Information Systems and e-Business Management

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 377–401 | Cite as

A mapping model for assessing project effort from requirements

Original Article

Abstract

Since the effort required to develop a system depends on its requirements, it is important to consider the resulting effort when deciding on the requirements. Miscalculating the effort may lead to requirements that cannot be implemented within given budget constraints. In order to support requirements engineers in calculating the effort resulting from the requirements they elaborate correctly, we develop a mapping model for assessing project effort from requirements (MMAPER) in this paper. MMAPER incorporates effort estimation into requirements engineering and thereby enables engineers to proactively assess project effort without demanding that they spend significant additional time on this task. MMAPER measures system size using function point analysis and assesses the resulting effort using the Constructive Cost Model 2. The theoretical underpinning of the methods stems from theoretical perspectives from which we derive theories of how requirements determine the resulting project effort. We also take into consideration that it is important to distinguish requirements of different size but also implemented in different contexts for estimating the resulting effort. We empirically evaluate the model using data from five case studies which we conducted with a financial services organization. The developed model provides very accurate effort estimations, across both controlled experiments and field applications.

Keywords

Project effort Requirements Mapping model Design research 

References

  1. Abdel-Hamid TK, Madnick SE (1991) Software project dynamics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrahão S, Poels G (2007) Experimental evaluation of an object-oriented function point measurement procedure. Inf Softw Technol 49(4):366–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abts C, Clark B, Devnani-Chulani S, Horowitz E, Madachy R, Reifer D, Selby R, Steece B (2000) COCOMO II model definition manual. Center for Software Engineering, USCGoogle Scholar
  4. Adem NAZ, Kasirun ZM (2010) Automating function points analysis based on functional and non-functional requirements text. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computer and automation engineering, pp 664–669Google Scholar
  5. Agrawal K, Bajpai SK, Tripathi SP (2009) Application of role activity diagrams in finding problem frames and determination of function points. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software technology and engineering, pp 17–20Google Scholar
  6. Agrawal K, Bajpai SK, Tripathi SP (2010) Determination of problem frames based on role activity diagrams leading to function points: a case study. Int J Comput Sci Commun 1(2):121–127Google Scholar
  7. Albrecht AJ (1979) Measuring application development productivity. In: Proceedings of IBM applications development symposium, pp 83–92Google Scholar
  8. Banker RD, Datar SM, Kemerer C (1991) A model to evaluate variables impacting the productivity of software maintenance projects. Manag Sci 37(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Banker RD, Chang H, Kemerer C (1994) Evidence on economies of scale in software development. Inf Softw Technol 36(5):275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Banker RD, Davis GB, Slaughter SA (1998) Software development practices, software complexity, and software maintenance performance. Manag Sci 44(4):433–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benbasat I, Goldstein DK, Mead M (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Q 11(3):369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bennett K, Rajlich V (2000) Software maintenance and evolution: a roadmap. Conference on the future of software engineering, pp 73–87Google Scholar
  13. Bergman M, King JL, Lyytinen K (2002) Large scale requirements analysis as heterogeneous engineering. Scand J Inf Syst 14:37–55Google Scholar
  14. Boehm BW (1984) Software engineering economics. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 10(1):4–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boehm BW, Sullivan KJ (2000) Software economics: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the conference on the future of software engineering, pp 319–343Google Scholar
  16. Boehm BW, Abts C, Devnani-Chulani S (2000) Software development cost estimation approaches—a survey. Ann Softw Eng 10(1–4):177–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brooks FP (1987) No silver bullet: essence and accidents of software engineering. IEEE Comput 20(4):10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Choi S, Park S, Sugumaran V (2006) Function point extraction method from goal and scenario based requirements text. In: Kop C, Fliedl G, Mayr HC, Métais E (eds) Natural language processing and information systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3999, pp 12–24Google Scholar
  19. Clark B, Devnani-Chulani S, Boehm BW (1998) Calibrating the COCOMO II post-architecture model. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on software engineering, Kyoto, Japan, pp 477–480Google Scholar
