CSCI 510 Final Exam, Fall 2017 - CSSEcsse.usc.edu/classes/cs510_2017/exams/CS510 2017 Final Exam... · CSCI 510 Final Exam, Fall 2017 ... , December 11, 2017 4 questions, 300 points

CSCI510FinalExam,Fall2017v10ofsolution&rubric

Monday,December11,20174questions,300points

IfregisteredDENstudent,pleasecircle:Yes

LastName:_______________________________________

FirstName:______________________________________

USCID:___________________________________________

Question1(48) Question2(64) Question3(68) Question4(120)

Total(300)

When working exam questions, please assume that non-simple estimating situations do not occur in the problem, unless they are mentioned explicitly. Specifically, unless mentioned otherwise in the problem statement:

• The Post-Architecture model is used (not the Early Design model); • There is no Adapted (reused) software (i.e., all software is new); • Requirements Volatility (REVL) is zero; • There is no automatic translation; • The Inception and Transition phases are not part of the estimate (i.e., the model equations give the effort and schedule directly); • No risk reserves are needed; • The nominal schedule is to be used (i.e., SCED% = 100%); and • Only one module is to be produced.

As a related shortcut, a problem statement will frequently say something like "all other Effort Multipliers should be taken to be Nominal". As you have learned, the numeric value for any Effort Multiplier at the Nominal level is 1.0.

As another shortcut, there is a standard approximation for Scale Factors: When all Scale Factors are Nominal, you should use 1.1 as the value for the exponent E.

Use at least 3 significant digits for your final answer (and your intermediate results). More significant digits is acceptable. (To avoid some rounding difficulties, 4+ significant digits is recommended.)

CSCI510FinalExam,Fall2017 solution&rubricv10 December11

2

1. ICSM Principles Violation, 48 points, based on the Unaffordable Requirement case study in Chapter 4 of the ICSM book, reproduced with some modifications below. (Usually graded by Anandi)

4.1 Failure Story: The Unaffordable Requirement In the early 1980s, a large government organization contracted to scale up a useful 50-person department level information query and analysis system. The scaled-up system would provide more than 1,000 users, spread across a large building complex, with similar query and analysis capabilities. In an attempt to simplify the project, the customer prepared a contract to develop a system that would provide the existing department-level capabilities to the overall organization, which would then be extended to add or modify capabilities needed by the other users. A particularly valuable feature of the department-level system was its ability to respond to almost all queries in less than one second. To preserve this, the Customer fixed into the contract a requirement for a system response time of less than one second. It satisfied the System Requirements Review criteria at the beginning of the contract of being unambiguous, testable, and free of design commitments. The winning bidder for the job of Developer assumed that the job could be done by using the COTS product supporting the department system, enabling its access from the full set of Customer facilities, scaling up the workload, and tuning the resulting Initial Operational Capability (IOC) system to meet the one-second response time requirement. Subsequently, though, the Developer architects found that the COTS product could only be tuned to reach a 2.5 second response time for the full workload, and that sub-second performance could only be provided via a highly customized design that attempted to anticipate query patterns and cache copies of data so that each user’s likely data would be within one second’s reach (a 1980’s precursor of Google). The resulting hardware architecture had more than 25 super-midicomputers (an earlier term for a computer with performance and capacity between a minicomputer and a mainframe) busy caching data according to algorithms whose actual performance defied easy analysis. Creating a hardware-software architecture with this scope and complexity took 15 months of effort, and brought the estimated cost of the system to nearly $100 million, driven primarily by the requirement for a one-second response time, and required the project’s Preliminary Design Review to be delayed by 15 months.


3

Faced with this unattractive prospect (far more than the Customer’s budget and schedule for the system), the Customer and Developer decided to develop a prototype of the system’s user interface and representative capabilities to test the need for a 1-second response time for all queries. The results showed that a four-second response time would satisfy users 90 percent of the time. A four-second response time, with special handling for high-priority transactions, enabled the existing COTS product to be used, and dropped development costs to considerably less than Customer’s budget of $30 million. Fortunately, this showed that an affordable Initial Operational Capability (IOC) was achievable, but only after 15 months of wasted effort on the expensive-system architecture and a 15-month delay in delivery. However, it did not show that the IOC would satisfy the needs of the other user organizations, or of its Maintainer organization.

