This document provides an overview of common issues encountered in COSMIC functional size measurement (FSM) trainings conducted with industrial professionals. It describes the diverse audience profiles and objectives of the trainings. The trainings involve both group theory sessions and individual practical exercises using company case studies. Some highlighted issues include difficulties understanding why FSM is a good estimation method, focusing on technical rather than requirements aspects, accounting for non-functional requirements, determining the appropriate level of granularity, and properly identifying data groups and data movement. The document aims to better understand challenges faced by trainees and improve the training approach.

1. Tips and Hints for an effective COSMIC learning
Process gained from Industrial Trainings
Sanae Saadaoui, Annick Majchrowski, Christophe Ponsard
IWSM Mensura 2015
Poland, Cracow 5-7.10.2015

2. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 2
So$ware
&
System
Engineering
Futur
Internet
Internet
of
Things
CETIC: An ICT technology Transfer Center
• Process
&
Product
Quality
• Requirement
engineering
• OpAmizaAon
• Modelling
• Security
• Cloud
CompuAng
• SemanAc
Web
• Big
Data
• Open
Source
&
Open
Data
• Programmable
Systems
• Smart
Objects
• Wireless
Sensor
Network

3. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 3
Structure of the presentation
• General
context
of
the
COSMIC
trainings
– Audience
– ObjecAves
– OrganisaAon
• Highlighted
issues
• RecommendaAons
on
how
to
address
issues
• Conclusion
and
related
work

4. GENERAL
CONTEXT
OF
THE
COSMIC
TRAININGS
6/10/15

5. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 5
Audience of trainings
Industrials
with
different
profiles:
• Different
domains:
ReArement,
banking,
So$ware
companies,
space
• Different
size
:
small,
medium
and
big
companies
• Different
maturity
level:
low,
medium
and
high
• Different
business
goals
and
expectaAons

6. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 6
Objectives of the trainings
Different
companies
with
different
needs
• A
more
suited
measurement
method
– Get
an
introducAon
to
discover
COSMIC
• Adopt
and
implement
COSMIC
measurement
– Master
COSMIC
and
pracAce
• Use
of
COSMIC
mandatory
(Customer
requirement,
call
of
tender)
– Learn
to
direct
pracAce
in
call
of
tender

7. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 7
Trainings organisation
• Group
sessions
– Theory:
COSMIC
concepts
with
academic
examples
and
general
exercises
– PracDce:
Customized
cases
studies
based
on
projects,
documents
and
reports
from
the
trained
company
• Help
understand
the
culture
of
the
company
and
speak
the
same
language
• MoDvate
trainees
to
use
and
pracAce
directly
• Individual
trainings:
Coaching
sessions
a$er
group
sessions
– PracAce
on
real
work
master
the
method

8. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 8
A Company profile example
• Banking
systems
• Big
company,
medium
maturity
level
• Regular
submissions
for
call
of
tenders
• Challenges
–
offshore
divisions,
In
Europe
&
outside
Europe:
lack
of
a
standardized
measurement
method
è
difficulty
in
comparing
projects
è
High
costs
&
waste
of
Ame
• Business
objecAves
related
to
COSMIC:
– Implement
a
standardized
measurement
method
in
all
divisions
– A
compeDDve
advantage

9. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 9
Characteristics of industrial trainings

10. HIGHLIGHTED
ISSUES
6/10/15

11. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 11
Understanding Software functional
size-1
• A
recurrent
quesAon:
“Why
funcAonal
size
is
a
good
esAmaAon
of
so$ware
size
?
It
doesn't
count
all
aspects
of
SW”
• Trainees
roles
and
relevance
to
measurement
tasks
– Developer's
role:
more
focused
on
technical
aspects
and
no
helicopter
view
of
the
project
– Small
companies:
person
play
different
roles
(PM,
analyst,
developer)
in
the
same
project;
and
in
general
more
focused
on
development
tasks
• Difficulty
to
think
in
terms
of
requirements
anlysis
and
get
distance
from
technical
aspects

12. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 12
Understanding Software functional
size-2
• Psychological
resistance:
Habits
are
hard
to
change
– tendency
to
think
«
how
will
be
the
size?
»
In
terms
of
lines
of
code,
to
validate
the
funcAonal
size
– My
experience
tell
me
it
should
be
bigger
/
smaller…
– Melt
COSMIC
method
with
personal
judgment
based
esAmaAon
method

13. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 13
Non-functional requirements (NFRs)
• NFRs
are
not
counted
by
the
COSMIC
method
– Difficult
to
agree
on
that
funcAonal
size
is
a
good
measure
for
projects
with
many
NFRs
• A
smarter
NFRs
analysis
shows
many
NFRs
may
evolve
to
funcAonal
requirements
and
be
counted
– Issue
related
to
requirement
analysis
experAse
–
Issue
o$en
met
in
low
maturity
companies
• Real
NFRs
won’t
be
counted
– Related
to
COSMIC
method

14. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 14
Level of granularity
• Difficulty
to
understand
the
level
of
granularity
concept
– In
COSMIC:
One
standard
measurement
level
of
granularity
=
“Where
individual
processes
&
and
their
data
movement
can
be
idenAfied
and
defined”
– How
to
be
sure
the
good
level
of
granularity
is
reached?
– O$en,
requirements
documents
with
many
levels
of
details
(different
modelling/requirement
methods)
• Lack
of
standard
language:
Requirements/COSMIC
• Complexity
of
COSMIC
measurement
task/method
• Complexity
of
requirements
analysis
task

15. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 15
Identifying data groups and data
movement
• COSMIC
Measurement
process:
idenAfy
data
groups
and
funcAonal
processes
and
funcAonal
sub-­‐processes
(data
movement
types
and
data
manipulaAon)
• Difficulty
to
think
of
data
movement
of
data
group
instead
of
ajributes
separately
•
Psychological
resistance
and
development
tasks
influence
– “with
ajributes,
the
count
should
be
correct,
because
in
my
experience
…”

16. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 16
Development Effort estimation
•
Most
companies
interested
in
development
effort
esAmaAon
in
Man-­‐Months
• Difficulty
to
go
from
CFP
to
MM
– Lack
of
a
standardized
way
– Need
of
real
data
(use
of
a
repository
ISBSG)
– Lack
of
a
structured
project
management
method
to
help
get
numbers

17. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 17
Summary of identified issues
• Issues
related
to
COSMIC
concepts
– DefiniAon
highly
improved
through
the
different
COSMIC
versions
– Complexity
of
the
method
also
related
to
requirement
analysis
task
• Issues
related
requirement
engineering
aspects
– Lack
of
a
structured/standard
requirement
analysis
method
– Low
of
maturity
in
so$ware
pracAces

18. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 18
Summary of higlighted issues
• Issues
related
to
project
management
issues
– Lack
of
a
high
view
of
the
project
– Assign
adapted
role
for
measurement
tasks
to
get
distance
from
technical
and
development
tasks
• Issues
related
to
psychological
resistance
– Change
resistance
– Tendancy
to
use
unconsciously
personal
judgment
while
measuring
with
COSMIC
method

19. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 19
Maturity level impact
A
clear
correlaAon
between
low
maturity
level
of
a
company
and
the
number
of
issues
met
during
the
trainings

20. HOW
TO
ADDRESS
IDENTIFIED
ISSUES
?
6/10/15

21. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 21
Recommendations
• Enhance
maturity
level
to
limit
impact
of
highlighted
issues
• Integrate
requirement
engineering
and
project
management
concepts
into
trainings
• Re-­‐design
of
COSMIC
trainings
to
include
first
points
• Address
psychological
aspects

22. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 22
Re-design of trainings
• Define
a
global
long
term
training
process
– Different
successive
levels
to
match
the
maturity
and
goals
of
the
company
• Use
of
coaching
to
speed
up
the
learning
– Leave
3
to
6
months
between
trainings
sessions
(levels)
• Take
Ame
to
assimilate
the
training
and
pracAce
it
• Give
Ame
to
the
company
(if
necessary)
to
adapt
its
processes

23. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 23
Training levels-1
Basic
level
• addresses
two
points:
– Acquire
fundamentals
of
requirements
and
project
management
and
why
it
is
important
to
measure
– Learn
the
principals
of
the
COSMIC
method
• Main
target:
low
maturity
companies

24. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 24
Training levels - 2
Intermediate
level
• More
in
depth
concepts,
focus
on
special
cases,
group
work
• Goal:
be
able
to
apply
the
learning
in
most
cases
• Main
target:
– companies
o$en
using
in-­‐house
methods
and
conscious
about
need
of
standardized
methods
– Companies
with
basic
level
training

25. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 25
Training levels -3
Advance
level
• Deep
understanding
of
the
method:
theory
and
pracAces
• Be
able
to
use
it
in
all
situaAons
• Focus
on
complex
case
studies
addressing
real
complex
situaAons
• Targets:
– companies
already
using
some
other
measurement
methods
and
aware
of
their
problems
and
needs
– Compangnies
with
level
2
training

26. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 26
Assess maturity level
• Assess
the
maturity
level
of
the
company
before
deciding
on
the
training
level
– Through
the
lightweight
ISO29110
quesAonnaire
(SW
pracAces
for
VSE)
– If
possible,
improve
first
the
maturity
level
on
SW
development
• Requirement
analysis
and
modelling
• Implement
ISO29110
pracAces

27. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 27
Phsychological aspects
• Improve
moAvaAon
and
make
sure
people
feel
engaged
in
the
same
way
– idenAfy
potenAal
causes
(role,
background
etc.)
Important
to
understand
the
companies
context
before
training
• Can
be
idenAfied
through
the
ISO29110
quesAonnaire
– Use
of
real
cases
for
pracAce
is
a
strong
moAvaAon
tool

28. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 28
Future and related work
• What
next
?
– Validate
and
Improve
the
training
design
through
a
survey
• Provide
efficient
tools
to
support
and
ease
the
whole
process:
from
requirements
gathering
to
measurement
– Based
on
the
KAOS
methodology
(goal-­‐oriented
requirement
methodology)
– Map
to
the
COSMIC
method
– A
First
prototype
has
been
developed
recently

29. © CETIC – www.cetic.be06/10/2014 29
A automated measurement tool

30. Aéropôle de Charleroi-Gosselies
Rue des Frères Wright, 29/3
B-6041 Gosselies
info@cetic.be
www.cetic.be
Thank you
Merci