{"text_format":"3","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":5,"sheets":["CaseA","CaseB","CaseC","CaseD","Definitions"],"not_rendered":{"external_links":1},"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"CaseA","index":0,"n_rows":177,"n_cols":4,"rows_kept":177,"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["UserExperR",4,2,3]
["UserInvolveR",3,2,2]
["Novel ",4,2,2]
["SysDocQual",3,2,2]
["ReqCplx ",4,3,3]
["ReqDevExpr",8,1,2]
["ReqDevDomain ",4,2,2]
["ReqDevSched ",2,1,1]
["ReqDevBudget ",3,1,2]
["ReqDevProcEff ",2,1,1]
["ReqDevQualOrg ",1,1,0]
["ReqDevTrnOvr",3,1,1]
["ReqDevStfLev ",3,1,1]
["DevCMM ",3,1,1]
["ReqDevTool ",4,1,1]
["RRdPress",3,1,2]
["RRdProcEff ",2,1,1]
["RRdUserInvolve",5,2,2]
["RRdSim",1,0,0]
["RRdReason",1,0,0]
["RRdUML",1,0,0]
["RRdRevQual",3,1,1]
["RRiDataTiming ",3,1,2]
["RRiDataCplt ",3,1,1]
["RRiDevAcs ",10,0,2]
["RRiPrjAcpt ",3,1,2]
["RRiDevCoop",7,1,2]
["RRiExpr",4,2,2]
["RRiDomain ",6,2,1]
["RRiStaffLev",9,0,1]
["RRiSchedPress",5,1,1]
["RRiSim",1,0,0]
["RRiReason",6,2,2]
["RRiUML",1,0,0]
["RRiAnal",4,2,2]
["RRiRevPrtcp",5,0,1]
["UserExperD",6,2,2]
["UserInvolveD",3,2,2]
["DesCplx ",4,3,3]
["DesDevExpr",8,1,2]
["DesDevDomain ",4,2,2]
["DesDevSched ",2,1,1]
["DesDevBudget ",3,1,2]
["DesDevProcEff ",2,1,1]
["DesDevQualOrg ",1,1,0]
["DesDevTrnOvr",3,1,1]
["DesDevStfLev ",3,1,1]
["DesDevTool ",4,1,1]
["DesExtCstr",3,1,2]
["DesDevProcEff",5,1,1]
["DDdUserInvolve",5,2,2]
["DDdSim",2,0,0]
["DDdReason",1,0,0]
["DDdUML",5,1,1]
["DDdRevQual",4,1,1]
["DDiDataTiming ",6,1,2]
["DDiDataCplt ",5,1,1]
["DDiDevAcs ",10,0,2]
["DDiPrjAcpt ",4,1,2]
["DDiDevCoop",7,1,2]
["DDiExpr",4,2,2]
["DDiDomain ",6,2,1]
["DDiStaffLev",9,0,1]
["DDiSchedPress",5,1,1]
["DDiSim",1,0,0]
["DDiReason",6,2,2]
["DDiUML",3,1,1]
["DDiAnal",6,2,2]
["DDiRevPrtcp",8,1,1]
["CodCplx ",4,2,1]
["CodDevExpr",8,1,2]
["CodDevDomain ",4,2,2]
["CodDevSched ",2,1,1]
["CodDevBudget ",3,1,2]
["CodDevProcEff ",2,1,1]
["CodDevQualOrg ",1,1,0]
["CodDevTrnOvr",3,1,1]
["CodDevStfLev ",4,1,1]
["CodDevTool ",4,1,1]
["CodExtCstr",3,1,2]
["CodDevProcEff",5,1,1]
["CCdStatic",1,0,0]
["CCdReason",3,1,1]
["CCdANL",2,1,1]
["CCdRevQual",5,1,1]
["CCiDataTiming ",4,1,2]
["CCiDataCplt ",4,1,1]
["CCiDevAcs ",10,0,2]
["CCiPrjAcpt ",6,1,2]
["CCiDevCoop",7,1,2]
["CCiExpr",3,2,2]
["CCiDomain ",4,2,1]
["CCiStaffLev",9,0,1]
["CCiSchedPress",5,1,1]
["CCiStatic",8,1,1]
["CCiReason",1,0,0]
["CCiANL",6,1,1]
["CCiAnal",7,2,2]
["CCiRevPrtcp",8,1,1]
["TPQual",7,1,1]
["TDQual",7,1,1]
["TesDevExpr",8,1,2]
["TesDevDomain ",4,2,2]
["TesDevSched ",2,1,1]
["TesDevBudget ",3,1,2]
["TesDevProcEff ",2,1,1]
["TesDevQualOrg ",2,1,1]
["TesDevTrnOvr",3,1,1]
["TesDevStfLev ",6,1,1]
["TesDevTool ",5,1,1]
["TesExtCstr",3,1,2]
["TesDevProcEff",5,1,1]
["TTdAuto",2,1,1]
["TTdANL",5,1,2]
["AnlQual",5,1,1]
["TTdRevQual",7,1,1]
["TTiDataTiming ",6,1,2]
["TTiDataCplt ",6,1,1]
["TTiDevAcs ",10,0,2]
["TTiPrjAcpt ",7,1,2]
["TTiDevCoop",7,1,2]
["TTiExpr",7,2,2]
["TTiDomain ",6,2,1]
["TTiStaffLev",9,0,1]
["TTiSchedPress",6,1,1]
["TTiAuto",5,1,1]
["TTiDevTool",9,1,2]
["TTiAnal",6,1,2]
["TTiRevPrtcp",8,1,1]
["SysReqStab",2,1,1]
["IntReqStab",4,1,2]
["IntUserInvolv",5,1,2]
["IntEqpmt",9,1,1]
["IPQual",5,3,3]
["IntDevExpr",5,2,2]
["IntDevDomain ",5,2,2]
["IntDevSched ",1,1,0]
["IntDevBudget ",1,1,0]
["IntDevProcEff ",2,1,1]
["IntDevQualOrg ",2,1,1]
["IntDevTrnOvr",3,1,2]
["IntDevStfLev ",4,2,2]
["IntDevTool ",4,3,3]
["IntExtCstr",1,1,0]
["IntDevProcEff",2,1,1]
["IIdAuto",2,2,1]
["IIdANL",3,2,2]
["IIdRevQual",6,2,2]
["IIiDataTiming ",4,2,2]
["IIiDataCplt ",4,2,2]
["IIiDevAcs ",6,2,1]
["IIiPrjAcpt ",5,2,2]
["IIiDevCoop",5,2,2]
["IIiExpr",7,2,2]
["IIiDomain ",4,2,2]
["IIiStaffLev",8,0,0]
["IIiSchedPress",4,2,2]
["IIiAuto",4,1,1]
["IIiDevTool",5,1,1]
["IIiAnal",5,1,1]
["IIiRevPrtcp",8,1,1]
["KL",62]
["NewSLOC",25800]
["ReuseSLOC",16200]
["DevCostMM",226.4]
["IVVCostMM",23]
["FPtotal",280]
["FPRRD",0.551]
["FPRRI",0.096]
["FPRDD",0.429]
["FPRDI",0.429]
["FPRCD",3.7]
["FPRCI",1.82]
["FPRTD",3.323]
["FPRTI",1.64]
["FPRID",0]
["FPRII",0]

{"sheet":"CaseB","index":1,"n_rows":177,"n_cols":4,"rows_kept":177,"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["UserExperR",8,1,2]
["UserInvolveR",8,1,1]
["Novel ",5,1,1]
["SysDocQual",2,1,1]
["ReqCplx ",3,1,1]
["ReqDevExpr",6,2,2]
["ReqDevDomain ",7,2,2]
["ReqDevSched ",2,1,1]
["ReqDevBudget ",8,2,2]
["ReqDevProcEff ",6,2,2]
["ReqDevQualOrg ",2,1,1]
["ReqDevTrnOvr",5,4,4]
["ReqDevStfLev ",5,4,4]
["DevCMM ",3,1,2]
["ReqDevTool ",3,2,2]
["RRdPress",3,2,2]
["RRdProcEff ",3,2,2]
["RRdUserInvolve",4,2,2]
["RRdSim",7,2,1]
["RRdReason",5,4,4]
["RRdUML",5,4,4]
["RRdRevQual",5,2,2]
["RRiDataTiming ",3,2,1]
["RRiDataCplt ",1,1,0]
["RRiDevAcs ",5,2,2]
["RRiPrjAcpt ",3,2,1]
["RRiDevCoop",5,2,2]
["RRiExpr",4,1,2]
["RRiDomain ",6,1,2]
["RRiStaffLev",3,1,2]
["RRiSchedPress",3,1,1]
["RRiSim",1,0,0]
["RRiReason",4,2,2]
["RRiUML",1,0,0]
["RRiAnal",3,2,2]
["RRiRevPrtcp",2,0,1]
["UserExperD ",8,1,2]
["UserInvolveD",6,1,1]
["DesCplx ",3,1,1]
["DesDevExpr",6,2,2]
["DesDevDomain ",7,2,2]
["DesDevSched ",2,1,1]
["DesDevBudget ",8,2,2]
["DesDevProcEff ",6,2,2]
["DesDevQualOrg ",2,1,1]
["DesDevTrnOvr",5,4,4]
["DesDevStfLev ",5,4,4]
["DesDevTool ",3,2,2]
["DesExtCstr",3,2,2]
["DesDevProcEff",3,2,2]
["DDdUserInvolve",4,2,2]
["DDdSim",7,2,1]
["DDdReason",5,4,4]
["DDdUML",5,4,4]
["DDdRevQual",5,2,2]
["DDiDataTiming ",3,2,1]
["DDiDataCplt ",1,1,0]
["DDiDevAcs ",5,2,2]
["DDiPrjAcpt ",4,2,1]
["DDiDevCoop",5,2,2]
["DDiExpr",4,1,2]
["DDiDomain ",6,1,2]
["DDiStaffLev",3,1,2]
["DDiSchedPress",3,1,1]
["DDiSim",1,0,0]
["DDiReason",1,0,0]
["DDiUML",1,0,0]
["DDiAnal",3,2,2]
["DDiRevPrtcp",2,0,1]
["CodCplx ",4,1,1]
["CodDevExpr",6,1,1]
["CodDevDomain ",8,1,1]
["CodDevSched ",1,2,0]
["CodDevBudget ",5,2,2]
["CodDevProcEff ",6,2,2]
["CodDevQualOrg ",1,2,0]
["CodDevTrnOvr",9,1,2]
["CodDevStfLev ",7,2,1]
["CodDevTool ",3,1,1]
["CodExtCstr",3,2,2]
["CodDevProcEff",6,2,2]
["CCdStatic",3,3,2]
["CCdReason",3,3,2]
["CCdANL",3,3,2]
["CCdRevQual",3,2,1]
["CCiDataTiming ",6,2,2]
["CCiDataCplt ",9,1,1]
["CCiDevAcs ",6,2,2]
["CCiPrjAcpt ",6,2,2]
["CCiDevCoop",3,2,2]
["CCiExpr",4,2,2]
["CCiDomain ",6,2,2]
["CCiStaffLev",6,2,2]
["CCiSchedPress",6,2,2]
["CCiStatic",9,1,2]
["CCiReason",1,0,0]
["CCiANL",5,2,2]
["CCiAnal",7,2,2]
["CCiRevPrtcp",6,2,2]
["TPQual",5,3,3]
["TDQual",0,0,0]
["TesDevExpr",8,1,3]
["TesDevDomain ",8,1,4]
["TesDevSched ",10,0,0]
["TesDevBudget ",7,1,1]
["TesDevProcEff ",7,2,2]
["TesDevQualOrg ",3,2,2]
["TesDevTrnOvr",0,0,0]
["TesDevStfLev ",4,2,2]
["TesDevTool ",0,0,0]
["TesExtCstr",8,2,2]
["TesDevProcEff",0,0,0]
["TTdAuto",0,0,0]
["TTdANL",0,0,0]
["AnlQual",0,0,0]
["TTdRevQual",3,2,2]
["TTiDataTiming ",7,2,2]
["TTiDataCplt ",4,2,2]
["TTiDevAcs ",7,2,2]
["TTiPrjAcpt ",3,2,2]
["TTiDevCoop",8,2,2]
["TTiExpr",5,3,3]
["TTiDomain ",6,2,2]
["TTiStaffLev",8,1,3]
["TTiSchedPress",6,2,2]
["TTiAuto",0,0,0]
["TTiDevTool",3,2,2]
["TTiAnal",3,1,1]
["TTiRevPrtcp",3,2,2]
["SysReqStab",7,2,2]
["IntReqStab",7,2,2]
["IntUserInvolv",9,1,1]
["IntEqpmt",0,0,0]
["IPQual",5,4,4]
["IntDevExpr",8,1,3]
["IntDevDomain ",8,1,3]
["IntDevSched ",2,3,1]
["IntDevBudget ",8,1,3]
["IntDevProcEff ",8,1,3]
["IntDevQualOrg ",2,2,1]
["IntDevTrnOvr",0,0,0]
["IntDevStfLev ",0,0,0]
["IntDevTool ",2,4,1]
["IntExtCstr",2,1,1]
["IntDevProcEff",0,0,0]
["IIdAuto",0,0,0]
["IIdANL",0,0,0]
["IIdRevQual",3,2,2]
["IIiDataTiming ",4,2,2]
["IIiDataCplt ",4,2,2]
["IIiDevAcs ",3,2,2]
["IIiPrjAcpt ",3,2,2]
["IIiDevCoop",7,2,5]
["IIiExpr",6,2,2]
["IIiDomain ",6,2,2]
["IIiStaffLev",5,2,2]
["IIiSchedPress",4,2,2]
["IIiAuto",2,2,1]
["IIiDevTool",3,2,1]
["IIiAnal",3,2,1]
["IIiRevPrtcp",4,2,2]
["KL",128]
["NewSLOC",125874]
["ReuseSLOC",36964]
["DevCostMM",1947]
["IVVCostMM",108]
["FPtotal",1085]
["FPRRD",0.483]
["FPRRI",0.079]
["FPRDD",0]
["FPRDI",0]
["FPRCD",1.512]
["FPRCI",0.485]
["FPRTD",1.292]
["FPRTI",0]
["FPRID",0]
["FPRII",0]

{"sheet":"CaseC","index":2,"n_rows":177,"n_cols":4,"rows_kept":177,"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["UserExperR",6,1,2]
["UserInvolveR",5,1,1]
["Novel ",7,1,1]
["SysDocQual",7,1,1]
["ReqCplx ",4,1,1]
["ReqDevExpr",6,1,1]
["ReqDevDomain ",9,1,2]
["ReqDevSched ",5,1,1]
["ReqDevBudget ",8,2,2]
["ReqDevProcEff ",8,2,2]
["ReqDevQualOrg ",6,1,1]
["ReqDevTrnOvr",6,1,1]
["ReqDevStfLev ",9,1,1]
["DevCMM ",8,1,1]
["ReqDevTool ",8,2,2]
["RRdPress",7,1,2]
["RRdProcEff ",8,2,2]
["RRdUserInvolve",6,2,2]
["RRdSim",8,1,1]
["RRdReason",5,4,4]
["RRdUML",7,1,1]
["RRdRevQual",6,2,2]
["RRiDataTiming ",8,1,1]
["RRiDataCplt ",6,1,1]
["RRiDevAcs ",10,0,2]
["RRiPrjAcpt ",9,1,1]
["RRiDevCoop",8,2,0]
["RRiExpr",6,1,2]
["RRiDomain ",10,0,1]
["RRiStaffLev",8,2,1]
["RRiSchedPress",8,0,0]
["RRiSim",7,1,0]
["RRiReason",2,1,1]
["RRiUML",1,0,0]
["RRiAnal",9,1,2]
["RRiRevPrtcp",8,1,1]
["UserExperD",6,1,2]
["UserInvolveD",5,1,1]
["DesCplx ",4,1,1]
["DesDevExpr",6,1,1]
["DesDevDomain ",9,1,2]
["DesDevSched ",5,1,1]
["DesDevBudget ",8,2,2]
["DesDevProcEff ",8,2,2]
["DesDevQualOrg ",6,1,1]
["DesDevTrnOvr",6,1,1]
["DesDevStfLev ",9,1,1]
["DesDevTool ",9,1,2]
["DesExtCstr",7,1,2]
["DesDevProcEff",8,2,2]
["DDdUserInvolve",6,2,2]
["DDdSim",8,1,1]
["DDdReason",5,4,4]
["DDdUML",7,1,1]
["DDdRevQual",6,2,2]
["DDiDataTiming ",8,1,1]
["DDiDataCplt ",6,1,1]
["DDiDevAcs ",10,0,2]
["DDiPrjAcpt ",9,1,1]
["DDiDevCoop",8,2,0]
["DDiExpr",6,1,2]
["DDiDomain ",10,0,1]
["DDiStaffLev",8,2,1]
["DDiSchedPress",8,0,0]
["DDiSim",7,1,0]
["DDiReason",2,1,1]
["DDiUML",1,0,0]
["DDiAnal",9,1,2]
["DDiRevPrtcp",8,1,1]
["CodCplx ",4,1,1]
["CodDevExpr",6,1,1]
["CodDevDomain ",8,1,1]
["CodDevSched ",5,1,1]
["CodDevBudget ",8,2,2]
["CodDevProcEff ",8,2,2]
["CodDevQualOrg ",6,1,1]
["CodDevTrnOvr",6,1,1]
["CodDevStfLev ",9,1,1]
["CodDevTool ",9,1,1]
["CodExtCstr",7,1,2]
["CodDevProcEff",8,2,2]
["CCdStatic",7,1,2]
["CCdReason",5,4,4]
["CCdANL",8,2,2]
["CCdRevQual",7,2,2]
["CCiDataTiming ",6,0,2]
["CCiDataCplt ",6,0,2]
["CCiDevAcs ",10,0,2]
["CCiPrjAcpt ",9,1,1]
["CCiDevCoop",8,2,0]
["CCiExpr",7,1,1]
["CCiDomain ",10,0,1]
["CCiStaffLev",8,2,1]
["CCiSchedPress",8,0,0]
["CCiStatic",1,1,0]
["CCiReason",1,1,0]
["CCiANL",5,2,1]
["CCiAnal",7,1,1]
["CCiRevPrtcp",8,1,1]
["TPQual",8,1,1]
["TDQual",6,2,2]
["TesDevExpr",6,1,1]
["TesDevDomain ",9,1,2]
["TesDevSched ",5,1,1]
["TesDevBudget ",8,2,2]
["TesDevProcEff ",8,2,2]
["TesDevQualOrg ",6,1,1]
["TesDevTrnOvr",6,1,1]
["TesDevStfLev ",9,1,1]
["TesDevTool ",9,1,1]
["TesExtCstr",7,1,2]
["TesDevProcEff",8,2,2]
["TTdAuto",5,2,2]
["TTdANL",6,2,2]
["AnlQual",7,2,2]
["TTdRevQual",6,2,2]
["TTiDataTiming ",4,1,2]
["TTiDataCplt ",6,1,1]
["TTiDevAcs ",10,0,2]
["TTiPrjAcpt ",9,1,1]
["TTiDevCoop",8,2,0]
["TTiExpr",7,1,2]
["TTiDomain ",10,0,1]
["TTiStaffLev",8,2,1]
["TTiSchedPress",8,0,0]
["TTiAuto",5,1,1]
["TTiDevTool",6,3,1]
["TTiAnal",9,1,2]
["TTiRevPrtcp",8,1,1]
["SysReqStab",8,1,1]
["IntReqStab",8,1,1]
["IntUserInvolv",7,2,1]
["IntEqpmt",0,0,0]
["IPQual",9,1,1]
["IntDevExpr",6,1,1]
["IntDevDomain ",9,1,2]
["IntDevSched ",5,1,1]
["IntDevBudget ",8,2,2]
["IntDevProcEff ",8,2,2]
["IntDevQualOrg ",6,1,1]
["IntDevTrnOvr",6,1,1]
["IntDevStfLev ",9,1,1]
["IntDevTool ",7,1,1]
["IntExtCstr",7,1,2]
["IntDevProcEff",8,2,2]
["IIdAuto",5,2,2]
["IIdANL",6,2,2]
["IIdRevQual",7,2,2]
["IIiDataTiming ",4,1,2]
["IIiDataCplt ",6,1,1]
["IIiDevAcs ",10,0,2]
["IIiPrjAcpt ",9,1,1]
["IIiDevCoop",8,2,0]
["IIiExpr",7,1,2]
["IIiDomain ",10,0,1]
["IIiStaffLev",8,2,1]
["IIiSchedPress",8,0,0]
["IIiAuto",5,1,1]
["IIiDevTool",6,3,1]
["IIiAnal",9,1,2]
["IIiRevPrtcp",8,1,1]
["KL",128]
["NewSLOC",15494]
["ReuseSLOC",0]
["DevCostMM",606]
["IVVCostMM",67]
["FPtotal",109.3]
["FPRRD",0.239]
["FPRRI",0.812]
["FPRDD",0.037]
["FPRDI",2.207]
["FPRCD",0.037]
["FPRCI",0]
["FPRTD",0.075]
["FPRTI",0]
["FPRID",0.037]
["FPRII",0]

{"sheet":"CaseD","index":3,"n_rows":177,"n_cols":4,"rows_kept":177,"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["UserExperR",7,1,1]
["UserInvolveR",4,2,1]
["Novel",6,1,1]
["SysDocQual",5,1,1]
["ReqCplx ",7,1,1]
["ReqDevExpr",6,1,1]
["ReqDevDomain ",5,3,3]
["ReqDevSched ",4,1,0]
["ReqDevBudget ",5,4,4]
["ReqDevProcEff ",4,1,1]
["ReqDevQualOrg ",3,1,1]
["ReqDevTrnOvr",8,1,1]
["ReqDevStfLev ",3,1,1]
["DevCMM ",4,1,1]
["ReqDevTool ",2,1,1]
["RRdPress",3,1,0]
["RRdProcEff ",4,1,1]
["RRdUserInvolve",4,1,1]
["RRdSim",1,1,0]
["RRdReason",1,1,0]
["RRdUML",1,1,0]
["RRdRevQual",4,1,1]
["RRiDataTiming ",4,1,1]
["RRiDataCplt ",4,1,1]
["RRiDevAcs ",7,1,1]
["RRiPrjAcpt ",6,1,1]
["RRiDevCoop",6,1,1]
["RRiExpr",9,0,0]
["RRiDomain ",6,0,0]
["RRiStaffLev",4,0,0]
["RRiSchedPress",5,1,1]
["RRiSim",1,0,0]
["RRiReason",1,0,0]
["RRiUML",1,0,0]
["RRiAnal",8,0,0]
["RRiRevPrtcp",8,1,1]
["UserExperD",6,1,1]
["UserInvolveD",4,1,1]
["DesCplx ",7,1,1]
["DesDevExpr",7,1,1]
["DesDevDomain ",9,1,1]
["DesDevSched ",1,1,0]
["DesDevBudget ",3,4,2]
["DesDevProcEff ",3,1,1]
["DesDevQualOrg ",3,1,1]
["DesDevTrnOvr",5,1,1]
["DesDevStfLev ",4,1,1]
["DesDevTool ",6,1,1]
["DesExtCstr",3,1,1]
["DesDevProcEff",3,1,1]
["DDdUserInvolve",2,1,1]
["DDdSim",5,1,1]
["DDdReason",0,1,0]
["DDdUML",0,1,0]
["DDdRevQual",7,1,1]
["DDiDataTiming ",7,1,1]
["DDiDataCplt ",5,1,1]
["DDiDevAcs ",8,1,1]
["DDiPrjAcpt ",8,1,1]
["DDiDevCoop",7,1,1]
["DDiExpr",9,0,0]
["DDiDomain ",7,0,0]
["DDiStaffLev",7,1,1]
["DDiSchedPress",8,1,1]
["DDiSim",1,0,0]
["DDiReason",1,0,0]
["DDiUML",8,0,0]
["DDiAnal",8,0,0]
["DDiRevPrtcp",7,1,1]
["CodCplx ",7,1,1]
["CodDevExpr",7,1,1]
["CodDevDomain ",9,1,1]
["CodDevSched ",2,1,1]
["CodDevBudget ",5,4,4]
["CodDevProcEff ",3,1,1]
["CodDevQualOrg ",3,1,1]
["CodDevTrnOvr",5,1,1]
["CodDevStfLev ",4,1,1]
["CodDevTool ",3,1,1]
["CodExtCstr",3,1,1]
["CodDevProcEff",3,1,1]
["CCdStatic",2,1,1]
["CCdReason",0,1,0]
["CCdANL",5,1,1]
["CCdRevQual",3,1,1]
["CCiDataTiming ",8,1,1]
["CCiDataCplt ",9,1,1]
["CCiDevAcs ",7,1,1]
["CCiPrjAcpt ",8,1,1]
["CCiDevCoop",6,1,1]
["CCiExpr",7,1,1]
["CCiDomain ",6,1,1]
["CCiStaffLev",4,1,1]
["CCiSchedPress",8,1,1]
["CCiStatic",2,1,1]
["CCiReason",1,0,0]
["CCiANL",7,1,1]
["CCiAnal",8,1,1]
["CCiRevPrtcp",7,1,1]
["TPQual",8,1,1]
["TDQual",6,1,1]
["TesDevExpr",7,1,1]
["TesDevDomain ",9,1,1]
["TesDevSched ",2,1,1]
["TesDevBudget ",5,1,1]
["TesDevProcEff ",5,1,1]
["TesDevQualOrg ",4,1,1]
["TesDevTrnOvr",7,1,1]
["TesDevStfLev ",8,1,1]
["TesDevTool ",4,1,1]
["TesExtCstr",5,1,1]
["TesDevProcEff",6,1,1]
["TTdAuto",1,0,0]
["TTdANL",3,1,1]
["AnlQual",2,1,0]
["TTdRevQual",8,1,1]
["TTiDataTiming ",7,1,1]
["TTiDataCplt ",6,1,1]
["TTiDevAcs ",3,1,1]
["TTiPrjAcpt ",6,1,1]
["TTiDevCoop",6,1,1]
["TTiExpr",9,1,1]
["TTiDomain ",5,1,1]
["TTiStaffLev",6,1,1]
["TTiSchedPress",8,1,1]
["TTiAuto",1,0,0]
["TTiDevTool",7,1,1]
["TTiAnal",7,1,1]
["TTiRevPrtcp",9,1,0]
["SysReqStab",8,1,1]
["IntReqStab",8,1,1]
["IntUserInvolv",5,1,2]
["IntEqpmt",7,2,1]
["IPQual",8,1,1]
["IntDevExpr",5,2,1]
["IntDevDomain ",5,2,1]
["IntDevSched ",4,2,2]
["IntDevBudget ",5,4,4]
["IntDevProcEff ",6,1,1]
["IntDevQualOrg ",3,2,1]
["IntDevTrnOvr",6,0,0]
["IntDevStfLev ",8,0,0]
["IntDevTool ",8,0,1]
["IntExtCstr",7,0,0]
["IntDevProcEff",7,0,0]
["IIdAuto",4,0,0]
["IIdANL",7,0,0]
["IIdRevQual",6,0,0]
["IIiDataTiming ",6,0,0]
["IIiDataCplt ",7,0,0]
["IIiDevAcs ",9,0,0]
["IIiPrjAcpt ",9,0,0]
["IIiDevCoop",8,0,0]
["IIiExpr",8,0,0]
["IIiDomain ",8,0,0]
["IIiStaffLev",8,0,0]
["IIiSchedPress",7,0,0]
["IIiAuto",3,0,0]
["IIiDevTool",8,0,0]
["IIiAnal",7,0,0]
["IIiRevPrtcp",9,0,0]
["KL",71]
["NewSLOC",161000]
["ReuseSLOC",0]
["DevCostMM",650]
["IVVCostMM",43.6]
["FPtotal",2267]
["FPRRD",0.623]
["FPRRI",0.137]
["FPRDD",0.451]
["FPRDI",0.712]
["FPRCD",0.107]
["FPRCI",0.04]
["FPRTD",0.002]
["FPRTI",0.086]
["FPRID",0.002]
["FPRII",0.003]

{"sheet":"Definitions","index":4,"n_rows":177,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":177,"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
["UserExperR","Experience level of system users with similar (or the same) systems or solution approach.  Maturity level of users in understanding technical aspects of system to be implemented and the scenarios in which it will be used."]
["UserInvolveR","Degree to which the system users are involved in the requirements definition process and the timeliness of that involvement. Note that a high score here requires involvement or representation of all key system users, not just system operators."]
["Novel","Relative novelty (to the developer or user) of the application/mission or the solution approach. For example, entry GN&C for a new vehicle where all algorithms are adapted from Shuttle would be low novelty (10) (provided the new mission is very similar to the Shuttle mission), completely new algorithms or new application would be high novelty (1)."]
["SysDocQual","Qualitative estimate of the quality (completeness, correctness, and consistency) of system documentation from which software requirements may be derived."]
["ReqCplx ","Qualitative estimate of overall system/problem complexity.  Related to technical difficulty, required interfaces (developer and system), and unity of users.  Not correlated with code complexity metrics. Simple (10) to complex (1)"]
["ReqDevExpr","Average experience level of development staff, not specific to the problem domain, but overall experience in software development for the domain type (e.g., real-time embedded flight, financial, ground, manned , etc)."]
["ReqDevDomain ","Average experience of development staff in the specific application domain (e.g., laser guidance system, space telescope, crew rescue, etc).  Consider all individual domains within the system (e.g., space telescope will require GN&C, optics, propulsion, system management, telemetry, etc)."]
["ReqDevSched ","How much margin is in the development schedule?  Assessment of flexibility in end date."]
["ReqDevBudget ","How tight is the development budget?  Assessment of flexibility in cost growth."]
["ReqDevProcEff ","How much emphasis does development management place on quality (as opposed to productivity)? For example, does development management participate in reviews, ensure that action items are tracked, and encourage extra analysis of suspected problems? Assessment of effectiveness of process problem reports (like our CPAR to document discrepancies in following the process), process improvement actions, activity of a board to assess effectiveness of process, etc.  An assessment of the 'aliveness' of the developer process and attention to making it work to produce better products."]
["ReqDevQualOrg ","How effective is the embedded quality organization? This measure includes consideration of size, breadth and depth of capability, and level of authority granted to quality organization applied to this project."]
["ReqDevTrnOvr","Experienced or historical rate of change of staff involved with requirements development"]
["ReqDevStfLev ","Assessment of whether the quantity and distribution of staff is sufficient for the problem space"]
["DevCMM ","This is an overall assessment of the effectiveness of the development process related to development of requirements.  The assessment should include methods for requirements elicitation, coordination, documentation, and validation. It should correlate fairly well with CMM level, but includes an assessment of what is really happening in addition to what is documented."]
["ReqDevTool ","Degree to which the developer uses tools in developing and analyzing requirements. Tools here include requirements management tools (DOORs, for example), traceability tools, simulations, process support, etc."]
["RRdPress","Similar to the cost and schedule pressure on requirements development. In some cases, the developer requirements inspection/checking process is more tightly constrained than requirements development."]
["RRdProcEff ","Same as process effectiveness actions input for requirements development unless there is something unique about the group that reviews the products to find defects."]
["RRdUserInvolve","Degree to which users are involved in the requirements validation process.  This is similar to but can be different from the user involvement for requirements development."]
["RRdSim","Degree to which the development organization uses simulation to understand and validate requirements.  This does not refer to simulations to verify requirements but rather to simulations of the conceptual operation of the system or particular subsystems to assure the right requirements are being specified.  This could be a model of the expected environment and the system/subsystem reaction to it at an abstract rather than implementation level. Completeness of those simulations.  Coverage of novel or complex areas. "]
["RRdReason","Degree of use of reasoning tools. By reasoning tools, we mean tools such as automation of formal methods, model checking, etc."]
["RRdUML","Degree to which the development organization uses representational tools to automate and support requirements validation. The best example of representation tools is UML."]
