Software & Systems Modeling

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 48–71 | Cite as

A functional size measurement method for object-oriented conceptual schemas: design and evaluation issues

Regular Paper


Functional Size Measurement (FSM) methods are intended to measure the size of software by quantifying the functional user requirements of the software. The capability to accurately quantify the size of software in an early stage of the development lifecycle is critical to software project managers for evaluating risks, developing project estimates and having early project indicators. In this paper, we present OO-Method Function Points (OOmFP), which is a new FSM method for object-oriented systems that is based on measuring conceptual schemas. OOmFP is presented following the steps of a process model for software measurement. Using this process model, we present the design of the measurement method, its application in a case study, and the analysis of different evaluation types that can be carried out to validate the method and to verify its application and results.


Conceptual modeling Object orientation Functional size measurement Measure validation Measurement verification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    IFPUG: Function Point Counting Practices Manual. Release 4.1. International Function Point Users Group. Westerville, Ohio, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albrecht, A.J.: Measuring application development productivity. IBM Application Development Symposium, pp. 83–92 (1979)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antoniol, G., Calzolari, F.: Adapting function points to object oriented information systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE’98), pp. 59–76 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ASMA: Sizing in Object-Oriented Environments. Australian Software Metrics Association (ASMA). Victoria, Australia (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fetcke, T., Abran, A., Nguyen, T.H.: Function point analysis for the OO-Jacobson method: a mapping approach. In: Proceedings of the FESMA’98, pp. 395–410. Antwerp, Belgium (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gupta, R., Gupta, S.K.: Object point analysis. IFPUG 1996 Fall Conference. Dallas, Texas, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IFPUG: Function Point Counting Practices: Case Study 3—Object-Oriented Analysis. Object Oriented Design (Draft) (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laranjeira, L.: Software size estimation of object-oriented systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16, 510–522 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lehne, O.A.: Experience report: Function points counting of object oriented analysis and design based on the OOram method. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA’97) (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Minkiewicz, F.: Measuring object oriented software with predictive object points. In: Rob Kusters, A.C., Heemstra, F., van Veenendaal, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the Project Control for Software Quality. Shaker Publishing (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rains, E.: Function points in an ADA object-oriented design. OOPS Messenger 2(4), 23–25 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sneed, H.M.: Estimating the development costs of object-oriented software. In: Proceedings of the 7th European Software Control and Metrics Conference, pp. 135–152. Wilmslow, UK (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Uemura, T., Kusumoto, S., Inoue, K.: Function point measurement tool for UML design specification. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS’99), pp. 62–69. Florida, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Whitmire, S.A.: Applying function points to object-oriented software models. In: Keyes, J. (ed.) Software Engineering Productivity Handbook, pp. 229–244. McGraw-Hill (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhao, H., Stockman, T.: Software Sizing for OO Software Development—Object Function Point Analysis. GSE Conference, Berlin, Germany (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abrahão, S., Pastor, O.: Estimating the applications functional size from object-oriented conceptual models. In: Proceedings of the International Function Points Users Group Annual Conference (IFPUG’01). Las Vegas, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pastor, O., Abrahão, S., Molina, J.C., Torres, I.: A FPA-like measure for object-oriented systems from conceptual models. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Software Measurement (IWSM’01), pp. 51–69. Montrèal Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pastor, O., Gómez, J., Insfran, E., Pelechano, V.: The OO-method approach for information systems modelling: from object-oriented conceptual modeling to automated programming. Information Systems 26(7), 507–534 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language Users Guide. Addison-Wesley (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Abran, A., Jacquet, J.P.: A structured analysis of the new ISO standard of functional size measurement—Definition of concepts. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Int. Symposium and Forum on Software Engineering Standards, pp. 230–241 (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    UKSMA: MK II Function Point Analysis Counting Practices Manual, Version 1.3.1. United Kingdom Software Metrics Association (Sept. 1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    St.Pierre, Maya, D.M., Abran, A., Desharnais, J.M., Bourque, P.: Full function points: counting practices manual. Software Engineering Management Research Laboratory and Software Engineering Laboratory in Applied Metrics Technical Report 1997-04 (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abran, A., Desharnais, J.M., Oligny, S., St.Pierre, D., Symons, C.: COSMIC-FFP measurement manual, the COSMIC implementation guide for ISO/IEC 19761, Version 2.2. The Common Software Measurement International Consortium (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P., Overgaard, G.: Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use-Case Driven Approach. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. (1992)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Whitmire, S.A.: 3D function points: specific and real-time extensions of function points. Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conferene (1992)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Banker, R.D., Kauffman, R.J., Kumar, R.: An empirical test of object-based output measurement metrics in a computer aided software engineering (CASE) environment. Journal of Management Information Systems 8(3), 127–150 (Winter 1991-92)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    ISO: ISO/IEC 14143-1: Information Technology—Software measurement—Functional Size Measurement. Part 1: Definition of Concepts (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jacquet, J.P., Abran, A.: From software metrics to software measurement methods: A process model. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Int. Standard Symposium and Forum on Software Engineering Standards (ISESS’97). Walnut Creek, USA (1997)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    ISO: ISO/IEC 14143-3: Information technology–Software measurement–Functional size measurement–Part 3: Verification of Functional Size Measurement Methods (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Molina, P.J.: User interface specification: from requirements to code generation. PhD Thesis, Department of Information Systems and Computation, Valencia University of Technology (2003 in Spanish)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pastor, O., Ramos, I.: OASIS version 2 (2.2): A Class-Definition language to Model Information Systems, vol. 3rd edition. Valencia, Spain, Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (1995)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fetcke, T., Abran, A., Dumke, R.: A generalized representation for selected functional size measurement methods. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Software Measurement, Montréal pp. 1–25, Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    ANSI/IEEE: Standard 830-1998: IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Ed. New York, NY, IEEE Computer Society Press (1998)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jacquet, J.P., Abran, A.: Metrics validation proposals: A structured analysis. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Software Measurement. Magdeburg, Germany (1998)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fenton, N.E., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach, 2nd. edition. London, Brooks Cole (1998)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Briand Briand, L.C., Morasca, S., Basili, V.: Property-based software engineering measurement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 22(1), 68–85 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roberts, F.S.: Measurement Theory with Applications To Decision Making, Utility, and the Social Sciences. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley (1979)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kitchenham, B.A., Linkman, S.G., Law, D.: DESMET: A methodology for evaluating software engineering methods and tools. IEE Computing & Control Journal 120–126 (1997)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zuse, H.: A Framework for Software Measurement. Berlin, Germany, Walter de Gruyter (1998)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Poels, G.: Definition and validation of a COSMIC-FFP functional size measure for object-oriented systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering (QAOOSE 2003). Darmstadt, Germany (2003)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Abran, A., Robillard, P.N.: Function points: a study of their measurement processes and scale transformations. Journal of Systems and Software 25, 171–184 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Poels, G.: Why function points do not work in search of new software measurement strategies. Guide Share Europe Journal 1(2), 9–26 (1996)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jeffery, R., Stathis, J.: Function point sizing: structure, validity and applicability. Empirical Software Engineering 1(1), 11–30 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Matson, J.E., Barret, B.E., Mellichamp, J.M.: Software development cost estimation using function points. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20(4), 275–287 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Poels, G., Dedene, G.: Distance-based software measurement: necessary and sufficient properties for software measures. Information and Software Technology 42(1), 35–46 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Morris, P., Desharnais, J.M.: Function point analysis. validating the results. In: Proceedings of the IFPUG Spring Conference. Atlanta, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Moody, D.L.: Dealing with complexity: A practical method for representing large entity relationship models. PhD Thesis, Department of Information Systems, University of Melbourne (2001)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Basili, V.R., Rombach, H.D.: The TAME project: Towards improvement-oriented software environments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 14(6), 758–773 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kemerer, C.F.: Reliability of function points measurement. Communications of the ACM 36(2), 85–97 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Conte, S.D., Dunsmore, H.E., Shen, V.Y.: Software Engineering Metrics and Models. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc. (1986)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Briand, L.C., Wüst, J.: The impact of design properties on development cost in object-oriented systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS’2001), pp. 260–271. London, England (2001)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Torres, I., Calatrava, F.: Function points counting on conceptual models. Whitepaper, CARE Technologies, (2003)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Abrahão, S., Poels, G., Pastor, O.: Comparative evaluation of functional size measurement methods: An experimental analysis. Working Paper 2004/234. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium (2004)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Moser, S., Henderson-Sellers, B., Misic, V.B.: Cost estimation based on business models. Journal of Systems and Software 49(1), 33–42 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    ISBSG: International Software Benchmarking Standards Group. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and ComputationValencia University of TechnologyValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationGhent UniversityGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations