In this white paper we introduce a streamlining process that helps answer one of the main questions within a program office: “Are we focusing on the most critical requirements and investing in the most appropriate capabilities?” In today’s environment of tightening budgets, the answer to this question may mean the difference between continuing a program and terminating it. Our process allows programs to focus resources on fulfilling the most important requirements while deferring or removing those that provide less “bang for the buck.” Our aim is to meet budget constraints by trimming requirements (and thereby software size, effort, and cost) to only the most necessary.

1. REQUIREMENTS STREAMLINING
A 4-step process to ensure your program invests in only the most
appropriate Information Technology requirements
March 16, 2011
Logapps, LLC
103 W. Broad Street, Suite 250 Falls Church, Va. 22046
www.logapps.com

2. INTRODUCTION
With a federal budget deficit estimated at over $14 trillion, many government agencies are facing drastic
budget reductions. Program offices have, accordingly, come under pressure to simultaneously increase
performance and e f f e c t i v e n e ss whi le r educing c o st s and maintaining a ccountability .
Information Technology requirements often impose unnecessary costs and can be cut to meet budget
goals; program offices, however, require experienced analysts and advanced data tools to determine
which IT priorities can be funded with a decreased budget and which must be deferred or foregone.
In this white paper we introduce a streamlining process that helps answer one of the main questions
within a program office: “Are we focusing on the most critical requirements and investing in the most
appropriate capabilities?” In today’s environment of tightening budgets, the answer to this question may
mean the difference between continuing a program and terminating it. Our process allows programs to
focus resources on fulfilling the most important requirements while deferring or removing those that
provide less “bang for the buck.” Our aim is to meet budget constraints by trimming requirements (and
thereby software size, effort, and cost) to only the most necessary.
Many program offices attempt to screen requirements without fully analyzing their benefits and costs.
These efforts can be lengthy and costly, failing to generate meaningful discourse on the relative value of
the requirements in consideration. Our 4-step process provides real-time feedback on progress toward
meeting the budget goal, while simultaneously facilitating solid justification for the necessary changes
using both visual aids and analysis. By following this process, program offices can make informed
decisions on technical requirements, and thereby reduce workload and resource costs.
The steps of the process are as follows: 1) Screen and highlight requirements; 2) Analyze benefits and
costs; 3) Plot relative values; and 4) Compare costs to the program budget.
STEP 1: SCREEN AND HIGHLIGHT REQUIREMENTS
Over time, program needs, business rules, and policies can
change. To avoid operational inefficiencies, program
analysts must ensure that requirements have not been
superseded and are still desired by the user community.
Accordingly, the first step of our process is to review
program requirements for obsolete items.
In this preliminary reviewing stage, program managers
should review deliverables (usually recorded in the
Functional Requirements Document) to ensure that all
requirements originally identified are still pertinent.
Similarly, managers should compare requirements against
the strategic goals of the organization. In many cases, a
requirement may be misaligned with mission goals, tackling
a problem that falls more logically under the jurisdiction of FIGURE 1: FILTERING REQUIREMENTS
In this first step, program managers filter out unnecessary and
irrelevant requirements, ending up only with requirements that are
both needed and support agency goals
Logapps, LLC
103 W. Broad Street, Suite 250 Falls Church, Va. 22046 1
www.logapps.com

3. Mandatory
Requirements
Requirements“Trade-Space”
another department. These requirements add excess baggage and should be archived to boost efficiency.
Requirements often cannot be deleted due to policy, regulation, public law, agency agreements, or
binding relationships with other requirements. Such entrenched requirements should be segregated and
identified as non-discretionary. When comparing requirement costs to the program budget (Step 4),
these items are considered an immoveable bloc that cannot be cut. The remaining items form the
analysis “trade-space,” consisting of those requirements that can be deferred or eliminated. Tables 1 and
2 list mandatory requirements (highlighted in red) and trade-space requirements (not highlighted).
STEP 2: ANALYZE BENEFITS & COSTS Table 1: Benefit-Penalty Valuation
To ensure accurate screening of requirements, program managers
must conduct individual assessments of the benefits and costs of
Relative
Benefit
Relative
Penalty
Total
Value
Value%
each r e q u i r e m e n t . These a s s e s s m e n t s s h o u l d b e
c o n d u c t e d through group sessions facilitated by an evaluation
team. Ideally, this team should be composed of Subject Matter
Experts and other relevant program personnel.
To perform benefit assessments, the team can employ a variety of
methods, including pair-wise comparisons, rank ordering, and
benefit/penalty valuation. Logapps LLC prefers to employ
benefit/penalty valuation, which assesses both the relative benefit
of having a requirement and the penalty for not having it. The
output of this process is a normalized benefit score for each
requirement based upon the aggregation of assessments. Table 1
illustrates the benefit/penalty valuation process.
Next, we use a multi-step process to estimate requirement cost
based on the effort and labor rate needed to satisfy each
requirement. The requirement cost is first measured in terms of
function p o i n t s o r S o u r c e L i n e s o f C o d e ( SLOC). For
each requirement, we estimate the effort required to
successfully deliver the corresponding amount of code, taking
into account environment, developer capability, and other
factors. The
resulting person-month effort is then applied to a composite labor
rate to arrive at an overall cost, as shown in Table 2.
To estimate software costs, we employ parametric cost estimation
tools, such as COCOMO, Price-S, and SEER. If they exist, current
project or program cost estimates can be leveraged to generate
much, if not all, of the cost information. To ensure data reliability
and accuracy, software sizing and cost estimation should be
performed only by personnel with significant experience in these
fields. In our m o d e l , we u s e a simple s p r e a d s h e e t -
based COCOMO formula to calculate effort and cost for
each requirement.
R-1 2 4 8 2.3
R-2 5 3 13 3.8
R-3 9 7 25 7.3
R-4 5 2 12 3.5
R-7 8 3 19 5.6
R-8 5 2 12 3.5
R-9 8 4 20 5.9
R-10 6 1 13 3.8
R-11 2 3 7 2.1
R-12 9 7 25 7.3
R-13 8 4 20 5.9
R-14 1 3 5 1.5
R-15 5 6 16 4.7
R-17 7 7 21 6.2
R-19 5 5 15 4.4
R-21 4 2 10 2.9
R-23 8 2 18 5.3
R-24 4 4 12 3.5
R-25 5 9 19 5.6
R-5 1 4 6 1.8
R-6 3 3 9 2.6
R-16 2 8 12 3.5
R-18 1 7 9 2.6
R-20 4 4 12 3.5
R-22 1 1 3 0.9
Total 118 105 341 100
TABLE 1: BENEFIT-PENALTY VALUATION
In this step, managers generate normalized benefit scores for
each requirement based on the relative benefit of having a
requirement and the relative penalty of not having it.
Logapps, LLC
103 W. Broad Street, Suite 250 Falls Church, Va. 22046 2
www.logapps.com

4. Requirements
Table 2: COCOMO Cost Estimation
Requirements“Trade-space” Cost Benefit Benefit/Cost
Ratio
Labor
Rate
Pers.
Months
Sked. A E B EAF Size C F D
R-1 884,027 8 0.001% 154 36 11.55 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 8.4 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-2 205,307 13 0.006% 154 8 7.24 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 2.3 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-3 527,361 25 0.005% 154 21 9.79 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 5.3 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-4 968,014 12 0.001% 154 39 11.89 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 9.2 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-7 309,548 19 0.006% 154 13 8.25 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 3.3 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-8 839,894 12 0.001% 154 34 11.36 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 8.1 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-9 104,701 20 0.019% 154 4 5.83 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 1.2 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-10 1,053,924 13 0.001% 154 43 12.22 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 9.9 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-11 420,525 7 0.002% 154 17 9.11 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 4.3 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-12 83,870 25 0.030% 154 3 5.43 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 1 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-13 880,185 20 0.002% 154 36 11.54 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 8.4 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-14 174,575 5 0.003% 154 7 6.87 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 2 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-15 578,679 16 0.003% 154 23 10.09 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 5.8 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-17 327,836 21 0.006% 154 13 8.41 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 3.5 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-19 282,942 15 0.005% 154 11 8.02 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 3 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-21 599,919 10 0.002% 154 24 10.2 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 6 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-23 844,529 18 0.002% 154 34 11.38 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 8.1 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-24 95,624 12 0.013% 154 4 5.67 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 1.1 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-25 257,202 19 0.007% 154 10 7.78 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 2.8 3.67 0.32 0.28
Mandatory
R-5 900,000 6 0.001% 154 37 11.62 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 8.6 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-6 1,053,924 9 0.001% 154 43 12.22 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 9.9 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-16 163,924 12 0.007% 154 7 6.73 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 1.9 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-18 391,234 9 0.002% 154 16 8.9 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 4.1 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-20 894,978 12 0.001% 154 36 11.6 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 8.5 3.67 0.32 0.28
R-22 221,257 3 0.001% 154 9 7.41 2.94 1.11 0.91 1.14 2.4 3.67 0.32 0.28
TABLE 2: PARAMETRIC COST ESTIMATION
Cost estimates can be generated by plugging current project or program cost information (such as function points or Source Lines of Code) into parametric
cost estimation tools like COCOMO, Price-S, and SEER.

5. Benefit
STEP 3:PLOT RELATIVE VALUES
Having assessed costs and benefits, the program can now visualize the relative values of each
requirement by plotting their functionalities on a simple two-by-two chart. In Graph 1 below, benefits are
plotted on a ten-point scale, divided by a red horizontal line representing the lowest acceptable value for
any requirement. Similarly, costs are plotted using an appropriate scale, and divided by a red vertical line
representing the maximum cost-per-requirement set by the program. The result is a four-quadrant graph
that provides visual justification for maintaining or foregoing requirements.
Graph1: Requirement Benefits vs. Costs
8.00
Mandatory requirements
Candidates for cutting/deferral
7.00
6.00 R-5
R-20
Quadrant 1: Most “bang
for the buck”
5.00
4.00
3.00
1 2
R-22
R-21
R-18 R-6
R-4
2.00
1.00
3 40.00
R-1
R-24
R-16
Quadrant 2: candidates
for cutting/deferral
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
Cost ($)
Quadrant 1 contains the highest-value, lowest-cost requirements – those that provide the most “bang for
the buck,” and should be preserved. Conversely, Quadrant 4 contains the lowest-value, highest-cost
requirements, which are most eligible for cutting or deferral. Program managers will focus their attention
on this quadrant in order to meet budget constraints.
STEP 4: COMPARE REQUIREMENT COSTS TO THE PROGRAM BUDGET
The final step of our requirements streamlining process is to compare requirement costs to the program
budget, and on this basis determine the number of requirements to be cut. In our sample calculations,
illustrated on the next page, we assume that the program must meet a budget of $10 million. The total
project cost exceeds this budget by $3.06 million. To come closer to meeting the budget, the program will
cut discretionary requirements that fall in Quadrant 4 of Graph 1: R-1, R-4, R-21, and R-24. In addition,
the program can defer low-value requirements that fall in other quadrants to save over $2.5 million in
costs and arrive within about $500,000 of the established budget.
Logapps, LLC
103 W. Broad Street, Suite 250 Falls Church, Va. 22046 4
www.logapps.com

6. Costs before cuts/deferrals
Discretionary
Requirements
9,438,662
Non-discretionary
Requirements
3,625,317
Total 13,063,979
Budget 10,000,000
Excess cost 3,063,979
Costs after cuts/deferrals
Discretionary
Requirements
6,891,078
Non-discretionary
Requirements
3,625,317
Total 10,516,396
Budget 10,000,000
Excess cost 516,396
Cut/defer R-1, R-4,
R-21, and R-24
CONCLUSION
Information Technology requirements are numerous and often costly to maintain. As program needs shift
and technology advances, it is crucial to review the benefits and costs of existing IT requirements and
ensure they remain relevant to program goals. By streamlining this process using proven data analysis
methodologies and visual aids, program offices can facilitate meaningful discussions on requirement
benefits and costs, and thereby significantly reduce workload and resource costs.
Our 4-step process uses rigorous data analysis to help program offices determine the relative costs and
benefits of existing IT requirements, and on this basis make informed decisions on which requirements to
cut or defer. At its core, this approach provides a visualization technique that facilitates compromise and
consensus amongst program stakeholders. By employing this process, program offices can not only save
time and money, but make better decisions on which requirements to keep and which to defer.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
Aslam Khurum and Gorschek, Tony. A Method for Early Requirements Triage and Selection Utilizing
Product Strategies. Ronneby, Sweden. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Department of Systems
and Software Engineering.
Boehm, Barry W., et al. Software Cost Estimation with Cocomo II. 2000. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall, Inc.
Jones, Capers. Estimating Software Costs: Bringing Realism to Estimating, Second Edition. New York, New
York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2007.
Kundra, Vivek. 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal Information Technology Management.
U.S. Chief Information Officer. Dec 9, 2010.
Wiegers, Karl E. Software Requirements, Second Edition 2nd ed. February 26, 2003. Microsoft Press.
Logapps, LLC
103 W. Broad Street, Suite 250 Falls Church, Va. 22046 5
www.logapps.com