The most popular Functional Size Measurement methods, namely IFPUG Function Point Analysis and the COSMIC method, adopt a concept of “functionality” that is based mainly on the data involved in functions and data movements. Neither of the mentioned methods takes directly into consideration the amount of data processing involved in a process. Functional size measures are often used as a basis for estimating the effort required for software development, and it is known that development effort does depend on the amount of data processing code to be written. Thus, it is interesting to investigate to what extent the most popular functional size measures represent the functional processing features of requirements and, consequently, the amount of data processing code to be written. To this end, we consider a few applications that provide similar functionality, but require different amounts of data processing. These applications are then measured via both functional size measurement methods and traditional size measures (such as Lines of Code). A comparison of the obtained measures shows that differences among the applications are best represented by differences in Lines of Code. It is likely that the actual size of an application that requires substantial amounts of data processing is not fully represented by functional size measures. In summary, the paper shows that not taking into account data processing dramatically limits the expressiveness of the size measures. Practitioners that use size measures for effort estimation should complement functional size measures with measures that quantify data processing, to get precise effort estimates.

On the Ability of Functional Size Measurement Methods to Size Complex Software Applications

LAVAZZA, LUIGI ANTONIO;MORASCA, SANDRO;TOSI, DAVIDE
2014-01-01

Abstract

The most popular Functional Size Measurement methods, namely IFPUG Function Point Analysis and the COSMIC method, adopt a concept of “functionality” that is based mainly on the data involved in functions and data movements. Neither of the mentioned methods takes directly into consideration the amount of data processing involved in a process. Functional size measures are often used as a basis for estimating the effort required for software development, and it is known that development effort does depend on the amount of data processing code to be written. Thus, it is interesting to investigate to what extent the most popular functional size measures represent the functional processing features of requirements and, consequently, the amount of data processing code to be written. To this end, we consider a few applications that provide similar functionality, but require different amounts of data processing. These applications are then measured via both functional size measurement methods and traditional size measures (such as Lines of Code). A comparison of the obtained measures shows that differences among the applications are best represented by differences in Lines of Code. It is likely that the actual size of an application that requires substantial amounts of data processing is not fully represented by functional size measures. In summary, the paper shows that not taking into account data processing dramatically limits the expressiveness of the size measures. Practitioners that use size measures for effort estimation should complement functional size measures with measures that quantify data processing, to get precise effort estimates.
2014
Herwig Mannaert, Luigi Lavazza, Roy Oberhauser, Mira Kajko-Mattsson, Michael Gebhart
ICSEA 2014 - The Ninth International Conference on Software Engineering Advances
9781612083674
The Ninth International Conference on Software Engineering Advances - ICSEA 2014
Nizza (Francia)
12 - 16 ottobre 2014
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
icsea_2014_15_40_10201.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Abstract
Licenza: DRM non definito
Dimensione 216.1 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
216.1 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11383/1962120
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact