# Presentation: 752390

## EIA/ANSI 632 AS A STANDARDIZED WBS 

**April 13, 2005**

**Marilee Wheaton, The Aerospace Corporation**
**Ricardo Valerdi, The Aerospace Corporation **
**	****	****	****	****	****	****& University of Southern California**

**EIA/ANSI 632 AS A STANDARDIZED WBS **
**FOR COSYSMO**

## Agenda

**Background on COSYSMO & SE Standards**
**Use of EIA/ANSI 632**
**Effort Distribution Across EIA 632 Processes**
**Lessons Learned**
**Preliminary Results**
**Value of Systems Engineering**

## Commercial Industry (15)
Daimler Chrysler, Freshwater Partners, Galorath, GroupSystems.Com, Hughes, IBM, Cost Xpert Group, Microsoft, Motorola, Price Systems, Rational, Reuters Consulting, Sun, Telcordia, Xerox
Aerospace Industry (7)
BAE Systems, Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, SAIC
Government (8)
DARPA, DISA, FAA, NASA-Ames, NSF, OSD/ARA/SIS, US Army Research Labs, US Army TACOM
FFRDC’s and Consortia (4)
Aerospace, JPL, SEI, SPC

**Daimler Chrysler, Freshwater Partners, Galorath, GroupSystems.Com, Hughes, IBM, Cost Xpert Group, Microsoft, Motorola, Price Systems, Rational, Reuters Consulting, Sun, Telcordia, Xerox**
**Aerospace Industry (7)**
**BAE Systems, Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, SAIC**
**Government (8)**
**DARPA, DISA, FAA, NASA-Ames, NSF, OSD/ARA/SIS, US Army Research Labs, US Army TACOM**
**FFRDC’s and Consortia (4)**
**Aerospace, JPL, SEI, SPC**

**USC-CSE Affiliates (34)**

## COSYSMO Overview

**Parametric model to estimate system engineering costs**
**Includes 4 size & 14 cost drivers**
**Covers full system engineering lifecycle**
**Developed with USC-CSE Corporate Affiliate, ISPA, SCEA, SSCAG, PSM, and INCOSE participation**

**  ****Conceptualize**

**Develop**

**Oper Test **
**& Eval**

**Transition **
**      ****to **
**Operation**

**Operate, Maintain, **
**or **
**Enhance**

**Replace **
**  ****or**
**Dismantle**

## COSYSMO Data Sources

| Raytheon | Intelligence & Information Systems (Garland, TX) |
| --- | --- |
| Northrop Grumman | Mission Systems (Redondo Beach, CA) |
| Lockheed Martin | Transportation & Security Solutions (Rockville, MD)
Integrated Systems & Solutions (Valley Forge, PA)
Systems Integration (Owego, NY)
Aeronautics (Marietta, GA)
Maritime Systems & Sensors (Manassas, VA)  |
| General Dynamics | Maritime Digital Systems/AIS (Pittsfield, MA)
Surveillance & Reconnaissance Systems/AIS (Bloomington, MN) |
| BAE Systems | National Security Solutions/ISS (San Diego, CA)
Information & Electronic Warfare Systems (Nashua, NH) |
| SAIC | Army Transformation (Orlando, FL)
Integrated Data Solutions & Analysis (McLean, VA) |

## COSYSMO Operational Concept

**COSYSMO**

**Size**
**Drivers**

**Effort**
**Multipliers**

**Effort**

**Calibration**

**# Requirements**
**# Interfaces**
**# Scenarios**
**# Algorithms**

-  **Application factors**
**8 factors**
** ****Team factors**
**6 factors**

**WBS guided by **
**EIA/ANSI 632**

**COSYSMO Operational Concept**

## COSYSMO Effort Multipliers

- Application Factors
- Requirements understanding
- Architecture understanding
- Level of service requirements
- Migration complexity
- Technology Maturity
- Documentation Match to Life Cycle Needs
- # and Diversity of Installations/Platforms
- # of Recursive Levels in the Design

- Team Factors
- Stakeholder team cohesion
- Personnel/team capability
- Personnel experience/continuity
- Process maturity
- Multisite coordination
- Tool support

