Skip to main content

Project Delay Variability Simulation in Software Product Line Development

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 4470))

Abstract

The possible variability of project delay is useful information to understand and mitigate the project delay risk. However, it is not sufficiently considered in the literature concerning effort estimation and simulation in software product line development. In this paper, we propose a project delay simulation model by introducing a random variable to represent the variability of adaptive rework. The model has been validated through stochastic simulations by comparing generated adaptive rework to an actual change effort distribution, and by sensitivity analysis. The result shows that the proposed model is capable of producing reasonable variability of adaptive rework, and consequently, variability of project delay. Analysis of our model indicates that the strength of dependency has a larger impact than the number of residual defects, for the studied simulation settings. However, high levels of adaptive rework variability did not have great impact on overall project delay.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Clements, P., Northrop, L.M.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Schmid, K., Biffl, S.: Systematic management of software product lines. Softw. Process Improve. Pract. 10, 61–76 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. van Genuchten, M.: Why is software late? an empirical study of reasons for delay in software development. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 17(6) (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Subramanian, G.H., Breslawski, S.: An empirical analysis of software effort estimate alterations. J. Systems and Software 31(2), 135–141 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dijkstra, E.: Notes on structured programming. In: Dahl, O.J., Dijkstra, E., Hoare, C.A.R. (eds.) Structured Programming, Academic Press, London (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  6. IEEE: IEEE std. 1219-1998, IEEE standard for software maintenance (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nonaka, M., Azuma, M.: Software delivery estimation model for incremental and iterative development process considering undetected design defects (in japanese). In: Proc. Software Symposium 2003, pp. 107–114 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jørgensen, M.: Realism in assessment of effort estimation uncertainty: It matters how you ask. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30, 209–217 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boehm, B.W., Abts, C., Brown, A.W., Chulani, S., Clark, B.K., Horowitz, E., Madachy, R., Reifer, D., Steece, B.: Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Boehm, B.W., Brown, A.W., Madachy, R., Yang, Y.: A software product line life cycle cost estimation model. In: Proc. 2004 Intl. Symp. Empirical Softw. Eng (ISESE’04), pp. 156–164 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, Y., Gannod, G.C., Collofello, J.S.: A software product line process simulator. Softw. Process Improve. Pract. 11, 385–409 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yang, D., Wan, Y., Tang, Z., Wu, S., He, M., Li, M.: COCOMO-U: An Extension of COCOMO II for Cost Estimation with Uncertainty. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M., Wernick, P. (eds.) SPW 2006 and ProSim 2006. LNCS, vol. 3966, pp. 132–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Donzelli, P.: A decision support system for software project management. IEEE Software 23(4), 67–75 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Abdel-Hamid, T., Madnick, S.: Software Project Dynamics- An Integrated Approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Calavaro, G.F., Basili, V.R., Iazeolla, G.: Simulation modeling of software development process. In: Proc. 7th European Simulation Symposium, Soc. for Computer Simulation (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hansen, G.A.: Simulating software development processes. IEEE Computer 29(1), 73–77 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Antoniol, G., Cimitile, A., Lucca, G.A., Penta, M.: Assessing staffing needs for a software maintenance project through queuing simulation. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 30(1), 43–58 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Padberg, F.: A study on optimal scheduling for software projects. Softw. Process Improve. Pract. 11, 77–91 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kellner, M.I., Madachy, R.J., Raffo, D.M.: Software process simulation modeling: Why? what? how? J. Systems and Software 46(2-3), 113–122 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Epping, A., Lott, C.M.: Does software design complexity affect maintenance effort? In: Proc. 19th Softw. Eng. Workshop, pp. 297–313 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bocco, M.G., Moody, D.L., Piattini, M.: Assessing the capability of internal metrics as early indicators of maintenance effort through experimentation. J. Software Maintenance and Evolution 17(3), 225–246 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ramanujan, S., Scamell, R.W., Shah, J.R.: An experimental investigation of the impact of individual, program, and organizational characteristics on software maintenance effort. J. Systems and Software 54, 137–157 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kan, S.H., Dull, S.D., Amundson, D.N., Lindner, R.J., Hedger, R.J.: As/400 software quality management. IBM Systems Journal 33(1), 62–88 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Remus, H.: Integrated software validation in the view of inspections / reviews. In: Proc. Symposium on Softw. Validation, pp. 57–64. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Musa, J.D.: Software Reliability Engineering. Osborne/McGraw-Hill, New York (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  26. SEL: Sel (software engineering laboratory) data (1997), http://www.cebase.org

  27. Defamie, M., Jacobs, P., Thollembeck, J.: Software reliability: assumptions, realities and data. In: Proc. 1999 Intl. Conf. Softw. Maintenance (ICSM’99), pp. 337–345 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sargent, R.G.: Validation and verification of simulation models. In: Proc. 31st Conf. Winter Simulation, pp. 39–48 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen, S.: Predicting when product line investment pays. Technical Report Techinical Report CMU/SEI-2003-TN-017, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Böckle, G., Clements, P., McGregor, J.D., Muthig, D., Schmid, K.: Calculating roi for software product lines. IEEE Software 21(3), 32–38 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Qing Wang Dietmar Pfahl David M. Raffo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Nonaka, M., Zhu, L., Babar, M.A., Staples, M. (2007). Project Delay Variability Simulation in Software Product Line Development. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds) Software Process Dynamics and Agility. ICSP 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4470. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72426-1_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72426-1_24

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-72425-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-72426-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics