Software cost estimation
Because no model is right, but
all models can be useful
Objectives
To introduce the fundamentals of software
costing and pricing
To describe three metrics for software
productivity assessment
To explain why different techniques
should be used for software estimation
To describe the principles of the COCOMO
2 algorithmic cost estimation model
Topics covered
Planning a project means:
Identifying activities, milestones, deliverables
Identifying logical dependencies among activites
Allocating
but
How much effort is required to complete
an activity?
How much calendar time is needed to
complete an activity?
What is the total cost of an activity?
Software cost components
Hardware and software costs.
Travel and training costs.
Effort costs (the dominant factor in most
projects)
The salaries of engineers involved in the
project;
Social and insurance costs.
Effort costs must take overheads into
account
Costs of building, heating, lighting.
Costs of networking and communications.
Costs of support resources
Costs of shared facilities (e.g library, staff
restaurant, etc.).
Personell Costs
Overheads may be 100%, 200% of the
standard costs
A software engineer earning 30K/y may
cost 50K/y
Cost tables
Analyst
60.00/h + 60.00/h
Designer 40.00/h + 40.00/h
Developer 20.00/h + 20.00/h
Costing
now, if we manage to:
Estimate the effort per resource needed to
complete the project, by using the cost
table, we can estimate the project cost
(remember though:
hardware/software costs
Travel and training costs)
Costing and pricing
There is not a simple relationship
between the development cost and
the price charged to the customer.
Broader organisational, economic,
political and business considerations
influence the price charged.
Software pricing factors
Market
opportunity
A d evelopment organisation may quote a low price because it
wishes to move into a new segment of the software market.
Accepting a low profit on one project may give the opportunity
of more profit later. The experience gained may allow new
products to be developed.
Cost estimate
uncertainty
If an o rganisation is unsure of its cost estimate, it may increase
its price by some contingency over and above its normal profit.
Contractual terms
A c ustomer may be willing to allow the developer to retain
ownership of the source code and reuse it in other projects. The
price charged may then be less than if the software source code
is handed over to the customer.
Requirements
volatility
If the requirements are likely to change, an organisation may
lower its price to win a c ontract. After the contract is awarded,
high prices can be charged for changes to the requirements.
Financial health
Developers in financial difficulty may lower their price to ga in
a c ontract. It is better to make a sm aller than normal profit or
break even than to go out of business.
Estimation Techniques
Pricing to Win:
The software cost is estimated to be whatever the customer has available to spend on the
project. The estimated effort depends on the customers budget and not on the software
functionality.
Parkinsons law
work expands to fill the time available. The cost is determined by available resources rather
than by objective assessment. If the software has to be delivered in 12 months and 5 people
are available, the effort required is estimated to be 60 person-months.
Analogy
This technique is applicable when other projects in the same application domain have been
completed. The cost of a new project is estimated by analogy with these completed projects.
Myers (Myers 1989) gives a very clear description of this approach.
Expert Judgement
Several experts on the proposed software development techniques and the application
domain are consulted. They each estimate the project cost. These estimates are compared
and discussed. The estimation process iterates until an agreed estimate is reached.
Algorithmic cost modelling
A model based on historical cost information that relates some software metric (usually its
size) to the project cost is used. An estimate is made of that metric and the model predicts the
effort required.
Pricing to win
The project costs whatever the
customer has to spend on it.
Advantages:
You get the contract.
Disadvantages:
The probability that the customer gets
the system he or she wants is small.
Costs do not accurately reflect the work
required.
Pricing to win
This approach may seem unethical and
un-businesslike.
However, when detailed information is
lacking it may be the only appropriate
strategy.
The project cost is agreed on the basis of
an outline proposal and the development
is constrained by that cost.
A detailed specification may be negotiated
or an evolutionary approach used for
system development.
Estimation Techniques
Pricing to Win:
The software cost is estimated to be whatever the customer has available to spend on the
project. The estimated effort depends on the customers budget and not on the software
functionality.
Parkinsons law
work expands to fill the time available. The cost is determined by available resources rather
than by objective assessment. If the software has to be delivered in 12 months and 5 people
are available, the effort required is estimated to be 60 person-months.
Analogy
This technique is applicable when other projects in the same application domain have been
completed. The cost of a new project is estimated by analogy with these completed projects.
Myers (Myers 1989) gives a very clear description of this approach.
Expert Judgement
Several experts on the proposed software development techniques and the application
domain are consulted. They each estimate the project cost. These estimates are compared
and discussed. The estimation process iterates until an agreed estimate is reached.
Algorithmic cost modelling
A model based on historical cost information that relates some software metric (usually its
size) to the project cost is used. An estimate is made of that metric and the model predicts the
effort required.
Top-down and bottom-up estimation
Any of these approaches may be used
top-down or bottom-up.
Top-down
Start at the system level and assess the overall
system functionality and how this is delivered
through sub-systems.
Bottom-up
Start at the component level and estimate the
effort required for each component. Add these
efforts to reach a final estimate.
Top-down estimation
Usable without knowledge of the
system architecture and the
components that might be part of the
system.
Takes into account costs such as
integration, configuration
management and documentation.
Can underestimate the cost of
solving difficult low-level technical
problems.
Bottom-up estimation
Usable when the architecture of the
system is known and components
identified.
This can be an accurate method if
the system has been designed in
detail.
It may underestimate the costs of
system level activities such as
integration and documentation.
Estimation methods
Each method has strengths and
weaknesses.
Estimation should be based on several
methods.
If these do not return approximately the
same result, then you have insufficient
information available to make an estimate.
Some action should be taken to find out
more in order to make more accurate
estimates.
Pricing to win is sometimes the only
applicable method.
A rough Model
Team size
(# people)
/
Man-power needed
(man-month)
*
Personell costs
(euros/month)
Project length
(months)
Project Cost
(euros)
+%
Price to the client
(euros)
Software productivity
A measure of the rate at which individual
engineers involved in software
development
produce software and associated
documentation.
Not quality-oriented although quality
assurance is a factor in productivity
assessment.
Essentially, we want to measure useful
functionality produced per time unit.
Productivity measures
Size related measures based on some
output from the software process.
This may be lines of delivered source
code, object code instructions, etc.
Function-related measures based on
an estimate of the functionality of the
delivered software. Function-points
are the best known of this type of
measure.
A rough Model
Team size
(# people)
Estimation of the size
of the system (LOC)
Productivity
(LOC/man-month)
/
Man-power needed
(man-month)
Personell costs
(euros/month)
Project length
(months)
Project Cost
(euros)
+%
Price to the client
(euros)
Measurement problems
Estimating the size of the measure (e.g.
how many function points).
Estimating the total number of
programmer
months that have elapsed.
Estimating contractor productivity (e.g.
documentation team) and incorporating
this
estimate in overall estimate.
Lines of code
What's a line of code?
The measure was first proposed when programs were
typed on cards with one line per card;
How does this correspond to statements as in Java
which can span several lines or where there can be
several statements on one line.
What programs should be counted as part of the
system?
This model assumes that there is a linear
relationship between system size and volume of
documentation.
Productivity comparisons
The lower level the language, the more
productive the programmer
The same functionality takes more code to
implement in a lower-level language than in a
high-level language.
The more verbose the programmer, the
higher the productivity
Measures of productivity based on lines of
code suggest that programmers who write
verbose code are more productive than
programmers who write compact code.
Productivity Examples
Real-time embedded systems
40-160 LOC/P-month.
Systems programs
150-400 LOC/P-month.
Commercial applications
200-900 LOC/P-month.
System development times
Analysis
Assembly code
High-level language
Assembly code
High-level language
3 weeks
3 weeks
Design
Coding
Testing
5 weeks
5 weeks
8 weeks
4 weeks
10 weeks
6 weeks
Size
Effort
Productivity
5000 lines
1500 lines
28 weeks
20 weeks
714 lines/month
300 lines/month
Documentation
2 weeks
2 weeks
Function points
Based on a combination of program
characteristics
external inputs and outputs;
user interactions;
external interfaces;
files used by the system.
A weight is associated with each of these
and the function point count is computed
by multiplying each raw count by the
weight and summing all values.
UFC=(number of elementsofgiventype) (weight)
The function point count is modified by
complexity of the project
Function Points
ExtInp
ExtOut
UserInt
Unadjusted
Function
Count
0.65 + 0.01 *
Adjustement Factors
Adjusted
Function
Count
Function Points:
Adjustment Factors
The system requires reliable saves and
backups?
The system requires communication of
data?
Elaboration is distributed?
Performance is a critical factor?
The system will work on a well known
environment?
The system requires on-line data entry
Function points
FPs can be used to estimate LOC depending on the
average number of LOC per FP for a given language
LOC = AVC * number of function points;
AVC is a language-dependent factor varying from 200-300
for assemble language to 2-40 for a 4GL
C++
C
Lisp
Spreadsheet
36
128
64
6
Pascal
98
Quickbasic
58
Data varies from organization to organization: need of
collecting data!
Function Points
FPs are very subjective. They depend
on the estimator
Automatic function-point counting is
impossible.
on the other hand, they can be
used relatively early on a software
development process!
Object points
Object points (alternatively named
application points) are an alternative
function-related measure to function
points when 4Gls or similar languages are
used for development.
Object points are NOT the same as object
classes.
The number of object points in a program
is a weighted estimate of
The number of separate screens that are displayed;
The number of reports that are produced by the system;
The number of program modules that must be
developed to supplement the database code;
Object point estimation
Object points are easier to estimate from a
specification than function points as they
are simply concerned with screens,
reports and programming language
modules.
They can therefore be estimated at a fairly
early point in the development process.
At this stage, it is very difficult to estimate
the number of lines of code in a system.
Productivity estimates
In object points, productivity has
been measured between 4 and 50
object points/month depending on
tool support and developer
capability.
Factors affecting productivity
Application
domain
experience
Knowledge of the application domain is essential for effective
software development. Engineers who already understand a
domain are likely to be the most productive.
Process quality
The development process used can have a significant effect on
productivity.
Project size
The larger a project, the more t ime required for team
communications. Less time is available for development so
individual productivity is reduced.
Technology
support
Good support technology such as CASE tool
s, configuration
management systems, etc. can improve productivity.
Working
environment
Working environment may have a tremendous effect on
productivity.
Quality and productivity
All metrics based on volume/unit time are
flawed because they do not take quality into
account.
Productivity may generally be increased at the
cost of quality.
It is not clear how productivity/quality metrics
are related.
If requirements are constantly changing then an
approach based on counting lines of code is not
meaningful as the program itself is not static;
Estimation techniques
There is no simple way to make an accurate
estimate of the effort required to develop a
software system
Initial estimates are based on inadequate information in
a user requirements definition;
The software may run on unfamiliar computers or use
new technology;
The people in the project may be unknown.
Project cost estimates may be self-fulfilling
The estimate defines the budget and the product is
adjusted to meet the budget.
Changing technologies
Changing technologies may mean that previous
estimating experience does not carry over to new
systems
Distributed object systems rather than mainframe
systems;
Use of web services;
Use of ERP or database-centred systems;
Use of off-the-shelf software;
Development for and with reuse;
Development using scripting languages;
The use of CASE tools and program generators.
we have now a way of estimating
the system size based on some
(preliminary) information on the
system
how do we link it though, to effort
and duration?
Algorithmic cost modelling
Cost is estimated as a mathematical function of
product, project and process attributes whose
values are estimated by project managers:
Effort = A SizeB M
A is an organisation-dependent constant, B reflects the
disproportionate effort for large projects and M is a
multiplier reflecting product, process and people
attributes.
The most commonly used product attribute for cost
estimation is code size.
Most models are similar but they use different values for A,
B and M.
Estimation accuracy
The size of a software system can only be
known accurately when it is finished.
Several factors influence the final size
Use of COTS and components;
Programming language;
Distribution of system.
As the development process progresses
then the size estimate becomes more
accurate.
Estimate uncertainty
Example
Cost estimate of $1 million during the
requirements phase
Likely actual cost is in the range ($0.25M, $4M)
Cost estimate of $1 million in the middle of the
specification phase
Likely actual cost is in the range ($0.5M, $2M)
Cost estimate of $1 million end of the
specification phase (earliest appropriate time)
Likely actual cost is in the range ($0.67M,
$1.5M)
The COCOMO model
An empirical model based on project
experience.
Well-documented, independent model
which is not tied to a specific software
vendor.
Long history from initial version published
in 1981 (COCOMO-81) through various
instantiations to COCOMO 2.
COCOMO 2 takes into account different
approaches to software development,
reuse, etc.
COCOMO 81
simple
small teams, familiar environment, well-understood applications, simple nonfunctional requirements (EASY)
PM = 2.4 (KDSI) 1.05
TDEV = 2.5 (PM) 0.38
moderate
Project team may have experience mixture, system may have more significant
non-functional constraints, organization may have less familiarity with
application (HARDER)
PM = 3 (KDSI) 1.12
TDEV = 2.5 (PM) 0.35
embedded Hardware/software systems
tight constraints, including local regulations and operational procedures;
unusual for team to have deep application experience (HARD)
PM = 3.6 (KDSI) 1.2
TDEV = 2.5 (PM) 0.32
KDSI = thousands of Delivered Source Instructions (= source lines, excl. comments)
PM
= Programmer Months (Effort)
TDEV = Expected duration of project (Time) )
COCOMO 81 Productivity
Person-months
1000
Embedded
800
600
Intermediate
400
Simple
200
20
40
60
KDSI
80
100
120
Example
Simple project , 32 KDSI
PM = 2.4 (32) 1.05 = 91 person*month
TDEV = 2.5 (91) 0.38
= 14 month
N = 91/14
= 6.5 person
Embedded project, 128 KDSI
PM = 3.6 (128)1.2 = 1216 person-months
TDEV = 2.5 (1216)0.32
= 24 months
N = 1216/24
= 51 persons
Effort (PM)
Effort (PM)
Durata (TDEV)
Numero persone
necessarie (N)
Numero persone
disponibili
Durata (TDEV)
Intermediate COCOMO
Takes basic COCOMO as starting point
Identifies personnel, product, computer
and project attributes which affect cost
Multiplies basic COCOMO cost (required
effort) by attribute multipliers which may
increase or decrease costs
Multipliers are assigned values in the
range [0.7, 1.66]
multiplier < 1 implies reduced cost
Intermediate COCOMO attributes (-->
multipliers)
Personnel attributes
Analyst capability
Programmer capability
Programming language
experience
Application experience
Computer attributes
(i.e. constraints imposed on SW by the
adopted HW)
Execution time constraints
Memory space constraints
Project attributes
Modern programming practices
Product attributes
structured programming, when
Reliability requirement
COCOMO was defined;
O-O programming today
Database size
Software tools
Product complexity
Required development schedule
Mismatch between basic COCOMO
and Client schedule gives
Model tuning - Each organization must identify its own
attribute > 1
attributes and associated multiplier values
A statistically significant database of detailed
cost information is necessary
Example
Embedded software system on microcomputer hardware.
Basic COCOMO predicts a 45 person-month effort requirement
Attributes:
RELY = 1.15,
STOR = 1.21,
TIME = 1.10,
TOOL = 1.10
Intermediate COCOMO predicts
45 * 1.15*1.21.1.10*1.10 = 76 person-months.
Total cost = 76 * $7000 = $532, 000
COCOMO 2
COCOMO 81 was developed with the
assumption that a waterfall process
would be used and that all software
would be developed from scratch.
Since its formulation, there have been
many changes in software engineering
practice and COCOMO 2 is designed to
accommodate different approaches to
software development.
COCOMO 2 models
COCOMO 2 incorporates a range of submodels that produce increasingly detailed
software estimates.
The sub-models in COCOMO 2 are:
Application composition model. Used when
software is composed from existing parts.
Early design model. Used when requirements
are available but design has not yet started.
Reuse model. Used to compute the effort of
integrating reusable components.
Post-architecture model. Used once the
system architecture has been designed and
more information about the system is
available.
COCOMO II Model Stages
4x
2x
Early Design
(13 parameters)
1.5x
1.25x
Relative
Size Range x
0.8x
Post-Architecture
(23 parameters)
0.67x
0.5x
Applications
Composition
(3 parameters)
0.25x
Feasibility
Plans
and
Rqts.
Detail
Design
Spec.
Product
Design
Spec.
Rqts.
Spec.
Concept of
Operation
Product
Design
Detail
Design
Phases and Milestones
Accepted
Software
Devel.
and Test
Use of COCOMO 2 models
Application composition model
Supports prototyping projects and projects where
there is extensive reuse.
Based on standard estimates of developer
productivity in application (object) points/month.
Takes CASE tool use into account.
Formula is
PM = ( NAP (1 - %reuse/100 ) ) / PROD
PM is the effort in person-months, NAP is the number of
application points and PROD is the productivity.
