Using design of experiments, sensitivity analysis, and hybrid simulation to evaluate changes to a software development process: a case study

Hybrid simulation models combine the high-level project issues of System Dynamics models with the process detail of discrete event simulation models. Hybrid models not only capture the best of both of these simulation paradigms, but they also are able to address new issues that are important in managing complex real-world development projects that neither the System Dynamics nor Discrete Event simulation paradigms are able to address alone. In order to reap the full benefits from a simulation model, a structured approach for analyzing model results is necessary. This article applies Design of Experiments (DOE) and broad range sensitivity analysis (BRSA) to a hybrid system dynamics and discrete event simulation model of a software development process. DOE is used to analyse the interaction effects, such as the degree to which the impact of the process change depends on worker motivation, schedule pressure and other project environmental variables. The sensitivity of the model to parameter changes over a broad range of plausible values is used to analyse the non-linear aspects of the model. The end result is a deeper insight into the conditions under which the process change will succeed, and improved recommendations for process change design and implementation. In this particular study, significant interactions and non-linearities were revealed, supporting the hypothesis that consideration of these complex effects is essential for insightful interpretation of model results and effective decision-making. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  John Douglas Tvedt An extensible model for evaluating the impact of process improvements on software development cycle time , 1996 .

[2]  Khaled El Emam,et al.  Elements of Software Process Assessment & Improvement , 1999 .

[3]  Barry W. Boehm An Experiment in Small-Scale Application Software Engineering , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[4]  Michael E. Fagan Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development , 1976, IBM Syst. J..

[5]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Software Engineering Economics , 1993, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[6]  David Raffo,et al.  Software process simulation to achieve higher CMM levels , 1999, J. Syst. Softw..

[7]  David Raffo,et al.  Application of a hybrid process simulation model to a software development project , 2001, J. Syst. Softw..

[8]  Leon J. Osterweil,et al.  ISPW-6 Software Process Example , 1991, Proceedings. First International Conference on the Software Process,.

[9]  M. M. Lehman,et al.  Software process white box modelling for FEAST/1 , 1999, J. Syst. Softw..

[10]  Antony Powell,et al.  Strategies for lifecycle concurrency and iteration - A system dynamics approach , 1999, J. Syst. Softw..

[11]  Peter D. Welch,et al.  Experimental design issues in simulation with examples from semiconductor manufacturing , 1992, WSC '92.

[12]  Raymond Madachy,et al.  A software project dynamics model for process cost, schedule and risk assessment , 1994 .

[13]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  Behavioral characterization: finding and using the influential factors in software process simulation models , 2001, J. Syst. Softw..

[14]  Dundar Kocaoglu,et al.  A hybrid model of the software development process , 2002 .

[15]  Raymond J. Madachy System dynamics modeling of an inspection-based process , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE 18th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[16]  Averill M. Law,et al.  Simulation Modeling and Analysis , 1982 .

[17]  Martin Höst,et al.  Exploring bottlenecks in market-driven requirements management processes with discrete event simulation , 2001, J. Syst. Softw..

[18]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Cost models for future software life cycle processes: COCOMO 2.0 , 1995, Ann. Softw. Eng..

[19]  Stuart E. Madnick,et al.  Software Project Dynamics: An Integrated Approach , 1991 .

[20]  Meir M. Lehman,et al.  The impact of feedback in the global software process , 1999, J. Syst. Softw..

[21]  Tim Menzies,et al.  Data Mining for Very Busy People , 2003, Computer.

[22]  Russell C. H. Cheng,et al.  Interactive implementation of optimal simulation experiment designs , 1998, 1998 Winter Simulation Conference. Proceedings (Cat. No.98CH36274).

[23]  Paolo Donzelli,et al.  Hybrid simulation modelling of the software process , 2001, J. Syst. Softw..