["RRdRevQual","Quality of the embedded review process. For example, do the developers do formal, detailed requirements reviews?  Do they use entry and exit criteria, track and board issues, etc?  Do they hold walkthroughs with broad scope support?"]
["RRiDataTiming ","Relative measure of timeliness of data delivery by the developer to IV&V. Late data delivery places time restrictions on IV&V and can impede IV&V."]
["RRiDataCplt ","Measure of completeness of data submitted to IV&V. For example, if important information is withheld due to proprietary concerns, that will impede IV&V.  Another example is that documents are delivered with sections incomplete or many TBDs or document does not have content expected for the point in lifecycle at which it was delivered."]
["RRiDevAcs ","How much access does IV&V have to the developers? If IV&V has to work through several bureaucratic levels to get information from the developers or discuss issues or risks, that will decrease IV&V effectiveness."]
["RRiPrjAcpt ","How well does the project accept the IV&V participation?  A high score indicates the project participants exhibit a belief that use of IV&V will lead to higher mission success probability.  Project management has issued directives exhibiting the right intent in dealing with the IV&V participation."]
["RRiDevCoop","How cooperative are developers, in general, in responding to IV&V requests and suggestions?  Do all IV&V issues get immediate attention, or does the development organization tend to ignore or avoid dealing with IV&V concerns? Developers exhibit attention to IV&V concerns and timely/meaningful response.  While project acceptance is having the right intent, cooperation is doing the right thing."]
["RRiExpr","Average experience level of IV&V staff. This is a measure of how much experience the IV&V staff has in the area of IV&V and related activities.  This does not consider domain experience level which is considered in another input."]
["RRiDomain ","Degree of experience of IV&V staff with the application domain.  Consider all individual domains within the system (e.g., GN&C, power, C&DH, ECLSS, terrain mobility, thermal, etc).  This item should evaluate the extent of applicable domain knowledge within the IV&V staff."]
["RRiStaffLev","How appropriate is the size of the IV&V staff to the analysis task? Too few (or too many) would lower the rating."]
["RRiSchedPress","How much schedule pressure does IV&V face. This factor could be correlated with data timing, but not necessarily.  A low score indicates there was heavy schedule pressure.  A high score indicates there was little schedule pressure."]
["RRiSim","Degree to which the IV&V organization uses simulation to understand and validate requirements.  This does not refer to simulations to verify requirements but rather to simulations of the conceptual operation of the system or particular subsystems to assure the right requirements are being specified.  This could be a model of the expected environment and the system/subsystem reaction to it at an abstract rather than implementation level. Completeness of those simulations.  Coverage of novel or complex areas. "]
["RRiReason","Degree of use of reasoning tools by the IV&V organization. By reasoning tools, we mean tools such as automation of formal methods, model checking, etc."]
["RRiUML","Degree to which the IV&V organization uses representational tools to automate and support requirements validation. The best example of representation tools is UML."]
["RRiAnal","An assessment of the effectiveness of the types of analyses planned such as scenario analyses, requirements reading, comparative analysis, formal method"]
["RRiRevPrtcp","Assessment of effectiveness of plans for participating in developer milestone reviews, inspections, walkthroughs etc.  Assessment would include timing in which IV&V enters the project (SRR, SDR SSR, etc) and its impact on effectiveness."]
["UserExperD","Experience level of system users with similar (or the same) systems or solution approach.  Maturity level of users (or representatives such as system engineering with equivalent knowledge) in understanding technical aspects of system to be implemented and the scenarios in which it will be used."]
["UserInvolveD","Degree to which the system users are involved in the requirements definition process and the timeliness of that involvement. Note that a high score here requires involvement or representation (by system engineering, for example, provided they have equivalent knowledge) of all key system users, not just system operators."]
["DesCplx ","Qualitative estimate of overall system/problem complexity.  Related to technical difficulty to define system, required interfaces (among the developer and system), and unity of users.  Not correlated with code complexity metrics. Simple (10) to complex (1)"]
["DesDevExpr","Average experience level of development staff, not specific to the problem domain, but overall experience in software development for the domain type (e.g., real-time embedded flight, financial, ground, manned , etc)."]
["DesDevDomain ","Average experience of development staff in the specific application domain (e.g., laser guidance system, space telescope, crew rescue, etc).  Consider all individual domains within the system (e.g., space telescope will require GN&C, optics, propulsion, system management, telemetry, etc)."]
["DesDevSched ","How much margin is in the development schedule?  Assessment of flexibility in end date. A higher number indicates developers have plenty of time to complete their work, a lower number indicates developers are consistently rushed to deliver products"]
["DesDevBudget ","How tight is the development budget?  Assessment of flexibility in cost growth."]
["DesDevProcEff ","How much emphasis does development management place on quality (as opposed to productivity)? For example, does development management  ensure that review action items are tracked, and encourage extra analysis of suspected problems? Assessment of effectiveness of process problem reports (e.g., a formal mechanism to document, correct and publish discrepancies in following the process), process improvement actions, activity of a board to assess effectiveness of process, etc.  An assessment of the 'aliveness' of the developer process and attention to making it work to produce better products."]
["DesDevQualOrg ","How effective is the embedded quality organization? This measure includes consideration of size, breadth and depth of capability applied to this project, and level of authority granted to the quality organization applied to this project."]
["DesDevTrnOvr","Experienced or historical rate of change of staff involved with design development.  A higher number indicates little turnover, a lower number indicates a lot of turnover."]
["DesDevStfLev ","Assessment of whether the quantity and distribution across domains of staff is sufficient for the problem space.  An adequate staff level should receive a very high score (not average).  The worst staff level with respect to work required ever seen by the evaluator would receive a score of 1."]
["DesDevTool ","Degree to which the developer uses tools in developing and analyzing design. Tools here include formal method support tools (Stateflow, for example), traceability tools, simulations, process support, etc.  The assessment should include evaluation of tool support to assure conformance of design to requirements (i.e., do tools support a seamless transition to design from requirements or are the design support tools completely independent of requirements support tools)."]
["DesExtCstr","Overall influence level of external constraints related to schedule and budget.  How strong is the pressure to proceed without fix in spite of schedule or budget problems."]
["DesDevProcEff","How much emphasis does development management place on quality (as opposed to productivity)? For example, does development management  ensure that review action items are tracked, and encourage extra analysis of suspected problems? Assessment of effectiveness of process problem reports (e.g., a formal mechanism to document, correct and publish discrepancies in following the process), process improvement actions, activity of a board to assess effectiveness of process, etc.  An assessment of the 'aliveness' of the developer process and attention to making it work to produce better products."]
["DDdUserInvolve","Degree to which users are involved in the design validation process.  This is similar to but can be different from the user involvement for design development."]
["DDdSim","Degree to which the development organization uses simulation to understand and validate design.  This does not refer to simulations to verify requirements but rather to simulations of the conceptual operation of the system or particular subsystems to assure the right design is being specified.  This could be a model of the expected environment and the system/subsystem reaction to it at an abstract rather than implementation level. Completeness of those simulations.  Coverage of novel or complex areas. "]
["DDdReason","Degree of use of reasoning tools. By reasoning tools, we mean tools such as automation of formal methods, model checking, etc.  Extent of executability of design.  Ability of tools to point to defects in design characteristics such as sequencing, timing, homogeneity, etc."]
["DDdUML","Degree to which the development organization uses representational tools to automate and support design validation. The best example of representation tools is UML."]
["DDdRevQual","Quality of the embedded review process. For example, do the developers do formal, detailed design reviews?  Do they use entry and exit criteria, track and board issues, etc?  Do they hold walkthroughs with broad scope support?"]
["DDiDataTiming ","Relative measure of timeliness of data delivery by the developer to IV&V. Late data delivery places time restrictions on IV&V and can impede IV&V."]
["DDiDataCplt ","Measure of completeness of data submitted to IV&V. For example, if important information is withheld due to proprietary concerns, that will impede IV&V.  Another example is that documents are delivered with sections incomplete or many TBDs or document does not have content expected for the point in lifecycle at which it was delivered."]
["DDiDevAcs ","How much access does IV&V have to the developers? If IV&V has to work through several bureaucratic levels to get information from the developers or discuss issues or risks, that will decrease IV&V effectiveness."]
