research-article

Functional size measurement revisited

Authors:

Cigdem Gencel,

Onur DemirorsAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), Volume 17, Issue 3

Article No.: 15, Pages 1 - 36

https://doi.org/10.1145/1363102.1363106

Published: 27 June 2008 Publication History

Get Access

Abstract

There are various approaches to software size measurement. Among these, the metrics and methods based on measuring the functionality attribute have become widely used since the original method was introduced in 1979. Although functional size measurement methods have gone a long way, they still provide challenges for software managers. This article identifies improvement opportunities based on empirical studies we performed on ongoing projects. We also compare our findings with the extended dataset provided by the International Software Benchmarking Standards Group (ISBSG).

References

[1]

Abran A. 1994. Analysis of the Measurement Process of Function Point Analysis, a PhD Thesis Submitted to Department of Electrical Engineering and Software Engineering, École Polytechnique De Montréal.

Google Scholar

[2]

Abran, A. and Robillard, P. N. 1994. Function points: A study of their measurement processes and scale transformations. J. Syst. Softw. 25, 171--184.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[3]

Abran, A., St-Pierre, D., Maya, M., and Desharnais J. M. 1998. Full function points for embedded and real-time software. In Proceedings of the UKSMA Fall Conference, London, UK, 14.

Google Scholar

[4]

Abran, A. 1999. COSMIC FFP 2.0: An Implementation of COSMIC functional size measurement concepts. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Software Measurement Conference (FESMA'99), (Oct. 7), Amsterdam.

Google Scholar

[5]

Abran, A., Ndiaye, I., and Bourque, P. 2003. Contribution of software size in effort estimation. Research Laboratory in Software Engineering, École de Technologie Supérieure, Canada.

Google Scholar

[6]

Abran, A., Desharnais, J. M, and Aziz, F. 2005. Measurement convertibility—from function points to COSMIC-FFP. In Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Software Measurement (IWSM'2005), Montreal, Canada, Shaker-Verlag, 227--240.

Google Scholar

[7]

Abran, A. and Robillard, P. N. 1996. Function points analysis: An empirical study of its measurement processes. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 22, 12, 895--909.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[8]

Albrecht, A. J. 1979. Measuring application development productivity. In Proceedings of the IBM Applications Development Symposium, October 14--17 1979, Monterey, California, 83--92.

Google Scholar

[9]

Albrecht, A. J. and Gaffney J. E. 1983. Software function, source lines of code, and development effort prediction: A software science validation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-9, 6, 639--648.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[10]

Albrecht, A. J. 1984. AD/M Productivity Measurement and Estimate Validation. IBM Corporate Information Systems, IBM Corp., Purchase, NY.

Google Scholar

[11]

Angelis L., Stamelos, I., and Morisio, M. 2001. Building a cost estimation model based on categorical data. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Software Metrics Symposium (Metrics 2001), April 2001, London, UK.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[12]

Banker, R., Kauffman, R. J., Wright, C., and Zweig, D. 1994. Automating output size and reuse metrics in a repository based computer aided software engineering (CASE) environment. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20, 3, 169--187.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[13]

Bock, D. B. and Klepper, R. 1992. FP-S: A simplified function point counting method. J. Syst. Softw. 18, 245--254.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[14]

Boehm, B. W. 1981. Software Engineering Economics, Prentice-Hall, 487.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[15]

Boehm, B. W., Horowitz, E., Madachy, R., Reifer, D., Bradford K. C., Steece, B., Brown, A. W., Chulani, S., and Abts, C. 2000. Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[16]

Borland. Borland Together Architect, http://www.borland.com/us/products/together/index.html#architect

Google Scholar

[17]

Briand, L. C., El Emam, K., Maxwell, K., Surmann, D., and Wieczorek, I. 1999. An assessment and comparison of common software cost estimation models. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 99), Los Angeles, 313--322.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[18]

Briand, L. C., Langley, T., and Wieczorek, I. 2000. A replicated assessment and comparison of software cost modeling techniques. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 00), Limerick, Ireland, 377--386.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[19]

Caldiera, G., Antoniol, G., Fiutem, R., and Lokan, C. 1998. Definition and experimental evaluation for object oriented systems. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Software Metrics (METRICS 98), Nov. 20--21, Bethesda MD, 167--178.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[20]

Conte, M., Iorio, T., Meli, R., and Santillo, L. 2004. E&Q: An early and quick approach to functional size measurement methods. In Proceedings of Software Measurement European Forum (SMEF), Rome, Italy.