Object point productivity
Developers experience
and capability
Very low
Low
Nominal
High
Very high
ICASE maturity and
capability
Very low
Low
Nominal
High
Very high
PROD (NOP/month)
13
25
50
Early design model
Estimates can be made after the requirements
have been agreed.
Based on a standard formula for algorithmic
models
PM = A SizeB M where
M = PERS RCPX RUSE PDIF PREX FCIL SCED;
A = 2.94 in initial calibration, Size in KLOC, B varies from
1.1 to 1.24 depending on novelty of the project,
development flexibility, risk management approaches
and the process maturity.
Multipliers
Multipliers reflect the capability of the
developers, the non-functional
requirements, the familiarity with the
development platform, etc.
PERS - personnel capability;
RCPX - product reliability and complexity;
RUSE - the reuse required;
PDIF - platform difficulty;
PREX - personnel experience;
FCIL - the team support facilities;
SCED - required schedule.
The reuse model
Takes into account black-box code that is
reused without change and code that has
to be adapted to integrate it with new
code.
There are two versions:
Black-box reuse where code is not modified.
An effort estimate (PM) is computed.
White-box reuse where code is modified. A
size estimate equivalent to the number of lines
of new source code is computed. This then
adjusts the size estimate for new code.
Reuse model estimates 1
For generated code:
PM = (ASLOC * AT/100)/ATPROD
ASLOC is the number of lines of
generated code
AT is the percentage of code
automatically generated.
ATPROD is the productivity of
engineers in integrating this code.
Reuse model estimates 2
When code has to be understood and
integrated:
ESLOC = ASLOC * (1-AT/100) * AAM.
ASLOC and AT as before.
AAM is the adaptation adjustment
multiplier computed from the costs of
changing the reused code, the costs of
understanding how to integrate the
code and the costs of reuse decision
making.
Post-architecture level
Uses the same formula as the early design
model but with 17 rather than 7 associated
multipliers.
The code size is estimated as:
Number of lines of new code to be developed;
Estimate of equivalent number of lines of new
code computed using the reuse model;
An estimate of the number of lines of code that
have to be modified according to requirements
changes.
The exponent term
This depends on 5 scale factors (see next slide). Their
sum/100 is added to 1.01
A company takes on a project in a new domain. The client
has not defined the process to be used and has not allowed
time for risk analysis. The company has a CMM level 2
rating.
Precedenteness - new project (4)
Development flexibility - no client involvement - Very
high (1)
Architecture/risk resolution - No risk analysis - V. Low
.(5)
Team cohesion - new team - nominal (3)
Process maturity - some control - nominal (3)
Scale factor is therefore 1.17.
Exponent scale factors
Precedentedness
Reflects the previous experience of the organisation with this type of
project. Very low means no previous experience, Extra high means
that the organisation is completely familiar with this application
domain.
Development
flexibility
Reflects the degree of flexibility in the development process. Very
low means a prescribed process is used; Extra high means that the
client only sets general goals.
Architecture/risk
resolution
Reflects the extent of risk analysis carried out. Very low means little
analysis, Extra high means a complete a thorough risk analysis.
Team cohesion
Reflects how well the development team know each other and work
together. Very low means very difficult interactions, Extra high
means an integrated and effective team with no communication
problems.
Process maturity
Reflects the process maturity of the organisation. The computation
of this value depends on the CMM Maturity Questionnaire but an
estimate can be achieved by subtracting the CMM process maturity
level from 5.
Multipliers
Product attributes
Concerned with required characteristics of the
software product being developed.
Computer attributes
Constraints imposed on the software by the
hardware platform.
Personnel attributes
Multipliers that take the experience and
capabilities of the people working on the project
into account.
Project attributes
Concerned with the particular characteristics of
the software development project.
Effects of cost drivers
Exponent value
1.17
System size (including factors for reuse 128, 000
and requirements volatility)
Initial COCOMO estimate without
730 person-months
cost drivers
Reliability
Complexity
Memory constraint
Tool use
Schedule
Adjusted COCOMO estimate
Very high, multiplier = 1.39
Very high, multiplier = 1.3
High, multiplier = 1.21
Low, multiplier = 1.12
Accelerated, multiplier = 1.29
2306 person-months
Reliability
Complexity
Memory constraint
Tool use
Schedule
Adjusted COCOMO estimate
Very low, multiplier = 0.75
Very low, multiplier = 0.75
None, multiplier = 1
Very high, multiplier = 0.72
Normal, multiplier = 1
295 person-months
COCOMO II Experience Factory: I
Rescope
No
System objectives:
fcny, perf., quality
COCOMO 2.0
Corporate parameters:
tools, processes, reuse
Cost,
Sched,
Risks
Ok?