## 7-step Modeling Methodology

**Analyze Existing**
**literature**

**1**

**2**

**3**

**4**

**5**

**6**

**7**

**Perform**
**Behavioral Analysis**

**Identify Relative**
**Significance**

**Perform Expert-**
**Judgement, Delphi**
**Assessment**

**Gather Project Data**

**Determine Bayesian**
**A-Posteriori Update**

**Gather more data;**
**refine model**

**Determine statistical significance**

## Software Cost Models

**COQUALMO**
**1998**

**COCOMO 81**
**1981**

**COPROMO**
**1998**

**COSoSIMO**
**2004**

**Legend:**
**Model has been calibrated with historical project data and expert (Delphi) data**
**Model is derived from COCOMO II**
**Model has been calibrated with expert (Delphi) data**

**COCOTS**
**2000**

**COSYSMO**
**2002**

**CORADMO**
**1999**

**iDAVE**
**2003**

**COPLIMO**
**2003**

**COPSEMO**
**1998**

**COCOMO II**
**2000**

**DBA COCOMO**
**2004**

**COINCOMO**
**2004**

**Security**
**Extension 2004**

**Costing Secure**
**System 2004**

**Software Cost Models**

**Software Extensions**

**Other Independent**
**Estimation Models**

***Dates indicate the time that the first paper was published for the model***

## Conceptual View of Unified Model: Initial Efforts

## EIA/ANSI 632 Processes for Engineering Systems

**Developed in 1998 by ANSI, INCOSE, et al**
**5 major categories**
**13 processes**
**33 activities**

**Acquisition and Supply **
- Supply Process
- Acquisition Process
**Technical Management**
- Planning Process
- Assessment Process
- Control Process
**System Design**
- Requirements Definition Process
- Solution Definition Process

**Product Realization**
- Implementation Process
- Transition to Use Process
**Technical Evaluation**
- Systems Analysis Process
- Requirements Validation Process
- System Verification Process
- End Products Validation Process

## Heritage of Standards for Systems Engineering

**Heritage of Standards for Systems Engineering**

**EIA / IS 632**

**ISO/IEC ****15288**

**Mil-Std-499B**

**Mil-Std-499A**

*1994*

*1994*

*1994*

*1998*

*2002*

*1974*

*(Not Released)*

**Mil-Std-499**

*1969*

*(Trial Use)*

**IEEE 1220**

*1998*

*(Full Std)*

**Legend**

**Supersedes**
**Source for**

**EIA**
**632**

*1998*

**EIA/IS 731 **
**SE CM**

**IEEE 1220**

*(Full Std)*

*(Interim Standard)*

*2002*

**CMMI****sm**** **
**SE/SW/IPPD**

*(Interim Standard)*

*(FDIS)*

*(Version 1.1)*

**ISO/IEC ****19760**

*2002*

*(PDTR)*

*2002*

**ISO/IEC 15504**

*(FDIS)*

***Source : ******Standards for Systems Engineering, Jerry Lake, 2002***
***Reprinted courtesy of Jerry Lake***

## Breadth and Depth of Key SE Standards

**EIA/ANSI 632 - ***Provide an integrated set of fundamental *_*processes to aid a developer*_* in the engineering or re-engineering of a system*

***Source : ****** Draft Report ISO Study Group May 2, 2000***
***Reprinted courtesy of ISO Study Group***

**Breadth and Depth of Key SE Standards**

**ISO/IEC 15288 - ***Establish a common framework for *_*describing the life cycle of systems*_

_***Purpose of the Standards:***_

**IEEE 1220 - ***Provide a standard for *_*managing systems engineering*_

**Input to 632/1220**

## Effort Distribution Across EIA 632 Fundamental Processes

**N = 18**

| EIA 632 Fundamental Process | Average | Standard Deviation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Acquisition & Supply | 7% | 3.5 |
| Technical Management | 17% | 4.5 |
| System Design | 30% | 6.1 |
| Product Realization | 15% | 8.7 |
| Technical Evaluation | 31% | 8.7 |

