This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Disaggregating and Calibrating the CASE Tool Variable in COCOMO II
November 2002 (vol. 28 no. 11)
pp. 1009-1022

Abstract—CASE (Computer Aided Software Engineering) tools are believed to have played a critical role in improving software productivity and quality by assisting tasks in software development processes since 1970s. Several parametric software cost models adopt "use of software tools" as one of the environmental factors that affects software development productivity. Several software cost models assess the productivity impacts of CASE tools based just on breadth of tool coverage without considering other productivity dimensions such as degree of integration, tool maturity, and user support. This paper provides an extended set of tool rating scales based on the completeness of tool coverage, the degree of tool integration, and tool maturity/user support. Those scales are used to refine the way in which CASE tools are effectively evaluated within COCOMO (COnstructive COst MOdel) II. In order to find the best fit of weighting values for the extended set of tool rating scales in the extended research model, a Bayesian approach is adopted to combine two sources of (expert-judged and data-determined) information to increase prediction accuracy. The extended model using the three TOOL rating scales is validated by using the cross-validation methodologies, data splitting, and bootstrapping. This approach can be used to disaggregate other parameters that have significant impacts on software development productivity and to calibrate the best-fit weight values based on data-determined and expert-judged distributions. It results in an increase in the prediction accuracy in software parametric cost estimation models and an improvement in insights on software productivity investments.

[1] W.G. Wood, L.R. Gold, R. Pethia, V. Mosley, and R. Firth, “A Guide to the Classification and Assessment of Software Engineering Tools,” Technical Report CMU/SEI-87-TR-10, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Penn., 1987.
[2] V. Mosley, “How to Assess Tools Efficiently and Quantitatively,” IEEE Software, pp. 29–32 May 1992.
[3] B. Boehm, Software Engineering Economics, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 1981, pp. 533-535.
[4] B. Boehm and W. Royce, “Ada COCOMO and Ada Process Model,” Proc. Fifth COCOMO User's Group Meeting, Nov. 1989.
[5] B.W. Boehm et al., Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2000.
[6] Ovum Ltd., Contents and Services, “Ovum Evaluates: CASE Products,” May 1995.
[7] I. Sommerville, Software Engineering, 5th ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1996.
[8] S. Chulani, B. Boehm, and B. Steece, "Bayesian Analysis of Empirical Software Engineering Cost Models," IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 25, no. 4, July/Aug. 1999, pp. 573-583.
[9] R. Banker, H. Chang, and C. Kemerer, “Evidence on Economies of Scale in Software Development,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 275-282, 1994.
[10] T. Bollinger, “Building Tech-Savvy Organizations,” IEEE Software, pp. 73-75, July/Aug. 2000.
[11] B. Curtis, “Building Accelerated Organizations,” IEEE Software, pp. 72-74, July/Aug. 2000.
[12] “Report on Project Management and Software Cost Estimation Technologies,” Technical Report STSC-TR-012, System Technology Support Center, Hill AFB, Ut., Apr. 1995.
[13] M.C. Paulk, C.V. Weber, S.M. Garcia, M.B. Chrissis, and M. Bush, “Capability Maturity Model for Software, version 1.1,” Technical Report CMU/SEI-TR-25, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Penn., 1993.
[14] A.M. Christie, “A Practical Guide to the Technology and Adoption of Software Process Automation,” Technical Report CMU/ SEI-94-007, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Penn., 1994.
[15] D. Sharon and R. Bell, "Tools that Bind: Creating Integrated Environments," IEEE Software, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 76-85, Mar. 1995.
[16] A.I. Wasserman,“Tool integration in software engineering environments,” Software Engineering Environments. Springer-Verlag, 1989.
[17] G.G. Judge, R. Carter Hill, W.E. Griffiths, H. Lütkepohl, and T.-C. Lee, The Theory and Practice of Econometrics, second ed. John Wiley and Sons, 1985.
[18] D. Cook and S. Weisberg, Applied Regression Including Computing and Graphics. Wiley, 1999.
[19] E.E. Leamer, Specification Searches: Ad Hoc Inference with Nonexperimental Data. Wiley, 1978.
[20] S.D. Conte, H. E. Dunsmore, and V. Y. Shen, Software Engineering Metrics and Models, Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, Calif., 1986.
[21] P.I. Good, Resampling Methods: A Practical Guide to Data Analysis. Birkhauser, 1999.
[22] J. Neter, M.H. Kutner, and C.J. Nachtscheim, Applied Linear Regression Models, third ed. IRWIN, 1996.
[23] S. Weisberg, ”Cross-Validation inArc,” http://www.stat.umn.edu/arc/crossvalidation/ crossvalidationcrossvalidation.html , Dec. 1999.
[24] M.R. Chernick, Bootstrap Methods: A Pratitioner's Guide. John Wiley&Sons, 1999.
[25] B. Efron, An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman&Hall, 1993.
[26] I. Pardoe, “An Introduction to Bootstrap Methods UsingArc,” Technical Report 631, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, Feb. 2000.

Index Terms:
CASE (Computer Aided Software Engineering), software tools, software productivity, software cost models, empirical studies, software metrics, Bayesian analysis, prediction accuracy.
Citation:
Jongmoon Baik, Barry Boehm, Bert M. Steece, "Disaggregating and Calibrating the CASE Tool Variable in COCOMO II," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 1009-1022, Nov. 2002, doi:10.1109/TSE.2002.1049401
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.