Automated Functional Size Measurement: A Multiple Case Study in the Industry

  • Christian Quesada-LópezEmail author
  • Alexandra Martínez
  • Marcelo Jenkins
  • Luis Carlos Salas
  • Juan Carlos Gómez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11915)


Automating functional size measurement (FSM) for software applications that use specific development frameworks is a challenge for the industry. Although FSM automation brings benefits such as savings in time and costs, and better measure reliability, it is difficult to implement. In this paper, we present a multi-case study that evaluates the accuracy of an automated procedure for software size estimation in the context of a software development company. This procedure is implemented by a tool called FastWorks FPA, which obtains the IFPUG FPA function point estimation of software applications modeled in the company’s FastWorks framework. We describe the measurement process used by the tool, and discuss the results of the case studies. The accuracy (magnitude of relative error) of the measurements computed by the tool ranged between 3.9% and 12.9%, based on the total unadjusted function points. These results provide evidence for the feasibility of automating the counting process, as the tool’s estimated functional size reasonably approximates the result of specialists’ manual counting.


Functional size measurement Functional size estimation IFPUG FPA Empirical study 



This work was partially supported by the University of Costa Rica No. 834-B8-A27. We thank the Empirical Software Engineering Group at UCR.


  1. 1.
    Abrahao, S.: On the functional size measurement of object-oriented conceptual schemas: design and evaluation issues. Universidad Politecnica de Valencia (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrahão, S., DeMarco, L., Ferrucci, F., Gomez, J., Gravino, C., Sarro, F.: Definition and evaluation of a cosmic measurement procedure for sizing web applications in a model-driven development environment. Inf. Softw. Technol. 104, 144–161 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abran, A.: Software Metrics and Software Metrology. Wiley, Hoboken (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akca, A., Tarhan, A.: Run-time measurement of cosmic functional size for java business applications: is it worth the cost? In: IWSM-MENSURA, pp. 54–59. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Albrecht, A.: Measuring application development productivity. In: Joint Share, Guide, and IBM Application Development Symposium (1979)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barkallah, S., Gherbi, A., Abran, A.: COSMIC functional size measurement using UML models. In: Kim, T., et al. (eds.) ASEA 2011. CCIS, vol. 257, pp. 137–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bundschuh, M., Dekkers, C.: The IT Measurement Compendium: Estimating and Benchmarking Success with Functional Size Measurement. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  8. 8.
    COSMIC: The COSMIC Functional Size Measurement Method Versión 4.0.1 Course Registration (C-REG) System Case Study. Version 2.0. COSMIC (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Vito, G., Ferrucci, F., Gravino, C.: Design and automation of a COSMIC measurement procedure based on UML models. Softw. Syst. Model. (2019).
  10. 10.
    Edagawa, T., Akaike, T., Higo, Y., Kusumoto, S., Hanabusa, S., Shibamoto, T.: Function point measurement from web application source code based on screen transitions and database accesses. J. Syst. Softw. 84(6), 976–984 (2011). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fetcke, T.: The warehouse software portfolio: a case study in functional size measurement. Citeseer (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fingerman, S.: Practical software project estimation; a toolkit for estimating software development effort & duration. Sci-Tech News 65(1), 28 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garmus, D., Herron, D.: Function Point Analysis: Measurement Practices for Successful Software Projects. Addison-Wesley Publishing Inc., Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gonultas, R., Tarhan, A.: Run-time calculation of COSMIC functional size via automatic installment of measurement code into Java business applications. In: 2015 41st Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, pp. 112–118. IEEE (2015).
  15. 15.
    Group, O.M.: Automated Function Points (AFP) Version 1.0, OMG Document Number: formal/2014-01-03. OMG (2014).
  16. 16.
    Heričko, M., Rozman, I., Živkovič, A.: A formal representation of functional size measurement methods. J. Syst. Softw. 79(9), 1341–1358 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO: Information Technology, Software Measurement, Functional Size Measurement: Definition of Concepts. ISO/IEC (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO: ISO/IEC 20926:2009 Software and systems engineering - Software measurement - IFPUG functional size measurement methods. ISO/IEC (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kusumoto, S., Imagawa, M., Inoue, K., Morimoto, S., Matsusita, K., Tsuda, M.: Function point measurement from java programs. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2002, Orlando, Florida, pp. 576–582. ACM, New York (2002).
  20. 20.
    Lamma, E., Mello, P., Riguzzi, F.: A system for measuring function points from an ER-DFD specification. Comput. J. 47(3), 358–372 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lavazza, L.: Automated function points: critical evaluation and discussion. In: 2015 IEEE/ACM 6th International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics, pp. 35–43. IEEE (2015).
  22. 22.
    Lavazza, L.A., del Bianco, V., Garavaglia, C.: Model-based functional size measurement. In: Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2008, Kaiserslautern, Germany, pp. 100–109. ACM, New York (2008).
  23. 23.
    Marín, B., Giachetti, G., Pastor, O.: Measurement of functional size in conceptual models: a survey of measurement procedures based on COSMIC. In: Dumke, R.R., Braungarten, R., Büren, G., Abran, A., Cuadrado-Gallego, J.J. (eds.) IWSM/Mensura/MetriKon -2008. LNCS, vol. 5338, pp. 170–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Özkan, B.: Automated functional size measurement for three-tier object relational mapping architectures. Coll. Econ. Anal. Ann. (43), 51–68 (2017).
  25. 25.
    Özkan, B., Demirörs, O.: Formalization studies in functional size measurement. In: Modern Software Engineering Concepts and Practices: Advanced Approaches, pp. 242–262. IGI Global (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Özkan, B., Demirors, O.: On the seven misconceptions about functional size measurement. In: IWSM-MENSURA, pp. 45–52. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Quesada-López, C., Jenkins, M.: Applying a verification protocol to evaluate the accuracy of functional size measurement procedures: an empirical approach. In: Abrahamsson, P., Corral, L., Oivo, M., Russo, B. (eds.) PROFES 2015. LNCS, vol. 9459, pp. 243–250. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Quesada-López, C., Jenkins, M.: Procedimientos de medición del tamaño funcional: un mapeo sistemático de literatura. In: Ibero-American Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 141–154 (2017)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Quesada-López, C., Jenkins, M., Salas, L.C., Gómez, J.C.: Fastworks FPA: Una herramienta para automatizar la medición del tamaño funcional. In: Simposio Argentino de Ingeniería de Software, pp. 48–57. Sociedad de Informática (2017)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Quesada-López, C., Jenkins, M., Salas, L.C., Gómez, J.C.: Towards an automated functional size measurement procedure: an industrial case study. In: IWSM-MENSURA, pp. 138–144. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Quesada-López, C., Madrigal-Sánchez, D., Jenkins, M.: An empirical evaluation of automated function points. In: Ibero-American Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 151–165 (2016)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Runeson, P., Höst, M., Rainer, A., Regnell, B.: Case study research in software engineering. In: Guidelines and Examples. Wiley Online Library (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sag, M., Tarhan, A.: Measuring cosmic software size from functional execution traces of Java business applications. In: IWSM-MENSURA, pp. 272–281. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Soubra, H., Abran, A., Ramdane-Cherif, A.: Verifying the accuracy of automation tools for the measurement of software with COSMIC-ISO 19761 including an AUTOSAR-based example and a case study. In: IWSM-MENSURA, pp. 23–31. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tarhan, A., Özkan, B., İçöz, G.: A proposal on requirements for cosmic FSM automation from source code. In: IWSM-MENSURA, pp. 195–200. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Uemura, T., Kusumoto, S., Inoue, K.: Function point measurement tool for UML design specification. In: International Software Metrics Symposium, pp. 62–69. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ungan, E., Hammond, C., Abran, A.: Automated cosmic measurement and requirement quality improvement through scopemaster® tool. In: IWSM-MENSURA (2018)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Živkovič, A., Rozman, I., Heričko, M.: Automated software size estimation based on function points using uml models. Inf. Softw. Technol. 47(13), 881–890 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Quesada-López
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexandra Martínez
    • 1
  • Marcelo Jenkins
    • 1
  • Luis Carlos Salas
    • 1
    • 2
  • Juan Carlos Gómez
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidad de Costa RicaSan JoséCosta Rica
  2. 2.Grupo Asesor en InformáticaSan JoséCosta Rica

Personalised recommendations