• Predictive Analytics for Improved Cost Management  



Blog



We’ve kicked off a study on the cost impacts of various quality assurance standards, and this post gives our preliminary results for modeling DO-178c and DO-254 in TruePlanning®.  DO-178c and DO-254 are standards that deal with the safety of software and electronics used in airborne systems.  It began as a standard used predominately by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for commercial aircraft, and its usage has spread significantly to the U.S. military and many other countries. All of the software and electronics on-board an aircraft are categorized into 5 Design Assurance Levels (DAL) based on how failure of ...
Here’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately  - technical debt and its relationships to software maintenance costs.  Technical debt speaks to the structural quality of software applications.  Technical debt is incurred for many different reasons; sometimes it is intentional when shortcuts are taken to meet a time to market requirement; sometimes it occurs because a development team gets sloppy about applying good coding practices (or a development team has not documented coding practices); sometimes it happens when the technology in an application is not kept up to date and it literally gets lapped by technology. Not all technical ...
Here’s a great blog about estimates. The first thing I liked about it was the author managed to quote Lewis Caroll in a blog about software estimation.  You can’t really go wrong if you can quote Lewis Caroll and invoke iconic memories about “Through the Looking Glass”.  The specific quote refers to the word “Estimate” and goes like this - “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” The author posits that maybe before we perform an estimate, and certainly before we consume one – we should remind ourselves ...
The CRASH (CAST Research on Application Software Health) report for 2104/2015 is out and an Executive Summary can be downloaded for free from this link.  This is the third biennial report produced by CAST based on an analysis of the data collected by their  AppMarq static code analysis tool to develop a report on the health of software projects based on their structural quality.  Structural quality speaks to the engineering goodness of the architecture and code for an application, rather than the functional quality that results by delivering software that solves users’ problems.  CAST determines structural quality of code ...
Am I correct in understanding that in order to determine Payload PM, SE, MA [e.g., WBS 5.1, 5.2, 5.3], Payload I&T/GSE [e.g., WBS 5.5, 5.6], Spacecraft PM, SE, MA [e.g., WBS 6.1, 6.2, 6.3], and Spacecraft I&T/GSE [e.g., WBS 6.6] costs, each user must export TP results into an Excel spreadsheet, then apply their own factor to obtain the aforementioned WBS costs because TP lumps all of those costs into 1 PM bucket, 1 SE bucket, 1 MA bucket and 1 I&T bucket? And we have to do this every time we make a change to determine those costs? Gosh ...
From the presentation, it looked like the TP risk area included the capability for percent inputs around the point inputs rather than having to enter value? Yes, we’ve added Percent (as well as offset) to the FRISK input method to set pessimistic and optimistic values off the point values.  In the 1st example below I’ve used +20% and -10% respectively, around the Weight of Structure’s point’s value.  Per the 2nd example below, we can do likewise in our Monte Carlo companion applications, where our new custom logic satisfies NASA’s typical approach for mass growth-risk with Optimistic=CBE {i.e., your point value}, ...
Does any of the Space catalogs (objects) cover the launch vehicle and stage 1 & 2 engines?  Do the defaults cover manned space? Not, not soon at least.  HOWEVER, we and multiple NASA Centers have used the True-Hardware/Software catalogs for many years to estimate launch vehicles and manned vehicles.  Currently the Space Missions Catalog objects (i.e., estimating models) support robotic and unmanned missions.  But again, in the TruePlanning catalogs (HW, SW, Systems, etc), there has always been an Operating Specification choice for manned space per below— To watch the "Best Practices using the TruePlanning Space Missions" Webinar, click here.
Will other recent programs be added (to basis/analysis/CERs)? Yes, typically within one year of launch. We don’t often need to make changes to the component estimates but we test them as new data comes in. The support functions get minor tweaks each time we add another data point. To watch the "Best Practices using the TruePlanning Space Missions" Webinar, click here.
Do you plan to add MAVEN any time soon? Just learned that yes, Maven will be added to the basis & analysis in the near future. To watch the "Best Practices using the TruePlanning Space Missions" Webinar, click here.
In your webinar presentation-- Slide 21: NASA WBS mapping for the WBS 4.0 – this slide seems to indicate that this WBS is estimated by TP Slide 35: Space Systems Object – this slide seems to indicate that this WBS is estimated by TP Slide 48: Mapping Rules.. – this slide seems to indicate that this WBS is estimated by TP, but Notes column this very slide are contradicting this – by saying typically passed-thru what would be right approach; shall we have a pass-thru number for this WBS (4.0) or shall we assume that the TP estimate includes this WBS? Good catch!  ...