\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Rework and Reuse Effects in Software Economy},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2018 2018-01-15 (revised: 35 Year 2018 15 January 2018)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2018 2018-01-15}
\title{Rework and Reuse Effects in Software Economy}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Md.Shahadat  Hossain}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 12 December 2017 Accepted: 3 January 2018 Published: 15 January 2018}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Software industry supposed to provide software product to their customers at a lower price and right time. Unfortunately, it?s true that the industry can?t deliver the software at lower a price. Lots of reasons are responsible for this high price of the Software. Such as high wages of stakeholders, the size of software, testing costs, implementation cost and one of the most vital reasons is a rework that increases the cost of software. In this research paper, I focused on rework and reuse, its cost & effect on software economy. How to reduce the rework during the software development life cycleSDLC. This research found that a long part of the development duration used for rework. This scenario is not only obtainable in a small software firm but also medium and enterprise software companies. Rework issue is one of the big challenges of the software industry. This research explained the problem in a financial point of view and provided needed suggestions to reduce the rework & increase the reuse based on software engineering body of knowledge. The software industry will be profitable if they can reduce the rework and upsurge the reuse of software.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{software, rework, reuse, economy, quality, time, cost, stakeholders.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
ework is an ongoing problem in the software development process. Rework is generally considered to be potentially avoidable work that is triggered to correct problems or to tune an application \hyperref[b2]{(Aaron G. Cass, 2003)}. Many software firms are confused to isolate the rework. They think we are working to solve the existing problem \& it is part of our maintenance, routine work. Now the point is how to differentiate the rework. Rework in software development is the additional effort of redoing a process or activity that was incorrectly implemented in the first instance or due to changes in requirements from clients  {\ref (Vimla Devi Ramdoo1, 2015)}. Rework is defined as work measures that have to be completed more than once (Robin McDonald, CCM, LEED G.A., 2013). Peter E.D. Love1 characterized rework as the "unnecessary process of redoing a work activity that was incorrectly carried out the first time." Another definition which emphasizes the essence of rework is "work that is made to conform to the original requirements by completion or correction at least one extra time due to non conformance with requirements". The term rework is clearly defined here. Now the question is what is the source of rework? How can we reduce the rework? What is the cost of rework and what is the effect of rework in the software economy? This research paper not only answering these questions but also explaining the benefit \& values of reuse. The term "Reuse" is used for developing the software by using the existing software components. These reusable components are projected assets. This research recommends to software engineers for design and develops software in such a manner so that a software component can be reused in multiple software. This research found that a few software firms are using existing reusable components, but the number of reuse is not satisfactory. Maximum components of the new software are being developing from scratch. Because the existing software components didn't build for reuse. Although some components of previous software were developed for reuse, but all of those components are impossible to reuse due to technology upgrade and requirements changes. The ratio of reuse of already available software components is very limited. It is one of the barriers to the success of the software industry.\par
This research was performed in a few software companies on multiple projects. A single project is not suitable for this type of research because let's say the first project is fresh it has no reusable component. The first project will develop reusable components. Then in the next project development, reusable components of the first project can be reused. But at the first project, the chance to rework can't ignore. Software reuse is accomplished by creating programs from previously developed software modules  {\ref (Robert W.Therriault, 1994)}. Reuse is expected to lead to reduced system development time arid maintenance while increasing reliability by using existing working modules  {\ref (Robert W.Therriault, 1994)}. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Purpose}]{Purpose}\par
The main purpose is to increase existing reuse levels to at least one step upper level and reduce the rework at least one step lower level. Development of project assets for decreasing rework and increasing reuse level of Software, Company. To meet this purpose Software Company must identify.\par
1. What is their current rework level ? 2. What is their current reuse level ? First of all, defines the current position of the company where it exists now in rework and reuse level criteria. It is the very important job for software firm and complicated to define the level. A lot of the sensitive issues involved with it. If Software Company can't measure the current level of rework and reuse, then it can't estimate target level. product to their customers at a lower price and right time. Unfortunately, it's true that the industry can't deliver the software at lower a price. Lots of reasons are responsible for this high price of the Software. Such as high wages of stakeholders, the size of software, testing costs, implementation cost and one of the most vital reasons is a rework that increases the cost of software. In this research paper, I focused on rework and reuse, its cost \& effect on software economy. How to reduce the rework during the software development life cycle-SDLC. This research found that a long part of the development duration used for rework. This scenario is not only obtainable in a small software firm but also medium and enterprise software companies. Rework issue is one of the big challenges of the software industry. This research explained the problem in a financial point of view and provided needed suggestions to reduce the rework \& increase the reuse based on software engineering body of knowledge. The software industry will be profitable if they can reduce the rework and upsurge the reuse of software. One parameter is proportionally related to another. Some parameters are upward and some of them are downward. Upward parameters tend to the opposite with downward factors. Such as, if reuse arises, then time will fall, rework will fall, the development cost will drop. If project time rises, then the project cost will increase. The ultimate goal is to save the time, reduce cost and increase the profit margin. Here time and cost will sink parallel way with sinking rework. Profit will increase with the increase of quality \& reuse. The rework, cost \& time are expense related heads. The reuse, quality, productivity \& profit is income associated heads. The opposite is happening when downward parameters grow up, and upward constraint goes down. When a rework is arisen in any part of a project such as, in a specific module or, same is happening in a small component, then the time of development is raising instantly. As a result the cost of development rises. The price may be \$1 to \$1000, depends on the project, its stage of SDLC and on the type of rework. Oppositely when there is no reuse, or the race becomes very limited in a project, then its quality may be having suffering, productivity may collapse and profit margins may plummet.\par
Actually, every software company want to? Reduce project time ? Reduce project cost ? Reduce rework ? Reduce customer dissatisfaction ? Increase reuse ? Increase quality ? Increase productivity ? Increase profit\par
If rework is decreased, then time will cut cost will shrink finally the profit margin of the company will upturn. If the reuse is increased then, the time of development will save, the cost of perfection will diminish ultimately the growth of revenue will upsurge. The major factor is R2. Reduce the Rework and increase the reuse. That is the prime focus of this research paper.\par
Project Assets: Project assets are the reusable component of a project of a company. Project asset is developing by the predefine process. A process has multiple elements such policy, procedure up to 10 th elements based on manner. A procedure that has followed ten elements known as standard method and the component that developed with this ten elements is the reusable component. For example requirements specification stage, coding time, documentation segment design part, etc. Let say in requirement specification period, the requirement engineer detected that a requirement is repeated over several systems. So the engineer has to note that this portion of chucks corresponds to the well-defined set of necessities, modules then the engineer can reasonably expect to be able to reuse the requests Module. Similarly, in the coding level when a coder sees the same code is needed to write in multiple blocks, then coder can create a function, or it may be others object depends on the programming language that is used and it can be used, or call at any chunk of code where necessary. The software engineer can reuse the design of the existing subsystem as the design of the new subsystem, the test plan of the existing subsystem as the test plan of The new subsystem as well as others subsystems. Engineers can reuse existing the database schema for new database schema and create new object as well as Modify existing objects as per necessity. Here the maximum number of reused components is the user-defined function program. It is very easy, and friendly to reuse user-delineate function and procedure from one software to another software or from one software module to another module within the same software. Such as current age calculation within date of birth. If a programmer creates a job that will return current age year month day passing the parameter date of birth then it can be used for employee age calculation or same function can be reused for patient age calculation or same function can be reused for customer age calculation. This is suitable for reuse in any module within software as well as in other software. This component will reduce rework and save development time. The next place, of the maximum reused stage is the design part. Here design means software architecture design, database design, user interface design, platform design, and security design, etc. The reusable design saves time and cost. Design phase encourages increasing the reusability. 
\section[{c) Reuse's Shortcomings}]{c) Reuse's Shortcomings}\par
Software reuse is hindered by issues. All-time reusable code is not a cure-all for Programmers and does not always provide significant benefits. Quite often maintaining old programs or developing shell scripts for reuse of old code is overlooked. A brief discussion of the important issues is as follows  {\ref (Robert W.Therriault, 1994)}. The above example is the reflection of reuse. It is amazing. 20\% to 25\% Productivity increase is not a small deal. These examples will influence another company for increase their reusability. Increasing the reuse means reducing the rework that reduces cost and time. As a result profit margin will rise. That is the ultimate goal of this research.? 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Original Work vs. Rework}]{Original Work vs. Rework}\par
Software development works in a project typically include the development of new features, changes to existing features, and fixing reported feature defects. The journey from start to finish for these tasks may follow different paths described regarding time spent doing two types of work: original work and rework. Original work in this context is a metric which assesses how much initial time/effort was spent to develop/change/fix/verify a feature. Rework is a metric which assesses how much repeat time/effort was spent to complete a currently-open-and-active, or a previously-closed-and-reopened, feature/change/defect (Segue Technologies, 2014). The time of initial development work and the time of repeat work are clearly identified. Summation of both is the result of total work time. 
\section[{Causes of rework:}]{Causes of rework:}\par
Several avoidable and unavoidable reasons are responsible for rework. Some details can be minimized by seriously focusing on related works. Unavoidable causes that really impossible to ignore. Avoidable reason means those rework aims that can be easily controlled by stakeholders. Following are some spirited explanations.\par
Rework cost may fluctuate from organization to organization. Above history of rework cost is asking us why we do allow rework, why we do not reduce rework yet. 
\section[{Risk level of rework:}]{Risk level of rework:}\par
The risk level of rework differs over risk to risk, project to project. High-level risk of rework can lead to project failure. Risk management techniques would allow the project risk management team to identify, classify \& prioritize the risk level, risky modules or components. In reality, it is very difficult to point out the risk level of rework in a large system. Rework become obligatory for a specific issue until the problem resolve. If the matter repeats several times and continuously works for the same matter, it not only waste time \& money but also Damage Company good well. If the rework risk is too large for a firm to be willing to accept, the firm can avoid the risk by changing project strategies and tactics to choose a less risky alternate or may decide not to do the project at all. For example, if a project has a tight schedule constraint and includes state of the art technology. Current rework and reuse level of projects:   {\ref --------------------------------------------------------------------------X}    {\ref -----------------------------------------------------------------------------X}  So the initial development cost will be 1200 PW * \$1000 = \$12,00,000. Rework cost will add 60 percent to that: Rework costs = 0.60 * \$1200, 000= \$720,000 Software development cost = initial development cost + rework cost Total development cost = \$12,00,000 + \$7,20,000 Total development cost = \$19,20,000 Next, you estimate the amount of rework that will be due to the requirements errors: 0.75 * \$19,20,000= \$14,40,000 Finally, you divide this rework cost by the number of requirements defects to determine the cost per requirement defect: \$2,400 = \$14,40,000/600 (1200/2 requirements defects).\par
Here one project P001 cost analysis has been described. Note this is not total project cost or even your total development cost, it does not include project Management, QA time, analyst time, and so on. It only covers pure development effort and rework cost of a week. Cost analysis of the rest of the project is the same. Following table showing the calculation of cost of rework for above five projects.\par
Table -6 shows how the cost of rework is changing. Project P001 reworks percentage increased to 65\%, simultaneously rewrite cost enlarged to \$7,80,000 \& total development cost increased to \$1,980,000. Alternatively, if the rework fall to 55\%, then rework cost fall to \$6, 60,000, and total development cost falls to \$1,860,000. This is just one variable effect on software economy. To complete this task quickly, if include another person then time will reduce to 5.6 days, but the development cost will increase to \$3,200,000. Again, if remove one person to reduce the cost, then some cost will reduce, and the development cost will be \$1,920,000, but time will increase to 9.33 days. Here total objects, number of man \& salary are variable. Cost of development is varying with rising and falling off any of this variable values. Software companies want to reduce the rework. Now if the project P001 comes up with 20\% reuse, then it's time will save 20\% and the cost will save \$240,000, and total development cost will be \$960,000. The massive amount of cost is kept for reuse. I have successful records of cost \& time saving by reusing one project objects to multiple projects and made a handsome profit. Here if comparison table 6 to table 7, the variation of development cost will be realized. Figure \hyperref[fig_5]{-7} shows the effect of reuse in the software economy. Here the percentage of reuse, total screen, number of men, salary are variables. Changes in this variable's value might change the cost of development.\par
For example, if P001 reuse, increase to 25\% than its rate, reduce from \$240,000 to \$300,000 save for reuse is \$60,000. Dramatically cost is falling by the rising of reuse. So Software companies must try to increase their reuse level. Year 2018     ? The life cycle model used in the software development process. ? The development history of the software system of which the artifact is a substantial portion. ? The cost of beginning a policy of software reuse. ? The cost of creating and maintaining a reuse library of software artifacts. ? The percentage of the system that is made using existing software artifacts. ? The ratio of change in each software artifact that is being reused.\par
? Different levels of an organization have different goals for the reuse programs. Figure-11 shows a project cost saving scenario from the reuse of previous software components, the extra cost paid for the rework and the difference between the original development budget \& the net price of the development. How much cost will save from the reuse, will define by the management policy and planning.  
\section[{Initial Cost}]{Initial Cost}\par
Rework Cost 
\section[{Reuse Cost Net Cost}]{Reuse Cost Net Cost}\par
Time \& cost effect: Time and cost is correlated with each other. Both are leading parameters of the project. Following example is more than enough to understand the time, and the cost effect on a project. An 8.7 kilometres Moghbazar-Mouchak flyover project was taken up in January 2011 and was supposed to be completed by December 2015. But, the authorities concerned went for a one-and-a-half-year time extension until mid-2017 with the construction still in progress. The construction cost of the flyover has increased to almost 72 percent as the construction agency was unable to complete the work in time and extended the project tenure several times. The authorities extended the deadline for completion three times, responding to the request from the builder. The construction costs has jumped to Taka 1327.4 crore from the original estimation of Taka 772 crore (Rick Haque, 2017).\par
Investment for reuse: Reuse is the robust components of the development process. First and foremost, we must recognize that reuse has the same cost and risk Characteristics as any financial investment (BH Barens, 1991). To get the benefit from software reuse, it is expected that the company should invest in the development of reusable software components. ROI of reusability depends on the efficient investment of reusable components. There are additional costs associated with understanding, Modifying, certifying, and maintaining it (Ronald J. Leach, 2011). It is clear that price is involved in the development of reusable software components as well as cost is involved in the uses of existing reusable software components. Barry Boehm explained the cost calculation as followed (Barry Boehm, 1997): Year\par
© 2018 Global Journals 
\section[{Rework and Reuse Effects in Software Economy}]{Rework and Reuse Effects in Software Economy}\par
Investment for the development of reusable software component is calculated by the above formula.\par
Investment of reuse of already developed existing reusable software component calculated by the above formula.\par
ROI of reuse: Return on investment for reuse is a widely used measure to compare the effectiveness of reusable components development investments. It is commonly used to justify software projects. The plain ROI calculation is to divide the net return from an investment by the cost of the investment and express this as a percentage. ROI, while a simple and extremely popular metric, it may be easily modified for different situations.\par
There is another term called ROR (rate of return), Rate of profit. The return is also known as money gained or lost on investment, profit or loss, gain or loss, net income or loss. The cost of investment is also known as investment, capital, principal, costs. A project is more likely to proceed if its ROI is higher because higher the better. For example, a 200\% ROI over five years indicates a return of double the project Investment, over a five year period. Financially, it makes sense to choose projects with the highest ROI first, then those with lower ROI's. While there are exceptions, if a project has a negative ROI, it is questionable if it should be authorized to proceed.\par
Let's say a project P001 developed a reusable component in six month durations. P001 invested \$6,000 for this reusable software component development. Later this reusable component was used in five projects. This reuse saved \$24,000 development cost that is the return from reuse for the first year. So the ROI is ROI = (\$24,000 -\$6,000)/\$6,000 * 100 ROI = 300\% for the first year 2nd years to 5th years the project will get return \$30,000 per year if there is no exceptional investment require for this reusable component. The return will come four Times i.e.400\% higher than investment continuously for the next four years. The ROI for the next four years will be ROI = 400\%*4 =1,600\%. A Net ROI of five years projects is 1,600\% + 300\%=1,900\%. It is a successful investment for the development of reusable components and the successful reuse benefit. Here we see the return of reusable components is four times higher than the investment. The return increases 300\% to 1900\% within five years of project duration. That makes sense to decide for investment for reusable software components.\par
Reuse effect on software product line: It is essential to define the product line for produce new product by reusing an existing software product. Software product line architecture recycles standing product for productivity, quality, and profitability. Software product line practice carefully elicits, specify, analyze, and manage software requirements. This approach based on the systematic creation and reuse of existing assets in support of new product development (Emilio Insfran, 2014). 
\section[{RCWR: Relative Cost of Writing for Reuse}]{RCWR: Relative Cost of Writing for Reuse}\par
The cost of developing reusable asset RCWR =\par
The cost of developing single-use asset RCR: Relative Cost of Reuse\par
The Cost to reuse asset RCR =\par
The cost to develop the asset from scratch\par
The ROI formula is:Return from reuse -Cost of Investment ROI \% = X 100 
\section[{Cost of Investment}]{Cost of Investment}\par
The Apple iOS is the best example of software reuse. When the original iPhone launched, the OS was called "iPhone OS", and it kept that name for four years, only changing to iOS with the release of iOS 4 in June of 2010. iOS is the name of the operating system that runs the iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. It's the core software that comes loaded on all devices to allow them to run and support other apps. One year after the iPhone became a bigger hit than almost anyone projected, Apple released iOS 2.2.1. It was released on January 27, 2009 (then called iPhone OS 2.0) to coincide with the release of the iPhone 3G. The 1st generation iPad was Microsoft is an unusual company for the sheer number of product lines. Microsoft has revolutionary reuse records since its start on November 10, 1983, to till now. Microsoft's bread and butter are Windows, the OS is doing quite well. Microsoft revealed that it had sold 400 million copies of its latest version, Windows 7. Microsoft's big sales pitch with Windows 10 is that it's one platform, with one consistent experience and one app store to get software from. There are seven different versions of Windows 10. Anyone who knows anything about Microsoft is aware of how essential its Office franchise is to the company. In every product, Microsoft reused the existing product, added new features and released a new product in the same product line. 
\section[{Life cycle affected by rework \& reuse:}]{Life cycle affected by rework \& reuse:}\par
Software development life cycle different model are affected by rework \& reuse. Such as waterfall model, spiral model, rapid prototyping model, agile model, etc. The cost saving from reuse can be started earlier in the life cycle model and can be realized at any phase (design phase, coding phase, test phase, etc.) of life cycle subsequent to the point at which the system is reused. When programmers took any component from the reusable library and used it as is without any change, then the element need not be tested because it was tested as a module earlier. Programmers only need to perform unit testing and integration testing in which the reusable component is engaged. No additional test cases, test plans or documentation need to write for this reusable component. At any segment of the life cycle if a bug is generated, or a scope for rework is produced, and it inherits to next part then its cost become several times higher than the earlier chapter. Early detection and prevention are cost-effective. If a scope of rework is formed in requirement specification phase, but it realized later in testing stage than the rework cost become higher than the requirement specification phase. The cost of rework varies from one phase to another phase of the software development life cycle. 
\section[{Cost-benefit analysis of software reuse \& rework:}]{Cost-benefit analysis of software reuse \& rework:}\par
Rework is cost heads. Although rework has no financial benefit, but this research found a potential benefit of rework. Reworks help to find out the undiscovered bug, logical and exceptional issues. At some point of view, rework is re-check, re-testing of an existing system during next work. If an effort is done twice the result of the second labor is better than the result of first work. During the rework, some additional modification and the necessity to include new features may grow. The existing issues are cleaning by the Rework. Rework has some positive benefit. Rework cost is high, the cost vary from project to project. Reuse is revenue heads that save development time investment cost and improve quality.  Here particular cost heads didn't mention. Project to project the values of profit and loss may be varying. Some project may have a standard amount of turnover for remarkable reuse. Alternatively, project must count loss for oversize rework. Software reuse does not come free. We anticipate that developing reusable software on AAS will cost twice as much as developing nonreusable software. This alone could have deterred the AAS management from implementing a reuse program (Johan Margono, 1992). Anomaly Metrics Model for Software Rework Reduction: Majority of the reported anomalies belong to this category of real faults in the software or documentation delivered together with the software. Reproducible anomaly is an observed failure during testing that cannot be reproduced by the developer that is assigned to fix it. Getting many such failures might be due to the existence of many intermittent faults in the product. This indicates a robustness problem that probably requires improvements to the product architecture. Insufficient debugging environments are other common reasons for not being able to reproduce the failures. Anomalies occur when the requirements documentation is vague or incomplete. For example, when a test engineer, and a developer interpret a requirement differently, the tester is likely to submit an abnormality report. In these cases, the inconsistency report is defined as an opinion for function report which might also result in a correction. When an organization reports many anomalies of this type, it indicates that the requirements are not pure enough. (Lars-Ola Damm, 2008). According to Ola Damm above statement, it is important to cure all types of anomalies of every stage of SDLC whenever the anomalies introduce. It will reduce the rework otherwise in later stage rework will be increased and the rate of rework will also increase. The best way of anomalies \& bug's rework reduction is killed it before born. 
\section[{Global Journal of}]{Global Journal of}\par
Prevention is better than a cure: This popular saying most definitely holds true when it comes to bugs or security issues identified within the SDLC. During the development process, it is more cost-effective and efficient to fix bugs in the early stages rather than later ones. The fee increases exponentially as the software moves forward in the SDLC. This research focuses on prevention the cure because prevention reduces rework that save time \& cost of software development. 
\section[{IV.}]{IV.} 
\section[{Results}]{Results}\par
Bug fixing and rework are not the same things, but both are cost heads. Rework cost exceeds the project budget. Reuses saves both time and cost. This paper is influencing to reduce rework and increase reuse of software components to ensure the successive economic growth of Software Company. The prime goal of this project is to develop process assets that will be used to reduce rework \& increase reuse levels of the software company. Here I didn't find any benefit for which Software Company can neglect to develop reusable components. This research found that rework is harmful to the software economy. This research suggesting for early detection and prevention of bugs which is more cost-effective than testing \& implementation phase.\par
V. 
\section[{Conclusion}]{Conclusion}\par
This research found that economic growth of software companies falling for rework. All sizes of firms have more or less the rework problem. It is now one of the enormous challenges of the software industry. Rework is the barrier to the continuous achievement of financial improvement. This research focused on reuse to reduce the financial losses. The R2 is influential elements that move the economy. This paper is significant for modern software companies for high quality software development, as industries of all types utilize software applications to varying degrees. Unfortunately for startups, small businesses, and even multimillion dollar companies, tightening costs and rising competition mean a desperate scramble to find areas in which to slash expenses. Reduce your software development costs without sacrificing the quality of your product by following this paper cost saving strategy of reducing rework and increasing reuse.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}Figure 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}Figure 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png}
\caption{\label{fig_2}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-5.png}
\caption{\label{fig_3}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6}\includegraphics[]{image-6.png}
\caption{\label{fig_4}Figure 6 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{7}\includegraphics[]{image-7.png}
\caption{\label{fig_5}Figure 7 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{8}\includegraphics[]{image-8.png}
\caption{\label{fig_6}Figure 8 :}\end{figure}
    \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06688524590163934\textwidth}P{0.6737295081967213\textwidth}P{0.10938524590163935\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep 9. Control\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep 10. Improvement\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep For example a Following are a list of five projects:\tabcellsep \\
Year 2018\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
36\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Volume XVIII Issue IV Version I\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Figure 3: List of five projects}\\
)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
( C Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology\tabcellsep a) Advantages of reuse of software components Software reuse can cut software development time and costs. The major advantages of software reuse are to: ? Faster time to market ? Less effort ? Time-saving ? Increase software productivity. ? Utilize fewer resources ? Shorten software development time. ? Improve software system interoperability. ? Develop software with fewer people. ? Move personnel more easily from project to project. ? Reduce the systems development expenditures ? Reduce the software implementation and maintenance costs. ? Produce more standardized software. ? Produce better quality software and provide a powerful competitive Advantage. ? Leads to better quality software ? Reduce bugs Reusable component development phase: In any phases of the software Development life cycle-SDLC, software engineers can develop reusable components.\tabcellsep 1. Purpose or Output 2. Performance Parameters 3. Policies 4. Procedures 5. Standards\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 6. Knowledge, Skills \& Environment\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 7. Tools \& Techniques\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 8. Measurements\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.40330940988835723\textwidth}P{0.06981658692185008\textwidth}P{0.19521531100478468\textwidth}P{0.09760765550239234\textwidth}P{0.019657097288676238\textwidth}P{0.06439393939393939\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Rework and Reuse Effects in Software Economy}\tabcellsep \\
Project Code\tabcellsep Name of the project\tabcellsep Nature of the project\tabcellsep Stakeholders\tabcellsep Remarks\\
P001\tabcellsep Hospital Management Information Software\tabcellsep Health Care Information System\tabcellsep Renown Hospital and Diagnostic Laboratories\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Year 2018\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 37\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{P002 P003 P005 P004 b) Reuse percentage of software components Eye Care System Ophthalmic EMR Trade Marketing \& Distribution system Manufacturing and Distribution System Web Based Interactive ERP Digital Health Card System GPRS Health Tracking Pharmaceutical ERP Several studies into reuse have shown that. 40\% to 60\% of the code is reusable from one application to another. 60\% of design and code are reusable in business applications. 75\% of program functions are common to more than one program. 15\% of the code found in most systems is unique and new to an application.}\tabcellsep Renown Eye Hospital and Institute Group of Company Joint Venture Company Government Staff\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Volume XVIII Issue IV Version I\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep )\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep ( C\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Reusable components of a software: Software reuse is accomplished by creating programs from previously}\tabcellsep Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{developed Software modules. Many different aspects of}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{software can be reused. Some of the constituents that}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{can be reused are as follows:}\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep © 2018 Global Journals\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: 15\% to 85\% rates of actual and potential reuse range (Florinda Imeri, 2012).]} 
\caption{\label{tab_1}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.026498800959232613\textwidth}P{0.40223820943245403\textwidth}P{0.4212629896083133\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Rework and Reuse Effects in Software Economy}\\
\tabcellsep ? Plans\tabcellsep ? Queries, reports\\
\tabcellsep ? Software requirement specifications\tabcellsep ? Concepts and domain knowledge\\
\tabcellsep ? Source code\tabcellsep ? Implementation \& experiences\\
\tabcellsep ? Software architecture\tabcellsep ? Objects and text\\
\tabcellsep ? Design and user interface\tabcellsep ? Process\\
\tabcellsep ? User manuals\tabcellsep ? Library\\
\tabcellsep ? Software documentation\tabcellsep ? Artifacts\\
\tabcellsep ? Database\tabcellsep ? Modules\\
\tabcellsep ? Algorithms\tabcellsep ? Master setup data\\
\tabcellsep ? Test case\tabcellsep ? Models\\
Year 2018\tabcellsep ? Templates ? Tools ? Procedure\tabcellsep ? Themes ? Function ? Package\\
38\tabcellsep ? Plugins ? API\tabcellsep ? Dynamic action ? Template\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{? Legal problems}\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{? Domain irrelevance}\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{? Technical Difficulty}\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{? Complexity}\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{? Team members conflicts}\\
)\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{? Difficult to identify reusable component's}\\
( C\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{? The technical factor that hinders software reuse is}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep poor conceptualization.\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{? Additional costs associated with understanding,}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep modifying, certifying, and maintaining the reusable\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep components.\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{? 312 projects in the aerospace industry, with}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep averages of\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 20\% increase in productivity.\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 20\% reduction in customer complaints,\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 25\% reduced time to repair, and\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 25\% reduction in time to produce the system.\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{? A Japanese industry study that noted}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 15-50\% increases in productivity.\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 20-35\% reduction in customer complaints,\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 20\% reduction in training costs, and\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 10-50\% reduction in time to produce the system.\\
© 2018 Global Journals 1\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: d) Examples of successful software reuseGlobal Journal of Computer Science and TechnologyVolume XVIII Issue IV Version I ? A simulator system developed for the US Navy with an increase of nearly 200\% in the number of source lines of code produced per hour. ? Tactical protocol software with a return on investment of 400\%.?]} 
\caption{\label{tab_2}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
1. The reason for rework is infrequently the result of\\
individuals not doing their jobs well.\\
2. Improper planning\\
3. Poor communication\\
4. Inadequate testing\\
5. Unstructured programming\\
6. Poor logic and algorithm\\
7. Lack of domain knowledge\\
8. Insufficient time\\
9. Low-cost budget\\
10. One reason rework becomes necessary is that the\\
development, design and engineering teams lack\\
visibility into software requirements, which often\\
change throughout the development process.\\
11. Poor requirements management can have a\\
significant effect throughout the process and on the\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: Rework and reuse data of above projects: Data for this research were collected from small, medium and enterprise software firms. There are maximum local software development firms of Bangladesh \& a few( ) C © 2018 Global Journals Rework and Reuse Effects in Software Economy E a r l y V i e w]} 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.09197038724373577\textwidth}P{0.6767084282460136\textwidth}P{0.04646924829157175\textwidth}P{0.0038724373576309794\textwidth}P{0.0038724373576309794\textwidth}P{0.02710706150341686\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Rework and Reuse Effects in Software Economy}\\
\tabcellsep 80\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep 60\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep 40\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Rework Level Reuse Level\\
\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Year 2018\tabcellsep P001\tabcellsep P002\tabcellsep P003\tabcellsep P004\tabcellsep P005\\
42\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Volume XVIII Issue IV Version I\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{Number of functionalities that needs rework (defect found) Rework Level = -}\\
)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
( C\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Cost analysis for rework of the project P001: Our enlisted P001 project will come in at a 60 percent rework rate: Rework Cost = 0.60 * Project Dev Cost Managing Software Requirements indicate that about half of all software defects are due to missing or bad requirements, but the cost of finding and fixing}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{requirement defects is higher than that for other kinds of}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{defects. In fact, they indicate that 70 to 85 percent of the}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{rework cost is due to requirements defects. For our}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{example, we could use 75 percent (or use own}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep measurement):\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Rework Cost of Requirements Defects = 0.75 * Rework}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Cost\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep © 2018 Global Journals 1\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.24125\textwidth}P{0.17562499999999998\textwidth}P{0.02625\textwidth}P{0.076875\textwidth}P{0.033125\textwidth}P{0.0325\textwidth}P{0.008125\textwidth}P{0.026875\textwidth}P{0.07125\textwidth}P{0.11625\textwidth}P{0.041874999999999996\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{6}{l}{Rework and Reuse Effects in Software Economy Rework and Reuse Effects in Software Economy}\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Project Code 3500000 Reuse \% 4000000}\tabcellsep Total Screen\tabcellsep No of Man\tabcellsep Man Week\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Salary Weekly}\tabcellsep Initial Development Cost\tabcellsep Cost Save for Reuse\tabcellsep Total Cost\\
\tabcellsep P001 3000000\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 300\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{4 1200 \$1,000}\tabcellsep \$1,200,000\tabcellsep \$240,000\tabcellsep \$960,000 P001\\
\tabcellsep P002 2500000\tabcellsep 73\tabcellsep 400\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{4 1600 \$1,000}\tabcellsep \$1,600,000 \$1,168,000\tabcellsep \$432,000 P002\\
\tabcellsep P003 2000000\tabcellsep 22.44\tabcellsep 200\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{600 \$1,000}\tabcellsep \$600,000\tabcellsep \$134,640\tabcellsep \$465,360 P003\\
\tabcellsep P004 1500000\tabcellsep 32.35\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{500 \$1,000}\tabcellsep \$500,000\tabcellsep \$161,750\tabcellsep \$338,250 P004\\
\tabcellsep P005 1000000\tabcellsep 31.55\tabcellsep 500\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{5 2500 \$1,000}\tabcellsep \$2,500,000\tabcellsep \$788,750 \$1,711,250 P005\\
Year 2018 Year 2018\tabcellsep 0 500000\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Initial Development}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Cost with Rework}\tabcellsep Cost with Reuse\tabcellsep Year 2018\\
\multicolumn{9}{l}{2000000 2500000 3000000 3500000 4000000 cost fall, if reuse fall development cost rise. Both rework Figure 9: Rework cost and Reuse cost effect Cost Variation of cost: A project having 60\% rework rate and 20\% reuse rate frequently up and down of its development cost. 46 Volume XVIII Issue IV Version I 44}\tabcellsep P003 P004 P005 P001 P002\\
( ) C ) ( C\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{2500000 1500000}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep ) ( C\\
Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology\tabcellsep \multicolumn{6}{l}{0 500000 1000000 1000000 Ini.Dev. Cost 500000 1500000 2000000 0 Initial Development Cost Rework Cost Rework Cost}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Total Cost Rework + Development Cost}\tabcellsep Per Defect Cost Cost Save by Net Development Reuse Cost\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep P001\tabcellsep 1200000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 720000\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{1920000}\tabcellsep 240000\tabcellsep 960000\\
\tabcellsep © 2018 Global Journals 1 © 2018 Global Journals 1\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep © 2018 Global Journals\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: Figure 10: Up and down of a project cost for rework and reuse effect How much cost saves from reuse of software: It is a vigorous question of the Software industry. The software company expects to save some cost by reuse. Because they are reusing some portion of a system and not developing the particular component from scratch. The amount of cost saving depends on the number of reusable components they used. There are several reasons for this discrepancy. The amount saved depends upon many factors. The most important factors are the following (Ronald J. Leach, 2011):]} 
\caption{\label{tab_6}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.03901319563970167\textwidth}P{0.8109868043602984\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep including FaceTime, multitasking, iBook's, organizing\\
\tabcellsep apps into folders, Personal Hotspot, AirPlay, and\\
\tabcellsep AirPrint. Another important change introduced with iOS 4\\
\tabcellsep was the name "iOS" itself. iOS 4 It was released on July\\
Year 2018\tabcellsep 25, 2011. iOS 5 was released on May 7, 2012 with wirelessness, and cloud computing features. A Controversy was one of the dominant themes of iOS 6\\
48\tabcellsep was released on Feb. 21, 2014. Like iOS 6, iOS 7 was met with substantial resistance upon its release on June\\
Volume XVIII Issue IV Version I ( ) C Computer Science and Technology\tabcellsep 30, 2014. Unlike iOS 6, though, the cause of unhappiness among iOS 7 users wasn't that things didn't work. Rather, it was because things had changed. After the firing of Scott Forstall, iOS development was overseen by Jony Ive, Apple's head of design, who had previously only worked on hardware. In this version of the iOS, Ive ushered in a major overhaul of the user interface, designed to make it more modern. More consistent and stable operation returned to the iOS in version 8.0 was released on August. 13, 2015. iOS 9 was released on August. 25, 2016 with major improvements were delivered in speed and responsiveness, stability, and performance on older devices. iOS 10 was released on July 19, 2017. iOS 11 was released on May 29, 2018, contains lots of improvements for the iPhone, but its major focus is turning the iPad Pro series models into legitimate laptop replacements for some users. Apple was continuously updating iOS and releasing one after one product by reusing the previous iOS. Apple becomes world's first trillion-dollar public company as on Thursday 2nd August, 2018. Apple Is Worth \$1,000,000,000,000. Two decades ago, it was almost Bankrupt.\\
\tabcellsep © 2018 Global Journals 1\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_7}}\end{figure}
 		 		\backmatter   			 
\subsection[{Acknowledgements}]{Acknowledgements}\par
I was inspired for this research by my professor of Independent University Bangladesh. I am grateful to my department for their cooperation. I would like to express my thanks to all software firms for their help. My wife Mrs Hosneara Shahadat and my Mother encourage me cooperated with me to perform the research. 			  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Benefits]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		\textit{},  		 			Benefits 		.  		 140.00.  		750.  	 
\bibitem[ BH Barnes Making reuse cost effective ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{BH Barnes Making reuse cost effective}  		1991.  	 
\bibitem[ Barry Boehm Software Reuse Economics ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{Barry Boehm Software Reuse Economics}  		1997.  	 
\bibitem[ Linda Westfall Software risk management ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{Linda Westfall Software risk management}  		2001.  	 
\bibitem[A Software Development Management Methodology Managing John W. Rittinghouse. ISBN ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{A Software Development Management Methodology Managing John W. Rittinghouse. ISBN},  				2004. p. .  	 	 (John Managing Software Deliverables) 
\bibitem[Cass ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		 			Aaron G Cass 		.  		\textit{Formalizing Rework in Software Processes},  				2003.  		 			Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts 		 	 
\bibitem[Aaron ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		\textit{Cass Formalizing Rework in Software Processes},  		 			G Aaron 		.  		2017.  	 
\bibitem[Cost Benefit Profit/ Loss Total: 2,603,260.00 ========== 2,493]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Cost Benefit Profit/ Loss Total: 2,603,260.00 ========== 2,493},  		 140.00 ========== (110,120.00.  		 	 
\bibitem[
			Lars-Ola
		 ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{Damm A Model for Software Rework Reduction through a Combination of Anomaly Metrics},  		 			Lars-Ola 		.  		2008.  	 
\bibitem[David McAllister Software Waste and the Cost of Rework ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{David McAllister Software Waste and the Cost of Rework},  		2017.  	 
\bibitem[Emilio Insfran Requirements engineering in software product line engineering ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		\textit{Emilio Insfran Requirements engineering in software product line engineering},  		2014.  	 
\bibitem[Florinda Imeri an Analytical View on the Software Reuse ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		\textit{Florinda Imeri an Analytical View on the Software Reuse},  				2012.  	 
\bibitem[Johan Margono Software reuse economics: costbenefit analysis on a large-scale ADA project ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		\textit{Johan Margono Software reuse economics: costbenefit analysis on a large-scale ADA project},  		1992.  	 
\bibitem[Jones A short history of the cost per defect metric Capers Jones & Associates LLC ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘Jones A short history of the cost per defect metric’.  	 	 		\textit{Capers Jones \& Associates LLC}  		2012.  	 	 (2-2. Capers Jones, President) 
\bibitem[Sommerville ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		\textit{Requirements engineering challenges},  		 			Sommerville 		.  		2013. Ian Sommerville.  	 
\bibitem[Rex Black is President and Principal Consultant of RBCS, Inc. R. Black, Managing the Testing Process, Second Edition Rex, Investing in software testing: the cost of software quality ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘Rex Black is President and Principal Consultant of RBCS, Inc. R. Black, Managing the Testing Process, Second Edition’.  	 	 		\textit{Rex, Investing in software testing: the cost of software quality},  				 (New York)  		2000. 2002. Wiley.  	 
\bibitem[Rick Haque Builder gets time extension, cost shoots up ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		\textit{Rick Haque Builder gets time extension, cost shoots up},  		2017. p. 72.  	 
\bibitem[Ronald ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		 			J Ronald 		.  		\textit{Leach Software Reuse Methods, Models, and Costs},  				2011.  	 
\bibitem[Mcdonald and Ccm ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{Root Causes \& Consequential Cost of Rework},  		 			Robin Mcdonald 		,  		 			Leed G A Ccm 		.  		2013. Insurance North America Construction.  	 
\bibitem[Segue Technologies Use Test Track Metrics to Measure and Manage Software Project Rework ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		\textit{Segue Technologies Use Test Track Metrics to Measure and Manage Software Project Rework},  				2014.  	 
\bibitem[Shahadat Challenges of software quality assurance and testing ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		\textit{Shahadat Challenges of software quality assurance and testing},  				2018.  		 			Department of Software Engineering, School of Engineering \& Computer Science, Independent University Bangladesh 		 	 
\bibitem[
			Ricardo
		]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		\textit{Testability of dependency injection (2007) University of Amsterdam Faculty of science},  		 			Ricardo 		.  		 	 	 (master research software engineering) 
\bibitem[
			Ross
		 ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		\textit{The secrets to high customer satisfaction},  		 			Ross 		.  		2013.  	 
\bibitem[Robert ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{Therriault Industry Versus DOD: A Comparative Study of Software Reuse},  		 			W Robert 		.  		1994.  	 
\bibitem[Vimla and Ramdoo ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		 			Devi Vimla 		,  		 			Ramdoo 		.  		\textit{Strategies to Reduce Rework in Software Development on an Organization in Mauritius},  				2015.  		 			Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Mauritius 		 	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