  20. Condori-Fernández N, Abrahão S, Pastor O (2007) On the estimation of the functional size of software from requirements specifications. J Comput Sci Technol 22(3):358–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dardenne A, van Lamsweerde A, Fickas S (1993) Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci Comput Program 20:3–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Darimont R, van Lamsweerde A (1996) Formal refinement patterns for goal-driven requirements elaboration. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on foundations of software engineering, vol 21, no 6, pp 179–190Google Scholar
  23. Davis A (1993) Software requirements. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  24. Del Bianco V, Lavazza L (2009) Applying the COSMIC functional size measurement method to problem frames. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international conference engineering complex computer systems, pp 282–290Google Scholar
  25. Dubé L, Paré G (2003) Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS Q 27(4):597–635Google Scholar
  26. Fetcke T, Abran A, Nguyen TH (1997) Mapping the OO-Jacobson approach into function point analysis. In: Proceedings of the technology of object-oriented languages and systems conference, Santa Barbara, CA, pp 192–202Google Scholar
  27. Gencel C, Demirors O (2008) Functional size measurement revisited. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 17(3):71–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gerlich R, Denskat U (1994) A cost estimation model for maintenance and high reuse. In: Proceedings of ESCOM, Ivrea, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  29. Glinz M (2007) On non-functional requirements. IEEE joint international conference on requirements engineering (RE’07), pp 21–26Google Scholar
  30. Grau G, Franch X (2007) Using the PRiM method to evaluate requirements models with COSMIC-FFP. In: Proceedings of the IWSM-MENSURA, pp 110–120Google Scholar
  31. Grau G, Franch X, Maiden NAM (2008) Prim: an i*-based process reengineering method for information systems specification. Inf Softw Technol 50(1–2):76–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information system. MIS Q 30(3):611–642Google Scholar
  33. Hevner AR, Chatterjee S (2010) Design research in information systems, theory and practice. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105Google Scholar
  35. Hussain I, Kosseim L, Ormandjieva O (2010) Towards approximating COSMIC functional size from user requirements in agile development processes using text mining. In: Natural language processing and information systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6177, pp 80–91Google Scholar
  36. IFPUG (1999) Function point counting practices manual release 4.1. International Function Point Users Group, WestervilleGoogle Scholar
  37. ISO (2003a) ISO/IEC 19761: COSMIC full function points measurement manual, version 2.2Google Scholar
  38. ISO (2003b) ISO/IEC 20926: software engineering—IFPUG 4.1 unadjusted FSM method-counting practices manualGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 measurementGoogle Scholar
  40. Ivari J (2007) A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scand J Inf Syst 19(2):39–64Google Scholar
  41. Jackson M (1995) Software requirements and specifications. Addison-Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Jacquet JP, Abran A (1997) From software metrics to software measurement methods: a process model. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international software engineering standards symposium, pp 128–135Google Scholar
  43. Jørgensen M, Shepperd M (2007) A systematic review of software development cost estimation studies. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(1):33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kauffman SA (1995) At home in the universe. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Kavakli E, Loucopoulos P (2003) Goal driven requirements engineering: evaluation of current methods. In: Proceedings of the 8th CAiSE/IFIP workshop on evaluation of modeling methods in systems analysis and designGoogle Scholar
  46. Kemerer CF (1993) Reliability of function points measurement. Commun ACM 36(2):85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kitchenham B, Pickard L, Pfleeger SL (1995) Case studies for method and tool evaluation. IEEE Softw 12(4):52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kotonya G, Sommerville I (1998) Requirements engineering: processes and techniques. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Lauesen S (2006) COTS tenders and integration requirements. Requir Eng 11(2):111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lavazza L, Del Bianco V (2008) Functional size measurement based on problem frames: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on applications and advances of problem frames, pp 44–47Google Scholar
  51. Letier E, van Lamsweerde A (2002) Deriving operational software specifications from system goals. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering, Charleston, pp 119–128Google Scholar
  52. Levy Y, Ellis T (2006) A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Inf Sci J 9:181–212Google Scholar
  53. March ST, Smith GF (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis Support Syst 15(4):251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mckeen JD, Smith HA (2002) New developments in practice II: enterprise application integration. Commun ACM 8:451–466Google Scholar
