The Significance of IFPUG in Effort Estimation Base Functionality Types

ISMA 5 – 5° IFPUG International Software
BLEKINGE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Measurement & Analysis Conference
Sao Paulo (Brazil), Sept. 13-15 2010

The Significance of IFPUG Base An Empirical Study
Functionality Types in Effort
Estimation
Luigi Buglione, Ph.D.
Buglione
Proc. Improv. & Measur. Specialist
Industry Business Unit
Engineering.IT
Cigdem Gencel, Ph.D.
Gencel
Assistant Professor
Systems & Software Department
Blekinge Institute of Technology
(BTH)
www.eng.it

Engineering At a glance

_ The first Italian ICT player
_ more than 730 M/€ revenues Research and PA & HC Finance Industry TELCO Utilities
Development
_ 1000 clients
_ 6,300 IT specialists System Int. &
Consultancy
% 46 70 54 80 80

Outsourcing % 35 10 27 10

Software
% 19 20 19 10 20

ERP IT Security ECM

Plant Management
Managed Operations Broadband & Media
System

www.eng.it

www.eng.it

BFC Types Goals of the presentation

 G1. Help project managers and estimators to obtain better estimates using
the same historical data
 G2. Propose a list of filtering criteria helping in obtaining better
homogeneous clusters for data analysis and process improvements
 G3. Identify and manage 'not visible' outliers in your own historical data
 G4. Go into a deeper detail when gathering more granular data in your
historical database, that help in consolidating CMMI ML2 goals and achieving
faster ML3 ones with better PALs (Process Asset Libraries)
 G5. Stimulate improvements in your organization supporting more and more
experience by quantitative data

3 ISMA5 – Sao Paulo, Sept. 14, 2010 – © 2010 L.Buglione, C.Gencel www.eng.it

BFC Types Agenda

• Introduction
– A FSM History
– Estimation Techniques
– Top 10 Measurement problems
– Estimation and SPI
• Related works
• Empirical Study
– Data Collection
– Data Preparation
– Statistical Analysis & Results
• Conclusions & Prospects
• Q&A


Introduction A FSM History

Source: FSM webpage: http://www.semq.eu/leng/sizestfsm.htm


Introduction Estimation Techniques

Source: Briand L., Wieczorek I., Resource Estimation in Software Engineering, ISERN
Technical Report 00-05, International Software Engineering Research Network, 2000, URL:
http://isern.iese.de/moodle/


Introduction Top-10 Problems in Measurement

1. Betting the Measurement Program on a Single Metric;
2. Trying to Find a Single Metric that Solves All Problems and Has No Evils
3. The Quest for an Industry Standard Set of Measures
4. Not Linking Measures to Behaviour; Failing to Realize that the
Measures Are the System
5. Assuming that One Set of Measures Will Be Good for "All Time"
6. Measuring the Wrong IT Output
7. Measuring in Business Terms, but the Wrong Business Terms
8. Failure to Quantify in Business Terms; Failure to Plan for Benefits
9. Neglecting the Full Range of IT-Related Outcomes
10. Lack of Commitment; Treating Measurement As a Non-Value-Added
Add-On
Source: Rubin H.A., The Top 10 Mistakes in IT Measurement, IT Metrics Strategies, Vol.II,
No.11, November 1996, URL:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030119070257/www.cutter.com/benchmark/1996toc.htm


Introduction Estimation and SPI (CMMI-DEV, ML2)

MA – Measurement & Analysis PP – Project Planning

SG1
Establish Planning Data
Estimates
Measurement
Data
SG2
Develop a Project Plans
Project Plan

An agreed-to set
of requirements SG3 Obtain
Committment
to the Plan

REQM – Requirement Mgmt PMC – Project Monitoring & Control


Introduction Estimation and SPI (CMMI-DEV, ML3)

n’s
izatio d
O rgan eeds an
Senior Management es s n es
proc bjectiv
o

Organization’s
business objectives Training for projects and support
OT Org. groups in std process and assets

Training
Tra
i nin
g ne
ed
s
Std processes and
other assets
Std process,
work
environment std,
OPF Org. OPD Org. and other assets Project Mgmt,
Process Process Support &
Focus Resources and
Coordination
Definition Improvement
Information (e.g.
Engineering PAs
lessons learned,
data, artifacts)

Process Improvement proposals;
participation in definining, assessing, and
deploying processes


Introduction Estimation and SPI (CMMI-DEV, ML3 - OPD)

Create Org. Make Supporting
Process Assets Process Assets
SP1.2 Available Lifecycle models
Establish
lifecycle
model
description
s
Org. Standard Processes
SP1.4
Establish
SP1.1 Org. Meas.
Establish Repository
Standard
Processes Org. Measur. Repository

SP1.3 SP1.5
Establish Establish
Tailoring Org. PAL Org. Library of Process Doc
Criteria &
GL

SP1.6
Establish Tailoring Guidelines
Work Env.
Std


Related Works Analysis on the use of single BFC types

Use more independent variables
• when using FSM methods, e.g. use combinations of 2+ BFC types
 IFPUG BFC (EI, EO, EQ, ILF, EIF)
 COSMIC BFC (E, X, R, W)
• Results: increased R2 using the same dataset

NW _ Effort = B0 + B1 ( EI ) + B2 ( EO) + B3 ( EQ) + B4 ( ILF ) + B5 ( EIF )
Preconditions
• Historicize project data at the proper level of granularity. E.g.
 FSU at the BFC type level (by frequencies and – eventually – weigthed values)
 Effort at the SLC phase and/or by ReqType and/or…
 Defects by severity/priority class and/or resolution time by phase, and/or…
• Skill people – not only estimators – a bit more on Statistics
• Use something more than averages!
Source: Gencel C. & Buglione L., Do Different Functionality Types Affect the Relationship
between Software Functional Size and Effort?, Proceedings of IWSM/MENSURA 2007, Palma
de Mallorca (Spain), November 5-8 2007, pp. 235-246


Related Works Analysis on the use of single BFC types

Study/Year Obs Source FSMM Filters R2 R2 Diff.
w/CFP w/BFC %
Buglione- 34 ISBSG r10 COSMIC DQR/NewDev 0.7639 0.8919 +16.7
Gencel v2+
(2008)
30 ISBSG r10 COSMIC DQR/Enh 0.7086 0.8755 +23.6
v2+
Bajwa- 24 ISBSG r10 COSMIC DQR/ApplType 0.29 0.78 +64.1
Gencel v2+ (2)
(2009)
24 ISBSG r10 COSMIC DQR/ApplType 0.29 0.86 +66.3
v2+ (3)
Ferrucci- 15 Company’s COSMIC Web-based 0.824 0.875 +5.82
Gravino- data v2.2 portals (all)
Buglione
(2010)
8 Company’s COSMIC Web-based 0.910 0.966 +5.79
data v2.2 portals (subset
1)
7 Company’s COSMIC Web-based Inf. 0.792 0.831 +4.69
data v2.2 Utilities (subset
2)


Empirical Study Data Collection (ISBSG r11, 2009)

FSMM No. Projects % of the
projects
IFPUG 3.799 75%
FISMA 496 10%
COSMIC 345 7%
Others (LOC, Dreger, etc.) 221 4%
NESMA 155 3%
Mark-II 36 1%
Total 5.052 100%


Empirical Study Data Collection (ISBSG r11, 2009)

Entity Attribute Definition
Product Count Approach The description of the technique that was used
to size the project (e.g. IFPUG, COSMIC, etc.)
Product Functional Size The count of unadjusted FP. The unit is based
on the measurement method that is used to
measure the functional size.
Product Application Type The type of the application (e.g. MIS).
Project Normalized Work Effort The effort used during the full life cycle. For
those projects that have covered less than a
complete life cycle effort, this value is an
estimate. For those projects covering the full life
cycle and those projects whose development life
cycle coverage is not known, this value and
value of summary work effort is same.

Project Development Type This field tells that whether the development is
new, enhanced or re-developed
Project Business Area Type This identifies the subset within the organisation
being addressed by the project. It may be
different to the organisation type or the same.
(e.g.: Manufacturing, Personnel, Finance).

Project Programming The primary language used for the
Language Type development: JAVA, C++, PL/1, Natural, Cobol
etc.


Empirical Study Data Preparation

Step Attribute Filter Projects Remaining
Excluded Projects
0 --- --- --- 5052
1 Count Approach = IFPUG 1,253 3,799
2 Data Quality Rating (DQR) = {A | B} 3,799 3,614
3 Quality Rating for Unadjusted = {A | B} 3,614 2,879
Function Points (UFP)
4 BFC Types = {Not Empty} 1,482 1,397

Four subsets derived:
ID # Dev Application Type Bus. Type Prog.Lang.
projects Type
1 37 NewDev Fin trans. Process/accounting Insurance All
2 14 NewDev Fin trans. Process/accounting Insurance COBOL
3 15 NewDev Fin trans. Process/accounting Insurance Visual Basic
4 16 NewDev Fin trans. Process/accounting Banking COBOL


Empirical Study Statistical Analysis & Results - UFP

A typical elaboration (subset #3) only with UFP…
#3
Linear Regression Statistics
R 0.817
R Square 0.667
Stand. Error 2911.091
Total Number Of Cases 15
ANOVA
d.f. SS MS F p-level
Regression 1. 220,988,529.59 220988529.59 26.08 0.00
Residual 13. 110,167,824.81 8474448.06

Total 14. 331,156,354.40
Coeff. Std Err LCL UCL t Stat p- H0 (2%)
level rejected?
Intercept 2149.62 849.57 -102.01 4401.26 2.53 0.03 No
Total 3.97 0.78 1.91 6.03 5.11 0.00 Yes
(IFPUG FP)
T (2%) 2.65


Empirical Study Statistical Analysis & Results – BFC+

..and applying more BFCs

Linear Regression Statistics
R 0.932
R Square 0.868
Stand. Error 2205.569
Total Number Of Cases 15
ANOVA
d.f. SS MS F p-level
Regression 5. 287375530.43 57475106.09 11.82 0.00
Residual 9. 43780823.97 4864536.00

Total 14. 331156354.40


Empirical Study Statistical Analysis & Results – BFC+

..and applying more BFCs (…next)

Coeff. Std LCL UCL t Stat p-level H0 (2%)
Error rejected?
Intercept 2076.14 878.79 -403.31 4555.59 2.36 0.04 No
EI -14.74 39.13 -125.16 95.67 -0.38 0.72 No
EO 4.67 36.98 -99.67 109.01 0.13 0.90 No
EQ 26.25 9.81 -1.44 53.93 2.67 0.03 Yes
ILF -24.26 12.58 -59.76 11.23 -1.93 0.09 No
EIF 34.85 14.23 -5.29 74.99 2.45 0.04 Yes
T (2%) 2.90


Empirical Study Statistical Analysis & Results
Summary Data
Subset # prj R2 Is Total FP R2 w/FP Diff% Which BFC
w/Total significant? for each (R2) Types are
FP BFC Type significant?
#1 37 0.290 Yes 0.369 +21% No
#2 14 0.057 No 0.838 +93% Yes (ILF)
#3 15 0.667 Yes 0.868 +23% Yes (EQ, EIF)
#4 16 0.720 Yes 0.893 +19% Yes (EO)

% distribution of BFC types by value
Data set # points EI EO EQ ILF EIF
Subset1 37 16.9% 24.6% 19.3% 21.7% 17.6%
Subset2 14 19.8% 39.0% 6.3% 14.4% 20.6%
Subset3 15 17.0% 21.6% 22.8% 23.4% 15.3%
Subset4 16 18.7% 31.0% 11.4% 27.7% 11.2%


BFC Types Conclusions & Perspectives
• FSM Methods
 Born with the goal to provide more objectivity in sizing FUR for a software
system
 The IFPUG method has the heritage of the Albrecht’s FPA and evolves it from
1986
 Current version is v4.3.1 (Jan 2010) and is also an ISO standard (20926:2009)
 Several methods have arisen and share common principles and background
(ISO 14143-x)
• BFC Types
 Each FSM method has a series of basic countable elements contributing to the
final fsu value, generically called by ISO “BFC”
 IFPUG FPA has 5 BFC: EI, EO, EQ, ILF, EIF
 Regression analysis with ANOVA
 Sizing & Estimation issues
 R2 values increased in 3 out of 4 cases (from +19% till +93%)
 Programming language (no set in subset #1) can impact in absolute terms on
predictability
 Some lessons learned
 Positive Effects: using that approach yet at lower maturity levels (e.g. ML2) can
improve significantly estimates, helping in saving resources to be reinvested in
other project activities, anticipating also the achievement of ML3 concepts (e.g.
PAL)
 Precondition: gather historical FSM data at that level of granularity
Precondition
 …let’s remember when estimating anyway that any fsu is a product size for
software FURs (and not a project size)  deal with NFR and their impact on the
overall project effort within the defined project scope

BFC Types Q&A

Obrigado pela sua atenção!
Thanks for your attention!

Thanks for your Attention !

We care of your problems and we have in mind a solution

Luigi Buglione Cigdem Gencel

Industry, Services & Infrastructures Blekinge Institute of Technology

Via R.Morandi 32 Tel. +39-06.8307.4472 SE-371 79 Karlskrona Tel. +46 -455-385736
00148 Roma Fax +39-06.8307.4200 Sweden Fax +46 -455 38 50 57
Cell. +39 -335.1214813

www.eng.it luigi.buglione@eng.it www.bth.se cigdem.gencel@bth.se


The Significance of IFPUG in Effort Estimation Base Functionality Types

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to The Significance of IFPUG in Effort Estimation Base Functionality Types

More from Luigi Buglione

The Significance of IFPUG in Effort Estimation Base Functionality Types