IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v22y2019i5p401-410.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anticipatory development processes for reducing total ownership costs and schedules

Author

Listed:
  • Barry Boehm
  • Pooyan Behnamghader

Abstract

Many systems and software processes overfocus on getting a project and product from an initial set of requirements to an Initial Operational Capability (IOC). Examples are most waterfall and V models. Projects following such processes may pass acceptance tests for functionality and performance, but may leave the product with serious maintainability shortfalls. Many agile processes focus on users' initial usage priorities, but often make development commitments for earlier needs that are incompatible with achieving later critical needs (eg, security, safety). Incremental development process models can do better, but often later increments may find that the earlier increments have not prepared them for ease of modification and repair. Besides increasing Total Ownership Costs (TOCs), long mean times to repair result in long downtimes, which can be critical to an organization's income and reputation. Furthermore, many of these shortfalls take the form of Technical Debt (TD), in that the later they are fixed, the more slow and expensive will be the fixes. This paper summarizes three process frameworks and tools providing more anticipatory ways to improve systems and software maintainability and life‐cycle cost‐effectiveness. The first framework is an Opportunity Tree for identifying and anticipating such ways. The second framework, Software Quality Understanding by Analysis of Abundant Data (SQUAAD), is a toolset for tracking a software project's incremental code commits, and analyzing and visualizing each commit's incremental and cumulative TD. The third framework is a Software/Systems Maintenance Readiness Framework (SMRF), that identifies needed maintenance readiness levels at development decision reviews, similar to the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Barry Boehm & Pooyan Behnamghader, 2019. "Anticipatory development processes for reducing total ownership costs and schedules," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 401-410, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:22:y:2019:i:5:p:401-410
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21490
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21490?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stéphane Hallegatte, 2014. "Modeling the Role of Inventories and Heterogeneity in the Assessment of the Economic Costs of Natural Disasters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 152-167, January.
    2. Michael Greenberg, 2012. "Our Deteriorating Physical Structures and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2008-2009, December.
    3. Dennis A. Perry & Bill Olson & Paul Blessner & Timothy D. Blackburn, 2016. "Evaluating the Systems Engineering Problem Management Process for Industrial Manufacturing Problems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 133-145, March.
    4. Almutairi, Ayedh & Collier, Zachary A. & Hendrickson, Daniel & Palma-Oliveira, José M. & Polmateer, Thomas L. & Lambert, James H., 2019. "Stakeholder mapping and disruption scenarios with application to resilience of a container port," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 219-232.
    5. Ayedh Almutairi & John P. Wheeler & David L. Slutzky & James H. Lambert, 2019. "Integrating Stakeholder Mapping and Risk Scenarios to Improve Resilience of Cyber‐Physical‐Social Networks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(9), pages 2093-2112, September.
    6. Joost R. Santos & Lucia Castro Herrera & Krista Danielle S. Yu & Sheree Ann T. Pagsuyoin & Raymond R. Tan, 2014. "State of the Art in Risk Analysis of Workforce Criticality Influencing Disaster Preparedness for Interdependent Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1056-1068, June.
    7. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2018. "Risk Modeling of Interdependent Complex Systems of Systems: Theory and Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 84-98, January.
    8. Langdalen, Henrik & Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Abrahamsen, HÃ¥kon Bjorheim, 2020. "A New Framework To Idenitfy And Assess Hidden Assumptions In The Background Knowledge Of A Risk Assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:22:y:2019:i:5:p:401-410. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.