Yes
COCOMO II Experience Factory: II
Rescope
No
System objectives:
fcny, perf., quality
COCOMO 2.0
Corporate parameters:
tools, processes, reuse
Cost,
Sched,
Risks
Ok?
Yes
Execute
project
to next
Milestone
M/S
Results
Milestone plans,
resources
Milestone expectations
Revise
Milestones,
Plans,
Resources
No
Ok?
Revised
Expectations
Yes
Done?
Yes
End
No
COCOMO II Experience Factory: III
Rescope
No
System objectives:
fcny, perf., quality
COCOMO 2.0
Corporate parameters:
tools, processes, reuse
Cost,
Sched,
Risks
Ok?
Yes
Execute
project
to next
Milestone
M/S
Results
Milestone plans,
resources
Milestone expectations
No
Ok?
Revised
Expectations
Yes
Recalibrate
COCOMO 2.0
Accumulate
COCOMO 2.0
calibration
data
Revise
Milestones,
Plans,
Resources
Done?
Yes
End
No
COCOMO II Experience Factory: IV
Rescope
No
System objectives:
fcny, perf., quality
COCOMO 2.0
Corporate parameters:
tools, processes, reuse
Improved
Corporate
Parameters
Ok?
Yes
M/S
Results
Milestone plans,
resources
Cost, Sched,
Quality drivers
Evaluate
Corporate
SW
Improvement
Strategies
Cost,
Sched,
Risks
Execute
project
to next
Milestone
Milestone expectations
No
Ok?
Revised
Expectations
Yes
Recalibrate
COCOMO 2.0
Accumulate
COCOMO 2.0
calibration
data
Revise
Milestones,
Plans,
Resources
Done?
Yes
End
No
Project planning
Algorithmic cost models provide a basis
for
project planning as they allow alternative
strategies to be compared.
Example: Embedded spacecraft system
Requirements
Must be reliable;
Must minimise weight (number of chips);
Multipliers on reliability and computer constraints >
1.
Cost components
Target hardware;
Development platform;
Development effort.
Management options
Management option costs
Option
RELY
STOR
TIME
TOOLS
LTEX
Total effort Software cost
A
B
1.39
1.39
1.06
1
1.11
1
0.86
1.12
1
1.22
63
88
C
D
E
F
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.39
1
1.06
1
1
1.11
1.11
1
1
0.86
0.86
0.72
1.12
1
0.84
1.22
0.84
60
51
56
57
Total cost
949393
1313550
Hardware
cost
100000
120000
895653
769008
844425
851180
105000
100000
220000
120000
1000653
897490
1044159
1002706
1049393
1402025
Option choice
Option D (use more experienced staff)
appears to be the best alternative
However, it has a high associated risk as
experienced staff may be difficult to find.
Option C (upgrade memory) has a lower
cost saving but very low risk.
Overall, the model reveals the importance
of staff experience in software
development.
Project duration and staffing
As well as effort estimation, managers
must estimate the calendar time
required to complete a project and
when staff will be required.
Calendar time can be estimated using
a COCOMO 2 formula
Staffing requirements
The time required is independent of the number
of people working on the project.
Staff required cant be computed by diving the
development time by the required schedule.
The number of people working on a project varies
depending on the phase of the project.
The more people who work on the project, the
more total effort is usually required.
A very rapid build-up of people often correlates
with schedule slippage.
Key points
There is not a simple relationship between
the price charged for a system and its
development costs.
Factors affecting productivity include
individual aptitude, domain experience,
the development project, the project size,
tool support and the working environment.
Software may be priced to gain a contract
and the functionality adjusted to the price.
Key points
Different techniques of cost estimation
should be used when estimating costs.
The COCOMO model takes project, product,
personnel and hardware attributes into
account when predicting effort required.
Algorithmic cost models support
quantitative option analysis as they allow the
costs of different options to be compared.
The time to complete a project is not
proportional to the number of people
working on the project.