["DDiPrjAcpt ","How well does the project accept the IV&V participation?  A high score indicates the project participants exhibit a belief that use of IV&V will lead to higher mission success probability.  Project management has issued directives exhibiting the right intent in dealing with the IV&V participation."]
["DDiDevCoop","How cooperative are developers, in general, in responding to IV&V requests and suggestions?  Do all IV&V issues get immediate attention, or does the development organization tend to ignore or avoid dealing with IV&V concerns? Developers exhibit attention to IV&V concerns and timely/meaningful response.  While project acceptance is having the right intent, cooperation is doing the right thing."]
["DDiExpr","Average experience level of IV&V staff. This is a measure of how much experience the IV&V staff has in the area of IV&V and related activities.  This does not consider domain experience level which is considered in another input."]
["DDiDomain ","Degree of experience of IV&V staff with the application domain.  Consider all individual domains within the system.  This item should evaluate the extent of applicable domain knowledge within the IV&V staff."]
["DDiStaffLev","How appropriate is the size of the IV&V staff to the analysis tasks that need to be performed based on the criticality analysis and risk assessment (CARA) results? Too few (or too many) would lower the rating. An adequate staff level should receive a very high score (not average).  Descoping the tasks from the CARA results to match a low staff level would get a low score."]
["DDiSchedPress","How much schedule pressure does IV&V face. This factor could be correlated with data timing, but not necessarily.  A low score indicates there was heavy schedule pressure.  A high score indicates there was little schedule pressure."]
["DDiSim","Degree to which the IV&V organization uses simulation to understand and validate design.  This does not refer to simulations to verify requirements but rather to simulations of the conceptual operation of the system or particular subsystems to assure the right design is being specified.  This could be a model of the expected environment and the system/subsystem reaction to it at an abstract rather than implementation level. Completeness of those simulations.  Coverage of novel or complex areas. "]
["DDiReason","Degree of use of reasoning tools by the IV&V organization. By reasoning tools, we mean tools such as automation of formal methods, model checking, traceability, etc."]
["DDiUML","Degree to which the IV&V organization uses representational tools to automate and support design validation. The best example of representation tools is UML or a combination of design language and graphics such as AADL.  This represents the degree to which IV&V develops their own design representation for analysis and the degree to which IV&V has the tools to understand the developers representation of the design."]
["DDiAnal","An assessment of the effectiveness of the types of analyses planned such as scenario analyses, design reading, comparative analysis, formal method."]
["DDiRevPrtcp","Assessment of effectiveness of plans for participating in developer milestone reviews, inspections, walkthroughs etc.  Assessment would include timing in which IV&V enters the project (SRR, SDR SSR, etc) and its impact on effectiveness."]
["CodCplx ","Qualitative estimate of overall system/problem complexity.  Related to technical difficulty to define system, required interfaces (among the developer and system), and unity of users.  Not correlated with code complexity metrics. Simple (10) to complex (1)"]
["CodDevExpr","Average experience level of development staff, not specific to the problem domain, but overall experience in software development for the domain type (e.g., real-time embedded flight, financial, ground, manned , etc).  Includes staff experience with the language chosen for implementation and the operating system in use.  Also includes experience with the processor to be used, and the hardware to be interfaced with."]
["CodDevDomain ","Average experience of development staff in the specific application domain (e.g., laser guidance system, space telescope, crew rescue, etc).  Consider all individual domains within the system (e.g., space telescope will require GN&C, optics, propulsion, system management, telemetry, etc)."]
["CodDevSched ","How much margin is in the development schedule?  Assessment of flexibility in end date. A higher number indicates developers have plenty of time to complete their work, a lower number indicates developers are consistently rushed to deliver products."]
["CodDevBudget ","How tight is the development budget?  Assessment of flexibility in cost growth."]
["CodDevProcEff ","How much emphasis does development management place on quality (as opposed to productivity)? For example, does development management  ensure that review action items are tracked, and encourage extra analysis of suspected problems? Assessment of effectiveness of process problem reports (e.g., a formal mechanism to document, correct and publish discrepancies in following the process), process improvement actions, activity of a board to assess effectiveness of process, etc.  An assessment of the 'aliveness' of the developer process and attention to making it work to produce better products."]
["CodDevQualOrg ","How effective is the embedded quality organization? This measure includes consideration of size, breadth and depth of capability applied to this project, and level of authority granted to the quality organization applied to this project."]
["CodDevTrnOvr","Experienced or historical rate of change of staff involved with code development.  A higher number indicates little turnover, a lower number indicates a lot of turnover."]
["CodDevStfLev ","Assessment of whether the quantity and distribution across domains of staff is sufficient for the problem space.  An adequate staff level should receive a very high score (not average).  The worst staff level with respect to work required ever seen by the evaluator would receive a score of 1."]
["CodDevTool ","Degree to which the developer uses tools in developing and analyzing code. Tools here include formal method support tools, traceability tools, code navigation, process support, static and dynamic code analysis tools, etc.  The assessment should include evaluation of tool support to assure conformance of code to design and requirements (i.e., do tools support a seamless transition to code from design or are the code support tools completely independent of design and requirements support tools)."]
["CodExtCstr","Similar to the cost and schedule pressure on code development. In some cases, the developer code inspection/checking process is more tightly constrained than code development."]
["CodDevProcEff","Same as process effectiveness actions input for code development unless there is something unique about the group that reviews the products to find defects."]
["CCdStatic","Degree and effectiveness of use of automated defect locator tools such as Lint, Coverity, or Polyspace.   These are tools that do a static analysis of source code and identify potentially erroneous constructs."]
["CCdReason","Degree of use of reasoning tools. By reasoning tools, we mean tools such as automation of formal methods, model checking, etc.  An example would be SPIN or Rational Rose that use finite state machine representation in Promela or UML to provide an executable model.  Ability of tools to point to defects in code characteristics such as sequencing, timing, homogeneity, etc.  "]
["CCdANL","Degree to which the development organization uses analytical tools to understand and write/modify code.  These include tools such as target system debuggers, code navigators (e.g., Understand), or flowcharters.  "]
["CCdRevQual","Quality of the embedded review process. For example, do the developers do formal, detailed code reviews?  Do they use entry and exit criteria, track and board issues, etc?  Do they hold walkthroughs with broad scope support?"]
["CCiDataTiming ","Relative measure of timeliness of data delivery by the developer to IV&V. Late data delivery places time restrictions on IV&V and can impede IV&V."]
["CCiDataCplt ","Measure of completeness of data submitted to IV&V. For example, if important information is withheld due to proprietary concerns, that will impede IV&V.  Another example is that source is delivered with sections incomplete or many TBDs or source does not have content expected for the point in lifecycle at which it was delivered."]
["CCiDevAcs ","How much access does IV&V have to the developers? If IV&V has to work through several bureaucratic levels to get information from the developers or discuss issues or risks, that will decrease IV&V effectiveness."]
["CCiPrjAcpt ","How well does the project accept the IV&V participation?  A high score indicates the project participants exhibit a belief that use of IV&V will lead to higher mission success probability.  Project management has issued directives exhibiting the right intent in dealing with the IV&V participation."]
["CCiDevCoop","How cooperative are developers, in general, in responding to IV&V requests and suggestions?  Do all IV&V issues get immediate attention, or does the development organization tend to ignore or avoid dealing with IV&V concerns? Developers exhibit attention to IV&V concerns and timely/meaningful response.  While project acceptance is having the right intent, cooperation is doing the right thing."]
["CCiExpr","Average experience level of IV&V staff. This is a measure of how much experience the IV&V staff has in the area of IV&V and related activities.  This does not consider domain experience level which is considered in another input.  This considers experience in implementation language, operating system in use, processing platform and hardware interfaces."]
["CCiDomain ","Degree of experience of IV&V staff with the application domain.  Consider all individual domains within the system.  This item should evaluate the extent of applicable domain knowledge within the IV&V staff."]
["CCiStaffLev","How appropriate is the size of the IV&V staff to the analysis tasks that need to be performed based on the CARA results? Too few (or too many) would lower the rating. An adequate staff level should receive a very high score (not average).  Descoping the tasks from the CARA results to match a low staff level would get a low score."]
