[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
article

Towards a simplified definition of Function Points

Published: 01 October 2013 Publication History

Abstract

Background: The measurement of Function Points is based on Base Functional Components. The process of identifying and weighting Base Functional Components is hardly automatable, due to the informality of both the Function Point method and the requirements documents being measured. So, Function Point measurement generally requires a lengthy and costly process. Objectives: We investigate whether it is possible to take into account only subsets of Base Functional Components so as to obtain functional size measures that simplify Function Points with the same effort estimation accuracy as the original Function Points measure. Simplifying the definition of Function Points would imply a reduction of measurement costs and may help spread the adoption of this type of measurement practices. Specifically, we empirically investigate the following issues: whether available data provide evidence that simplified software functionality measures can be defined in a way that is consistent with Function Point Analysis; whether simplified functional size measures by themselves can be used without any appreciable loss in software development effort prediction accuracy; whether simplified functional size measures can be used as software development effort predictors in models that also use other software requirements measures. Method: We analyze the relationships between Function Points and their Base Functional Components. We also analyze the relationships between Base Functional Components and development effort. Finally, we built effort prediction models that contain both the simplified functional measures and additional requirements measures. Results: Significant statistical models correlate Function Points with Base Functional Components. Basic Functional Components can be used to build models of effort that are equivalent, in terms of accuracy, to those based on Function Points. Finally, simplified Function Points measures can be used as software development effort predictors in models that also use other requirements measures. Conclusion: The definition and measurement processes of Function Points can be dramatically simplified by taking into account a subset of the Base Functional Components used in the original definition of the measure, thus allowing for substantial savings in measurement effort, without sacrificing the accuracy of software development effort estimates.

References

[1]
Boehm, B.W., Software Engineering Economics. 1981. Prentice-Hall.
[2]
Finnie, G., Wittig, G. and Desharnais, J., A comparison of software effort estimation techniques: using function points with neural networks, case-based reasoning and regression models. Journal of Systems and Software. v39 i3. 281-289.
[3]
R. Jeffery, M. Ruhe, I. Wieczorek, Using public domain metrics to estimate software development effort, in: Software Metrics Symposium, 2001. METRICS 2001. Proceedings. Seventh International, IEEE, 2001, pp. 16-27.
[4]
L. Buglione, C. Ebert, Estimation tools and techniques, Software, IEEE 28 (3) (2011) 91-94.
[5]
Albrecht, A.J. and Gaffney, J.E., Software function, lines of code and development effort prediction: a software science validation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. v9 i6. 639-647.
[6]
Function point analysis: difficulties and improvements. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. v14. 2-11.
[7]
I. ISO, IEC 24570: 2004, Software Engineering-NESMA Functional Size Measurement Method Version 2.1 - Definitions and Counting Guidelines for the Application of Function Point Analysis, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
[8]
Finnish Software Measurement Association, FiSMA FSM Method 1.1 (2004).
[9]
COSMIC - Common Software Measurement International Consortium, The COSMIC Functional Size Measurement Method - Version 3.0 Measurement Manual (The COSMIC Implementation Guide for ISO/IEC 19761: 2003) (2007).
[10]
Total Metrics, Methods for Software Sizing How to Decide which Method to Use (2007).
[11]
Kemerer, C.F., Reliability of function points measurement: a field experiment. Communications of the ACM. v36 i2. 85-97.
[12]
Jeffery, J., Low, G. and Barnes, M., Comparison of function point counting techniques. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. v19 i5. 529-532.
[13]
P. Rule, The importance of the size of software requirements, in: Software Measurement Services, NASSCOM Conference, India, 2001.
[14]
Cuadrado-Gallego, J., Buglione, L., de Sevilla, M., Rodrı¿guez-Soria, P. and Dominguez, M., Horizontal dispersion of software functional size with IFPUG and cosmic units. Advances in Engineering Software. v41 i2. 262-269.
[15]
O. Mendes, A. Abran, P. Bourque, Function Point Tool Market Survey, Tech. Rep., Université du Québec a Montréal, Montreal, 1996.
[16]
A. Stambollian, A. Abran, Survey of automation tools supporting COSMIC-FFP ISO 19761, in: Proceedings of the 16th IWSM-Metrikom 2006, Postdam, Germany, 2006.
[17]
D. Kempisty, M. Harris, Is automated function point counting useful yet? in: United Kingdom Software Metrics Association Conference - UKSMA, 2009.
[18]
Kitchenham, B. and Känsälä, K., Inter-item correlations among function points. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE '93, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA. pp. 477-480.
[19]
ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 24750:2005, Software Engineering NESMA Functional Size Measurement Method, Version 2.1, Definitions and Counting Guidelines for the Application of Function Point Analysis (2005).
[20]
L. Santillo, M. Conte, R. Meli, Early and quick function point: sizing more with less, in: Software Metrics, 2005. 11th IEEE International Symposium, Como, 19-22 September 2005.
[21]
ISO, ISO/IEC 20926: 2003, Software Engineering - IFPUG 4.1 Unadjusted Functional Size Measurement Method - Counting Practices Manual (2003).
[22]
Buglione, L. and Gencel, C., Impact of base functional component types on software functional size based effort estimation. Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. 75-89.
[23]
Abran, A. and Robillard, P.N., Function points analysis: an empirical study of its measurement processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. v22. 895-910.
[24]
S. Morasca, On the use of weighted sums in the definition of measures international conference on software engineering, in: 2010 ICSE: Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics, 2010, pp. 8-15.
[25]
Cook, R.D. and Weisberg, S., Residuals and Influence in Regression. 1982. Chapman and Hall, London.
[26]
Rousseeuw, P.J. and Leroy, A.M., Robust Regression and Outlier Detection. 1987. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.
[27]
Establishing relationships between specification size and software process effort in CASE environments. Information and Software Technology. v39 i1. 35-45.
[28]
B. Kitchenham, S. MacDonell, L. Pickard, M. Shepperd, Assessing Prediction Systems, Technical report, University of Otago, 1999.
[29]
Baresi, L. and Morasca, S., Three empirical studies on estimating the design effort of web applications. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology. v16 i4. 15
[30]
Morasca, S., Building statistically significant robust regression models in empirical software engineering. In: PROMISE '09: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Predictor Models in Software Engineering, ACM, New York, NY, USA. pp. 1-10.
[31]
B. Kitchenham, L. Pickard, S. MacDonell, M. Shepperd, What accuracy statistics really measure {software estimation}, in: Software, IEE Proceedings, vol. 148, IET, 2001, pp. 81-85.
[32]
International Software Benchmarking Standards Group, Worldwide Software Development: The Benchmark, Release 11 (2009).
[33]
E. Mendes, C. Lokan, R. Harrison, C. Triggs, A replicated comparison of cross-company and within-company effort estimation models using the ISBSG database, in: Software Metrics, 2005. 11th IEEE International Symposium, IEEE, 2005, pp. 10.
[34]
Gencel, C. and Buglione, L., Do base functional component types affect the relationship between software functional size and effort?. Software Process and Product Measurement. 72-85.
[35]
Pendharkar, P. and Rodger, J., The relationship between software development team size and software development cost. Communications of the ACM. v52 i1. 141-144.
[36]
Lokan, C.J., An empirical study of the correlations between function point elements. IEEE International Symposium on Software Metrics. v0. 200
[37]
C. Symons, The Performance of Real-Time, Business Application and Component Software Projects: An Analysis of COSMIC-Measured Projects in the ISBSG Database, Tech. Rep., ISBSG, 2009.
[38]
International Software Benchmarking Standards Group, Practical Software Project Estimation: A Toolkit for Estimating Software Development Effort & Duration, McGraw-Hill, 2011.
[39]
Kitchenham, B. and Mendes, E., Why comparative effort prediction studies may be invalid. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Predictor Models in Software Engineering, ACM. pp. 4
[40]
An empirical study of maintenance and development accuracy. Journal of Systems and Software. v64 i1. 57-77.
[41]
E. Stensrud, I. Myrtveit, Human performance estimating with analogy and regression models: an empirical validation, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Software Metrics, 1998.
[42]
Sheskin, D., Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures. 2004. third ed. Chapman & Hall/CRC.
[43]
L. Lavazza, G. Robiolo, The role of the measure of functional complexity in effort estimation, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Predictor Models in Software Engineering - PROMISE 2010, Timisoara, 2010.
[44]
L. Lavazza, G. Robiolo, Introducing the evaluation of complexity in functional size measurement: a UML-based approach, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement - ESEM 2010, Bozen, 2010.
[45]
Robiolo, G. and Orosco, R., Employing use cases to early estimate effort with simpler metrics. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering. v4 i1. 31-43.
[46]
A. Albrecht, Measuring application development productivity, in: I.B.M. Press (Ed.), IBM Application Development Symp., 1979, pp. 83-92.
[47]
Jeffery, R. and Stathis, J., Function point sizing: structure, validity and applicability. Journal of Empirical Software Engineering. v1 i1. 11-30.
[48]
A. Abran, B. Gil, í. Lefebvre, Estimation models based on functional profiles, in: International Workshop on Software Measurement-IWSM/MetriKon, Kronisburg, Germany, 2004, pp. 195-211.
[49]
C. Gencel, L. Buglione, Do different functionality types affect the relationship between software functional size and effort, in: Proceedings of the Int. Conf. on Software Process and Product Measurement (IWSM-MENSURA 2007), Palma de Mallorca, 2007, pp. 235-246.
[50]
L. Buglione, F. Ferrucci, C. Gencel, C. Gravino, F. Sarro, Which COSMIC Base Functional Components are Significant in Estimating Web Application Development? A Case Study, in: 20th International Workshop on Software Measurement (IWSM)/Metrikon/MENSURA Joint Conference, Shaker Verlag, 2010.
[51]
M. Conte, T. Iorio, R. Meli, L. Santillo, E&Q: An Early & Quick Approach to Functional Size Measurement Methods, in: Software Measurement European Forum, 2004.
[52]
The size and effort estimates in iterative development. Information and Software Technology. v50 i7. 772-781.
[53]
¿ivkovič, A., Rozman, I. and Heričko, M., Automated software size estimation based on function points using UML models. Information and Software Technology. v47 i13. 881-890.
[54]
C. Gencel, O. Demirors, Functional size measurement revisited, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 17 (3).

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Estimating Software Functional Size via Machine LearningACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/358257532:5(1-27)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2023
  • (2020)Using Extremely Simplified Functional Size Measures for Effort EstimationProceedings of the 14th ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)10.1145/3382494.3410691(1-9)Online publication date: 5-Oct-2020
  • (2017)A study on the statistical convertibility of IFPUG Function Point, COSMIC Function Point and Simple Function PointInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2017.02.00586:C(1-19)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Information and Software Technology
Information and Software Technology  Volume 55, Issue 10
October, 2013
165 pages

Publisher

Butterworth-Heinemann

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 October 2013

Author Tags

  1. Effort prediction
  2. Function Points
  3. Functional size measurement

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 06 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Estimating Software Functional Size via Machine LearningACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/358257532:5(1-27)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2023
  • (2020)Using Extremely Simplified Functional Size Measures for Effort EstimationProceedings of the 14th ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)10.1145/3382494.3410691(1-9)Online publication date: 5-Oct-2020
  • (2017)A study on the statistical convertibility of IFPUG Function Point, COSMIC Function Point and Simple Function PointInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2017.02.00586:C(1-19)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017
  • (2016)Functional size approximation based on use-case namesInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2016.08.00780:C(73-88)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2016
  • (2016)An approach to estimate the size of ERP package using package pointsComputer Standards & Interfaces10.1016/j.csi.2015.10.00347:C(100-107)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2016

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media