Busby (1992), “Software Effort and Schedule Measurement: A Framework for Counting Staff Hours and Reporting Schedule Information”, CMU/SEI-92-TR-21, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA. Denskat (1994), “A Cost Estimation Model for Maintenance and High Reuse”, Proceedings, ESCOM 1994, Ivrea, Italy. GSM/SM/765-4, Air Force Institute of Technology, Dayton, OH. (1976), “An Exploratory Study of Software Cost Estimating at the Electronic Systems Division”, Thesis No. Kemerer (1994), “A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, to appear.Ĭomputer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) National Research Council (1993), Computing Professionals: Changing Needs for the 1990's, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.ĭevenny, T. Royce (1989), “Ada COCOMO and the Ada Process Model”, Proceedings, Fifth COCOMO Users' Group Meeting, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.Ĭhidamber, S., and C. Specifying: A Multi-Project Experiment”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, May, 133–145.īoehm, B., and W. (1989), Software Risk Management, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.īoehm, B., T. (1985), “COCOMO: Answering the Most Frequent Questions”, In Proceedings, First COCOMO Users' Group Meeting, Wang Institute, Tyngsboro, MA.īoehm, B. (1983), “The Hardware/Software Cost Ratio: Is It a Myth?” Computer 16, 3, pp. (1981), Software Engineering Economics, Prentice-Hall.īoehm, B. (1983), “Measuring the Productivity of Computer Systems Development Activities with Function Points”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, November.īoehm, B. Kemerer (1994a), “Evidence on Economics of Scale in Software Development”, Information and Software Technology, to appear.īehrens, C. Kumar (1994), “An Empirical Test of Object-Based Output Measurement Metrics in a Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) Environment”, Journal of Management Information Systems, to appear.īanker, R., H. Air Force Electronic Systems Division VEXP:Īmadeus (1994), Amadeus Measurement System User's Guide, Version 2.3a, Amadeus Software Research, Inc., Irvine, CA.īanker, R., R. Percentage of reuse effort due to software understanding TIME: National Institute of Standards and Technology NOP: Percentage of integration redone during reuse KSLOC: Integrated Computer Aided Software Environment IM: Percentage of design modified during reuse DOCU:ĭocumentation match to life-cycle needs EDS:
Percentage of code modified during reuse CMM:Ĭomputer Science and Telecommunications Board DATA: Percentage of reuse effort due to assessment and assimilation ACAP:
This model is serving as a framework for an extensive current data collection and analysis effort to further refine and calibrate the model's estimation capabilities. The major new modeling capabilities of COCOMO 2.0 are a tailorable family of software sizing models, involving Object Points, Function Points, and Source Lines of Code nonlinear models for software reuse and re-engineering an exponentdriver approach for modeling relative software diseconomies of scale and several additions, deletions and updates to previous COCOMO effort-multiplier cost drivers.
This paper summarizes research in deriving a baseline COCOMO 2.0 model tailored to these new forms of software development, including rationale for the model decisions. These include non-sequential and rapid-development process models reuse-driven approaches involving commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) packages, re-engineering, applications composition, and applications generation capabilities object-oriented approaches supported by distributed middleware and software process maturity initiatives. Current software cost estimation models, such as the 1981 Constructive Cost Model (COCOMO) for software cost estimation and its 1987 Ada COCOMO update, have been experiencing increasing difficulties in estimating the costs of software developed to new life cycle processes and capabilities.