WSPM/SGPS 2008
                                            I° Workshop on Software Projects
                              ...
Goals of the Presentation:
                         Presentation
             G1. To look at the entities to be measured ...
Introduction
                     A picture of your project




» Q: which level of control (granularity) has your project...
G1. Entities to be measured
                   G1
                   IPO taxonomy




             Resources            Pr...
G1. Entities to be measured
                   G1
                   STAR taxonomy



                                    ...
G1. Entities to be measured
                G1
                Project & Product: another possible view


                ...
G1. Entities to be measured
                          G1
                          Project “entity”: possible dimensions o...
G1. Entities to be measured
                   G1
                   Proposal & Side-Effects



• Proposal
   Clearly sta...
G2. Enlarging the ISO/IEC 14143-1 req. taxonomy
                                G2
                                ISO/IEC...
G2. Enlarging the ISO/IEC 14143-1 req. taxonomy
                      G2
                      Implicit & Explicit Require...
G2. Enlarging the ISO/IEC 14143-1 req. taxonomy
                   G2
                   ISO/IEC 14143-1:2007: a possible ...
G2. Enlarging the ISO/IEC 14143-1 req. taxonomy
                  G2
                  Proposal & Side-Effects


• Proposa...
G3. From requirements to WBS
                   G3
                   Requirements, Processes, Tasks



• Project Manageme...
G3. From requirements to WBS
                      G3
                      Proposal & Side-Effects


• Proposal
   Consi...
G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition
                   G4
                   Current view & issues


• Common...
G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition
                      G4
                      Current view & issues



•...
G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition
                         G4
                         Current view & issue...
G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition
                      G4
                      Current view & issues



•...
G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition
                  G4
                  Proposal & Side-Effects


• Propos...
G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition
                     G4
                     Proposals: an example



Pro...
G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition
                       G4
                       Proposals: an example


...
G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition
                     G4
                     Proposals: an example



Pro...
Conclusions…



• A software system is one of the work products from a software
  project; the size units for each entity ...
…& Prospects



• Focus more on the measurement of non-functional perspectives
    i.e. IFPUG is going to propose by the ...
Q&A




              ¡Gracias por la atención!
                              atención
             Thanks for your attent...
LuigiBuglione                           Engineering.it S.p.A.
       t +39 06 83074472                           Via Ricca...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Some thoughts on Productivity in ICT Projects: measurable entities, requirements, possible impacts

915 views

Published on

WSPM/SGPS 2008 - Madrid, Sept 25 2008

Goals of the presentation:
* to look at the entities to be measured and to be related against stated information goals (project vs product)
* to enlarge the possible project\'s requirement taxonomy from ISO/IEC 14143-1
* from requirements to WBS: a process-oriented view
* some thoughts on the \'productivity\' definition

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
915
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
14
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
27
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Some thoughts on Productivity in ICT Projects: measurable entities, requirements, possible impacts

  1. 1. WSPM/SGPS 2008 I° Workshop on Software Projects Management Madrid, 25 de Septiembre 2008 Some thoughts on Productivity in ICT projects: measurable entities, requirements, possible impacts Luigi Buglione www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008
  2. 2. Goals of the Presentation: Presentation  G1. To look at the entities to be measured and to be related against stated information goals (project vs product)  G2. to enlarge the possible project’s requirement taxonomy from ISO/IEC 14143-1  G3. From requirements to WBS: a process-oriented view G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity definition Source: • L.Buglione, Some thoughts on Productivity in ICT projects, White Paper, version 1.2, March 2008, URL: www.geocities.com/lbu_measure/fpa/fsm-prod-120e.pdf www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 2
  3. 3. Introduction A picture of your project » Q: which level of control (granularity) has your project? (a) (b) or www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 3
  4. 4. G1. Entities to be measured G1 IPO taxonomy Resources Process Product Measurement www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 4
  5. 5. G1. Entities to be measured G1 STAR taxonomy Organization/ SBU Project Resources Process Product FSU Measurement www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 5
  6. 6. G1. Entities to be measured G1 Project & Product: another possible view Container (Project) Content (Product) www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 6
  7. 7. G1. Entities to be measured G1 Project “entity”: possible dimensions of analysis entity Functional Functional Technical Technical Project Quality Quality Other Other www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 7
  8. 8. G1. Entities to be measured G1 Proposal & Side-Effects • Proposal  Clearly state the entity to which a FSM unit refers (product) and to which dimension pertains (functional)  Insert in the ISBSG Glossary of Terms (v. 5.9.1) a definition for “Project Size” as a sub-item under the “Project” series of definition (currently there is only the “Software Size” definition)  Possible inputs: PMBOK 2004 • Side-Effects  Relate the “product (functional) size” to the project (functional effort) when determining the productivity rates  Currently there is no indication in the ISBSG data about the % of non- functional effort expressed by a project; it can be indirectly derived from a certain PDR value by filtering the database according to technology, programming language, etc… www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 8
  9. 9. G2. Enlarging the ISO/IEC 14143-1 req. taxonomy G2 ISO/IEC 14143-1:2007 “Functionality” char in ISO 9126-1 • Functional User Requirements (FUR): “a sub-set of the user requirements. The Functional User Requirements represent the user practices and procedures that the software must perform to fulfil the users’ needs. They exclude Quality Requirements and any Technical Requirements” • Quality Requirements: “any requirements relating to software quality as defined in ISO 9126:1991” • Technical Requirements: “requirements relating to the technology and environment, for the development, maintenance, support and execution of the software” Source: » ISO/IEC14143-1:2007, Information Technology-Software Measurement-Functional Size Measurement-Part 1: Definitions of Concepts: International Organization for Standardization, 2007 » IFPUG, Framework for Functional Sizing, Version 1.0, September 2003), International Function Point User Group, Westerville, Ohio, January 2004, URL: http://www.ifpug.org www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 9
  10. 10. G2. Enlarging the ISO/IEC 14143-1 req. taxonomy G2 Implicit & Explicit Requirements CMMI, PP: SP1.1 • Quality (ISO 9000:2005, §3.1.1): Degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfils requirements.  Note 2: “inherent”, as opposed to “assigned”, means existing in something, especially a permanent characteristic • Project (ISO 9000:2005, §3.4.3): unique process, consisting of a set of coordinated and controlled activities with start and finish dates, undertaken to achieve an objective conforming to specific requirements, including the constraints of time, cost and resources. www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 10
  11. 11. G2. Enlarging the ISO/IEC 14143-1 req. taxonomy G2 ISO/IEC 14143-1:2007: a possible fourth type O • O (Other req): implicit requirements often refers to other natures than F/Q/T. Typical processes to be considered could be the Organizational & Support processes, in the SPI process models view (i.e. CMMI/ISO 15504) www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 11
  12. 12. G2. Enlarging the ISO/IEC 14143-1 req. taxonomy G2 Proposal & Side-Effects • Proposal  Consider an enlarged view on ISO/IEC 14143-1 requirements taxonomy, because the whole project scope should be taken into account.  Analyzing a project classifying requirements by type would help to determine which processes and related tasks should be included or not into a functional count for determining (functional) productivity rates.  Simplifying, the Q/T/O parts can be referred as “NF” (non-functional)  Include these concepts and related definitions in the ISBSG Glossary of Terms (v.5.9.1)  Possible inputs: ISO 9000:2005, CMMI (PP, SP1.1), ISO/IEC 14143-1:2007 • Side-Effects  The effort from the “O” part is a non-functional one. It could be initially difficult to isolate such tasks and effort  One misleading concept in some ICT professionals is that a FSM unit measures the whole project www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 12
  13. 13. G3. From requirements to WBS G3 Requirements, Processes, Tasks • Project Management view on a project  From high-level req (HLR) to tasks into a WBS, through a series of refinements (RHRL). The “chain” would be: HRL  RHLR  (process)  task • Process grouping and effort classification  CMMI has four groups of processes: Project, Process, Support, Engineering)  ISO 15504 has five groups: Customer, Engineering, Management, Organizational, Support)  Rule of thumb: functional effort is mainly derived from Engineering processes, thumb excluding tasks related to Quality & Technical Requirements, as in ISO 14143-1, and also from the “Other” requirements. www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 13
  14. 14. G3. From requirements to WBS G3 Proposal & Side-Effects • Proposal  Consider in the analysis the nature of the processes from which a task in the WBS is derived: it will help in determining the nature of the task itself and, consequently, the nature of the effort (functional vs non-functional effort).  Possible inputs: SPI process models (CMMI, ISO 12207/15504, …) • Side-Effects  Possible discussions about the level of granularity for a task, when not too basic. In such case, a solution is to split a bigger task into two or more refined ones, clarifying the nature of each activity. Otherwise, from a PM- viewpoint, such tasks will be less checkable.  The reference point should be always the process classification applied in an organization, determining what does it mean “functional” and what not.  A generic “Testing” activity could include both functional testing and non-functional testing (i.e. performance tests), but the second one would not be in the scope of a functional counting and relating usages.  I.e., User Manuals refer to the SPICE’s SUP.1 process (Documentation) and the effort to produce it cannot be the expression of a FUR, as meant in ISO/IEC 14143-1 (when misleading the ‘product’ with the ‘project’ entities. www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 14
  15. 15. G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition G4 Current view & issues • Common definition of “Productivity”  The amount of output created per unit input used  Labour productivity is typically measured as output per labour-hour • “Productivity” and FSMM  In ICT project, a productivity figure is FSM unit / (project) work effort  An example:  Project type: SAP R/3 enhancement project  Application size: 980 FP  (project) effort: 1200 man-days (F:850m/d; Q:100; T:150; O:100)  Productivity = (FP / Effort) = (980 FP / 1200 m-d) = 0.82 FP/m-d • Some first-level observations  The upper part of the formula refers to a product size unit, valid for the functional viewpoint, while the lower part of the formula to the whole project.  What about the functional productivity?  If the effort distribution by type (F/Q/T/O or – at least – F vs NF) is not known, it could be difficult for a project manager to compare projects with potential different effort profiles, therefore not comparable for benchmarks  lower R2 in next estimations www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 15
  16. 16. G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition G4 Current view & issues • Q1: is the ratio (as currently applied) meaningful or not?  Overall productivity is underestimated (no “Quality | Technical points”) on the upper part of the formula to counterbalance the overall project effort on the lower part www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 16
  17. 17. G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition G4 Current view & issues • Q2: what about technical impacts for a project manager?  The current productivity value should be usable also for benchmarking projects with different distributions of the overall effort (among the F/Q/T/O parts)  If the effort referred to Q/T/O tasks will increase:  Planning issue: the number of FSM units will not increase, with a formal lower productivity value  Staffing issue:  other roles could be requested (i.e. SOA architects, usability expert, …) and with different costs on the project than traditional functional roles involved into the deployment of FURs.  A generic number of FTE (Full Time Equivalent) to be scheduled in terms of time and costs is only a first-level information to consider in a bid/RFP. www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 17
  18. 18. G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition G4 Current view & issues • Q3: what about the business impacts for a project manager?  (project) Cost / FP (product) is a economical figure used in many ICT contracts, heritage of the ’90s (yet included also in the first edition of IFPUG “Guidelines to Software Measurement” – 1992) Measurement  Two not homogeneous portions in the formula  The application of such derived measure for economic purposes could lead:  to do not recognized any economic value for non-functional (NF) tasks in a project or  to overestimate the economic value of a FSM unit in order to comprehend also the NF part of the software application under evaluation, but with a lower price (part of the Functional side) while they (F/NF) are simply two separated but integrated parts of a project  An indirect evidence from the Albrecht’s 1979-84 versions:  VAF’s GSCs reflect non-functional issues and…  …the number of GSCs grew up from 10 up to 14, increasing the VAF incidence from a ±25% to ±35% of UFP…  …but ISO yet excluded from 1998 unadjusted versions from current FSM methods www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 18
