Here are some of the questions that were answered after the webinar with Bill Curtis, David Herron, and Dan Galorath.  They were answered on Cast software’s Facebook page.

What about aerospace component level software and how would you apply a cost factor their  complexity factors?

What is IFPUG Back Fired Points, how does it help?

Daniel Galorath Backfiring  means counting lines of code then using a number of lines per function point to approximate function points.  I think it is much better than nothing for a finger in the wind.  Many others in the industry object strongly to it.

Another question – What type of information is needed to start using a software analysis and measurement tool?

Bill Curtis First  you need to know how you want to use the results.  That will help you establish criteria for evaluating which of the various tools best meets your needs.  The Goal-Question-Metric paradigm is a good guide for determining what your measurement needs are.

Here’s  another question from the webinar – Would like to understand how we can  improve our ability to capture metrics (defect density either using effective loc and or functional point) for applications that rely heavily on database’s where the logic resides – e.g to map biz rules existing in table rows/columns etc?

Daniel Galorath Generally  you would count the work involved in building the database, not the entry of the data into the database itself. SEER will provide estimates of defect density, etc.  From my understanding CAST can provide measurement of this.

What  is the panel’s opinion on LLOC to FP translation such as QSM language by language table which they developed from their database.

Do you have to have a technology inventory?

How do you extend the IT governance to software suppliers? what requirements to pose to them?

Bill Curtis Customers are starting to write measurable quality targets such as robustness or security targets into their outsourcing contracts as the equivalent of service level agreements. They then establish a Quality Gate where all software received is measured and evaluated before being put in operation. If the supplier’s software falls below the quality target they must remediate the code or face a financial penalty.

Related posts:

1. The Future of Software Analysis Measurement Webinar Featuring Bill Curtis, David Herron and Dan Galorath We have some exciting events coming up this month with...
2. Estimation Plus Process and Measurement Rigor Yields More Successful Projects: SEER and Tracer It has been rewarding working with the Computer Aid  (CAI)...
3. Clean Energy Analysis Software The RETScreen Clean Energy Project Analysis Software (from Natural Resources...

A lot of people are interested in DoD’s initiative for improving affordability, often referred to as the Ash Carter memo.  Here it is from NDIA and others: “Implementation Directive for Better Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending,” issued by Dr. Ashton Carter, DoD AT&L, concerning implementation instructions for a series of measures aimed at improving efficiencies and reducing costs in support of Secretary Gates’ Efficiency Initiative.  This directive and guidance are effective immediately.

- CLick here for Document

Related posts:

1. Ash Carter Memo re: Efficiency & Productivity in Defense Spending — “Should Cost” vs. “Will Cost” The Ash Carter memo dictating 23 principal actions, “Implementation Directive...
2. NPD 1000.5 NASA Cost-Risk Directive Just about hot off the presses (January 2009) is NASA’s...
3. Experiences Implementing and Managing a Project Office ITMPI produces valuable content covering software and IT.  They have...

From the consortium web site:

Information Systems Risk Management Consortium Charter

Written on January 28, 2010 at 4:25 pm, by adminThe consortium is the result of four of the industry’s leaders (Capers Jones, Gary Gack, Leon Kappelman, Dan Galorath) deciding to pool our expertise and form a consortium called the Information Systems Risk Management Consortium for the purpose of offering our combined talents to assist the information systems industry.  The process improvement results we’ve achieved with other diversified government and industry organizations and large distributed companies has convinced us we can help you accelerate your strategic initiatives while improving tactical performance with measurable results within a 6 to 18 month calendar window.

Our experiences can help your teams identify and reduce the potential risks earlier in the project life cycle.  In most cases the problems and failures are avoidable if you know what to look for, what to do about them, have repeatable processes, appropriate practices, and utilize independent expertise like ours both before and after contracts are awarded.  Federal Government organizations a world-class companies often lack the necessary in-house expertise to ensure success in these high-risk, complex, multi-year initiatives.  Independent specialists with world-class experience and capabilities can provide the critical differentiator needed to manage successfully large high-risk projects.