["CCiSchedPress","How much schedule pressure does IV&V face. This factor could be correlated with data timing, but not necessarily.  A low score indicates there was heavy schedule pressure.  A high score indicates there was little schedule pressure."]
["CCiStatic","Degree and effectiveness of use of automated defect locator tools such as Lint, Coverity, or Polyspace.   These are tools that do a static analysis of source code and identify potentially erroneous constructs."]
["CCiReason","Degree of use of reasoning tools. By reasoning tools, we mean tools such as automation of formal methods, model checking, etc.  An example would be SPIN or Rational Rose that use finite state machine representation in Promela or UML to provide an executable model.  Ability of tools to point to defects in code characteristics such as sequencing, timing, homogeneity, etc.  "]
["CCiANL","Degree to which the IV&V organization uses analytical tools to understand characteristics, structure, and behavior of code.  These include tools such as target system debuggers, code navigators (e.g., Understand), or flowcharters.  "]
["CCiAnal","An assessment of the effectiveness of the types of analyses planned such as Lint analyses, code reading, formal method, etc."]
["CCiRevPrtcp","Assessment of effectiveness of plans for participating in developer milestone reviews, inspections, walkthroughs etc.  Assessment would include timing in which IV&V enters the project (SRR, SDR SSR, etc) and its impact on effectiveness."]
["TPQual","Quantitative estimate of test plan quality.  Consider whether the test plan contains clear definition of test cases, their objectives, complete description of test equipment and its capabilities, coverage of requirements, and a schedule for test. "]
["TDQual","Estimate of the quality of the test description.  Does this document contain a good design for the test cases.  Does it contain details as to how each test case will be implemented, what equipment it will use and how, what constraints are imposed, success criteria, inputs for each test case, models to be used and their required fidelity, data to be collected and how that will be accomplished (method for access of data), required control of target computer, and analyses to be completed and how that will be accomplished."]
["TesDevExpr","Average experience level of development staff, not specific to the problem domain, but overall experience in software testing for the domain type (e.g., real-time embedded flight, financial, ground, manned , etc).  Includes staff experience with the language chosen for implementation and the operating system in use.  Also includes experience with the processor to be used, and the hardware to be interfaced with.  Also includes experience with the test equipment to be used and development of test cases for the type of software being tested."]
["TesDevDomain ","Average experience of development staff in testing the specific application domain (e.g., laser guidance system, space telescope, crew rescue, etc).  Consider all individual domains within the system (e.g., space telescope will require GN&C, optics, propulsion, system management, telemetry, etc)."]
["TesDevSched ","How much margin is in the testing schedule?  Assessment of flexibility in end date. A higher number indicates developers have plenty of time to complete their work, a lower number indicates developers are consistently rushed to deliver products."]
["TesDevBudget ","How tight is the development budget?  Assessment of flexibility in cost growth."]
["TesDevProcEff ","How much emphasis does development management place on quality (as opposed to productivity)? For example, does development management  ensure that review action items are tracked and encourage extra analysis of suspected problems? Assessment of effectiveness of process problem reports (e.g., a formal mechanism to document, correct and publish discrepancies in following the process), process improvement actions, activity of a board to assess effectiveness of process, etc.  An assessment of the 'aliveness' of the developer process and attention to making it work to produce better products."]
["TesDevQualOrg ","How effective is the embedded quality organization? This measure includes consideration of size, breadth and depth of capability applied to this project, and level of authority granted to the quality organization applied to this project.",1,{"$error":"#VALUE!"},1]
["TesDevTrnOvr","Experienced or historical rate of change of staff involved with test development.  A higher number indicates little turnover, a lower number indicates a lot of turnover."]
["TesDevStfLev ","Assessment of whether the quantity and distribution across domains of staff is sufficient for the problem space.  An adequate staff level should receive a very high score (not average).  The worst staff level with respect to work required ever seen by the evaluator would receive a score of 1."]
["TesDevTool ","Degree to which the developer uses tools in developing and analyzing testing. Tools here include requirements coverage support, traceability tools, code coverage support, test case generation, execution control, etc.  "]
["TesExtCstr","Similar to the cost and schedule pressure on test procedure development. In some cases, the developer test procedure/checking process is more tightly constrained than test procedure development because of late development."]
["TesDevProcEff","Same as process effectiveness actions input for test procedure development unless there is something unique about the group that reviews the products to find defects."]
["TTdAuto","Degree and effectiveness of use of automated test case generation and requirements coverage analysis tools."]
["TTdANL","Degree to which the development organization uses analytical tools to understand and validate design and implementation.  These include tools such as target system control for breakpoints and data access or code navigators.  This also includes tools to support understanding of interfaces (in particular sequence and timing of data exchange, interrupt timing and frequency, potential range and quantity of data, operational dynamics of interfacing hardware, and environmental requirements of interfacing hardware) to support the definition of effective test cases.  Coverage of novel or complex areas.  "]
["AnlQual","Quality of the analytical techniques used to remove defects from the test procedures."]
["TTdRevQual","Quality of the embedded review process. For example, do the developers do formal, detailed test procedure reviews?  Do they use entry and exit criteria, track and board issues, etc?  Do they hold walkthroughs with broad scope support?"]
["TTiDataTiming ","Relative measure of timeliness of data delivery by the developer to IV&V. Late data delivery places time restrictions on IV&V and can impede IV&V."]
["TTiDataCplt ","Measure of completeness of data submitted to IV&V. For example, if important information is withheld due to proprietary concerns, that will impede IV&V.  Another example is that test procedures are delivered with sections incomplete or many TBDs or test description does not have content expected for the point in lifecycle at which it was delivered."]
["TTiDevAcs ","How much access does IV&V have to the developers? If IV&V has to work through several bureaucratic levels to get information from the developers or discuss issues or risks, that will decrease IV&V effectiveness."]
["TTiPrjAcpt ","How well does the project accept the IV&V participation?  A high score indicates the project participants exhibit a belief that use of IV&V will lead to higher mission success probability.  Project management has issued directives exhibiting the right intent in dealing with the IV&V participation."]
["TTiDevCoop","How cooperative are developers, in general, in responding to IV&V requests and suggestions?  Do all IV&V issues get immediate attention, or does the development organization tend to ignore or avoid dealing with IV&V concerns? Developers exhibit attention to IV&V concerns and timely/meaningful response.  While project acceptance is having the right intent, cooperation is doing the right thing."]
["TTiExpr","Average experience level of IV&V staff. This is a measure of how much experience the IV&V staff has in the area of IV&V and testing activities.  This does not consider domain experience level which is considered in another input.  This considers experience in implementation language, operating system in use, processing platform and hardware interfaces."]
["TTiDomain ","Degree of experience of IV&V staff with the application domain.  Consider all individual domains within the system (e.g., GN&C, power, C&DH, ECLSS, terrain mobility, thermal, etc).  This item should evaluate the extent of applicable domain knowledge within the IV&V staff."]
["TTiStaffLev","How appropriate is the size of the IV&V staff to the analysis tasks that need to be performed based on the CARA results? Too few (or too many) would lower the rating. An adequate staff level should receive a very high score (not average).  Descoping the tasks from the CARA results to match a low staff level would get a low score."]
["TTiSchedPress","How much schedule pressure does IV&V face. This factor could be correlated with data timing, but not necessarily.  A low score indicates there was heavy schedule pressure.  A high score indicates there was little schedule pressure."]
["TTiAuto","Degree and effectiveness of use of coverage analysis tools."]
["TTiDevTool","Degree to which the IV&V organization understands the tools to be used by the developer and is able to assess effectiveness of usage."]
["TTiAnal","An assessment of the effectiveness of the types of analyses planned such as scenario analyses, simulation, or similarity to determine completeness and correctness of test procedures."]
["TTiRevPrtcp","Assessment of effectiveness of plans for participating in developer milestone reviews, inspections, walkthroughs etc.  Assessment would include timing in which IV&V enters the project (SRR, SDR SSR, etc) and its impact on effectiveness."]
["SysReqStab","Quantitative estimate of the quality and stability of the system requirements being verified in the integration testing."]
