This digest was created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker’s presentation(s) and comments from the audience. The content should not be viewed as an official transcript of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. The digest has been made available for purposes of scholarship, posted by David Ing.
INCOSE International Workshop 2014, Torrance, California
Review articles are at:
DoD Research Council
- Baseline CARADMO Expedited Software Development Model
Agile seems to does schedules better
- 5 people on projects of 25, get done 3.5 months earlier
3 interviews, 10 visits to organization, 23,500 words of interview notes
- Wordle says most important and people, process, requirements
CORADMO-SE Rating scales, schedule multipliers
- Risk factor: If doing agile, it’s faster, a safety case takes longer
- More bureaucrats, takes longer
- If have general tool support with maturity, faster
- Smaller project, gets done faster
- Multidomain integration problems
- In people, if knowledge, skills and agility, then gets done faster
- Compatibility in team
Some data from Agiletech, calibrated cost drivers to the degree to which they can take the square root of the person-months
- Actual durations are close to estimates
Working with industrial affiliates in getting more data on from being plan-driven to agile
- Found some technologies assumed mature weren’t so mature
- Some tools didn’t work well in agile
- People in courses didn’t learn how to be more agile
- About 1/3 of the people didn’t want to do agile
- Actually finished 15% longer, estimated would be 13% slower
- So, 3 projects later, acted to fix maturity, got tools better, get people more agile or move them somewhere else
- Could do some project streamlining
- Thought should do some concurrent Verification and Validation
- If fixed, the predicted should be 23% faster, actually found 20% faster
Conclusion: Need to consider all schedule drivers
- Still doing further data collection
Question: Why CORADMO and not COSYSMO?
Did start with COSYSMO, but didn’t have enough data
- Software engineering and systems engineering is pretty well all knowledge work anyway
Comment: The model is useful for companies embarking on journey, have a way to measure progress. Could start the paper that way. Why do I care? Companies need a measurement system.
Comment: In description, didn’t hear the kinds of projects that this data could apply to. e.g. for stable hardware? In company, hearing that agile works great for software, but it may or may not work well for hardware. Could say up front that this is for knowledge engineering and information engineering.
These were all software projects.
Comment: Reference another paper?
Yes, earlier CSER paper
Comment: Introducing another term of expediting? Is this agile? Confusing to the casual reader. Does it mean the same thing?
Comment: Maybe a paragraph on separating the different factors
- Should refer to the 2013 CSER paper
- Some were doing hardware, some with software, some more pure systems engineering
- Air Force most interested in systems engineering part
Comment: Consideration for self-directed teams?
Have factor as team compatibility, may cover a good deal of that.
- When get some more data, may be able to figure out what cohesiveness means