Software and IT Projects are Risky

Failures are common, especially as project size increases.  Problems are not uncommon   but are preventable.

A Risk Reduction Strategy

This Consortium has expertise and a desire to help organizations improve its software and IT project outcomes. We offer a preliminary discussion with senior IT management team to discuss an approach to software and IT project risk containment.  Over a century of relevant experience helping complex organizations like yours makes us confident future outcomes will be greatly improved with our assistance.

Consortium Members

Capers Jones

Capers Jones is the President and CEO of Capers Jones & Associates LLC.  He is also the founder and former chairman of Software Productivity Research LLC (SPR), and holds the title of Chief Scientist Emeritus at SPR.  Capers Jones founded SPR in 1984.

Mr. Jones is a well-known author, researcher, and international public speaker.  Among his book titles are Patterns of Software Systems Failure and Success (Prentice Hall 1994); Applied Software Measurement, 3^rd edition  (McGraw Hill 2008); Software Quality: Analysis and Guidelines for Success (International Thomson 1997); Estimating Software Costs, 2^nd edition(McGraw Hill 2007); and Software Assessments, Benchmarks, and Best Practices(Addison Wesley Longman 2000).  The 3^rd edition of his book Applied Software Measurement was published in the Spring of 2008 and his most recent book, Software Engineering Best Practices,was published by McGraw Hill in October of 2009.

Mr. Jones and his colleagues have collected historical data from more than 600 corporations and more than 30 government organizations.  This historical data is a key resource for judging the effectiveness of software process improvement methods.  This data is also widely cited in software litigation cases where quality, productivity, and schedules are involved.  Mr. Jones has been retained as an expert witness in 15 software-related lawsuits dealing with breach of contract and software tax issues.

Mr. Jones has consulted at more than 150 large corporations and a number of government organizations such as NASA, the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Courts.  He has also worked with several State governments.

Gary Gack

Gary Gack is the founder and President of Process-Fusion.net, a provider of e-Learning, Assessments, Strategy advice, Training, and Coaching related to integration and deployment of software and IT industry best practices.  Mr. Gack holds an MBA from the Wharton School and is a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt.  In addition he is an ASQ Certified Software Quality Engineer (CSQE), a Certified Scrum Master, a Visiting Scientist with the Software Engineering Institute (2006) where he co-authored  Measuring for Performance Driven Improvement 1,  a course that he is an authorized instructor and holds the ITIL Foundation Certification.  He has more than 40 years of diverse experience in the software and IT industry, including more than 20 years focused on process improvement.  He is the author of numerous articles and a forthcoming book entitled Managing the Black Hole: The Executive’s Guide to Software Project Risk.

Mr. Gackhas extensive experience with problem project assessment and recovery.  His areas of specific expertise include best practices assessments, large scale critical path planning (projects with 10,000+ tasks), and software quality assurance methods (including software inspections, combinatorial test methods, static and dynamic analysis of test coverage, andotherrelated methods).  In addition he has extensive experience with software metrics and models used to forecast and evaluate the impact of process changes on effectiveness and efficiency.

Leon A. Kappelman

Leon A. Kappelman, Ph.D. is a research scientist, teacher, author, speaker, and consultant dedicated to helping organizations better manage their information, systems, and technology assets.  He is Director Emeritus of the Information Systems Research Center and a Professor of Information Systems in the Information Technology & Decision Sciences Department of the College of Business at the University of North Texas, where he is also a Fellow of the Texas Center for Digital Knowledge.  Dr. Kappelman founded and chairs the Society for Information Management’s Enterprise Architecture Working Group and edited their book The SIM Guide to Enterprise Architecture (CRC Press, 2010).

Dr. Kappelman has assisted many public andprivate organizations (including the Department of Veteran Affairs, EDS, the Executive Office of the President of the United States, Experian, Computer Associates, IBM, JC Penney, Kraft Foods, SAIC, the State of Texas, Texas Health Resources, the Treasury Department of Canada, the United Nations, Wells Fargo, and the World Bank) with technology management activities including project management, software development, continuity of operations, strategic planning, governance, enterprise architecture, and IT workforce management.  His research and publications on the early warning signs of software project failure are widely recognized.

Professor Kappelman has testified before the US Congress on technology legislation and IT management practices.  He has lectured and conducted seminars and workshops on many management, business, and technology topics in North America, Europe, and Asia.  His work has been reported in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, BusinessWeek, Newsweek, Dallas Morning News, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, L.A. Times, and scores of other newspapers and magazines; he has appeared on CNN, CNBC, PBS, ABC World News Tonight, as well as numerous local and regional television and radio stations.

Dan Galorath

Dan Galorath is the President and CEO of Galorath Incorporated.  During his over three decades in the industry, Mr. Galorath has been solving a variety of management, costing, systems, and software problems for both information technology and embedded systems.

Mr. Galorath has performed all aspects of software development and software management.  He has reorganized troubled software projects, assessed their progress, applied proven methodologies and plans for completion, and estimated cost to complete.  He has personally managed these projects to successful completion.  He has created and implemented software management policies, and reorganized (as well as designed and managed) software development projects.

His company, Galorath Incorporated, developed the SEER applications, methods, and training for Software and Information Technology cost, schedule, risk analysis, and management decision support.  He is one of the principal developers of the SEER-SEM  software evaluation model.

His teaching experience includes development and presentation of courses in Software Cost, Schedule, and Risk Analysis; Software Management; Software Engineering; to name a few.  Among Mr. Galorath’s published works are papers encompassing software cost modeling, testing theory, software life cycle error prediction and reduction, and software and systems requirements definition.  Mr. Galorath is a contributing author of IT Measurement, Advice from the Experts(Prentice Hall) and Mr Galorath’s book Software Sizing, Estimation, and Risk Managementwas published March 2006 (Auerbach).  Mr. Galorath publishes a blog,  Dan Galorath on Estimating

Related posts:

1. Information Systems Risk Management Consortium: Capers Jones, Gary Gack, Leon Kappelman, Dan Galorath The consortium is the result of four of the industry’s...
2. Galorath / Reifer Team To Provide Large Project Success Via Risk Assessments We are excited to announce a new addition to the...
3. Correction to DACS Article and Apology To Capers In a recent article published in the DACS journal I...

I recall, some years ago, participating on a source selection for an improved software development environment.  My part was essentially to assess the costs (personnel, time, etc.)  and the benefits (increases in productivity when the new software development was deployed.

Interesting work and right up SEER’s alley.  I looked at improved development tools and  development practices and cost reduction versus the costs and temporary reduced productivity.

Watts Humphrey of SEI published a document on costs and benefits of software process improvement that is worth review.

Related posts:

1. Estimating Telecommuting Costs & Benefits Today I received the results of a study on the benefits...
2. Costs & Benefits of Software Quality Rick Spiewak from The MITRE Corporation and Karen McRitchie, Galorath...
3. Government IT Project Woes and Estimating Total Ownership Costs A recent government report showed 81% of budget or $57...

This document analyses Government Acquisition Reform and was developed by a business task force including a who’s who of American technology business and government.  It is very relevant to those concerned with DoD acquisition costs.  I have included a few quotes and conclusions here to give the reader a flavor of the document.

“I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars to keep this nation secure.” —Barack Obama

1. Requirements need to be iterative

“Higher costs, whether based on low estimates or poor enterprise management, is unacceptable and harmful to the defense enterprise.”

“While the shortcomings of defense acquisition are manifold, the issue that has drawn by far the greatest criticism to date is the high cost, and cost growth, of the products it produces. Simply stated, we are on an unsustainable cost trajectory.” —John Young, former USD (AT&L)

 Adherence to program execution processes aimed at satisfying the needs of the war fighter is essential: with resources to address contingencies, with proven technology, and viable poor estimates of production volumes.  Programs should be funded when:

 1. the requirement is clear (And requirements should be iterative);

2) funding is adequate, including reserves, is available

3) the technology is proven

 4) the system concept is well-defined

Related posts:

1. Defense Acquisition Guidebook From DAU The Defense Acquisition University has released an update to its...
2. Alpha Acquisition Process And Impact On Cost Analysis The Alpha Acquisition process may provide a cost savings to...
3. Acquisition Reform (WSARA) Webinar Discusses Lessons Learned and Way Forward If you are interested in government acquisition reform be sure...

The 2004  Software Engineering Body of Knowledge is available at no cost from: http://www.computer.org/portal/web/swebok/htmlformat  While it doesn’t focus on estimation, planning and control, it is a valuable resource for software engineers.  There will be an expanded 2010 version coming out as well.

Related posts:

1. Cost Estimating Body of Knowledge (CEBok) Now Available From SCEA The Cost Estimating Body of Knowledge (CEBok), the most robust...
2. IEEE Publishes New Software Failure Study: Less than 20% Failed This new article , “A Replicated Survey of IT Software...
3. CECIM: A Capability Improvement Model For Cost Engineering Being a major fan of repeatable process for cost and...

From Justin James and Techrepublic: IT Development Moneywasters

#1: Communication problems

#2: Process issues

#3: Refusal to go live and iterate (aka: insistence upon perfection)

#4: Penny wise, pound foolish

#5: Outsourcing missteps

#6: “The Longest Yard” (documentation and user training)

#7: Developers used as support staff

#8: Poor foundation for development

#9: Fail to know the business

#10: Neglect to calculate project ROI

Related posts:

1. Development Intelligence How I love that phrase “Development Intelligence”, patterned after business...
2. Information Technology (IT) IS Not Just A Commodity I have just started reading a book on the next...
3. Eating the IT Elephant: Moving From Greenfield to Brownfield Development The book “Eating the IT Elephant“ discusses the issues of moving...

It has been rewarding working with the Computer Aid  (CAI) people, the people who sponsor the ITMPI in tying together best practice approaches (SEER for Estimating, Planning and Control and Computer Aid’s Tracer for metrics, reporting and root level management).  I am always inspired when I hear the  CAI people explain their process and success in fixed price software development and maintenance.  They do it by a number of methods and processes.  But the one that always makes me the most excited is their Tracer software.  Tracer allows root level tracking of tasks and progress, providing near real time feedback regarding project health and status and individual task performance.  I think it is wonderful that they have made their solution available to the industry at large.   It is much like the factory floor real time feedback in manufacturing, applied to software.  From CAI’s web site is the following description which describes estimating effort, cost, and process tracking.:

The SEER Tracer alliance is a fusion of Galorath’s SEER for Software application suite – the world’s premier project estimation and planning application – and CAI’s Tracer application – the world’s premier operational IT control device. SEER optimizes project estimates and project planning while Tracer tracks real time effort and progress and feeds such operational data back into SEER for project tracking and forecasting.

About SEER:

 SEER is a complete CMMI Project Management solution that establishes estimates and automatically generates project plans based on those estimates, monitors projects against the plan, and aligns measurement and analysis activities. SEER for Software uses a combination of sizing metrics and techniques, parametric algorithms, knowledge bases (industry data), simulation-based probability analysis techniques, and user supplied data to estimate and analyze the development and maintenance of software projects with respect to effort, cost, schedule, staffing, risk (probability of success), and reliability (defects).

SEER provides a systematic approach for estimating the resources and scheduling that software development requires, and an unparalleled capability for trade-off and risk analysis.

About Tracer:

 Tracer was designed for use within the day-to-day IT operating work environment of IT Application Support personnel or Application Development teams with low administrative overhead. Tracer’s table driven design for all major components helps focus IT professionals on “work” not “data entry.” The flexibility of Tracer’s configuration tables allows easy adaptability to virtually any IT operating environment. The real-time customizable dashboards display all assigned work tasks to developers and support personnel, using color coding to highlight tasks approaching or exceeding service level goal thresholds. Resource/Task time tracking is integrated within all work processes and brings a dramatic increase in the accuracy of time and work related data reporting. Accurate and timely data collection and reporting are necessary to effectively manage the IT organizations work and resources.

Many IT software tools have some of the components, functions and features that are standard with Tracer. However, only Tracer has all these critical IT process management and work tracking components built-in:

• Defined process templates for application support and development
• Process enforcement based on configurable process rules
• Work, resource and time tracking
• Managing by Metrics – SLA based metrics graphs, trends and work / resource status reporting

About SEER / Tracer

• SEER / Tracer helps you estimate the effort and cost of IT and/or Software projects and their ongoing support
• SEER / Tracer helps you build realistic project plans, increasing the probability of project success
• SEER / Tracer drives a standardized and repeatable process, from initial requirements through development and maintenance
• SEER / Tracer functions seamlessly within a single integrated operating environment and historical data repository
• SEER / Tracer provides a comprehensive framework for planning, monitoring, control, and compliance and a comprehensive system for IT project governance

 The SEER Tracer Alliance represents a unique end to end solution that institutionalizes best practices throughout the entire IT project lifecycle, from requirements gathering, through estimation, project planning, measurement and analysis, development, monitoring/control, and maintenance.

 The SEER Tracer alliance is a fusion of Galorath’s SEER for Software application suite – the world’s premier project estimation and planning application – and CAI’s Tracer application – the world’s premier operational IT control device. SEER optimizes project estimates and project planning while Tracer tracks real time effort and progress and feeds such operational data back into SEER for project tracking and forecasting.

Related posts:

1. Process Compliance Saves 15% of Development or Maintenance Costs I had the opportunity to hear a brief on Computer...
2. Dan Galorath Presentation at SEER / Tracer Seminar In Tysons Corner October 2009 It was exciting to participate in a seminar with Computer...
3. Ten-step Project Estimation Process Software Estimation Concepts Many project managers and project management offices...

I heard of a wonderful blog on Zdnet regarding additional oversight and transparency in Government IT projects costs, schedule: S.920 the Information Technology (IT) Investment Oversight Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act of 2009. 

The bill is targeted to prevent issues:

1. cost overruns and schedule slippage from the estimates established at the time the program is initially approved

2. Number of requirements and business objectives at the time the program is approved that are not met by the delivered products

3. Number of critical defects and serious defects in delivered information technology.

The bill requires specific items be available on project performance including:

• Cost, schedule, and performance using Earned value (ANSI-EIA-748-B)
• Project Trends
• commencement of the project;
• Variance from cost, schedule or performance & rationale
• Number of times projects are re-baselined

  This can really help, if done correctly. ” When Performance Is Measured Performance Improves, When Performance Is Measured and Reported the Rate of Performance Increases”

Related posts:

1. Eight Causes of Project Failures: UK Government IT Projects From the POST report on UK Government IT projects, there...
2. Opportunity To Participate in Software Success Survey While I have been publishing the Standish Chaos survey results,...
3. The Future of Software Analysis Measurement Webinar Featuring Bill Curtis, David Herron and Dan Galorath We have some exciting events coming up this month with...

It appears that this is the final version of the GAO cost estimating guide which provides guidance on preparing viable cost estimates both early in the process and throughout the life cycle. Congratulations to the team.  This is a great contribution to the industry and can, if used as intended create more successful projects.  I especially appreciate the focus on preparing a viable estimate of cost, schedule, etc. then applying earned value management (EVM) to that. So often, in the past we have seen a chasm between those that generated estimates and the EVM people.  These are two sides of the same coin.  The introduction follows:

