 |
||
|
Advanced Search |
||
|
|||||
|
Management & Planning of V&V < Verification & Validation < Results Home
|
|
Click here to complete a short survey. The results of this survey will be used to help us improve the research program and this website.
Click here to view research projects that had new research results added in the last 90 days.
|
| Return on Investment for IV&V | |
| Point of Contact |
James Dabney jim@hous.averstar.com |
| Dates | September 2002 - May 2004 |
| Problem | Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) has many benefits, but it is difficult to quantify those benefits. Consequently, a common argument against IV&V is that the expenses exceed the value added. The justification of IV&V would be considerably en ahnced with a Return on Investment (ROI) model that could be tailored to an individual project. Thus, the effects of different development reliability requirements, different personnel talent, different tool sets, etc., could be considered. Up to this p oint, only anecdotal statements are available to demonstrate the benefit of IV&V. |
| Objective | This proposal outlines a set of activities to produce a tailorable ROI model suitable for NASA mission-critical software projects, and based on historical data and the baseline NASA IV&V process. It is important to start with a clear definition of ROI. I n the case of software IV&V, ROI has multiple components. The primary benefit of IV&V is the reduction in the number of high severity software errors in the deployed software. Here, we define ?high severity errors? as those errors that, when manifest ed during operations, could plausibly result in the loss of life, loss of high value asset, or mission failure. Attempts to ascribe dollar values to such errors are controversial due to the many elements of cost that could be involved (value of human li fe, national prestige, agency embarrassment, etc.). Even for cases in which the component has an identified dollar value (e.g., loss of high value asset), it is difficult to achieve consensus on whether detection of a defect or even a set of defects rea lly approaches that value. A second ROI approach is to consider only cost-to-fix (referred to as simple ROI in this proposal). In this approach, the cost of an error is limited to the cost to correct it. Since IV&V results in earlier detection of many error s, a direct and less controversial cost savings can be computed. ROI can then be defined as the ratio of cost savings to the cost of IV&V. However, that approach lacks the large intangibles that come from detection of high severity defects. This proposal defines an approach that molds the above two sources of ROI into a single nationally recognized model, calibrated with extant IV&V data, to give ROI estimates tailored to a specific project. |
| Results |
Characteristics of Prototype Predictive Model.doc Direct ROI of IV&V ATS2003 presentation.ppt Direct ROI of IV&V Preliminary Phase 2B Report.zip Direct ROI of IVV.ppt Phase 1 Report.doc Phase 2 A Report.doc Final Phase 2B Analysis Results.zip Facility Initiative Technical Presentation.ppt Sanitized Version Presentation documenting additional case study results & reporting on the status of the developed BBNs.ppt Initial model characteristics of full Bayesian belief network.pdf |
| Keywords | ROI, risk assessment, software development |
| Categories |
Management & Planning of V&V |
|
| |
|
Curator: Josh Stonestreet NASA Official: Lisa Montgomery |
|
NASA Privacy, Security, Notices |