.

:
/1 Methods
/2 Tools

/1
/3 Procedures
/2

:
.1 system s/w
.2 utility program
.3 application s/w

/1

/2
/3
/4
.
/5
/6 .

:
/1 )(price to win
/2 ) : (
/3 )s/w
(crisis .

) (s/w crisis
.

/1
/2
/3
/4 .
/5 .
/6
/7 .

/1 .
/2
/3
/4
1

/1
/2
/3
/4 data structures
/5
/6 Coding
/7 testing
/8 Maintenance
.

/1
/2
/3
/4
/5

:
.(Line of codes (LOC
(Function point (FP
.
.
. .

(line of codes(loc
(Function point (FP

/ 1
/2
) (i -:
ai bi mi
ai+4mi+bi/6
bi-ai/6
i i=1,2,3,.n

.1
.2
.3
.4

.
-:
2

 /1
/2 /3

.

/1 WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

-:
) (
)
.
(
/2 DOWN/UP APPROACH

.
/ 3 DELPHI TECHNIQUE
.
.
/4 STANDARD DELPH

.
. .
/5 )(COCOMO (CONSTRUCTIVE COST MODEL

constructive cost model
/6 estimation by analogy

/7 price to win

/8 Parkinson
60 6
= 60*6

.



-1
-2
-3

/1
/2 Gantt

/3 PERT CPM Prpject Evalution and Review Techniques /Critcal Path
Method

Computer Aided Soft ware
3

 Engineering CASE
:
/1
/2 ) Milestones (...
/3

:
/1
/4
/7

/2
/5

/3
/6

-:

/3
/2
/1
/6
/4 /5
) (
/ 3
/2
/1
/6
/5
/4
/8
/7
) (
/2
/1
/4
/3

/1
/2
/3
/4
/5
/6

/1
/2

/3

Man / Month

/1
/2
/3
/4
/5

) (
) (


1/

/2
/3
/4
/5
/6 ) )
/7

:
/1 ) (
/2
/3

:
/1 ) (PORJECT FORMAT
.
/2 ) (FUNCTIONAL FORMAT
:

....

.

:
/3
/2
/1
/3 ) : (MATRIX FORMAT

.

) (

:
/1
/2
/3
:
/1 :DEMOGRATEC TEAM

/2 :CHIEF PROGRAMMER
5-2
/3 :HIERACHICAL TEAM
.

 ) (

:
/1
/2
/3
.

:
.1 s/w requirement definition
s/w requirements analysis
.2
.3 Architectural design
.4 Detail design
.5 Implementation
.6 Test phase
.7 Transfer phase
.8 Maintenance

)(what are we going to do )not how are we
(going to do this .

.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6

.1 :general requirements

.2 : functional requirements

.3 : non-functional requirements

.1 :
.2
.3

.4
.5
.6
.7

.1
.2
.3

completeness
.1
.2 correctness
.3 feasibility
.4 import
.5 priority
.6 unable pious
.7 verifiable
.8 modifiable
.9 consistent
.10 traceable

.1
.2
.3
.4
.
. .

.1 structured analysis
) data flow diagram
(.
.2 object oriented analysis
.3 formal method
.4 rapid prototyping

s/w Requirements specification format

(1
(2
(3
(4 :

(5 :

7




(6 Exception handling :

(7 : :
prototype version

modest version
enhanced version
(8 :

(9 : .
(10 design hints
(11 :
.

.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6

:
/1 adaptable
/2 efficient
/3 understandable

.1
.2
.3
.4

structures .
modularity

concurrency
:data hiding

) (moduler

modules

sub program

Black box

) (
/1 External design
/2 internal design
8

 /3 architectural design
/4 details design

-:
/1
/2 ) (
/3
/4 -:
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6

.. .
What .How

/1
/2
/3
/4

/1
/2

/1
/2
/3
/4

) (
) (

exceptional handling

.1 )(interfaces
.2 )
modules (

) (
.1
.2
.3
.4

 .5

)(

.1
.2

.1
.2
.3
.4
.5

) (

.1
.2

.1
.2
.3

.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10

)(

.1
.2
.3
.4

10

.1
.2
.3

.1
.2
.3

.1
.2
.3
.4

.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7

program unit

.

.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9

Correctness
Completeness
Consistency
Reliability
Usefulness
Usability
Efficiency
Conformance to Standards
Over all Cost Effectiveness

:
.1
.2
.3

:
.1
.2
.3
.4

:
.1
11

 .2

:
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8

) (
: .
: ) (
error

:
.1
.2
.3
.4

.1
.2
.3

test phase
.
.

.1 .
.2 .

:
Unit Test

Integration Test

System Test

Acceptances test

:
.1 functional test
12

 .2 performance test
.3 stress test
.4 structure test

.


.1
.2 )) ((
.3
.4
.5



.

)
(

:
:



.

:
.1 ENHANCEMENT %60
.2 ADAPTATIONS %20
.3 CORRECTION %20

.



.





.

.1
.2
.3

:
.1
.2
.3
.4

:
13

.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6

REQURIMENT DEFINTION

RE ANALYSIS
RE DESIGN
RE IMPLEMENTATION

RE TSETING

14

RE