Analysis of Process Maturity and Productivity with SRDR Data
USC CSSE Annual Research ReviewApril 29 – May 1, 2014
Anandi Hira, Jo Ann Lane
Outline• Motivation• Explanation of the SRDR Data Repository• Data Processing• Analysis Procedure• Results of Analyses per Taxonomy and Comparison
– COCOMO II Comparisons– Application Domains– Productivity Types
• Factors to Consider in Productivity Analysis -> Future Work• Parameter Suggestions for Future Research and Analyses• Questions/Suggestions
Motivation
• Improve Productivity
• Invest resources to improve processes
• Process Certification Productivity ?
• SRDR Data
SRDR Data• Software Resources Data
Reporting (SRDR)• Quantitative data and
associated parametric project characteristics
• DoD software-intensive system development projects
• Data analysis and trends research
• Relevant Parameters provided:– Total Effort (hours)– Equivalent Total SLOC– SLOC Counting Method– CMM/CMMI Levels
• Unused Parameters– Effort distribution per
phase, Programming language(s), Personnel Experience
Data Processing
• Filtering Data– Remove outliers– Remove points
without relevant parameters
– Projects < 10 EKSLOC– Levels 2 and 4
• Normalizing Data– Logical SLOC– Counting adjustment
factors– Non-comment: 0.66 *
SLOC– Physical: 0.34 * SLOC
Analysis Procedure
1 • Combine CMM and CMMI Levels 3 and 5
2• Compare productivity to
parameter ratings of COCOMO II™
3• Categorize data by Application
Domains• ANOVA to test significance
4• Categorize data by
Productivity Types• ANOVA to test significance
COCOMO Comparisons
Size Range
Mean Level 3
MeanLevel 5
% Increase (Prod)
% Increase/ Level
COCOMO II
10-50 EKSLOC
158.47 168.88 6.57% 3.28% 5% for 30 EKSLOC
50 – 100 EKSLOC
278.19 267.09 -3.99% -1.995% 7% for 75 EKSLOC
> 100 EKSLOC
261.33 350.45 34.10% 17.05% 9.5% for 300 EKSLOC
87 EKSLOC
215.33 242.50 12.62% 6.31% 7% for 75 EKSLOC
Application Domains
Application Domains – ANOVA Test Results
Application Domain F-value
P-value
Result
Command & Control 0.564 0.464 RejectedCommunications 0.767 0.387 Rejected
Productivity Types
Productivity Types – ANOVA Test Results
Productivity Type F-value P-value ResultCommand & Control (C & C) 0.564 0.464 RejectedMission Processing (MP) 3.070 0.091 RejectedReal Time Embedded (RTE) 0.274 0.603 RejectedTelecommunications (TEL) 0.745 0.393 RejectedVehicle Payload (VP) 0.031 0.863 Rejected
Findings and Conclusions
• COCOMO Comparisons– Data broken up by sizes do not closely correspond to
parameter ratings – Average of all data corresponds to parameter rating
• Application Domains and Productivity Types– Inconsistence with regards to productivity
increase/decrease from Level 3 to Level 5– Difference in productivity ranges of Level 3 and 5 are
statistically insignificant
Future Work – Factors to Consider• Counting methods not
standard and may skew analysis
• Code reuse gains factored and normalized in data
• Analysis of trends of productivity over time
• IDPD
• Cost drivers and parameters that effect productivity not provided and random with respect to time– Staff experience– Tool support– Code reuse– Improved architecting
and risk resolution
Productivity Over Time
Future Work – Parameter Suggestions
• (Relative) Time of Project Implementation– Other data points– Adopting process
maturity levels
• Equivalent Metric for Non-Development Effort
• Equivalent Output Metric per Phase/Activity
• Rework SLOC and Effort• Volatility• Complexity
Questions and Suggestions
Top Related