The document introduces a new method called Easy Functional Sizing (EFS) that aims to provide a simpler alternative to the more complex High Level Function Point Analysis method. EFS is designed to be aligned with modern development methods, have fewer debates around function point types, and be easy to learn. It maintains the same level of assessment as High Level FPA but only has 4 pages of definitions and rules organized into 3 components. Initial analysis shows EFS results are comparable to High Level FPA with less than a 2% difference on average. Feedback is requested from reviewers knowledgeable and not knowledgeable in FPA to test if EFS provides enough depth.

2. Agenda
▪ Reasons for a new method
▪ Starting points
▪ EFS Model
▪ Research Compatibility
▪ Call to action
| EASY FUNCTIONAL SIZING
Authors:
Alexander Vermeulen Frank Vogelezang
Jolijn Onvlee Martin Jacobs
Richard Sweer Vincent Barth
Wim Visser

3. Reasons for a new method
▪ Widespread use of High Level Function Point Analysis
▪ The FPA method according to Nesma 2.3 is perceived as complex
▪ Better alignment with modern development methods
▪ Less debate about the differences between EO and EQ and ELF
| EASY FUNCTIONAL SIZING

4. Starting points
▪ In line with the High Level Function Point Analysis
▪ Unit of measurement: function points
▪ Comparable to the outcome of a High Level Counting
▪ Based on ISO/IEC 24570:2018 — NESMA functional size measurement method —
Definitions and counting guidelines for the application of Function Point Analysis version 2.3
▪ Maintain the same level of assessment
▪ Easy to learn
▪ Ready for ISO –certification
▪ Existing tools remain usable.
| EASY FUNCTIONAL SIZING

5. EFS model
▪ Only 4 pages with definitions and rules
▪ 3 Components:
▪ And 3 pages with examples
| EASY FUNCTIONAL SIZING

6. Compatibility EFS with high-level FPA
First analysis:
82,391 FP (Nesma high-level)
83,327 FP (EFS)
1.14% weighted difference
3.95% maximum difference
75% of the analysis volume
deviates less than 1.46%
Dataset
82 analyses
smallest analysis: 49 FP
largest analysis: 18,741 FP
| EASY FUNCTIONAL SIZING

7. Call to Action
▪ Call for reviewers,
▪ preferably also people who have no knowledge of FPA.
▪ Further research: Does the method provide sufficient depth for
people with no knowledge of High Level FPA to consistently
determine the function types?
▪ Reactions to wgtel@nesma.org
▪ https://nesma.org/efs/
| EASY FUNCTIONAL SIZING