**Total = 100%**

## Effort Profiling mini-Delphi

**ISO/IEC 15288**

**Conceptualize**

**Develop**

**Transition to**
**Operation**

**Operate,**
**Maintain,**
**or Enhance**

**Replace or **
**Dismantle**

**Acquisition & Supply**

**Technical Management**

**System Design**

**Product Realization**

**Technical Evaluation**

**Operational **
**Test & **
**Evaluation**

**Effort Profiling mini-Delphi**

## Effort Distribution of EIA 632 Fundamental Processes Across ISO 15288 Phases

|  | Conceptualize | Develop | Operational Test
& Eval. | Transition to Operation | Operate, Maintain, or Enhance | Replace or Dismantle | (checksum) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Acquisition and Supply | 28 (12.3) | 51 (18.6) | 13 (11.3) | 8 (5.0) |  |  | 100 |
| Technical Management | 22 (10.0) | 38 (9.9) | 25 (7.4) | 15 (6.4) |  |  | 100 |
| System Design | 34 (12.4) | 40 (19.4) | 17 (9.6) | 9 (6.2) |  |  | 100 |
| Product Realization | 13 (14.1) | 30 (24.3) | 32 (16.0) | 25 (20.4) |  |  | 100 |
| Technical Evaluation | 18 (11.4) | 27 (11.0) | 40 (17.7) | 15 (8.5) |  |  | 100 |

**Effort Distribution of EIA 632 Fundamental Processes Across ISO 15288 Phases**

**N = 15**

- In each cell: Average (Standard Deviation)

## Challenges & Lessons Learned

**Challenges**
**Few companies follow standard WBS**
**Many tailored WBS based on domain or product**
**Key was to map diverse set of WBS to EIA/ANSI 632 activities**
**Lessons Learned**
**Using standards provided a common baseline for**
**Defining Systems Engineering**
**Establishing scope of the model**
**Data collection yielded typical activity profile for systems engineering**

## Value of Systems Engineering:Minimize Total Program Overrun

***Reprinted courtesy of  NASA******	***

**Value of Systems Engineering:****Minimize Total Program Overrun**

## Value of Systems Engineering (cont.)

***Source: SECOE 01-03, INCOSE 2002, Eric Honour***
***Reprinted courtesy of INCOSE***

**Value of Systems Engineering (cont.)**

## Insufficient systems engineering resources has been cited as one root cause for space system development problems in several recent studies 
COSYSMO has been developed to provide a model for estimating systems engineering resources parametrically from system level technical parameters and associated cost drivers
Model development included USC-CSE Corporate Affiliates, ISPA, SCEA, SSCAG, PSM, and INCOSE participation 
Depth and breadth of model anchored in foundation of systems engineering industry standards 
WBS definition guided by EIA/ANSI 632 
Life cycle definition guided by ISO/IEC 15288 
Current effort includes calibration of model with effort and technical parameter actuals

- COSYSMO has been developed to provide a model for estimating systems engineering resources parametrically from system level technical parameters and associated cost drivers
- Model development included USC-CSE Corporate Affiliates, ISPA, SCEA, SSCAG, PSM, and INCOSE participation
- Depth and breadth of model anchored in foundation of systems engineering industry standards
- WBS definition guided by EIA/ANSI 632
- Life cycle definition guided by ISO/IEC 15288
- Current effort includes calibration of model with effort and technical parameter actuals

**Summary**

## References

**Gruhl, W. NASA Comptroller’s Office, 1992.**
**Honour, E., **_**Toward an Understanding of the Values of Systems Engineering**_**, 2nd Conference on Systems Engineering Research, March 2004.**
**Lake, J., **_**Standards for Systems Engineering**_**, INCOSE Report, 2002.**
**Roedler, G., **_**Draft Report ISO Study Group**_**, May 2, 2000**
**Valerdi, R., Rieff, J., Roedler, G., Wheaton, M., **_**Lessons Learned for Collecting Systems Engineering Data**_**, 2nd Conference on Systems Engineering Research, April 2004, Los Angeles, CA.**
**Valerdi, R., **_**Technical Size Via Requirements**_**, ISPA Southern California Winter Workshop, NASA JPL, March 2004.**
**Valerdi, R., Ernstoff, M., Mohlman, P., Reifer, D., Stump, E., **_**Systems Engineering Sizing in the Age of Acquisition Reform**_**, 18th Forum on COCOMO and Software Cost Models, October 2003, Los Angeles, CA.**
**Valerdi, R., Boehm, B., Reifer, D., **_**COSYSMO: A Constructive Systems Engineering Cost Model Coming Age**_**, 13th INCOSE Symposium, July 2003, Crystal City, VA.**
**COSYSMO prototype v1.22 available at: http://www.valerdi.com/cosysmo**

## Marilee Wheaton
{Marilee.wheaton@aero.org}

Ricardo Valerdi
{rvalerdi@usc.edu}

COSYSMO Website: www.valerdi.com/cosysmo

**{Marilee.wheaton@aero.org}**
**Ricardo Valerdi**
**{rvalerdi@usc.edu}**
**COSYSMO Website: www.valerdi.com/cosysmo**