Because federal guidelines are limited on processes, procedures, and practices for ensuring credible cost estimates, the Cost Guide is intended to fill that gap. Its purpose is twofold—to address generally accepted best practices for ensuring credible program cost estimates (applicable across government and industry) and to provide a detailed link between cost estimating and EVM. Providing that link is especially critical, because it demonstrates how both elements are needed for setting realistic program baselines and managing risk. As a result, government managers and auditors should find in the Cost Guide principles to guide them as they assess (1) the credibility of a program’s cost estimate for budget and decision making purposes and (2) the program’s status using EVM. Throughout this guide, we refer to program cost estimates that encompass major system acquisitions, as well as government in-house development efforts for which a cost estimate must be developed to support a budget request. The basic information in the Cost Guide includes the purpose, scope, and schedule of a cost estimate; a technical baseline description; a work breakdown structure (WBS); ground rules and assumptions; how to collect data; estimation methodologies; software cost estimating; sensitivity and risk analysis; validating a cost estimate; documenting and briefing results; updating estimates with actual costs; EVM; and the composition of a competent cost estimating team.6 The guide discusses pitfalls associated with cost estimating and EVM that can lead government agencies to accept unrealistic budget requests—as when risks are embedded in an otherwise logical approach to estimating costs. Since the Department of Defense (DOD) is considered the leader in government cost estimating, the guide relies heavily on DOD for terminology and examples that may not be used by, or even apply to, other federal agencies. Chapters 1–17 of the Cost Guide discuss the importance of cost estimating and best practices associated with creating credible cost estimates. They describe how cost estimates predict, analyze, and evaluate a program’s cost and schedule and serve as a critical program control planning tool. Once cost estimates have been presented to and approved by management, the chapters also establish the basis for measuring actual performance against the approved baseline plan using an EVM system. Those chapters explain how EVM, if it is to work, must have a cost estimate that identifies the effort that is needed—the work breakdown structure—and the period of time over which the work is to be performed—the program schedule.7 In essence, the cost estimate is the basis for establishing the program’s detailed schedule, and it identifies the bounds for how much program costs can be expected to vary, depending on the uncertainty analysis. When all these tasks are complete, the cost estimate can be used to lay the foundation for the performance measurement baseline (PMB), which will measure actual program performance. Since sound acquisition management requires more than just a reliable cost estimate at a project’s outset, chapters 18–20 provide guidance on converting the cost estimate into an executable program and a means for managing program costs. Our program assessments have too often revealed that not integrating cost estimation, system development oversight, and risk management—three key disciplines, interrelated and essential to effective acquisition management—has resulted in programs costing more than planned and delivering less than promised. Therefore, chapters 18–20 address best practices in implementing and integrating these disciplines and using them to manage costs throughout the life of a program. OMB has set the expectation that programs will maintain current estimates of cost. This requires rigorous performance-based program management, which can be satisfied with EVM. Chapters 18–20 address the details of EVM, which is designed to integrate cost estimation, system development oversight, and risk management. Additionally, for programs classified as major acquisitions—regardless of whether the development work is completed in-house or under contract—the use of EVM is a requirement for development, as specified by OMB.8 The government may also require the use of EVM for other acquisitions, in accordance with agency procedures. Since linking cost estimating and EVM results in a better view of a program and allows for greater understanding of program risks, cost estimators and EVM analysts who join forces can use each other’s data to update program costs and examine differences between estimated and actual costs. This way, scope changes, risks, and other opportunities can be presented to management in time to plan for and mitigate their impact. In addition, program status can be compared to historical data to better understand variances. Finally, cost estimators can help EVM analysts calculate a cumulative probability distribution to determine the level of confidence in the baseline. But bringing a program to successful completion requires knowing potential risks and identifying ways to respond to them before they happen—using risk management to identify, mitigate, and assign resources to manage risks so that their impact can be minimized. This requires the support of many program management and engineering staff and it results in better performance and more reliable predictions of program outcomes. By integrating EVM data and risk management, program managers can develop current estimates at completion (EAC) for all levels of management, including OMB reporting requirements. Therefore, chapters 18–20 expand on these concepts by examining program cost planning, execution, and updating.

Related posts:

1. GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide Released Congratulations to the GAO team for releasing the “Cost Estimating...
2. GAO Cost Assessment Guidebook The GAO cost assessment Guidebook is something you should keep...
3. Galorath Article “Applying Earned Value Management To Software Intensive Programs Part 2 For paper with figures see Applying Earned Value Management To...