\section{Results}
For each case study of \fig{cases}, STAR 
searches within the ranges  to find constraints
that most
reduce development effort, development time, and defects.
The results are shown in \fig{effort}, \fig{time}, and \fig{defect}. In those figures:
\bi
\item All results are normalized to run 0..100, min..max. 
\item Each row shows the 25\% to 75\% quartile range of the normalized scores collected during the simulation. 
\item The median result is shown as a black dot. 
\item All the performance scores  get {\em better} when the observed scores get {\em smaller}.
\item The ``none'' row comes from Monte Carlo simulations of the current ranges, without any changes. 
\ei
\input{results2}
%%!!!!THIS PARAGRAPH NEEDS WORK!!!
In each figure, the rows are sorted by the number of times a change
{\em looses} to other changes. In order to assess number of {\em losses}, we used the 
 Mann-Whitney test at 95\% confidence test (this test was 
chosen since (a) due to the random nature of Monte Carlo 
simulations, the inputs to each run are not paired; and (b) 
ranked tests make no, possibly inappropriate, assumption 
about normality of the results). Two rows have the same 
rank if there is no statistical difference in their distributions. 
Otherwise, we compare the number of losses. 

The shaded rows in 
Figures~\ref{fig:effort}, \ref{fig:time}, and \ref{fig:defect}
mark the top ranked changes.
Observe how, with Ground systems, first and second generation reuse always appears in the 
top rank for effort, months, and defects. That is, for these systems, two generations of reuse is as good, or better, than
other proposed changes to a project.
That is, for NASA ground 
software a case can be made in support of software reuse as it is shown to
be as good or better than the other strategies. 

The results are quite different for Flight systems where 
all reuse methods are absent
from the top ranked changes. In fact, no reuse change appears in the Flight results till rank three or above
and 
all reuse strategies rank below "none" (meaning that
adopting no strategy could yield better results). 
For NASA flight software, no case can be made for adopting software reuse. 


What is surprising is how different the strategies work for similar projects such as the ones presented in this study.
The only difference between NASA ground and flight systems lies in size (KLOC), reliability (rely),
and complexity(cplx). Ground tends to have lower values for these ranges. Other than that,
both case studies have the same ranges and values.

Another finding worth mentioning is how "improve team" consistently ranks top along side with reuse for
ground systems. This might be related to the notion that "sociology beats technology in terms
of successfully completing projects,"~\cite{demarco87} or it might be at least comparable. 