Cost


4

Exam Question SincetheUnaffordableRequirementprojectwasthefailureexampleforICSMPrinciple4,Evidence and Risk-Based Decisions (violationsofthisprinciplewerewellcoveredintheICSMbook),thisquestionasksyoutoidentifytwoUnaffordableRequirementviolationsofeachoftheotherthreePrinciples1,2,and3,bythesystem’sCustomerandDeveloperorganizations.8pointseachwillbeawardedforupto2well-definedviolationsofeachofPrinciples1,2,and3.Numberyourviolations.[ExampleviolationsaregivenbelowforPrinciple4.Otherviolationsaredeterminedbythegrader’sjudgment,basedonhowwelltheproposedviolationagreeswiththedefinitionofthePrinciple.However,aviolationthatessentiallyduplicatesanotherstudentviolationonthesamePrinciplegetsnocredit.]Asexamplesofthetypeofviolationsoftheprinciplestobeprovided,belowaresomeforPrinciple4.(Showinghowanyoftheseviolatesone(butnomore)oftheotherPrinciplesisOK.)TheCustomerdidnotattempttoprovideevidenceattheSystemRequirementsReviewthatthesystemcouldscaletoa1-secondresponse.TheCustomerdidnotattempttoprovideevidenceattheSystemRequirementsReviewthattheIOCwouldsatisfytheneedsoftheotheruserorganizations.TheCustomerdidnotattempttoprovideevidenceattheSystemRequirementsReviewthattheIOCwouldsatisfytheneedsofitsMaintainerorganization.TheDeveloperdidnotattempttoprovideevidenceattheSystemRequirementsReviewthatthedevelopedIOCcouldscaletoa1-secondresponse.TheDeveloperdidnotattempttoprovideevidenceattheSystemRequirementsReviewthatthedevelopedIOCcouldbeeasilymodifiedtosatisfytheneedsoftheCustomer’sotheruserorganizations.


5

Principle 1. Provide three violations of Principle 1, Stakeholder Value-Based Guidance Examples:TheCustomerdidnotattempttoinvolveotherusersindeterminingwhethertheIOCwouldbeeasilymodifiabletomeettheirneeds.TheCustomerdidnotattempttoinvolveitsMaintainerorganizationindeterminingwhethertheIOCwouldbeeasilymaintainable.TheDeveloperdidnotattempttoinvolvetheCustomerindeterminingwhethertheIOCwouldsatisfythe1-secondresponsetimerequirement,orwhetheracustomsolutionwouldbeaffordable.TheDeveloperdidnotattempttoinvolvetheCustomer’sMaintainerorganizationindeterminingwhethertheIOCwouldbeeasilymaintainable.


6

Principle 2. Provide three violations of Principle 2, Incremental Commitment and Accountability Examples:TheCustomerdidnotattempttoprovideplansattheSystemRequirementsReviewfortheotheruserorganizationstodeterminehowtheIOCwouldbemodifiedtosatisfytheirneeds.TheCustomerdidnotattempttoprovideplansattheSystemRequirementsReviewforitsMaintainerorganizationtoworkwiththeDevelopertoensurethattheIOCwouldbeeasilymaintainable.TheDeveloperdidnotattempttoprovideplansattheSystemRequirementsReviewforworkingwiththeCustomeronaninitialincrementtodetermineitsusers’responsetimeneeds.TheDeveloperdidnotattempttoprovideplansattheSystemRequirementsReviewforworkingwiththeCustomeronafollowonincrementtodeveloptheneededinfrastructuresupportforitsusers’responsetimeneeds.


7

Principle 3. Provide three violations of Principle 3, Concurrent Multi-Discipline Engineering TheCustomerdidnotattempttoprovideplansattheSystemRequirementsReviewfortheotheruserorganizationstoconcurrentlydeterminewiththeDeveloperhowtheIOCwouldbemodifiedtosatisfytheirneeds.TheCustomerdidnotattempttoprovideplansattheSystemRequirementsReviewforitsMaintainerorganizationtoconcurrentlyworkwiththeDevelopertoensurethattheIOCwouldbeeasilymaintainable.TheDeveloperdidnotattempttoprovideplansattheSystemRequirementsReviewforconcurrentlyworkingwiththeCustomeronaninitialincrementtodetermineitsusers’responsetimeneeds.TheDeveloperdidnotattempttoprovideplansattheSystemRequirementsReviewforconcurrentlyworkingwiththeCustomeronafollowonincrementtodeveloptheneededinfrastructuresupportforitsusers’responsetimeneeds.


8

2.COCOMOIIEstimate,64points,basedonthecasestudyinQuestion1. (Usually graded by Elaine)

GiventhattheCOTS-basedsystemcouldeasilyprovidea4-secondresponsetimetoqueries,andshouldbeablewithsomemodificationstoprovide2-secondresponsestoabout10%ofthequeries,theDeveloperproposeda2-phaseapproachtoreachafull-servicesolution.Phase1wouldinvolveabout25KSLOCofaccessextensionstoenabletheCustomer’sotheruserstoaccesstheCOTScapabilitiesprovidedtothecurrentuser-department.Phase2wouldidentifyanddevelopthehighest-priority100-KSLOCofadditionalcapabilitiestoenabletheCOTSproducttoaddresstheotherusers’high-priorityneeds.TheDeveloperagreedtoprovidesomeofitsbestperformerstoensuretimelyandhigh-qualityresults,andtoinvolvethemaintainersinthedevelopmenttoensureahighlymaintainablesystem.

PerformCOCOMOIIestimatesfortheeffort,cost,andscheduleofthetwophases(30pointseach).Showyourworkinestimatingtheeffort,cost,andscheduleforeachoption.Itisbesttoshowyourworkincaseearliercalculationsarewrong.

Calculationsareshownwiththreesignificantdigits;many-digitcalculationsarealsoacceptable.

2.aPhase1estimates(32points).GiventhattheDeveloperisprovidingHigh-capabilityperformersfortheproject,itsCOCOMOIIACAPandPCAPratingswillbeHigh,andtheDevelopercostswillbe$10Kperperson-month.ThecomplexityoftheCOTSproductanditsinterfaces,andthesizeofthedatabaseleadtoHighratingsfortheCOCOMOIICPLXandDATAcostdrivers,andaLowratingforthePlatformExperiencecostdriver.TheothercostdriversandthescalefactorratingswillbeNominalforPhase1;use1.1forthescalefactorexponentand0.318fortheTDEVexponent.Asstatedabove,thesizewillbe25KSLOC.


9

Effort [17 points total.] High DATA multiplier = 1.14. High CPLX multiplier = 1.17. High ACAP multiplier = 0.85. High PCAP multiplier = 0.88. Low PLEX multiplier = 1.09. EAF = 1.14 * 1.17 * 0.85 * 0.88 * 1.09 = 1.087. [EAF: 7 points total: 1 points for each correct multiplier. 2 points if EAF is numerically correct.] PM = 2.94 * (Size ^ E) * EAF = 2.94 * (25 ^ 1.1) * 1.087 = 2.94 * 34.5 * 1.087 = 110.3 person-months [Rest of PM calculation: 10 points total: 7 points if form of equation is correct (partial credit allowed on incorrect forms). 3 points for numerically correct answer; 2 points if correct with student EAF; 1 point if a computational error at this point.] Cost [5 points total] = PM * $10K/PM = 110.3 PM * $10K/PM = $1,103K = $1.103M. [3 points if form of equation is correct (partial credit allowed on incorrect form). 2 points if numerically correct answer; 1 point if numerically correct based on student PM.] Schedule (months) with Nominal SCED [10 points total] = 3.67 * (PM ^ F) = 3.67 * (110.3 ^ 0.318) = 3.67 * 4.46 = 16.4 months. [7 points if form of equation is correct (partial credit allowed on incorrect form). 3 points if numerically correct answer; 2 points if numerically correct based on student PM.]


10

2.bPhase2estimates(32points).Phase1wouldcreateanInitialOperationalCapability(IOC)fortheentireCustomerorganizationtousetheDepartment-levelfunctionality.TheDeveloper’sproposedPhase2wouldbeginwiththeCustomerworkingwiththeDeveloperhavingalreadyidentified,sized,andprioritizedthese,andselectingthehighest-prioritycapabilitiesthatwouldfitwithina100-KSLOCFullOperationalCapability(FOC)system.Lower-prioritycapabilitieswouldthenbecomeaprioritizedbacklogforthemaintenancephase.

Performeffort,cost,andscheduleestimatesforanapproachthataddsfurtherhigh-capabilityDeveloperpersonneltodevelopthe100-KSLOCFullOperationalCapability(FOC)system.ThePhase1Developers’experienceindevelopingtheIOCenablestheDevelopertoincreasetheirPhase2PlatformExperience(PLEX)ratingfromLowtoNominal.ThePhase1HighratingsforDATA,CPLX,ACAP,andPCAPremainthesameforPhase2,asdotheNominalratingsfortheremainingcostdriversandscalefactors.

Effort [17 points total.] High DATA multiplier = 1.14. High CPLX multiplier = 1.17. High ACAP multiplier = 0.85. High PCAP multiplier = 0.88. EAF = 1.14 * 1.17 * 0.85 * 0.88 = 0.998. [EAF: 7 points total: 5 points for correct multipliers. 2 points if EAF is numerically correct.] OK to get the result by dividing 1.087 by the 1.10 multiplier for Low PLEX in Phase 1, although this rounds to 0.997 vs 0.998.


11

PM = 2.94 * (Size ^ E) * EAF = 2.94 * (100 ^ 1.1) * 0.998 = 2.94 * 158.5 * 0.998 = 465.1 (or 464.87869293549023) person-months [Rest of PM calculation: 10 points total: 7 points if form of equation is correct (partial credit allowed on incorrect forms). 3 points for numerically correct answer; 2 points if correct with student EAF; 1 point if a computational error at this point.] Cost [5 points total] = PM * $10K/PM = 465.1 PM * $10K/PM = $4,651K = $4.651M (or $4.6487869293549023M). [3 points if form of equation is correct (partial credit allowed on incorrect form). 2 points if numerically correct answer; 1 point if numerically correct based on student PM.] Schedule (months) with Nominal SCED [10 points total] = 3.67 * (PM ^ F) = 3.67 * (465.1 ^ 0.318) = 3.67 * 7.051 = 25.8 months (or 25.87498282561267months). [7 points if form of equation is correct (partial credit allowed on incorrect form). 3 points if numerically correct answer; 2 points if numerically correct based on student PM.]


12

3.BusinessCaseAnalysis,68points,basedonthecasestudyfromQuestion1. (Usually graded by Jim)

TheCustomerwouldliketogetanearlierunderstandingofwhichadditionalcapabilitieswillbemostneededbytheotherusers.RatherthanwaituntiltheendofPhase1tostartdoingthis,whiletheDeveloperiscreatinginPhase1anInitialOperationalCapability(IOC)fortheentireCustomerorganizationtousetheDepartment-levelfunctionality,theCustomerproposesthattheDeveloperprovideadditionalhigh-capabilitypersonneltoworkwiththeCustomer’sotherenduserstoidentify,prototype,size,andselectthehighest-prioritycapabilitiesthatwillfitwithinthe100-KSLOCFullOperationalCapability(FOC)system.Asbefore,lower-prioritycapabilitieswouldthenbecomeaprioritizedbacklogforthemaintenancephase.TheCustomerindicatesthatthiswouldnotonlyprovideearlierandbetterselectionofthePhase2capabilities,itwouldprovidetheDeveloperwiththeprototypers’experiencewiththenatureofthesecapabilities.GiventhatthiswouldincreasetheDeveloper’scost-driverratingsforApplications,Platform,andLanguageandToolExperience,itcouldbethatthereducedcostofPhase2wouldmorethanpayforthecostsofengagingtheprototypingteam.

3.aPhase1estimates(19points).PerformaCOCOMOIIestimateoftheeffort,cost,andscheduleforaDeveloperprototypingteamcreating20-KSLOCworthofprototypesofthehigher-priorityotherusers’neededcapabilities.RelevantcostdriverratingsareHighratingsforCPLX,DATA,ACAP,andPCAP,andaLowratingforPLEX(thesameasforthePhase1developers;OKtotakeEAFcalculationfromquestion2.a)

Effort [12 points total.] High DATA multiplier = 1.14. High CPLX multiplier = 1.17. High ACAP multiplier = 0.85.


13

High PCAP multiplier = 0.88. Low PLEX multiplier = 1.09. EAF = 1.14 * 1.17 * 0.85 * 0.88 * 1.09 = 1.087. [EAF: OK to take from question 2.a] PM = 2.94 * (Size ^ E) * EAF = 2.94 * (20 ^ 1.1) * 1.087 = 2.94 * 27.0 * 1.087 = 86.3 person-months [PM calculation: 12 points total: 2 points for correct EAF; 7 points if form of equation is correct (partial credit allowed on incorrect forms). 3 points for numerically correct answer; 2 points if correct with student EAF; 1 point if a computational error at this point.] Cost [2 points total] = PM * $10K/PM = 86.3 PM * $10K/PM = $863K = $0. 863M. [1 points if form of equation is correct (partial credit allowed on incorrect form). 1 points if numerically correct answer; 0.5 point if numerically correct based on student PM.] Schedule (months) with Nominal SCED [5 points total] = 3.67 * (PM ^ F) = 3.67 * (86.3 ^ 0.318) = 3.67 * 4.13 = 15.1 months. [3 points if form of equation is correct (partial credit allowed on incorrect form). 2 points if numerically correct answer; 1 point if numerically correct based on student PM.]


14

3.bPhase2estimates(23points).Again,Phase1wouldcreateanInitialOperationalCapability(IOC)fortheentireCustomerorganizationtousetheDepartment-levelfunctionality.TheCustomer’sproposedPhase2wouldbeginwiththeCustomerworkingwiththeunifiedDeveloperteam,includingthedevelopersofthePhase1IOC,andtheparallelPhase1prototypingteamworkingwiththeCustomer’sadditionalendusersinidentifying,sizing,prototypingandprioritizingtheirdesiredcapabilities,andselectingthehighest-prioritycapabilitiesthatwillfitwithina100-KSLOCFullOperationalCapability(FOC)system.Lower-prioritycapabilitieswouldthenbecomeaprioritizedbacklogforthemaintenancephase.

Performeffort,cost,andscheduleestimatesforanapproachthataddsthehigh-capabilityDeveloperprototypingpersonneltothePhase1IOCteam,todevelopthe100-KSLOCFullOperationalCapability(FOC)system.ThecombinationofthePhase1Developers’experienceindevelopingtheIOCcombineswiththeprototypers’experienceontheaddedPhase2capabilitiestoincreasetheirPhase2PlatformExperience(PLEX)andtheirApplicationsExperience(APEX)fromLowtoHigh.ThePhase1HighratingsforDATA,CPLX,ACAP,andPCAPremainthesameforPhase2,asdotheNominalratingsfortheremainingcostdriversandscalefactors.

Effort [13 points total.] High DATA multiplier = 1.14. High CPLX multiplier = 1.17. High ACAP multiplier = 0.85. High PCAP multiplier = 0.88. High PLEX multiplier = 0.91. High APEX multiplier = 0.88. EAF = 1.14 * 1.17 * 0.85 * 0.88 * 0.91 * 0.88 = 0.799. Alternatively, from Phase 1 EAF:


15

EAF = 1.087 / 1.09 * 0.91 * 0.88 = 0.799. [EAF: 3 points total: 2 points for correct multipliers. 1 point if EAF is numerically correct.] PM = 2.94 * (Size ^ E) * EAF = 2.94 * (100 ^ 1.1) * 0.799 = 2.94 * 158.5 * 0.799 = 372.3 person-months [Rest of PM calculation: 10 points total: 7 points if form of equation is correct (partial credit allowed on incorrect forms). 3 points for numerically correct answer; 2 points if correct with student EAF; 1 point if a computational error at this point.] Cost [5 points total] = PM * $10K/PM = 372.3 PM * $10K/PM = $3,723K = $3.723M. [3 points if form of equation is correct (partial credit allowed on incorrect form). 2 points if numerically correct answer; 1 point if numerically correct based on student PM.] Schedule (months) with Nominal SCED [5 points total] = 3.67 * (PM ^ F) = 3.67 * (372.3 ^ 0.318) = 3.67 * 6.57 = 24.1 months. [3 points if form of equation is correct (partial credit allowed on incorrect form). 2 points if numerically correct answer; 1 point if numerically correct based on student PM.]


16

3.cPerformaReturnonInvestment(ROI)analysisforinvestingintheprototypingteam(18points).

Note:Itemsinparenthesesarenumbersofpreviousquestions.

RecallthatthecostoftheDeveloperStrategywasthecostofcreatinganIOC(2.a)plusthecostofsimplybuildinga100-KSLOCFOC(2.b).AlsorecallthatthecostoftheCustomerStrategywasthecostofcreatinganIOC(2.a)plusthecostofdevelopinga20-KSLOCprototype(3.a)plusthecostofthe100-KSLOCFOCbuiltafterprototyping(3.b);theaddedcostoftheCustomerStrategyisthecostofdevelopingtheprototype.TheNetBenefitthenisthecostoftheDeveloperStrategyminusthecostoftheCustomerStrategy.

ComputethecostoftheDeveloperStrategy,thecostoftheCustomerStrategy,andtheNetBenefit.UsingtheNetBenefitandtheaddedcostoftheCustomerStrategy,computetheROIofusingtheCustomerStrategy.

[Student answers from Questions 2.a, 2.b, 3.a, and 3.b are taken to be the correct starting values.]

TotalcostoftheDeveloperStrategyisthecostoftheIOC(2.a)($1,103K)plusthecostoftheFOC(2.b)($4,651K) = $5,754K. [3 points total: 2 for correct formula, 1 for correct values. Partial credit allowed.]

TotalcostoftheCustomerStrategyisthecostoftheIOC(2.a)($1,103K), plus thecostoftheprototypingteam(3.a)($863K), plus the cost of the full-team Phase B effort (3.b) ($3,723K) = $5,689K. [4 points total: 3 for correct formula, 1 for correct values. Partial credit allowed.]

Net Benefit = $5,754K - $5,689K = $65K. [3 points total: 2 for correct formula, 1 for correct values. Partial credit allowed.]

AddedcostoftheCustomerStrategy(3.a)=$863K. [2 points total, for explicitly naming and/or using the 3.a value, in the ROI calculation.]

ReturnonInvestment(ROI) =(NetBenefit)/Cost


17

=$65K/$863K =0.0753(7.53%)[6 points total: 4 for correct formula, 2 for correct values. Partial credit allowed.]


18

3.dPerformaschedulecomparison(8points).

ComputethetotalschedulefortheDeveloperStrategyandthetotalschedulefortheCustomerStrategy.HowmuchtimedoestheCustomerStrategysave?

[Student answers from Questions 2.a, 2.b, 3.a, and 3.b are taken to be the correct starting values.] DeveloperStrategyschedule:Phase1+Phase2=16.4+25.8=42.2months. [2 points total. Partial credit allowed.]

CustomerStrategy:Phase1+Phase2=16.4+24.1=40.5months(prototypingis15.1monthsthatrunsinparallelwithPhase1). [3 points total: 2 for correct formula. 1 for correct values. Partial credit allowed.]

Thegaininscheduleis:42.2–40.5=1.7months. [3 points total: 2 for correct formula; 0 for subtracting the Developer Strategy from the Customer Strategy. 1 for correct values. Partial credit allowed.]


19

4.True-FalseQuestions;120points,6pointseach. (Usually graded by Elaine)

Puteithera“T”or“F”onthelineprecedingthestatement.Gradingwillbebasedonthisalone,notanyadditionalstatementsorexplanationsprovided.

1.__T___Asystemdevelopmentwillsucceedifandonlyifitmakeswinnersofitssuccess-criticalstakeholders. (ICSMpg10)2.__OK__COCOMOII'sTEAMscalefactoraccountsforthesourcesofprojectturbulenceandentropybecauseofdifficultieswithinthedevelopmentteam. (EP-2pg34)[Questionisbadlyworded(shouldbe“only”withinthedevelopmentteam.FullcreditforeitherTorF.]3.__T___LenCayetanoanalyzesprojectshe'sworkedonusingCOCOMOIIscalefactorsasaframework. (EC-21#48,52,56,60,64,65,66)4.__T___ByusingaFigureofMeritwecanproduceasingledecisioncriterionfromacombinationofseveraldecisioncriteria. (EP-6pg9)5.__F___Aconclusionfromthelectureoninformationbuyingisthatoneshouldalwaysbuildaprototypeorsimulation. (EC-12#19)6.__T___IfRisariskwithlossL,wheretheprobabilityofL=1.0,thenRisactuallynotarisk. (EC-13#4,5)7.__F___Ifscalabilityrisksarehighandpersonnelturnoverisfrequent,itisrecommendedtotailorthelife-cycleprocessaroundplan-drivenrisks. (EC-17#29,30)8.__F___TheelementsofWinWinnegotiationarewinconditions,issues,risks,andagreements. (EC-23#8)9.__T___UndertheICSM,theonlysituationinwhichtheOperationsandSupportphaseendsissomekindofendoflifesituation. (EC-14#17)


20

10.__T___Ingeneral,concurrentengineeringwillhavetobringitsthreadstogetherandperhapssuspenddevelopmentforevidence-basedreviews. (EC-19#2)11.__T___OnepartoftheACM/IEEESoftwareEngineeringCodeofEthicssaysthatasoftwareengineershouldalwaysputthepublic'sinterestfirst. (EC-25#12)12.__T___COCOMOIIincludesanon-linearreusemodel. (EC-3#13,14)13.__F___COCOMOIIestimatingisnotofusetoanagileproject,especiallyonethat'sunderway. (EC-7#28)14.__F___TheICSMcan'tbecommittedtoincrementally. (ICSMsection0.5)15.__F___ManagingOperations&Maintenancecostsislikeherdingcattle. (EC-22#2,3)16.__T___Planningtoimplementonlysunny-dayrequirementscancauseaprojecttotakethelowerbranchoftheConeofUncertainty. (EC-22#6,7)17.__F___WarrenReidrecommendsthatonenotmakeanactualcommitmentonaprojectuntiltheconeofuncertaintysuggeststhatthecostestimateiswithinplusorminus5%ofactualcost. (EC-24#11)18.__T___COCOMOIIcanberegardedasaproductionfunctionwhichrelatesdevelopmentman-months,asinputs,todeliveredSLOCs,asoutputs. (EP-5#21)19.__T___Agoodpracticeistoconcurrentlyengineeraproject'srequirementsanddesign. (ICSMpg94)20.__F___Agoodpracticeistoconcurrentlyengineeraproject'sdesignanddevelopment. (ICSMpg85)

Documents

CSCI 510 Final Exam, Fall 2017 - CSSEcsse.usc.edu/classes/cs510_2017/exams/CS510 2017 Final Exam... · CSCI 510 Final Exam, Fall 2017 ... , December 11, 2017 4 questions, 300 points