Advertisement

Applying a Verification Protocol to Evaluate the Accuracy of Functional Size Measurement Procedures: An Empirical Approach

  • Christian Quesada-LópezEmail author
  • Marcelo Jenkins
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9459)

Abstract

This paper presents a verification protocol for analyzing the source of inaccuracy in measurement activities of Function Points Analysis (FPA) and Automated Function Point (AFP). An empirical study was conducted with the protocol to determine the accuracy of FPA and AFP, and common differences during their application. The empirical study was conducted and differences between the measurement process regarding accuracy, reproducibility, and protocol adoption properties were reported. Effectiveness of the verification protocol to evaluate functional size measurement procedures was provided. The application of the protocol enabled participants to identify differences and their causes between counting results in a systematic way. Many participants had a favorable opinion regarding the usefulness of the protocol, and most of them agreed that the application of this protocol improved their understanding of measurement methods.

Keywords

Functional size measures Function point analysis Automated function points Accuracy verification protocol Empirical procedure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by VI at University of Costa Rica No. 834-B5-A18, and Ministry of Science, Technology & Telecommunications (MICITT).

References

  1. 1.
    Albrecht, A.J.: Measuring application development productivity. In: Proceedings of the Joint SHARE/GUIDE/IBM Application Development Symposium, vol. 10, pp. 83–92, October 1979Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO: ISO/IEC 20926, Software and systems engineering - Software measurement – IFPUG functional size measurement method (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garmus, D., Herron, D.: Function Point Analysis: Measurement Practices for Successful Software Projects. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Object Management Group, Automated Function Points (AFP) Version 1.0, January 2014, OMG Document Number: formal/2014-01-03, http://www.omg.org/spec/AFP
  5. 5.
    Ellafi, R., Meli, R.: A source code analysis-based function point estimation method integrated with a logic driven estimation method. In: SMEF 2006, Roma, Italy (May 2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sag, M.A., Tarhan, A.: Measuring COSMIC software size from functional execution traces of Java business applications. In: 2014 Joint Conference of the International Workshop on Software Measurement and the International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement (IWSM-MENSURA), pp. 272–281. IEEE, October 2014Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO: ISO/IEC 14143-1- Information Technology - Software measurement - Functional Size Measurement. Part 1: Definition of Concepts (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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: 2014 Joint Conference of the International Workshop on Software Measurement and the International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement (IWSM-MENSURA), pp. 23–31. IEEE, October 2014Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Özkan, B., Demirörs, O.: Formalization studies in functional size measurement. In: Modern Software Engineering Concepts and Practices: Advanced Approaches: Advanced Approaches, vol. 242 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abrahao, S., Poels, G., Pastor, O.: Assessing the reproducibility and accuracy of functional size measurement methods through experimentation. In: Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE 2004, pp. 189–198. IEEE, August 2004Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lavazza, L.: Automated function points: critical evaluation and discussion. In: 2015 IEEE/ACM 6th International on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics (WETSoM), pp. 35–43. IEEE, May 2015Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heller, R.: Automated function point counting–a fact based analysis. Q/P Management Group, Inc. www.qpmg.com/Library/confirm_download.php?id=49&pid=1
  13. 13.
    Jacquet, J.P., Abran, A.: From software metrics to software measurement methods: a process model. In: The Third IEEE International Software Engineering Standards Symposium and Forum, ISESS 1997, Emerging International Standards, pp. 128–135. IEEE, June 1997Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Total Metrics: Total metrics-levels of counting. Version 1.3, January 2004. http://www.totalmetrics.com/function-point-resources/downloads/Levels-of-Function-Point-Counting.pdf (2001)
  15. 15.
    Desharnais, J.M., Morris, P.: Post measurement validation procedure for function point counts. In: Position Paper Forum on Software Engineering Standards Issues, October 1996Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quesada-López, C., Jenkins, M.: An evaluation of functional size measurement methods. In: Paper Presented at the CIBSE 2015 - XVIII Ibero-American Conference on SE, pp. 151–165 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abrahao, S.M., Director-Lopez, O.P.: On the functional size measurement of object-oriented conceptual schemas: design and evaluation Issues, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia (Spain) (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Basili, V.R., Rombach, H.D.: The TAME project: Towards improvement-oriented software environments. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 14(6), 758–773 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Softw. Eng. 14(2), 131–164 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for ICT Research (CITIC)University of Costa RicaSan Pedro Montes de OcaCosta Rica

Personalised recommendations