• SSV had very high absolute productivity because the automatically generated code, from custom CASE tools, was contained mostly within this CSCI. The above-average team on SSV also contributed to the high productivity.
• DCO was fairly average on all counts but accommodated substantial requirements volatility in the display interface without a contract amendment. The design of this CSCI and the performance of the team were far better than these numbers would indicate.
• TAS had a very low productivity despite being the simplest and most well-understood software. The main reason was that the plan for task resources was far less ambitious than the plans for other teams. Another reason was that the TAS team was located off-site, with highly constrained development environment resources.
• CMP had a very high cost of change and low productivity for no obvious technical reason. To ensure technical integrity, the inherent missile warning algorithm changes were closely scrutinized by many stakeholders. The coordination of this process resulted in very high overhead in CMP productivity and changes.
• CCO had the worst quality metrics. This was due primarily to a design that did not foresee a major message set change and therefore resulted in fairly broad and hard-to-resolve breakage. The CCO team was also perhaps the most difficult to transition (culturally) to the process, metrics, and demonstration approach used on CCPDS-R.
Overall, this level of productivity and quality was approximately double TRW's standard for previous command center software projects.
Was this article helpful?
What you need to know about… Project Management Made Easy! Project management consists of more than just a large building project and can encompass small projects as well. No matter what the size of your project, you need to have some sort of project management. How you manage your project has everything to do with its outcome.