["IntReqStab","Quantitative estimate of the quality and stability of the interface requirements being verified in the integration testing."]
["IntUserInvolv","Degree to which the system users are involved in the integration test process and the timeliness of that involvement. Note that a high score here requires involvement or representation (by users or system engineering, for example, with equivalent knowledge) of all key system users, not just system operators."]
["IntEqpmt","Rating of capability and complexity of equipment and simulations to be used in performing system level verification.  Capability is rated in terms of ability to perform all functions needed as a part of requirements verification.  Complexity is rated in terms of ease and reliability of use of the capabilities."]
["IPQual","Quantitative estimate of integration test plan quality. This should include completeness of test case definition in terms of needed inputs, success criteria, needed equipment, needed data access, and requirements coverage."]
["IntDevExpr","Average experience level of development staff, not specific to the problem domain, but overall experience in software testing for the domain type (e.g., real-time embedded flight, financial, ground, manned , etc).  Includes staff experience with the language chosen for implementation and the operating system in use.  Also includes experience with the processor to be used, and the hardware to be interfaced with.  Also includes experience with the test equipment to be used and development of test cases for the type of software being tested."]
["IntDevDomain ","Average experience of development staff in testing the specific application domain (e.g., laser guidance system, space telescope, crew rescue, etc).  Consider all individual domains within the system (e.g., space telescope will require GN&C, optics, propulsion, system management, telemetry, etc)."]
["IntDevSched ","How much margin is in the integration testing schedule?  Assessment of flexibility in end date. A higher number indicates developers have plenty of time to complete their work, a lower number indicates developers are consistently rushed to deliver products."]
["IntDevBudget ","How tight is the development budget?  Assessment of flexibility in cost growth."]
["IntDevProcEff ","How much emphasis does development management place on quality (as opposed to productivity)? For example, does development management  ensure that review action items are tracked and encourage extra analysis of suspected problems? Assessment of effectiveness of process problem reports (e.g., a formal mechanism to document, correct and publish discrepancies in following the process), process improvement actions, activity of a board to assess effectiveness of process, etc.  An assessment of the 'aliveness' of the developer process and attention to making it work to produce better products."]
["IntDevQualOrg ","How effective is the embedded quality organization? This measure includes consideration of size, breadth and depth of capability applied to this project, and level of authority granted to the quality organization applied to this project."]
["IntDevTrnOvr","Experienced or historical rate of change of staff involved with integration test development.  A higher number indicates little turnover, a lower number indicates a lot of turnover."]
["IntDevStfLev ","Assessment of whether the quantity and distribution across domains of staff is sufficient for the problem space.  An adequate staff level should receive a very high score (not average).  The worst staff level with respect to work required ever seen by the evaluator would receive a score of 1."]
["IntDevTool ","Degree to which the developer uses tools in developing and analyzing integration testing. Tools here include requirements coverage support, traceability tools, interface coverage support, test case generation, execution control, etc.  "]
["IntExtCstr","Similar to the cost and schedule pressure on integration test procedure development. In some cases, the developer test procedure/checking process is more tightly constrained than test procedure development because of late development."]
["IntDevProcEff","Same as process effectiveness actions input for integration test procedure development unless there is something unique about the group that reviews the products to find defects."]
["IIdAuto","Degree and effectiveness of use of automated test case generation and requirements coverage analysis tools."]
["IIdANL","Degree to which the development organization uses analytical tools to understand and verify design and implementation.  These include tools such as target system control for breakpoints and data access or code navigators.  This also includes tools to support understanding of interfaces (in particular sequence and timing of data exchange, interrupt timing and frequency, potential range and quantity of data, operational dynamics of interfacing hardware, and environmental requirements of interfacing hardware) to support the definition of effective test cases.  Coverage of novel or complex areas.  "]
["IIdRevQual","Quality of the embedded review process. For example, do the developers do formal, detailed code reviews?  Do they use entry and exit criteria, track and board issues, etc?  Do they hold walkthroughs with broad scope support?"]
["IIiDataTiming ","Relative measure of timeliness of data delivery by the developer to IV&V. Late data delivery places time restrictions on IV&V and can impede IV&V."]
["IIiDataCplt ","Measure of completeness of data submitted to IV&V. For example, if important information is withheld due to proprietary concerns, that will impede IV&V.  Another example is that integration test procedures are delivered with sections incomplete or many TBDs or test description does not have content expected for the point in lifecycle at which it was delivered."]
["IIiDevAcs ","How much access does IV&V have to the developers? If IV&V has to work through several bureaucratic levels to get information from the developers or discuss issues or risks, that will decrease IV&V effectiveness."]
["IIiPrjAcpt ","How well does the project accept the IV&V participation?  A high score indicates the project participants exhibit a belief that use of IV&V will lead to higher mission success probability.  Project management has issued directives exhibiting the right intent in dealing with the IV&V participation."]
["IIiDevCoop","How cooperative are developers, in general, in responding to IV&V requests and suggestions?  Do all IV&V issues get immediate attention, or does the development organization tend to ignore or avoid dealing with IV&V concerns? Developers exhibit attention to IV&V concerns and timely/meaningful response.  While project acceptance is having the right intent, cooperation is doing the right thing."]
["IIiExpr","Average experience level of IV&V staff. This is a measure of how much experience the IV&V staff has in the area of IV&V and integration testing activities.  This does not consider domain experience level which is considered in another input.  This considers experience in implementation language, operating system in use, processing platform and hardware interfaces."]
["IIiDomain ","Degree of experience of IV&V staff with the application domain.  Consider all individual domains within the system.  This item should evaluate the extent of applicable domain knowledge within the IV&V staff."]
["IIiStaffLev","How appropriate is the size of the IV&V staff to the analysis tasks that need to be performed based on the CARA results? Too few (or too many) would lower the rating. An adequate staff level should receive a very high score (not average).  Descoping the tasks from the CARA results to match a low staff level would get a low score."]
["IIiSchedPress","How much schedule pressure does IV&V face. This factor could be correlated with data timing, but not necessarily.  A low score indicates there was heavy schedule pressure.  A high score indicates there was little schedule pressure."]
["IIiAuto","Degree and effectiveness of use of coverage analysis tools."]
["IIiDevTool","Degree to which the IV&V organization understands the tools to be used by the developer and is able to assess effectiveness of usage."]
["IIiAnal","An assessment of the effectiveness of the types of analyses planned such as scenario analyses, simulation, or similarity to determine completeness and correctness of test procedures."]
["IIiRevPrtcp","Assessment of effectiveness of plans for participating in developer milestone reviews, inspections, walkthroughs etc.  Assessment would include timing in which IV&V enters the project (SRR, SDR SSR, etc) and its impact on effectiveness."]
["KL","Approximate number of lines of code associated with one funtion point. This is a development language-dependent value."]
["NewSLOC","Lines of new code"]
["ReuseSLOC","Lines of reused code"]
["DevCostMM","Developer total project cost in equivalent person months of labor"]
["IVVCostMM","IV&V project cost in equivalent person months of labor"]
["FPtotal","Total number of function points delivered"]
["FPRRD","Ratio of defect function points to delivered function points for defects discovered by the developer during the requirements lifecycle phase"]
["FPRRI","Ratio of defect function points to delivered function points for defects discovered by the IV&V during the requirements lifecycle phase"]
["FPRDD","Ratio of defect function points to delivered function points for defects discovered by the developer during the design lifecycle phase"]
["FPRDI","Ratio of defect function points to delivered function points for defects discovered by the IV&V during the design lifecycle phase"]
["FPRCD","Ratio of defect function points to delivered function points for defects discovered by the developer during the coding lifecycle phase"]
["FPRCI","Ratio of defect function points to delivered function points for defects discovered by the IV&V during the coding lifecycle phase"]
["FPRTD","Ratio of defect function points to delivered function points for defects discovered by the developer during the test lifecycle phase"]
["FPRTI","Ratio of defect function points to delivered function points for defects discovered by the IV&V during the test lifecycle phase"]
["FPRID","Ratio of defect function points to delivered function points for defects discovered by the developer during the integration lifecycle phase"]
["FPRII","Ratio of defect function points to delivered function points for defects discovered by the IV&V during the integration lifecycle phase"]