  55. Menges R, Eigenmann U (1996) Design for assembly. In: Bullinger HJ, Warschat J (eds) Concurrent simultaneous engineering systems, the way to successful products. Springer, Berlin, pp 190–203Google Scholar
  56. Mihm J, Loch L, Huchzermeier A (2003) Problem-solving oscillations in complex engineering projects. Manag Sci 49(6):733–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moløkken K, Jørgensen M (2003) A review of surveys on software effort estimation. In: Proceedings of the 2003 international symposium on empirical software engineering, Washington, DC, pp 223–230Google Scholar
  58. Natt Och Dag J, Regnell B, Carlshamre P, Andersson M, Karlsson J (2002) A feasibility study of automated natural language requirements analysis in market-driven development. Requir Eng 7(1):20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pohl K (1994) Three dimensions of requirements engineering: framework and its application. Inf Syst 19(3):243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pries-Heje J, Venable J, Baskerville R (2008) Strategies for design science research evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on information systems, Galway, Ireland, pp 255–266Google Scholar
  61. Putnam L, Myers W (1992) Measures for excellence—reliable software on time, within budget. Yourdon Press/Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  62. Sametinger J (1997) Software engineering with reusable components. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sawyer S (2001) Analysis by long walk: some approaches to the synthesis of multiple sources of evidence. In: Trauth E (ed) Qualitative research in IS: issues and trends. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 163–191Google Scholar
  64. Selby R (1988) Empirically analyzing software reuse in a production environment. In: Tracz W (ed) Software reuse: emerging technology. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 176–189Google Scholar
  65. Shaw M (1990) Prospect for an engineering discipline of software. IEEE Softw 7(6):15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shepperd M, Schofield C (1997) Estimating software project effort using analogies. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 23(12):736–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Simon HA (1996) The science of the artificial. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  68. Sun Y, Kantor PB (2006) Cross-evaluation: a new model for information system evaluation. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57(5):614–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Takeda H, Veerkamp P, Tomiyama T, Yoshikawam H (1990) Modeling design processes. AI Mag 11(4):37–48Google Scholar
  70. Vaishnavi V, Kuechler W (2005) Design research in information systems. http://desrist.org/design-research-in-information-systems
  71. van Aken JE (2004) Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. J Manag Stud 41(2):219–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. van Lamsweerde A (2001) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: RE’01—5th IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 249–263Google Scholar
  73. van Lamsweerde A (2004) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a roundtrip from research to practice. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, Kyoto, Japan, pp 4–7Google Scholar
  74. van Lamsweerde A, Darimont R, Massonet P (1995) Goal-directed elaboration of requirements for a meeting scheduler: problems and lessons learnt. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 194–203Google Scholar
  75. Venable J (2006) The role of theory and theorising in design science research. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design science in information systems and technology, Claremont, CA, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  76. Walkerden F, Jeffery R (1999) An empirical study of analogy-based software effort estimation. Empir Softw Eng 4:135–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Walls JG, Widmeyer GR, El Sawy OA (1992) Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Inf Syst Res 3(1):36–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Walls JG, Widmeyer GR, El Sawy OA (2004) Assessing information system design theory in perspective: how useful was our 1992 initial rendition? J Inf Technol Theory Appl 6(2):43–58Google Scholar
  79. Winter R (2008) Design science research in Europe. Eur J Inf Syst 17:470–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yin RK (1994) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  81. Yu E (1994) Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. PhD thesis (also technical report DKBS-TR-94-6). Department of Computer Science, University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  82. Yu E, Mylopoulos J (1998) Why goal-oriented requirements engineering. In: 4th international workshop on requirements engineering: foundations of software quality, Pisa, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  83. Zickert F, Beck R (2010) Because effort matters! - a mapping model for assessing project effort in requirements engineering. Bus Inf Syst Eng 2(3):165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Business Administration, esp. E-Finance and Services ScienceGoethe University FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations