Formalization Studies in Functional Size Measurement: How Do They Help?

  • Baris Ozkan
  • Onur Demirors
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5891)


Functional size has been favored as a software characteristic that can be measured early and independent of language, tools, techniques and technology; hence has many uses in software project management. It has been about three decades since Albrecht introduced the concept of functional size. However, Functional Size Measurement (FSM) has not been a common practice in the software community. The problems with FSM method structures and practices have been discussed to be the major factors to explain this situation. In this paper, we make a review of formalization proposals to the problems in Functional Size Measurement (FSM). We analyze the works included in the papers and we explore the extent of their contributions.


Software Functional Size Measurement Functional Size Measurement Methods Formalization Software Models 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Albrecht, A.J.: Measuring application development productivity. In: IBM Application Development Symposium, pp. 83–92 (1979)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO/IEC 19761:2003 COSMIC Full Function Points Measurement Manual v. 2.2Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO/IEC 20926:2003 Software Engineering - IFPUG 4.1 Unadjusted FSM Method - Counting Practices ManualGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO/IEC 20968:2002 Software Engineering - Mk II Function Point Analysis - Counting Practices ManualGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO/IEC 24570:2005 Software Engineering - NESMA Functional Size Measurement Method v.2.1 - Definitions and counting guidelines for the application of Function Point AnalysisGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/IEC 29881:2008 Information technology,Software and systems engineering, FiSMA 1.1 functional size measurement methodGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diab, H., Frappier, M., St-Denis, R.: A Formal Definition of Function Points for Automated Measurement of B Specifications. In: George, C.W., Miao, H. (eds.) ICFEM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2495, pp. 483–494. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frappier, M.: An Overview of Formal Specification Languages and their Adequacy for Formalizing the Definition of Function Points, Technical Report, Département de mathématiques et d’informatique, Université de SherbrookeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diab, H., Frappier, M., St-Denis, R.: Formalizing COSMIC-FFP Using ROOM. In: AICCSA 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miyawaki, T., Iijima, J., Ho, S.: Measuring function points from VDM-SL specifications. In: ICSSSM 2008, June 30 -July 2, pp. 1–6 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fetcke, T.: A generalized structure for function point analysis. In: IWSM 1999, pp. 1–11 (1999a)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fetcke, T., Abran, A., Dumke, R.: A Generalized Representation for Selected Functional Size Measurement Methods In Current Trends in Software Measurement. In: Dumke, R., Abran, A. (eds.) Shaker, pp. 1–25 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lamma, E., Mello, P., Riguzzi, F.: A system for measuring function points from an ER-DFD specification. The Computer Journal 47(3), 358–372 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gramantieri, F., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Riguzzi, F.: A system for measuring function points from specifications. Technical Report, DEIS-LIA-97-006 (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heričko, M., Rozman, I., Živkovič, A.: A formal representation of functional size measurement methods. J. Syst. Softw. 79(9), 1341–1358 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abran, A., Paton, K.: A Formal Notation for the Rules of Function Point Analysis. Research Report 247, University of Quebec, Montreal (April 1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Diab, H., Koukane, F., Frappier, M., St-Denis, R.: μCROSE: Automated Measurement of COS-MIC-FFP for Rational Rose Real Time. Information and Software Technology 47(3), 151–166 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Evariste Valéry Bévo Wandji, Lévesque, G., Jean Guy Meunier: Toward an ontological formalisation for a software functional size measurement method’s application process: The FPA case. In: RIVF 2004, pp. 113–118 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Evariste Valéry Bévo Wandji, Lévesque, G., Jean Guy Meunier: Toward an ontological formalisation for a software functional size measurement method’s application process: The COSMIC FFP case. In: IWSM 2003, pp. 113–118 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rask, R.: Algorithms for Counting Unadjusted Function points from Dataflow Diagrams, Research Report, University of Joensuu, Finland (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marín, B., Condori-Fernández, N., Pastor, O., Abran, A.: Measuring the Functional Size of Conceptual Models in an MDA Environment. In: CAiSE Forum 2008, pp. 33–36 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abrahão, S.M., Poels, G., Pastor, O.: A functional size measurement method for object-oriented conceptual schemas: design and evaluation issues. Software and System Modeling 5(1), 48–71 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fetcke, T., Abran, A., Nguyen, T.-H.: Mapping the OO-Jacobson Approach to Function Point Analysis. In: Lehner, F., Dumke, R., Abran, A. (eds.) Software Metrics: Research and Practice in Software Measurement, pp. 59–73 (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marín, B., Pastor, O., Giachetti, G.: Automating the Measurement of Functional Size of Conceptual Models in an MDA Environment. In: Jedlitschka, A., Salo, O. (eds.) PROFES 2008. LNCS, vol. 5089, pp. 215–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Condori-Fernández, N., Abrahão, S., Pastor, O.: On the estimation of the functional size of software from requirements specifications. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 22(3), 358–370 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Uemura, T., Kusumoto, S., Inoue, K.: Function Point Measurement Tool for UML Design Specification. In: METRICS 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ozkan, B., Türetken, O., Demirörs, O.: Software Functional Size: For Cost Estimation and More. In: EuroSPI 2008, pp. 59–69 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lother, M., Dumke, R.: Points Metrics - Comparison and Analysis. In: IWSM 2001, pp. 155–172 (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gencel, Ç., Demirörs, O.: Functional size measurement revisited. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 17(3) (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kitchenham, B.: The Problem with Function Points. IEEE Software 14(2), 29–31 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Poels, G.: Why Function Points Do Not Work: InSearch of New Software Measurement Strategies. Guide Share Europe Journal 1, 9–26 (1996)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kitchenham, B., Känsälä, K.: Inter–item correlations among function points. In: 1st Int. Metrics Symp., pp. 11–14Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Meli, R.: Functional metrics: problems and possible solutions. In: Proceedings of the FESMÁ 1998 (1998)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bevo, V.: Analyse et formalisation ontologiques des mesures associées aux méthodes de mesure de la taille fonctionnelle des logiciels: de nouvelles perspectives pour la mesure. Ph. D. thesis in Cognitive Infornatics, UQAM (2005)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Diab, H.: Formalisation et automatisation de la mesure des points de fonction. Ph.D. Thesis. Département d’informatique, Facult´e des sciences, Universié de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke (Québec) Canada (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rask, R., Laamanen, P., Lyyttinen, K.: Simulation and comparison of Albrecht’s function point and DeMarco’s function bang metrics in a CASE environment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 19(7), 661–671 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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 2008. LNCS, vol. 5338, pp. 170–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jacquet, J.-P., Abran, A.: From Software Metrics to Software Measurement Methods: A Process Model. In: ISESS 1997, pp. 128–135 (1997)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    IFPUG, Counting Practices Manual, Release 4.2, IFPUG, Princeton Junction, NJ (January 2004)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pastor, O., Ramos, I.: OASIS version 2 (2.2): A Class-Definition language to Model Information Systems, vol. 3rd edn. Valencia, Spain, Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad Politcnica 16de Valencia (1995)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Turetken, O., Demirors, O., Gencel, C., Ozcan Top, O., Ozkan, B.: The Effect of Entity Generalization on Software Functional Sizing. In: Jedlitschka, A., Salo, O. (eds.) PROFES 2008. LNCS, vol. 5089, pp. 105–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Türetken, O., Ozcan Top, O., Ozkan, B., Demirörs, O.: The Impact of Individual Assumptions on Functional Size Measurement. In: IWSM/Metrikon/Mensura 2008, pp. 155–169 (2008)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gencel, Ç., Demirörs, O.: Conceptual Differences Among Functional Size Measurement Methods. In: ESEM 2007, pp. 305–313 (2007)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    The Common Software Measurement International Consortium (COSMIC): Guideline for Sizing Business Applications Software Using COSMIC-FFP, Version 1.0 (2005)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Efe, P., Demirors, O., Gencel, C.: A Unified Model for Functional Size Measurement Methods. In: IWSM 2006, pp. 343–358 (2006)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Demirors, O., Gencel, C.: Conceptual Association of Functional Size Measurement Methods. IEEE Software 26(3), 71–78 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Baris Ozkan
    • 1
  • Onur Demirors
    • 1
  1. 1.Informatics InstituteMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations