Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!marick
From: marick@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: defending SE investments
Message-ID: <39400099@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 29 May 90 21:38:00 GMT
Lines: 29
Nf-ID: #R:<0aLHNBr0BwwA0b92gS@transarc.com:-33:m.cs.uiuc.edu:39400099:000:1436
Nf-From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!marick    May 29 16:38:00 1990


> [...] I sometimes have to defend the manpower I expend on things like
> tool building, tracking and estimation, and debugging assistance.
> 
> Can anyone refer me to authoritative sources that concisely, compellingly,
> and maybe even quantitatively evaluate the impact on project efficiency of
> different levels of investment in these areas?

Some estimation models include the effects of these kinds of things.
You might be able to play "What If" scenarios with them.  I don't know
if the models would make for particularly compelling arguments --
there are all kinds of applicability problems -- but they'd sure be
quantitative.  Cocomo is probably the best-known model -- see Boehm's
Software Engineering Economics, Prentice-Hall, 1981.  Once upon a
time, there was a freeware version of Cocomo floating around, but I
haven't heard of it for years.  There are also companies that sell
similar estimation/modelling services/tools, but I don't remember the
names.

Another tack is to ask what your competitors and potential competitors
are doing and why.  There was a short survey article about trends in
competitive analysis in "The Economist" within the past couple months.
I don't remember if it had pointers to other articles or books. This
approach is not concise, probably not quantitative, and only
compelling under the right circumstances.

Brian Marick
Motorola @ University of Illinois
marick@cs.uiuc.edu, uiucdcs!marick