Journal of Computer Science and Technology

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 358–370 | Cite as

On the Estimation of the Functional Size of Software from Requirements Specifications

  • Nelly Condori-Fernández
  • Silvia Abrahão
  • Oscar Pastor
Regular Paper


This paper introduces a measurement procedure, called RmFFP, which describes a set of operations for modelling and estimating the size of object-oriented software systems from high-level specifications using the OO-Method Requirement Model. OO-Method is an automatic software production method. The contribution of this work is to systematically define a set of rules that allows estimating the functional size at an early stage of the software production process, in accordance with COSMIC-FFP. To do this, we describe the design, the application, and the analysis of the proposed measurement procedure following the steps of a process model for software measurement. We also report initial results on the evaluation of RmFFP in terms of its reproducibility.


requirement specification product metrics measurement technique 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

11390_2007_9050_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (18 kb)
Supplementary material - Chinese Abstract (PDF 18 kb)


  1. [1]
    Meli R, Abran A, Ho Vinh T, Oligny S. On the applicability of COSMIC-FFP for measuring software throughout its life cycle. In Proc. 11th European Software Control and Metrics Conference, Munich, April 18–20, 2000, pp.1–10.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    ISO/IEC 14143-1-information technology — Software measurement-functional size measurement, Part 1: Definition of concepts, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    IFPUG, Function point counting practices manual. Release 4.1, International Function Points Users Group, Wisconsin, USA, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Albrecht A J. Measuring application development productivity. In Proc. IBM Application Development Symposium, CA, USA, 1979, pp.83–92.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    NESMA. Definitions and Counting Guidelines for the application of function point analysis, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Schooneveldt M. Measuring the size of object oriented systems. In Proc. 2nd Australian Conference on Software Metrics, Sydney Australia, November 22–24, 1995, pp.168–177.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    UKSMA. MKII function point analysis counting practices manual. Version 1.3.1, United Kingdom Software Metrics Association, September, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Whitmire S A. Applying function points to object oriented software. Software Engineering Productivity Handbook, Keyes J (ed.), McGraw-Hill, Chapter 13, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Abran A, Pierre N. Function points: A study of their measurement processes and scale transformations. Journal Systems and Software, 1994, 25(2): 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Kitchenham B. Counterpoint: The problem with function points, status report. IEEE Software, 1997, 14(2): 29–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Software engineering-COSMIC-FFP — A functional size measurement method. ISO/IEC 19761, February 2003, pp.1–17.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Jenner M S. COSMIC-FFP and UML: Estimation of the size of a system specified in UML-problems of granularity. In Proc. Fourth European Conf. Soft. Measurement and ICT Control, Germany, May 2001, pp.173–184.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Bévo V, Lévesque G, Abran A. UML notation for functional size measurement method. In Proc. 9th Int. Workshop on Software Measurement, Canada, September 8–10, 1999, pp.230–242.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Pastor O, Gomez J, Insfran E, Pelechano V. The OO-method approach for information systems modelling: From object-oriented conceptual modelling to automated programming. Information Systems, 2001, 26(7): 507–534.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Jacquet J P, Abran A. From software metrics to software measurement methods: A process model. In Proc. 3rd Int. Software Engineering Standards Symposium, USA, 1997, pp.128–135.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Insfrań E, Pastor O, Wieringa R. Requirements engineering-based conceptual modelling. Journal Requirements Engineering, Springer-Verlag, 2002, 7(2): 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Object management group — OMG. Unified Modelling Language — UML v 1.5, March 2003. http://www.
  18. [18]
    Basili V R, Rombach H D. The TAME project: Towards improvement-oriented software environments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, June 1988, 14(6): 758–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Measurement manual: The COSMIC implementation guide for ISO/IEC 19761: 2003. Version 2.2.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Desharnais J, Abran A. Applying functional measurement method: Cognitive issues. Current Trends in Software Measurement, Sharker Verlag, Germany, August 2001, pp.26–50.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M M C et al. Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000, pp.1–228.MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Kitchenham B, Lawrence S, Hoaglin D et al. Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Engineering, 2002, 28(8): 721–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Information technology — Software measurement — Functional size measurement, Part 3: Verification of functional size measurement methods. ISO/IEC 14143-3, April 2003.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Juristo N, Moreno A. Basic of Software Engineering Experimentation. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003, p.131.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Alternative Systematic Approaches to Training. DOE Handbook, U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, January 1995.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Kemerer C F. Reliability of function points measurement: A field experiment. Communications of the ACM, February 1993, 36(2): 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Symons Ch. Come back function point analysis (Modernised) — All is forgiven! In Proc. 4th European Conf. Software Measurement and ICT Control, Heidelberg, Germany, 2001, pp.37–48.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Fetcke T, Abran A, Nguyen T. Mapping the OO-jacobson approach to function point analysis. In Proc. TOOLS Conference, Santa Barbara, USA, 28 July–1 August 1997, pp.1–12.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Tavares H, Carvalho A, Castro J. Function points measurement from requirement specification. In Proc. 5th Workshop Engineering Requirements, Valency, Spain, November 11–12, 2002, pp.278–298.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Bertolami M, Oliveros A. Functionality measurement process on the requirements elicitation. In Proc. Workshop Ibero American Requirements Engineering and Software Environment, Arequipa-Perú, May 3–7, 2004, pp.91–102.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Leite J, Hadad J, Doorn G, Kaplan J. A scenario construction process. Requirements Engineering Journal, 2000, 5(1): 38–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Poels G. Functional size measurement of multi-layer object-oriented conceptual models. In Proc. 9th International Object-Oriented Information Systems Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, September 2–5, 2003, pp.334–345.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Diab H, Koukane F, Frappier M, St. Denis R. μcROSE: Automated measurement of COSMIC-FFP for rational rose real time. Information and Software Technology, 2005, 47(3): 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Nagano S, Ajisaka T. Functional metrics using COSMIC-FFP for object-oriented real-time systems. In Proc. 13th International Workshop on Software Measurement, Montreal, Canada, September 23–25, 2003, pp.1–7.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Azzouz S, Abran A. A proposed measurement role in the rational unified process and its implementation with ISO 19761: COSMIC-FFP. In Proc. Software Measurement European Forum, Rome, Italy, January 28–30, 2004, pp.1–12.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Habela P, Glowacki E, Serafinski T. Adapting use case model for COSMIC-FFP based measurement. In Proc. 15th International Workshop on Software Measurement, Montreal, Canada, Shaker-Verlag, September 12–14, 2005, pp.102–113.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Dedene G, Snoeck M M E R O. DE.: A model-driven entity-relationship object-oriented development method. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 1994, 19(3): 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Poels G, Dedene G. Distance-based software measurement: Necessary and sufficient properties for software measures. Information and Software Technology, 2000, 42(1): 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    Selic B. Real-time object-oriented modelling (ROOM). In Proc. 2nd IEEE Real-Time Technology and Applications Symposium, Boston, USA, June 10–12, 1996, p.214.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Shlaer S, Mellor S. Object Lifecycles: Modelling the World in States. Yourdon Press, Prentice-Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Nagano S, Mase K, Watanabe Y et al. Validation of application results of COSMIC-FFP to Switching Systems. Journal of Information Processing Society of Japan, IPSJ SIG Notes, 2002, (35): 1–7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Beijing, China and Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, USA 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nelly Condori-Fernández
    • 1
  • Silvia Abrahão
    • 1
  • Oscar Pastor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and ComputationValencia University of TechnologyValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations