Empirical Software Engineering

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 11–30 | Cite as

Function point sizing: Structure, validity and applicability

  • Ross Jeffery
  • John Stathis
Peer Reviewed Articles

Abstract

This paper reports on a study carried out within a software development organization to evaluate the use of function points as a measure of early lifecycle software size. There were three major aims to the research: firstly to determine the extent to which the component elements of function points were independent of each other and thus appropriate for an additive model of size; secondly to investigate the relationship between effort and (1) the function point components, (2) unadjusted function points, and (3) adjusted function points, to determine whether the complexity weightings and technology adjustments were adding to the effort explanation power of the metric; and thirdly to investigate the suitability of function points for sizing in client server developments. The results show that the component parts are not independent of each other which supports an earlier study in this area. In addition the complexity weights and technology factors do not improve the effort/size model, suggesting that a simplified sizing metric may be appropriate. With respect to the third aim it was found that the function point metric revealed a much lower productivity in the client server environment. This likely is a reflection of cost of the introduction of newer technologies but is in need of further research.

Keywords

Function points software size effort model complexity adjustment client-server 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albrecht, A. J. 1979. Measuring application development productivity. Proc. Joint SHARE/GUIDE/IBM Appl. Develop. Symp. Oct. pp. 83–92.Google Scholar
  2. Albrecht, A. J. and Gaffney, J. E., Jr. 1983. Software function, source lines of code, and development effort prediction: a software science validation. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. SE-9: 639–648.Google Scholar
  3. Banker, R. and Kemerer, C. 1989. Scale economies in new software development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering Se 15–10: 416–429.Google Scholar
  4. Banker, R., Chang, H. and Kemerer, C. 1994. Evidence on economies of scale in software development. Information and Software Technology 36(5): 275–282.Google Scholar
  5. Conte, S., Dunsmore, H. and Shen, V. 1986. Software Engineering Metrics and Models. Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
  6. Desharnais, J. M. 1988. Analyse statistique de la productivite des projets de developpement en informatique a partir de la technique des points de fonction (English version). Masters thesis, Universite du Quebec, Montreal.Google Scholar
  7. Fenton, N. E. 1991. Software Metrics: A Rigorous Approach. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Halstead, M. H. 1977. Elements of Software Science. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar
  9. Heemstra, F. J. and Kusters, R. J. 1991. Function point analysis: Evaluation of a software cost estimation model. European Journal of Information Systems 1(4): 229–237.Google Scholar
  10. Jeffery, D. R. 1987. The relationship between team size, experience and attitudes and software development productivity. Proc. IEEE COMP-SAC 87, Tokyo, Japan, 2–8.Google Scholar
  11. Jeffery, D. R., Low, G. C. and Barnes, M. 1993. A comparison of function point counting techniques, IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 19(4): 1–5.Google Scholar
  12. Jeffery, D. R. & Stathis, J. 1993. Specification-based software sizing: An empirical investigation of function metrics. Proc. 18th Annual Software Engineering Workshop, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD.Google Scholar
  13. Jones, T. C. 1981. Programming productivity-Issues for the eighties. IEEE Computer Society Catalog No 391.Google Scholar
  14. Jones, T. C. 1986. Programming Productivity. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Jones, T. C. 1988. A Short History of Function Points and Feature Points. Software Productivity Research Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Kemerer, C. F. 1987. An empirical validation of software cost estimation models. Commun. ACM 30(5): 416–429.Google Scholar
  17. Kemerer, C. F. and Porter, B. S. 1992. Improving the reliability of function point measurement: An empirical study. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 18(11): 1011–1024.Google Scholar
  18. Kemerer, C. F. 1993. Reliability of function points measurement: A field experiment. Commun. ACM 36(2): 85–97.Google Scholar
  19. Kitchenham, B. and Kansala, K. 1993. Inter-item correlations among function points. Proc. IEEE Metrics Symp. Google Scholar
  20. Low, G. C. and Jeffery, D. R. 1990. Function points in the estimation and evaluation of the software process. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 16(1): 64–71.Google Scholar
  21. Low, G. C. and Jeffery, D. R. 1989. ‘Productivity issues in the use of current back-end CASE tools. Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop CASE, CASE 89, IEEE and BCS London, England, pp. 12–38.Google Scholar
  22. Sprent, P. 1989. Applied Nonparametric Statistical Methods. Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Stathis, J. & Jeffery, D. R. 1993. An empirical study of Albrecht function points. Proc. ASMA Australian Conference on Software Metrics. Sydney.Google Scholar
  24. Symons, C. R. 1988. Function point analysis: difficulties and improvements. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 14: 2–11.Google Scholar
  25. Verner, J., Tate, G., Jackson, B. and Hayward, R. 1989. Technology dependence in function point analysis: A case study and critical review. Proc. 11th ICSE Conf. Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 378–382.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ross Jeffery
    • 1
  • John Stathis
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Advanced Empirical Software Research (CAESAR), School of Information SystemsUNSWSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Advanced Empirical Software Research (CAESAR), School of Information SystemsUNSWSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations