Analysis of COCOMO and UCP

  • Bhawna SharmaEmail author
  • Rajendra Purohit
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 799)


After an early requirement design, project managers mostly use the requirement specifications to get an estimate of functional size of software which helps in estimating effort required and tentative cost of the software. An accurate estimate is necessary to be able to negotiate price of a software project and to plan and schedule project activities. Function Point sizing method for estimation is used frequently to estimate functional size of software. Another popular method of functional sizing is Use Case Points (UCP). UCP method of estimation although less used than FP based estimation, but is simpler than FP based method. One reason for this is - FP sizing metric often uses COCOMO-II or other effort estimation method to convert size estimate in FPs into effort estimate where as direct conversion formula can be used for converting size in UCPs to effort estimate. This paper compares results of both approaches for two mid-size business applications and tries to understand the correlation between the results of two approaches.


Effort estimation FP (Function Point) UCP (Use Case Point) COCOMO (COnstructive COst MOdel) 


  1. 1.
    Albrecht, A.J.: Measuring application development productivity. In: Proceedings of IBM Applications Development Symposium, Monterey, CA, p. 83, 14–17 October 1979Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Function point counting Practices manual release 4.3.1, January 2010.
  3. 3.
    Boehm, B.W.: Software Engineering Economics. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1981)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boehm, B.W., et al.: Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice Hall PTR, Seitan (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karner, G.: Resource estimation for objectory projects. Objective Systems SF AB (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Laird, L.M., Brennan, M.C.: Software Measurement and Estimation: A Practical Approach. Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press, Boston (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Succi, G., Musilek, P., Sun, N., Pedrycz, W.: On the sensitivity of COCOMO II software cost estimation model. In: IEEE Symposium on Software Metrics (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Furey, S.: Why we should use function points. IEEE Softw. 14, 28–30 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abran, A., Robillard, P.N.: Function points analysis: an empirical study of its measurement processes. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 22, 895–910 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jeng, B., Yeh, D., Wang, D., Chu, S.L., Chen, C.M.: A specific effort estimation method using function point. J. Inf. Sci. Eng. 27(4), 1363–1376 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berg, K.V.D., Ton, D., Rogier, O.: Functional size measurement applied to UML-base user requirements. Retrievable from Accessed 2005
  13. 13.
    Kumari, S., Pushank, S.: Performance analysis of the software cost estimation methods: a review. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. Softw. Eng. 3(7), 229–238 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patil, L.V., Waghmode, R.M., Joshi, S.D., Khanna, V.: Generic model of software cost estimation: a hybrid approach. In: 2014 IEEE International Advance Computing Conference (IACC) , pp. 1379–1384 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CSEJIETJodhpurIndia

Personalised recommendations