSF 15%
44
Model Results (continued)
Scenario 7-a (SoS Size = 10) Scenario 7-b (SoS Size = 100)
Relative Cost of Collaborative and Acknowledged SoSESoS Capability Scope Varies
System Volatility = 1000 Reqs and SoS Capability = 1000 Reqs
-1500.00
-1000.00
-500.00
0.00
500.00
1000.00
1500.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number of Systems Affected by Capability
Sa
vin
gs
(P
ers
on
Mo
nth
s)
OSF 5%
OSF 10%
OSF 15%
Relative Cost of Collaborative and Acknowledged SoSESoS Capability Scope Varies
System Volatility = 1000 Reqs and SoS Capability = 1000 Reqs
-5000.00
0.00
5000.00
10000.00
15000.00
20000.00
25000.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Number of Systems Affected by Capability
Sav
ing
s (P
erso
n
Mo
nth
s) OSF 5%
OSF 10%
OSF 15%
Scenario 8-a (SoS Size = 10) Scenario 8-b (SoS Size = 100)
Relative Cost of Collaborative and Acknowledged SoSESoS Capability Scope Varies
System Volatility = None and SoS Capability = 1000 Reqs
-1000.00
-500.00
0.00
500.00
1000.00
1500.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number of Systems Affected by Capability
Sav
ing
s (P
erso
n M
on
ths)
OSF 5%
OSF 10%
OSF 15%
Relative Cost of Collaborative and Acknowledged SoSESoS Capability Scopre Varies
System Volatility = None and SoS Capability = 1000 Reqs
0.00
5000.00
10000.00
15000.00
20000.00
25000.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Number of SYstems Affected by Capability
Sav
ings
(Per
son
Mon
ths)
OSF 5%
OSF 10%
OSF 15%
45
Model Results (continued)
Scenario 9 (SoS Size = 10) Scenario 10 (SoS Size = 5)
Relative Cost of Collaborative and Acknowledged SoSESoS Capability Scope Varies
System Volatility = 1000 and SoS Capability = 1 Req
-300.00
-200.00
-100.00
0.00
100.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number of Systems Affected by Capability
Savin
gs (
Pers
on
Mo
nth
s)
OSF 5%
OSF 10%
OSF 15%
Relative Cost of Collaborative and Acknowledged SoSESoS Size = 5 SoS Capability Scope Varies
System Volatility = 1000 Reqs and SoS Capability = 1000 Reqs
-1000.00
-500.00
0.00
500.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of Systems Affected by Capability
Savin
gs (
Pers
on
Mo
nth
s)
OSF 5%
OSF 10%
OSF 15%
Scenario 11 (SoS Size = 5) Scenario 12 (SoS Size = 5)
Relative Cost of Collaborative and Acknowledged SoSESoS Size = 5 SoS Capability Scope Varies
System Volatility = None and SoS Capability = 1000 Reqs
-800.00
-600.00
-400.00
-200.00
0.00
200.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of Systems Affected by Capability
Sav
ings
(Per
son
Mon
ths)
OSF 5%
OSF 10%
OSF 15%
Relative Cost of Collaborative and Acknowledged SoSESoS Size = 5 SoS Capability Scope Varies
System Volatility = 1000 and SoS Capability = 1 Req
-160.00
-120.00
-80.00
-40.00
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of Systems Affected by Capability
Sa
vin
gs
(P
ers
on
Mo
nth
s)
OSF 5%
OSF 10%
OSF 15%
46
Summary
Presented approach for extending COSYSMO cost model to estimate systems engineering effort for
• Complex systems• Systems of systems
Additional accuracy improvements can be provided through
• Local calibrations of the COSYSMO constants• Incorporation of reuse factors [Wang, et al., 2008]
Examples provided for• Using alternative size drivers• Showing how cost model can be used to evaluate alternatives
47
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge • The pioneering work done by Dr. Ricardo
Valerdi in the development of the initial COSYSMO cost model upon which this research effort is based
• The research support received from Stevens Institute of Technology and the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) Foundation through the 2007 INCOSE Foundation/Stevens Doctoral Award
48
References1. Dahmann, J. and K. Baldwin. 2008. Understanding the current state of US defense systems of
systems and the implications for systems engineering. Proceedings of the IEEE Systems Conference, April 7-10, in Montreal, Canada.
2. Department of Defense. 2008. Systems engineering guide for system of systems, version 1.0.
3. Maier, M. 1998. Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. Systems Engineering 1, no. 4: 267-284.
4. Valerdi, R. 2005. Constructive systems engineering cost model. PhD. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
5. Valerdi, R. and M. Wheaton. 2005. ANSI/EIA 632 as a standardized WBS for COSYSMO, AIAA-2005-7373, Proceedings of the AIAA 5th Aviation, Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Arlington, Virginia.
6. Wang, G., R. Valerdi, A. Ankrum, C. Millar, and G. Roedler. 2008. COSYSMO reuse extension, Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Symposium of INCOSE, The Netherlands.