The first part of an estimating framework for estimating the implementation and maintenance of packaged software: The realization stage of the implementation. Check the @NesmaNL Twitter account to download the full framework documentation from mid November 2012

1. The first part of a framework : Implementations
NESMA working group “Estimating packaged software”, IWSM - October 2012
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 1

2. About NESMA
NEtherlands Software Metrics users Association
 from 1995; started in 1989 as NEFPUG (NEtherlands Function Point Users Group)
 Not-for-profit
 Run by volunteers
Vision
 Improving the predictability of the cost of the delivery and the maintenance of
software
 Making the predictability objective by means of unambiguous measurement data
Mission
 NESMA is the not-for-profit organisation in the area of predictability of the cost of
the delivery and the maintenance of software
 NESMA joins as much as possible existing standards with a different
focus than measurement
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 2

3. Estimating packaged software
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 3

4. Introduction
 Current situation
 There is no generic and independent framework for estimating the cost of
packaged software for both implementation and maintenance
 Each vendor and implementation partner uses its own proprietary
techniques for estimation
 It’s hard to compare estimates from different sources or to build up
benchmark data for public reference
 Scope of this presentation
 A generic framework for estimating the realisation stage of packaged
software implementations
 Ambition
 Iteratively expand the scope of this framework to the total scope of
implementation and maintenance and
 Give insight in how to implement this in an organisation
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 4

5. Scope
 Implementation of packaged software
Blueprint Realization Deployment
 Maintenance of packaged software
Event-driven Planned
Run maintenance maintenance
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 5

6. General aspects
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 6

7. Generic architecture model package
Project Scope 1. Configuration
custom build 6
Standard Industry best practice
2 functionality, geared to the customer by
interfaces
configuration
4
5 5 5
2. Custom built functionality
1 Organization specific functionality not
inside package
configuration 3. Implemented modules
Core module package (M1) Subset of modules chosen
3 4. External interfaces
custom build Interfaces with other applications/data
interfaces 5. Internal interfaces
Package proprietary interfaces
6. Data
Data conversions to use data from
existing in/external systems
configuration
Core module package (M2)
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 7

8. Differences packaged vs bespoke software
Aspect Packaged software Bespoke software
Functionality overdose exact fit
creation of functionality configuration (bulk) and tailor completely bespoke
made (missing parts)
lifecycle cost usually cheaper mostly more expensive
size ability poor: a few aspect methods good: detailed and global
(RICEF, CEMLI) (FP’s, Cosmic, UCP, LOC)
estimate ability vague (supplier standards, no good: market shared
common methods) productivity rates
Benchmarking poor: due to size ability good: tooling; benchmark
data available
cost engineering more complex due to different mostly straightforward
element types
popularity CxO fast growing only when necessary
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 8

9. Estimating Packaged Software
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 9

10. EPS-Framework
 Generic cost estimation model for packaged software
 Implementation Blueprint Realization Deployment
 Maintenance Run
Event-driven
maintenance
Planned
maintenance
 Two types of cost drivers
 Size dependent cost drivers
 Size drivers
 Productivity drivers
 Size independent cost drivers
 Cost drivers are specific for each lifecycle stage
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 10

11. EPS-Framework applied to the realisation stage
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 11

12. Size depedent cost drivers
Since...
effort(*) = size x productivity
where:
 size = almost linear dependent
 productivity = logarithmic dependent due to complexity expression
...our model exists of two size dependent cost drivers:
 size drivers, and
 productivity drivers
(*) effort = effort to realise functionality
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 12

13. Size drivers
 Size drivers measure the size of the package architecture elements
 Each size driver can have its own size measure
 Each size driver has a delivery rate
Package architecture elements:
1. Configuration
2. Custom built functionality
3. Implemented modules
4. External interfaces
5. Internal interfaces
6. Data
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 13

14. Size drivers - continued
 Size drivers measure the size of the package architecture elements
This adds up to
a combined
effort
Size dep. driver Size x Delivery rate =
Effort
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 14

15. Productivity drivers
 Cost-drivers that influence the effort are called productivity drivers
 Productivity drivers are different for each stage
 The stages for implementation are blueprint, realization and deployment
 Examples of productivity drivers for the realisation stage are:
 Number of concurrent users
 Maturity of the packaged software technology
 Supplier of the packaged software
 Required system reliability
 Percentage of reusable components
In formula:
Size dep. driver productivity driver x combined effort = total effort
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 15

16. Size independent drivers
 Cost-drivers that are independent of any type of sizing are called
size independent drivers
 Examples are:
 Licenses
 Hardware
 Data center floor space
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 16

17. The cost estimation model
Size dependent Size Driver 1  Size X Delivery Rate = Effort
Cost: ...
Size Driver n  Size X Delivery Rate = Effort
Combined Productivity
X Drivers
Effort

Total Effort

Size
independent
Cost Cost
Cost: Size independent Size dependent
Total Cost
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012
17

18. Estimating packaged software
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 18

19. Sizing methods
 RICEF
 Reports, Interfaces, Conversions, Enhancements and Forms
 CEMLI
 Configurations/Customization, Extensions, Modification, Localization and
Integration
 Configuration Points
 A Gartner proprietary technique to measure the configuration activities in
existing packaged software to realize new functionalities
 COSMIC
 An ISO standardized functional sizing method
 Function Point Analysis
 An ISO standardized functional size measurement method
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 19

20. Applicability
Method Configuration Custom Interfaces Data Modules
RICEF Yes, if the Yes, if the Yes, if the Yes, if the No
elements are functionality is elements are elements are
defined defined defined defined
CEMLI Yes, if the Yes, if the Yes, if the Yes, if the No
elements are functionality is elements are elements are
defined defined defined defined
Configuration Yes No Yes Yes No
points
COSMIC Yes, if the Yes, if the Yes, if the Yes, if a data No
functionality is functionality is interface model is
defined defined specifications available
are defined
FPA Yes, if the Yes, if the Yes, only Yes, if a data No
functionality is functionality is external model is
defined defined interfaces available
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 20

21. Packaged software - Implementation
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 21

22. Summary
 A first step to define the EPS-framework
 Currently defined for the realisation stage
 Model based on cost drivers
 Complete scope including cost estimation
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 22

23. Next steps
 Define an independent standard for estimating packaged software
 Verify the model in practical cases
 Define cost drivers for implementation and maintenance
 Refine the model for implementation
 Enhance the model for maintenance
 First release EPS-Framework for implementation
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 23

24. Working group members
 Frank Vogelezang  René Nijland
 Ordina – Proposal Management Center  Capgemini – Application outsourcing
 frank.vogelezang@ordina.nl  rene.nijland@capgemini.com
 Eric van der Vliet  John Hommes
 Logica, now part of CGI – E&M Desk  Sogeti Netherlands
 eric.van.der.vliet@logica.com  john.hommes@sogeti.nl
 Hans Smit  Karel van Straaten
 Atos  SNS Reaal
 hans.smit@atos.net  karel.vanstraaten@snsreaal.nl
 Dirk Vandendaele  Peter Bellen
 Gartner Benelux  QSM Europe – Estimation
 dirk.vandendaele@gartner.com  peter.bellen@qsm-europe.com
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 24

25. NESMA
NEtherlands Software Metrics users Association
www.nesma.nl
office@nesma.nl
@NesmaNL
NESMA-NL
18-10-2012 © NESMA 2012; IWSM 2012 25