EBERARD@ADA20.ISI.EDU (Edward V. Berard) (06/16/87)
I have had some interesting responses to my most recent posting on reusability. Some are along the lines of "you are belaboring the obvious." Others are similar to the response that Sam Harbaugh provided, i.e., "your 'facts' are not on target." What this mixture of responses seems to demonstrate is the confusion over the "real" impact of software reuse on government procurements. One point that is worth mentioning is that lower price alone is not an indicator of software reuse. The government needs to know what they are getting for their money. For example, one could bid a lower price by limiting the scope of the delivered product, underestimating the actual costs, or "buying" a contract (purposely bidding less than what you know what the true cost of the contract will be, most often for some future profit motive). One approach that some government agencies have begun to use is to make software reuse highly visible in the original RFP (Request For Proposal). For example, bidders are required to provide some estimate of the size of the delivered software -- typically in "lines of code." In addition, the bidders must provide an estimate of how much reusable software will be incorporated into the delivered product, and they must also describe how this "reused software" will impact the cost, quality, etc. of the product. Given this, and other, information, the requester can begin to get a better understanding of what the different bidders are proposing. Suppose one bidder estimates the size of project at "50,000 lines of code," while another estimates the size to be "100,000 lines of code." There could be many reasons for the difference, but it will be likely that the bidder with fewer lines of code will submit a lower bid. If, however, two, or more, bidders provide similar estimates as to the size and scope of the delivered product, a more accurate picture of the impact of software reuse is possible. Everything else being equal (Yes, I know, it seldom is.), the bidder who plans to incorporate significantly more reusable software into the delivered product should be able to submit the lower bid. One government agency told me that they recently acquired an Ada application which was about 100,000 "lines of code" in size with an expended effort of "significantly less than a man-year." This was possible because of the heavy reuse of software on the project. (One very large company I talked with, told me that they might "optimistically" bid this same contract at "20 man-years" of effort.) -- Ed Berard (301) 695 - 6960 -------