Google Scholar

[21]

COSMIC. 2003. COSMIC FFP v.2.2, Measurement Manual.

Google Scholar

[22]

DeMarco T. 1982. Controlling Software Projects, Yourdon press, New York.

Google Scholar

[23]

Demirors, O., Gencel, C., and Tarhan, A. 2003. Utilizing business process models for requirements elicitation. In Proceedings of the 29th Euromicro Conference, IEEE CS Press, 409--412.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[24]

Demirors, O. and Gencel, C. 2004. A Comparison of size estimation techniques applied early in the life cycle. European Software Process Improvement Conference (EurSPI 2004). Springer Verlag, Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), Vol. 3281, 184.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[25]

Desharnais, J. M. and Abran, A. 2003. Approximation techniques for measuring function points. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Software Measurement (IWSM 2003), 23--25 Sept. Montréal, Canada, Springer-Verlag, 270--286.

Google Scholar

[26]

Fenton, N. E. and Pfleeger, S. L. 1996. Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach, Second Edition, International Thomson Computer Press, Boston.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[27]

Fenton, N. 1994. Software measurement: A necessary scientific basis. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20, 3, 199--206.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[28]

Fetcke T., Abran, A., and Dumke, R. 2001. A generalized representation for selected functional size measurement methods. In Current Trends in Software Measurement, R. Dumke and A. Abran, Eds. Shaker, 1--25.

Google Scholar

[29]

Forselius, P. 2000. Benchmarking software-development productivity, IEEE Softw. 17, 1, 80--88.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[30]

Forselius, P. 2004. Finnish Software Measurement Association Functional Size. Finnish Software Metrics Association, Finland.

Google Scholar

[31]

Gencel, C., Demirors, O., and Yuceer, E. 2005. A case study on using functional size measurement methods for real time systems. In Proceedings of the 15th. International Workshop on Software Measurement (IWSM), Sept. 2--14, Montreal, Canada, Shaker-Verlag, 159--178.

Google Scholar

[32]

Gencel, C. 2005. An Architectural Dimensions Based Software Functional Size Measurement Method, a PhD Thesis Submitted to Dept. of Information Systems, Informatics Institute, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

Google Scholar

[33]

Glass, R. L. 2002. Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering, Addison Wesley.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[34]

Hastings, T. E. and Sajeev, A. S. M. 2001. A vector-based approach to software size measurement and effort estimation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 27, 4, 337--350.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[35]

Henderson, G. S. 1992. The Application of Function Points to Predict Source Lines of Code for Software Development, An MSc Thesis submitted to Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, Report Number: AD-A258447, AFIT/GCA/LSY/92S-4.

Google Scholar

[36]

Hughes, B. 2000. Practical Software Measurement, McGraw-Hill.

Google Scholar

[37]

IEEE. 2000. IEEE Std. 14143.1: Implementation Note for IEEE Adoption of ISO/IEC 14143-1: 1998—Information Technology - Software Measurement- Functional Size Measurement - Part 1: Definition of Concepts.

Google Scholar

[38]

IFPUG. 1999. IFPUG Counting Practices Manual - Release. 4.1, International Function Point Users Group, Westerville, OH.

Google Scholar

[39]

ISBSG. 2005. Software Project Estimates - How accurate are they&quest; The International Software Benchmarking Standards Group Subscriber Newsletter, Vol. 4, No: 1.

Google Scholar

[40]

ISBSG. 2004. ISBSG Dataset, http://www.isbsg.org.

Google Scholar

[41]

ISO. 1998. ISO/IEC 14143-1: Information Technology - Software Measurement - Functional Size Measurement - Part 1: Definition of Concepts.

Google Scholar

[42]

ISO. 2002a. ISO/IEC 14143-2: Information Technology - Software Measurement - Functional Size Measurement - Part 2: Conformity Evaluation of Software Size Measurement Methods to ISO/IEC 14143-1:1998.

Google Scholar

[43]

ISO. 2003a. ISO/IEC TR 14143-3: Information Technology - Software Measurement - Functional Size Measurement - Part 3: Verification of Functional Size Measurement Methods.

Google Scholar

[44]

ISO. 2002b. ISO/IEC TR 14143-4: Information Technology - Software Measurement - Functional Size Measurement - Part 4: Reference Model.

Google Scholar

[45]

ISO. 2004. ISO/IEC TR 14143-5: Information Technology - Software Measurement - Functional Size Measurement - Part 5: Determination of Functional Domains for Use with Functional Size Measurement.

Google Scholar

[46]

ISO. 2005a. ISO/IEC FCD 14143-6: Guide for the Use of ISO/IEC 14143 and Related International Standards.

Google Scholar

[47]

ISO. 2003b. ISO/IEC 19761: COSMIC Full Function Points Measurement Manual, v.2.2.

Google Scholar

[48]

ISO. 2003c. ISO/IEC 20926: Software Engineering - IFPUG 4.1 Unadjusted FSM Method - Counting Practices Manual.

Google Scholar

[49]

ISO. 2002c. ISO/IEC 20968: Software Engineering - MkII Function Point Analysis - Counting Practices Manual.

Google Scholar

[50]

ISO. 2005b. ISO/IEC 24570: Software Engineering - NESMA Functional Size Measurement Method v.2.1 - Definitions and Counting Guidelines for the Application of Function Point Analysis.

Google Scholar

[51]

Jeffery, R. and Stathis, J. 1996. Function point sizing: structure, validity and applicability. J. Empir. Softw. Eng. 1, 1, 11--30.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[52]

Jeffery, R., Ruhe, M., and Wieczorek, I. 2000. A comparative study of two software development cost modeling techniques using multi-organizational and company-specific data, Inform. Softw. Tech. 42, 1009--1016.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[53]

Jones, T. C. 1987. A Short History of Function Points and Feature Points, Software Productivity Research Inc., USA.

Google Scholar

[54]

Jones, T. C. 1997. Applied Software Measurement, Assuring Productivity and Quality, Second ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[55]

Jorgensen, M. and Molokken-Ostvold, K. 2004. Reasons for software effort estimation error: Impact of respondent role, information collection approach, and data analysis method, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30, 12, 993--1007.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[56]

Kammelar, J. 2000. A sizing approach for OO-environments. In Proceedings of the 4th International ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering.

Google Scholar

[57]

Kauffman, R. and Kumar, R. 1997. Investigating object-based metrics for representing software output size. In Proceedings of the Conference on Information Systems and Technology (CIST). In the INFORMS 1997 Annual Conference, San Diego.

Google Scholar

[58]

Kitchenham, B. and Kansala, K. 1993. Inter-item correlations among Function Points. In Proceedings of the First International Metrics Symposium (May 21--22). IEEE Computer Society, 11--14.

Google Scholar

[59]

Kitchenham, B. 1997. The problem with Function Points. IEEE Softw. 14, 2, 29--31.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[60]

Kitchenham, B. and Mendes, E. 2004. Software productivity measurement using multiple size measures. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30, 12, 1023--1035.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[61]

Leung, H. and Fan, Z. 2002. Software Cost Estimation, Handbook of Software Engineering, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Google Scholar

[62]

Lokan, C. J. 1999. An empirical study of the correlations between Function Point elements. In Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Symposium on Software Metrics, Boca Raton, Florida, (Nov. 04--06), 200.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[63]

Lokan, C., Wright, T., Hill, P. R., and Stringer, M. 2001. Organizational benchmarking using the ISBSG data repository. IEEE Softw. 18, 5, 26--32.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[64]

Lother, M. and Dumke, R. 2001. Points metrics—comparison and analysis. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Measurement (IWSM'01), Montréal, Québec, 155--172.

Google Scholar

[65]

Matson, J. E., Barret, B. E., and Mellichamp, J. M. 1994. Software development cost estimation using Function Points. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20, 4, 275--287.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[66]

Maxwell, K. D. 2001. Collecting data for comparability: Benchmarking software development productivity, IEEE Softw. 18, 5, 22--25.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[67]

Maya, M., Abran, A. Oligny, S. St-Pierre, D., and Desharnais, J. M. 1998. Measuring the functional size of real-time software. In Proceedings of the European Software Control and Metrics Conference, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 191--199.

Google Scholar

[68]

Meli, R. 1997a. Early and extended Function Point: A new method for Function Points estimation. In Proceedings of the IFPUG-Fall Conference, 15--19 September, Scottsdale, Arizona.

Google Scholar

[69]

Meli, R. 1997b. Early Function Points: A new estimation method for software projects. In Proceedings of ESCOM 97, Berlin, Germany.

Google Scholar

[70]

Meli, R., Abran, A., Ho, V. T., and Oligny, S. 2000. On the applicability of COSMIC-FFP for measuring software throughout its life cycle. In Proceedings of the Escom-Scope, 2000.

Google Scholar

[71]

Menzies, T., Chen, Z., Hihn, J., and Lum, K. 2006. Selecting best practices for effort estimation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 32, 11, 883--895.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[72]

Morasca, S. and Russo, G. 2001. An empirical study of software productivity. In Proceedings of the 25th International Computer Software and Applications Conference on Invigorating Software Development, 317--322.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[73]

Nesma. 1997. Definitions and Counting Guidelines for the Application of Function Point Analysis, v.2.0.

Google Scholar

[74]

Pastor, O., Abrahão, S. M., Molina, J. C., and Torres, I. 2001. A FPA-like measure for object oriented systems from conceptual models. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Software Measurement (IWSM'01), Montréal, Canada, Shaker Verlag, 51--69.

Google Scholar

[75]

Premraj, R., Shepperd, M. J., Kitchenham, B. and Forselius, P. 2005. An empirical analysis of software productivity over time. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Symposium on Software Metrics (Metrics 2005), IEEE Computer Society, 37.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[76]

Reifer, D. J. 1990. Asset-R: A function point sizing tool for scientific and real-time systems. J. Syst. Softw. 11, 3, 159--171.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[77]

Rollo, T. 2000. Sizing e-commerce. In Proceedings of the ACOSM 2000—Australian Conference on Software Measurement, Sydney.

Google Scholar

[78]

Rollo, T. 2006. Functional size measurement and COCOMO—a synergistic approach. In Proceedings of Software Measurement European Forum (SMEF), Rome, Italy, 259--267.

Google Scholar

[79]

RTCA/DO-178B: Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, 1992.

Google Scholar

[80]

RTCA/DO-185A Vol. 2: Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System II (TCAS II) Airborne Equipment.

Google Scholar

[81]

Rule, G. 1999. A comparison of the Mark II and IFPUG variants of Function Point analysis [Online], http://www.gifpa.co.uk/library/Papers/Rule/MK2IFPUG.html.

Google Scholar

[82]

Symons, C. 1988. Function Point analysis: Difficulties and improvements. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 14, 1, 2--11.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[83]

Symons, C. 1999. Conversion between IFPUG 4.0 and MkII Function Points, Software Measurement Services Ltd., Version 3.0.

Google Scholar

[84]

Symons, C. 2001. Come back Function Point analysis (Modernized) -- All is Forgiven&excl;). In Proceeding of the 4th European Conference on Software Measurement and ICT Control (FESMA-DASMA 2001), Germany, 413--426.

Google Scholar

[85]

Teologlou, G. 1999. Measuring OO Software with Predictive Object Points, Shaker Publ., ISBN 90-423-0075-2.

Google Scholar

[86]

Tran-Cao, D., Lévesque, G., and Meunier, J. 2004. Software functional complexity measurement with the task complexity approach. In Proceedings of the International Conference on RIVF'04, (Feb. 2--5), Hanoi, Vietnam, 77-86.

Google Scholar

[87]

Uksma. 1998. MkII Function Point Analysis Counting Practices Manual v. 1.3.1.

Google Scholar

[88]

UNDERSTAND FOR C++, http://www.scitools.com/ucpp.html

Google Scholar

[89]

Whitmire, S. A. 1992. 3D Function Points: Scientific and real-time extensions to Function Points. In Proceedings of the Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference.

Google Scholar

[90]

Yin R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 5, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Inc.

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Yürüm OÜnlü HDemirörs O(2024)Towards the Construction of a Software Benchmarking Dataset via Systematic Literature Review2024 50th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)10.1109/SEAA64295.2024.00037(194-200)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA64295.2024.00037
Ünlü HKennouche DSoylu GDemirörs O(2024)Microservice-based projects in agile worldInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107334165:COnline publication date: 1-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107334
Hacaloglu TDemirors O(2023)An exploratory case study using events as a software size measureInformation Technology and Management10.1007/s10799-023-00394-y24:3(293-312)Online publication date: 13-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10799-023-00394-y
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Functional size measurement revisited
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Management of computing and information systems
      1. Implementation management
        Pricing and resource allocation
2. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Software development techniques
      1. Reusability
        Software product lines
  2. Software notations and tools
    1. General programming languages
      1. Language types

Recommendations

Convertibility between IFPUG and COSMIC functional size measurements
PROFES'07: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement

Since 1984 the International Function Point Users Group (IFPUG) has produced and maintained a set of standards and technical documents about a functional size measurement methods, known as IFPUG, based on Albrecht Fuction Points. On the other hand, in ...
On the conversion between IFPUG and COSMIC software functional size units: A theoretical and empirical study

Since 1984 the International Function Point Users Group (IFPUG) has produced and maintained a set of standards and technical documents about a functional size measurement methods, known as IFPUG, based on Albrecht function points. On the other hand, in ...
The Impact of Individual Assumptions on Functional Size Measurement
IWSM/Metrikon/Mensura '08: Proceedings of the International Conferences on Software Process and Product Measurement

Having been improved, evolved and standardized by the Organiza-tion for Standardization (ISO), Functional Size Measurement (FSM) methods have become widely used. However, the measurers still face difficulties in measuring the software products which ...

Reviews

Reviewer: Ana M. Moreno

The problem of software project cost estimation is still one of the key software engineering challenges. Functional size measurement techniques are widely used as a starting point for other software project cost and effort measurements. The literature is peppered with techniques for estimating the functional size of a software system. In this context, this paper makes several contributions. First, it offers a fairly comprehensive survey of functional size estimation techniques. This could serve novice researchers and practitioners who intend to use these measurement techniques as a good starting point for accessing more detailed information on the techniques. Additionally, Gencel and Demirors apply several techniques to a number of real cases and identify some lessons learned. These lessons can be divided into two groups targeting different audiences: on the one hand are the recommendations on the use of functional size measurement techniques that can improve the application of the techniques by practitioners; on the other hand, the authors have also discovered needs for improvement of the above techniques. Researchers will undoubtedly find these useful for their research. Online Computing Reviews Service

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology Volume 17, Issue 3

June 2008

133 pages

ISSN:1049-331X

EISSN:1557-7392

DOI:10.1145/1363102

Issue’s Table of Contents

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 27 June 2008

Accepted: 01 April 2007

Revised: 01 January 2007

Received: 01 June 2006

Published in TOSEM Volume 17, Issue 3

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

77
Total Citations
View Citations
1,914
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)20
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

Reflects downloads up to 06 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Yürüm OÜnlü HDemirörs O(2024)Towards the Construction of a Software Benchmarking Dataset via Systematic Literature Review2024 50th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)10.1109/SEAA64295.2024.00037(194-200)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA64295.2024.00037
Ünlü HKennouche DSoylu GDemirörs O(2024)Microservice-based projects in agile worldInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107334165:COnline publication date: 1-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107334
Hacaloglu TDemirors O(2023)An exploratory case study using events as a software size measureInformation Technology and Management10.1007/s10799-023-00394-y24:3(293-312)Online publication date: 13-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10799-023-00394-y
Sarro FMoussa RPetrozziello AHarman M(2022)Learning From Mistakes: Machine Learning Enhanced Human Expert Effort EstimatesIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2020.304079348:6(1868-1882)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2020.3040793
Hai VNhung HHoc H(2021)Calibrating Function Complexity in Enhancement Project for Improving Function Points Analysis EstimationSoftware Engineering Application in Informatics10.1007/978-3-030-90318-3_67(857-869)Online publication date: 17-Nov-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90318-3_67
Van Hai VLe Thi Kim Nhung HHoc H(2021)Empirical Evidence in Early Stage Software Effort Estimation Using Data Flow DiagramSoftware Engineering and Algorithms10.1007/978-3-030-77442-4_53(632-644)Online publication date: 20-Jul-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77442-4_53
Ozen OOzsoy BAktilav BGulec EDemirors O(2020)Automated Estimation of Functional Size from Code2020 Turkish National Software Engineering Symposium (UYMS)10.1109/UYMS50627.2020.9247067(1-7)Online publication date: 7-Oct-2020
https://doi.org/10.1109/UYMS50627.2020.9247067
Martino SFerrucci FGravino CSarro F(2020)Assessing the Effectiveness of Approximate Functional Sizing Approaches for Effort EstimationInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106308(106308)Online publication date: Mar-2020
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106308
De Vito GFerrucci FGravino C(2020)Design and automation of a COSMIC measurement procedure based on UML modelsSoftware and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)10.1007/s10270-019-00731-219:1(171-198)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10270-019-00731-2
Hassan IAhmad NZuhaira B(2018)Calculating completeness of software project scope definitionInformation and Software Technology10.5555/3163583.316367494:C(208-233)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3163583.3163674
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Convertibility between IFPUG and COSMIC functional size measurements

On the conversion between IFPUG and COSMIC software functional size units: A theoretical and empirical study

The Impact of Individual Assumptions on Functional Size Measurement

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here