Analysis of Software-Intensive System Acquisition Using Hybrid Software Process Simulation

  • KeungSik Choi
  • Doo-Hwan Bae
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3966)


Many sources have reported that the technical and managerial maturity of the acquirer is the essential key to success of Software-Intensive System Acquisition (SISA) and recommended to adopt the best practices. However, DoD is inactive to implement the SISA practices because DoD doesn’t fully understand how and why the SISA practices affect the performance of software-intensive system development.

In this research, we analyze the effects of SISA practices on acquirer and developer using hybrid software process simulation modeling. Our approach represents the dynamic characteristics (e.g., the interactions of acquisition organization and development organization and the effects of several SISA practices) and discrete characteristics (e.g., specific characteristics of discrete phase, etc.) of SISA programs. This research will contribute to reveal how the acquirer’s activities influence the performance of the developer’s process.


High Level View Process Discipline Software Development Organization External Risk Factor Acquisition Project 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Defense Science Board (2000), Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Software, Washington, DC, Department of Defense (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Summary of Audits of Acquisition of Information Technology, Washington, DC, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Defense Software: Review of Defense Report on Software Development Best Practices, Washington, DC, General Accounting Office (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DoD Regulation 5000.2-R, Mandatory Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPS) and Major Automated Information System (MAIS) Acquisition Programs, Washington, DC, Department of Defense (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    16 Critical Software Practices For Performance-Based Management, Version 5.2, Inegratred Computer EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooper, J., Fisher, M.: Software Acquisition Capability Maturity Model (SA-CMM), Version 1.03, Pittsburgh, PA, Carnegie Mellon University: Software Engineering Institute (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turner, R.: Implementation of Best Practices in US Department of Defense Software-Intensive System Acquisition, Ph.D Dissertation, The School of Engineering and Applied Science, George Washington University (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pracchia, L.: Improving the DoD Software Acquisition Processes. CrossTalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering (April 2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choi, K., Bae, D.-H., Kim, T.: An Approach to a Hybrid Software Process Simulation using DEVS Formalism. In: Software Process Improvement and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2006) (will be published in Special Issue of ProSim 2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones, C.: Software Cost Estimation Methods for Large Projects. CrossTalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering (April 2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Häberlein, T.: Common Structures in System Dynamics Models of Software Acquisition Projects. Software Process Improvement and Practice 9, 67–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCray, G.E., Clark, T.D.: Using system dynamics to anticipate the organizational impacts of outsourcing. System Dynamics Review 15(4), 345–373 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Houston, D.: A Software Project Simulation Model for Risk Management, Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abdel-Hamid, T., Madnick, S.: Software Project Dynamics: An Integrated Approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tvedt, J.: An extensible model for evaluating the impact of process improvement on software development cycle time, Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones, C.: Applied Software Measurement, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Thomsett Company: Managing Large Projects (2000),
  18. 18.
    Richardson, G.P., Pugh, A.L.: Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling with DYNAMO. The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge (1981)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • KeungSik Choi
    • 1
  • Doo-Hwan Bae
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EECSKorea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)DaejonKorea

Personalised recommendations