Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Upcoming SlideShare
×

# A process to improve the accuracy of mk ii fp to cosmic charles symons

318 views

Published on

Presentation from the IWSM Mensura 2015 conference held October 5-7 in Cracow, Poland

Published in: Software
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
Your message goes here

• Be the first to like this

### A process to improve the accuracy of mk ii fp to cosmic charles symons

1. 1. ‘A PROCESS TO IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF MKII FP TO COSMIC SIZE CONVERSION: INSIGHTS INTO THE COSMIC METHOD DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS IWSM/Mensura, Krakow, October 2015 Aveek Dasgupta (SITA), Cigdem Gencel (DEISER) Charles Symons (COSMIC)
2. 2. Objectives §  To present results of MkII to COSMIC functional size conversion by §  statistical analysis §  a calculation method with ‘functional profiling’ §  To suggest how these ideas might be applied for IFPUG to COSMIC size conversion §  To present some new insights into COSMIC method design assumptions
3. 3. Agenda §  Overview of MkII and COSMIC Functional Size Measurement (FSM) methods §  Data sources §  Statistical conversion of MkII to COSMIC sizes §  A calculation method for MkII to COSMIC sizes §  Conclusions
4. 4. The MkII and COSMIC FSM methods have a similar structure Functional User Requirements Functional Processes Data Movements •  Entries (≈  input) •  Reads + Writes (≈    Process) •  Exits (≈    Output) (account for data manipulation) 1 1 n 2 - n COSMIC FSM Functional User Requirements Logical Transactions 1 1 n MkII FPA 1 equivalent Input Process Output (account for data manipulation) 11 DET’s DET’sER’s 1-n1-n 1-n
5. 5. The methods have different rules for measuring Functional Size MkII Logical Transaction Size = 0.58 x (# Input DET’s) + 1.66 x (# Entity References) + 0.26 x (# Output DET’s) COSMIC Functional Process Size = # Entries + # Reads & Writes + # Exits Input Process Output Minimum: 2.5 MkII FP 2 CFP Maximum: (No limit)
6. 6. Some differences, some similarities MkII FP §  Weights of I/P/O components calibrated for development effort §  ‘Entity references’ are only for stored data §  Size of changes: measure changed # DET’s and ER’s COSMIC FSM §  No weights §  All data movement types (E, R, W, X) move data about ‘Objects of interest’ §  Size of changes: measure changed # E’s, R’s, W’s X’s
7. 7. Agenda §  Overview of MkII and COSMIC Functional Size Measurement (FSM) methods §  Data sources §  Statistical conversion of MkII to COSMIC sizes §  A calculation method for MkII to COSMIC sizes §  Conclusions
8. 8. We had 22 pairs of MkII & COSMIC size measurements from five organizations Org. Domain # Systems Size Range (CFP) A Control 4 251 – 3524 C Control 2 275 – 321 B Information 1 1029 D Information 2 1113 – 1947 S Information 13 148 – 1029 S = SITA (Société Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautiques)
9. 9. Agenda §  Overview of MkII and COSMIC Functional Size Measurement (FSM) methods §  Data sources §  Statistical conversion of MkII to COSMIC sizes §  A calculation method for MkII to COSMIC sizes §  Conclusions
10. 10. to COSMIC size conversion formula Ideally: §  Measure at least 10 software items, with a ‘common profile’ on both methods §  Plot pairs of (MkII, CFP) sizes and review outliers §  Fit a straight line and use this for converting MkII to CFP sizes In practice: §  Given the minimum size of a functional process is 2.5 MkII or 2.0 CFP, we fitted straight lines that are constrained to pass through the origin (0,0)
11. 11. A first plot of all 22 data points 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 MEASURED  CFP  SIZES MEASURED  MKII  SIZES A B C D S •  MkII/COSMIC sizes correlate well, in spite of multiple sources of data from two domains. •  Two outliers?
12. 12. The OLS* fitted lines for Control and Information systems are very similar y  =  0.8017x R²  =  0.999 y  =  0.7371x R²  =  0.9828 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 MEASURED  CFP  SIZE MEASURED  MKII  FP  SIZE Control  System Information  System Note: the slopes of both lines are close to 0.8 (=ratio of minimum CFP to MkII FP sizes) * OLS = Ordinary Least Squares
13. 13. In spite of a high R , an OLS-fitted line may not predict COSMIC sizes very accurately y  =  0.7605x R²  =  0.9957 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 COSMIC  FP  SIZE MKII  FP  SIZE COSMIC  VS  MKII  SIZE  FOR  13  SITA   INFORMATION  SYSTEMS Accuracy of COSMIC sizes predicted from the OLS-fitted line: Av. of absolute differences: 6% # under-sized items: 4 # over-sized items 9 3 x highest % differences: 28%, 13%, 7.8% A homogeneous dataset?
14. 14. have two fundamental weaknesses 1.  We can eliminate outliers from the sample used to establish the conversion formula, BUT how can we predict potential outliers amongst the other measurements to be converted? 2.  Converted sizes may have a low average error, BUT individual converted sizes may have very significant errors
15. 15. Agenda §  Overview of MkII and COSMIC Functional Size Measurement (FSM) methods §  Data sources §  Statistical conversion of MkII to COSMIC sizes §  A calculation method for MkII to COSMIC sizes §  Conclusions
16. 16. Two criteria for outlier rejection 1.  Discard data points in the sample well outside the upper size limit of most data points. They will contribute too much weight in OLS curve fitting 2.  Use a ‘profiling’ method to discard other outliers: §  on the sample sizes-to-be-converted to help form homogeneous datasets, §  that can also be used to predict potential outliers for the mass of sizes-to-be-converted
17. 17. We used an ‘IPO Profiling’ test for dataset homogeneity ‘IPO Profile’ = % contributions to total size of the Input/Process/Output components 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Input Process Output MkII COSMIC 13 x SITA Info Systems (Data from Orgs. B and D did not fit this profile) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Input Process Output MkII COSMIC 4 x Org. A Control Systems (Data from Org. C did not fit this profile)
18. 18. We could then decide on outliers intelligently. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 MEASURED  CFP  SIZES MEASURED  MKII  SIZES A B C D S Reject this point because it is an outlier on size and profile. We should really reject this point as an outlier on size. Reject Orgs. B, C and D points because different profiles
19. 19. Research idea: are there constant ratios between the sizes of the MkII and CFP I/P/O components? 1. Compute the following ratios from these sums for the whole set: AIDE = Average Input DET’s per Entry = (∑ Input DET’s) / ∑ E’s AODX = Average Output DET’s per Exit = (∑ Output DET’s) / ∑ X’s AERP = Average Entity Refs per (R + W) data movement = ∑ ER’s / (∑ R’s + ∑ W’s) 2. Compute the CFP size of each individual software item from: CFP = (∑ Input DET’s) / AIDE + (∑ Output DET’s) / AODX + (∑ ER’s) / AERP
20. 20. Apply the ‘Calculation method’ to the 13 SITA systems OLS-fitted line Calculation (1) Av. of absolute differences: 6.0% 6.7% # under-sized items: 4 6 # over-sized items 9 7 3 x highest % differences: 28% 18% 13% 11% 7.8% 11% Accuracy of COSMIC sizes predicted from:
21. 21. We then noticed that the values of IDE, ODX and ERP vary with MkII size y  =  -­‐0.0005x  +  3.962 y  =  -­‐0.0003x  +  3.4441 y  =  4E-­‐05x  +  0.7069 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 MKII  FP  SIZE IDE ODX ERP So (Calculation method 2): Let’s use the values of IDE, ODX and ERP computed from these OLS fits instead of the averages used in Calculation method 1
22. 22. The accuracy of predicted CFP sizes is much improved OLS-fitted line Calculation (1) Calculation (2) Av. of absolute differences: 6.0% 6.7% 3.8% # under-sized items: 4 6 6 # over-sized items 9 7 7 3 x highest % differences: 28% 18% 11% 13% 11% 8.9% 7.8% 11% 6.4% Accuracy of COSMIC sizes predicted from:
23. 23. We applied the same process to the four Org. D Control systems OLS-fitted line Calculation (1) Calculation (2) Av. of absolute differences: 9.7% 8.6% 6.6% # under-sized items: 1 2 2 # over-sized items 3 2 2 2 x highest % differences: 25% 17% 12% 11% 8.4% 9.9% Accuracy of COSMIC sizes predicted from: (This result obvious has low statistical significance)
24. 24. Agenda §  Overview of MkII and COSMIC Functional Size Measurement (FSM) methods §  Data sources §  Statistical conversion of MkII to COSMIC sizes §  A calculation method for MkII to COSMIC sizes §  Conclusions
25. 25. 1. Convertibility studies have focused too much on finding ‘one-conversion-formula-for- all’ §  One simple statistically-based formula to convert sizes measured by method A to method B sizes is unlikely to be very accurate for all individual software sizes. §  A better approach: §  Re-think the task as ‘define a process to predict method B total sizes from method A size measurement data’ §  Apply ‘functional profiling’ to: §  check homogeneity of the sample measurements used to establish the conversion process §  predict which individual method A sizes will be ‘outliers’. i.e. will be inaccurately converted by the chosen process
26. 26. 2. A ‘calculation method’ to predict COSMIC sizes from IFPUG size data is worth exploring If an organization has recorded the # DET’s and # FTR’s for each EP, then adapt the MkII to COSMIC calculated size conversion process: •  Measure the IFPUG and COSMIC sizes for several software items that are assumed to have a common functional profile •  Plot FP vs CFP total sizes; review for outliers •  For each EI, EO and EQ: •  allocate # DET’s to input and output •  assume # FTR’s are equivalent to # (R + W) •  Examine the ‘I/P/O functional profiles’ for the software items •  Compute AIDE, AODX and AERP •  Calculate CFP size of each individual software item
27. 27. 3. This study has given new insights into the COSMIC method design assumptions … A legitimate question: does it matter for practical performance measurement and estimating that the COSMIC method : §  ignores the number of DET’s on each data movement type? §  does not weight the data movement types (E, X, R, W) for relative development effort? (Both the IFPUG and MkII method take these factors into account.)
28. 28. …. 3. MkII vs. COSMIC size comparisons suggest the COSMIC method design is well- founded I/P/O size contributions are very similar Total MkII & COSMIC sizes correlate very well … in spite of the COSMIC sizes not accounting for DET’s and not being calibrated for development effort y  =  0.8017x R²  =  0.999 y  =  0.7371x R²  =  0.9828 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 MEASURED  CFP  SIZE MEASURED  MKII  FP  SIZE Control  System Information  System 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Input Process Output MkII COSMIC 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Input Process Output MkII COSMIC
29. 29. Thank you for your attention Charles Symons (www.cosmic-sizing.org) cr.symons@btinternet.com
30. 30. www.cosmic-sizing.org