The Effects of Reuse on Legacy DoD Systems - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

The Effects of Reuse on Legacy DoD Systems

By: Meredith Eiband, Dr. Tom Holzer, Dr. Tim Eveleigh & Dr. Shahryar SarkaniApril 23, 2012

* This material is abstracted from a dissertation currently in work for The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree.*

1

Outline

ProblemResearch ObjectiveHypothesesInitial Findings

2

Problem

DOD program costs are too high, and development times too longRequested budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012: $553.1 billion1Average acquisition lifecycle of DoD programs is 11 years

2DOD emphasizes reuse to help reduce cost and time to deliveryBut the “solution” is part of the problem:Over a 7 year period, cost overruns aided in a $919 billion increase to the DoD budget3Reuse was identified as a source of increased costs, not decreased costs

3

Problem

As a result of the reuse of legacy DoD systems, U.S. DoD programs often experience overruns and technical difficulties What allows some reuse programs to be successful when others aren’t? 4

Definitions

What is reuse?The integration of an already-developed part (e.g. engine), product (e.g. inventory database) or legacy system (e.g. telemetry processing system) into another context or componentWhat is considered a legacy system?“A system or application in which an organization has already invested considerable time and money”4

5

Research Objective

Identify the factors decision makers need to consider when determining whether or not to reuse legacy systemsDevelop a framework to improve the reuse decision-making process

6

Literature Research

Common themes within literature:Theoretical frameworks for reuse of legacy systemsCost and economic impacts of reusing legacy systemsSoftware tools and applications improving the reuse of legacy systems

7

Literature Search by Topic

Theoretical work in the areas of:Developing a software lifecycle framework and causes of technological uncertanty5 & 6Implementing design reuse and reuse

strategy7 & 8Creating a better reuse design based on knowledge management techniques9Defining reuse as a managerial issue10

8

Literature Search by Topic

Cost & economic work in the areas of:Utilizing the COCOMO model as a tool for tying cost to software development11Updating the COCOMO model for issues including: reengineering, applications composition, etc.12

Evaluating the impacts of the cost of software and its reuse13 & 14 9

Literature Search by Topic

Software tools & applications work in the areas of:Evaluating reuse through a total system approach15, 16 & 17Exploring reuse types including abstraction and research directions

18 & 19Formalizing reuse processes2010

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Decision makers overestimate the quantity and quality of legacy documentation availableHypothesis 2: Decision makers underestimate the criticality of legacy system subject matter expertise

Hypothesis 3: Decision makers overestimate the feasibility of integrating legacy systems11

Approach

Utilized an Interpretive Case Study research method to evaluate a group of legacy programs (HW & SW) for factors critical to reuseControlled data for factors outside the control of the program Derived a functional set of considerations that should be assessed prior to the reuse of legacy DoD systems

12

Initial Findings

Hypothesis 1: Decision makers overestimate the quantity and quality of legacy documentation availableLegacy systems rarely have the level of documentation neededUnscoped efforts directly impact program planning, resources & performance Overestimation of legacy documentation has a negative impact on successful reuse

13

Initial Findings

Hypothesis 2: Decision makers underestimate the criticality of legacy system subject matter expertiseSubject matter expertise is essential to understanding legacy systems and reusing themKnowledge recovery is frequently unquantified during planningUnderestimating the importance of subject matter experts has a negative impact on successful reuse

14

Initial Findings

Hypothesis 3: Decision makers overestimate the feasibility of integrating legacy systemsIntegrating legacy systems is more difficult, especially as the legacy system agesIntegration assumptions impact program risk profilesOverestimating the feasibility of integrating legacy systems has a negative impact on successful reuse

15

Future Work

What’s next for this research:Utilize collected data to build a framework that identifies areas of consideration prior to reusing a legacy DoD systemNew framework will aid decision makers in determining whether or not to reuse legacy systemsCompare how this research relates to industryRefines the framework based on industry best practices

16

Summary

As a result of the reuse of legacy DoD systems, U.S. DoD programs often experience overruns and technical difficulties Preliminary findings support the hypotheses that decision makers:Overestimate the quantity and quality of legacy documentation availableUnderestimate the criticality of legacy system subject matter

expertiseOverestimate the feasibility of integrating legacy systemsUtilize the findings to develop a framework to help decisions makers better understand the reuse choice17

Suggestions for Future Research

Define problem areas that arise after programs have decided to reuse legacy systemsExtends research to include post-decision problemsDevelop an acquisition Framework for reuse of legacy DoD systems that can be integrated into the contracts lifecycleExtends research to contract’s problems prior to reuseCorrelate the age of legacy DoD systems and effectiveness of reuse

Determines a timeframe after which a system's successful reuse potential decreases dramatically18

Questions?

19

References

1 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, (2011). Program acquisition costs by weapon system. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.2 Tomczykowski, W. (2001). DMSMS Acquisition Guidelines: Implementing Parts Obsolescence Management Contractual Requirements

. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.3 Defense Business Board. (2010). Best business practices for fixed-price contracting. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.4 Defense Acquisition University. (2009, April 21). Legacy systems. Message posted to https://dap.dau.mil/aap/pages/qdetails.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=1&cgiQuestionID=28188 5 Ahrens, J. D., & Prywes, N. S. (1995). Transition to a legacy- and reuse-based software life cycle. Computer, 28 (10), 27-36. doi:

10.1109/2.4675766

Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search.

Management Science, 47

(1), 117-132.

7

Gil, N. & Beckman, S. (2007). Design reuse and buffers in high-tech infrastructure development: A stakeholder perspective.

IEEE Transaction Engineering

Management,

54(3),

484–497

.

8

Frakes, W., & Terry, C. (1996). Software reuse: Metrics and models.

Computing Surveys (CSUR), 28

(2), 415-435.

9

Hicks, B. J. , Culley, S. J. , Allen, R. D. & Mullineux, G. (2002). A framework for the requirements of capturing, storing and reusing information and knowledge in engineering design.

International Journal of Information Management,

22(4), 263-280.

10

Isoda, S. (1992). Proceedings from:

The

14th International Conference on Software Engineering.

New York, NY: ACM.

20

References

11 Wang, G., Valerdi, R., & Fortune, J. (2010). Reuse in systems engineering. IEEE Systems Journal, 4 (3), 376-384. doi: 10.1109/JSYST.2010.2051748 12 Boehm, B., Abts, C., Brown, A. W. , Chulani, S., Clark, B., Horowitz, E., Madachy, R., Reifer, D. & Steece

, B. (2000). Software Cost Estimation With COCOMO II. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.13 Boehm, B. W. (1981). Software Engineering Economics. Upper Saddle. River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 14 Gaffney, J. E. & Durek, T. A. (1989). Software reuse—Key to enhanced productivity: Some quantitative models. Information and Software

Technology, 31(

5), 258-267.

15

Kim, Y. & Stohr, E. A. (1998). Software reuse: Survey and research directions.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 14

(4)

,

612-623

.

16

Mili, A., Mili, F., & Mili, H. (1995). Reusing software: Issues and research directions.

IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering, 21

(6), 528-562.

17

Isoda, S. (1995). Experiences of a software reuse project.

Journal of Systems and Softare, 30

(3), 171-186.

18

Freeman, P. (1983). Proceedings from:

The ITT Workshop on Reusability in Programming,

New York, NY: ITT Programming.

19

Krueger, C. W. (1992). Software reuse.

ACM Computer Survey, 24

(2)

, 1

31–183.

20

Redwine, S. S. & Riddle, W. E. (1989). Proceedings from ISPW ‘88:

4

th

International Software Process Workshop on Representing and Enacting the Software Process.

New York, NY: ACM.

21