  19. 19. G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition G4 Proposal & Side-Effects • Proposal  Three possible applications of the productivity formula:  FSM (product) unit /(project effort), but gathering at least the split of project effort data into F vs NF effort  F/Q/T/O (product) unit /(F/Q/T/O effort): more productivity figures per effort type  (project) unit /(project effort): one overall productivity figures for the whole project, using a unique project size unit  Project Delivery Rate (PDR) is the inverse of productivity (Effort/FP); modify accordingly the ISBSG Glossary of Terms (v.5.9.1)  Insert the “median” definition into the ISBSG Glossary of Terms, stressing its relevance when dealing with size, effort and productivity values in the estimation process, whatever the technique adopted • Side-Effects  More projects with the same productivity level (even if from the same cluster of projects) could not necessarily represent homogeneous units to be considered for estimation purposes www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 19
  20. 20. G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition G4 Proposals: an example Proposal #1: FSM (product) unit /(project effort), but gathering at least the split of project effort data into F vs NF effort • Functional (product) size: 980 IFPUG FPs • (project) effort: 1200 man-days as follows: Req. Type Effort (m/d) Effort (%) F 850 70.8 Q 100 8.3 T 150 12.5 O 100 8.3 Total 1200 100.0 • Productivity: 980 FP / 1200 m-d = 0.82 FP/m-d • Functional productivity: 980 FP / 850 m-d = 1.15 FP / m-d www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 20
  21. 21. G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition G4 Proposals: an example Proposal #2: F/Q/T/O (product) unit /(F/Q/T/O effort): more productivity figures per effort type • Same hypothesis than before, but having other size units for the Q/T/O parts it will be possible to calculate separately other productivity figures in parallel  Q productivity, T productivity, O productivity Req. Type Effort (m/d) Effort (%) F 850 70.8 Q 100 8.3 T 150 12.5 O 100 8.3 Total 1200 100.0 • Advantages for planning (effort/cost; a tester does not cost and does not work the same worked time as a project manager) and scheduling (the right role for the right effort)  use both mean and median values www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 21
  22. 22. G4. Some thoughts on the Productivity Definition G4 Proposals: an example Proposal #3: (project) unit /(project effort): one overall productivity figures for the whole project, using a unique project size unit • Same hypothesis than before, but having a unique size unit for the whole project it will be possible to calculate a high-level, overall productivity figure, to use jointly with detailed figure • (project) size: 1450 project size units • (project) effort: 1200 man-days • Project productivity: 1450 project size units / 1200 m-d = 1.21 FP / m-d • Up to day, PMBOK introduces the ‘project size’ term but it is neither defined into in its glossary, nor any suggestion about specific applications/techniques • Issue to be investigated more (PSU – Project Size Unit - is a possible proposal) www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 22
  23. 23. Conclusions… • A software system is one of the work products from a software project; the size units for each entity should be properly used accordingly to the entity and a certain informative goal.  a FSU is a product, not a project size unit • FSM methods pertain only to the functional side of a software system and do not measure the whole system  productivity levels should discriminate the possible different parts composing a project  ISO/IEC 14143-1 proposed the F/Q/T requirements taxonomy; a fourth group can be added (“O”ther requirements), referring to those implicit but within the project scope • Look at the project as composed by several sizes…  The functional size is just one of these; other possible ones can be explored more and more in order to have the right picture on the reality to be represented • …producing therefore several possible productivity values  Having a bird’s-eye-view on the project and crossing the functional size with the other possible ones will help the project manager in executing a better and more granular control, simply having more info from the same base of project data www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 23
  24. 24. …& Prospects • Focus more on the measurement of non-functional perspectives  i.e. IFPUG is going to propose by the end of 2008 its proposal for “Technical Points”, with an overview presented last week in Washington at ISMA 2008  This proposal was done last year at ISBSG Workshop and main concepts could be included in the next “Practical Project Estimation” guide (3°ed.) in 2009. • Start to introduce a further effort data into project repositories  Split (even roughly) effort values into Functional Effort and Non-Functional Effort  It will help to have in your organization • Gather more evidences about this view…  If you have more evidences, please share them: the white paper “ Some thoughts on Productivity in ICT Projects” is a living document, updated periodically when new evidences are available and can be shared within the Software Engineering community, on forums and mailing list  A mailing list in Spanish is [calidaddelsoftware] • …producing therefore several possible productivity values  Now it’s time to refine our project data gathering at least on effort data, producing not only a ‘nominal’ productivity value, but also a separated ‘functional’ productivity value and use the two for better estimates www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 24
  25. 25. Q&A ¡Gracias por la atención! atención Thanks for your attention! attention www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008 25
  26. 26. LuigiBuglione Engineering.it S.p.A. t +39 06 83074472 Via Riccardo Morandi, 32 m +39 335 1214813 I-00148 Rome (Italy) luigi.buglione@eng.it www.eng-it.it www.eng.it WSPM/SGPS 2008 – Luigi Buglione © 2008

×