A Study of an Automated Software Effort Measurement Method

  • Yeong-Seok SeoEmail author
  • Hyun-Soo Jang
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 931)


Software companies have adopted project management methodologies suitable for their organizations and have made significant efforts in successfully applying them to improve the quality of software. In particular, a technology that can measure and analyze software project data is essential for effective project management and productivity improvement. Of these software project data, software effort is the key metric to be measured, given its direct relation to process improvement and quality but also have general management interest. However, in practice, there have been many difficulties in actually measuring effort data because of problems in continuous and consistent measurement. Therefore, in this paper, we propose an automated software effort measurement method that can apply during the entire software development life cycle, to overcome these problems and to achieve improvement of effort measurement outcomes. Experiments are performed to evaluate the proposed method from the viewpoint of effort measurement accuracy. The results indicate that the proposed method shows a significant improvement compared to the existing methods.


Effort Measurement and analysis Software project management Software quality Software tools and environments 



This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2017R1C1B5018295).


  1. 1.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 10th edn. Pearson, Boston (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singh, J.: Functional Software Size Measurement Methodology with Effort Estimation and Performance Indication, 1st edn. Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press, Hoboken (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Humphrey, W.S.: PSP(sm): A Self-Improvement Process for Software Engineers, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Upper Saddle River (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blokdyk, G.: Personal Software Process: Best Practices Guide. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, USA (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Humphrey, W.S.: TSP: Leading a Development Team, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blokdyk, G.: Team software process: Fast Track. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, USA (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richter, J.: Programming Applications for Microsoft Windows. Microsoft Press, Redmond (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yosifovich, P., Russinovich, M.E., Solomon, D.A., Ionescu, A.: Windows Internals, 7th edn. Microsoft Press, Redmond (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Process Dashboard. Accessed 29 June 2018
  10. 10.
    Nasir, M.H.N.M., Yusof, A.M.: Automating a modified personal software process. Malays. J. Comput. Sci. 18(2), 11–27 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thisuk, S., Ramingwong, S.: WBPS: a new web based tool for personal software process. In: 11th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology, pp. 1–6. IEEE, Nakhon Ratchasima (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson, P.M., Kou, H., Paulding, M., Zhang, Q., Kagawa, A., Yamashita, T.: Improving software development management through software project telemetry. IEEE Softw. 22(4), 76–85 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fauzi, S.S.M., Nasir, M.H.N.M., Ramli, N., Sahibuddin, S.: Software Process Improvement and Management: Approaches and Tools for Practical Development, 1st edn. IGI Global, Hershey (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Artemev, V., et al.: An architecture for non-invasive software measurement. In: Petrenko, Alexander K., Voronkov, A. (eds.) PSI 2017. LNCS, vol. 10742, pp. 1–11. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hochstein, L., Basili, V.R., Zelkowitz, M.V., Hollingsworth, J.K., Carver, J.: Combining self-reported and automatic data to improve programming effort measurement. In: 10th European Software Engineering Conference Held Jointly with 13th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 356–365. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hochstein, L., Basili, V.R., Vishkin, U., Gilbert, J.: A pilot study to compare programming effort for two parallel programming models. J. Syst. Softw. 81(11), 1920–1930 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suthipornopas, P., et al.: Industry application of software development task measurement system: TaskPit. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. E100.D(3), 462–472 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chrissis, M.B., Konrad, M., Shrum, S.: CMMI for Development, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Amsterdam (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringYeungnam UniversityGyeongsanRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations