Similar articles

Abstract: The use of functional size measurement (FSM) methods in software development organizations is growing during the years. Also, object oriented (OO) techniques have become quite a standard to design the software and, in particular, Use Cases is one of the most used techniques to specify functional requirements. Main FSM methods do not include specific rules to measure the software functionality from its use cases analysis. To deal with this issue some other methods like Kramer’s functional measurement method have been developed. Therefore, one of the main issues for those organizations willing to use OO functional measurement method in order to facilitate the use cases count procedure is how to convert their portfolio functional size from the previously adopted FSM method towards the new method. The objective of this research is to find a statistical relationship for converting the software functional size units measured by the International Function Point Users Group (IFPUG) function point analysis (FPA) method into Kramer-Smith’s use cases points (UCP) method and vice versa. Methodologies for a correct data gathering are proposed and results obtained are analyzed to draw the linear and non-linear equations for this correlation. Finally, a conversion factor and corresponding conversion intervals are given to establish the statistical relationship.

[1]Abrahao, S., Poels, G., Pastor, O., 2006. A functional size measurement method for object-oriented conceptual schemas: design and evaluation issues. J. Softw. Syst. Model., 5(1):48-71.

[2]Albrecht, A.J., 1979. Measuring application development productivity. Proc. Joint SHARE, GUIDE, and IBM Application Development Symp., p.83-92.

[3]Anda, B., Dreiem, H., Sjoberg, D.I.K., et al., 2001. Estimating software development effort based on use cases—experiences from industry. LNCS, 2185:487-502.

[4]Antoniol, G., Calzolari, F., Cristoforetti, L., et al., 1998. Adapting function points to object oriented information systems. Proc. 10th Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, p.59-76.

[5]Arnold, M., Pedross, P., 1998. Software size measurement and productivity rating in a large-scale software development department. Proc. 20th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, p.490-493.

[6]ASMA, 1994. Sizing in Object-Oriented Environments. Australian Software Metrics Association (ASMA), Victoria, Australia.

[7]Banker, R.D., Kauffman, R.J., Kumar, R., 1991. An empirical test of object-based output measurement metrics in a computer aided software engineering (CASE) environment. J. Manag. Inform. Syst., 8(3):127-150.

[8]Banker, R.D., Kauffman, R.J., Wright, C., et al., 1994. Automating output size and reuse metrics in a repository based computer aided software engineering (CASE) environment. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 20(3):169-187.

[9]Biddle, R., Noble, J., Tempero, E., 2002. Essential use cases and responsibility in object-oriented development. Proc. 25th Australasian Conf. on Computer Science, p.7-16.

[10]Caldiera, G., Antoniol, G., Fiutem, R., et al., 1998. Definition and experimental evaluation of function points for object-oriented systems. Proc. 5th Int. Software Metrics Symp., p.167-178.

[11]Clemmons, R.K., 2006. Project estimation with use case points. J. Def. Softw. Eng., 19(i2):18-22.

[12]Cohn, M., 2005. Estimating with use case points. Methods & Tools, 13(3):3-13.

[13]Condori-Fernandez, N., Abrahao, S., Pastor, O., 2004. Towards a functional size measure for object-oriented systems from requirements specifications. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Quality Software, p.94-101.

[14]COSMIC, 1997. COSMIC Measurement Manual version 1.0. Common Software Measurement International Consortium, Montreal, Canada.

[15]COSMIC, 1999. COSMIC Measurement Manual version 2.0. Common Software Measurement International Consortium, Montreal, Canada.

[16]COSMIC, 2001. COSMIC Measurement Manual version 2.1. Common Software Measurement International Consortium, Montreal, Canada.

[17]COSMIC, 2003. COSMIC Measurement Manual version 2.2. Common Software Measurement International Consortium, Montreal, Canada.

[18]COSMIC, 2007. COSMIC Measurement Manual version 3.0. Common Software Measurement International Consortium, Montreal, Canada.

[19]COSMIC, 2009. COSMIC Measurement Manual version 3.0.1. Common Software Measurement International Consortium, Montreal, Canada.

[20]Cuadrado-Gallego, J.J., Buglione, L., Dominguez-Alda, M.J., et al., 2010. An experimental study on the conversion between IFPUG and COSMIC functional size measurement units. Inform. Softw. Technol., 52(3):347-357.

[21]Damodaran, M., Washington, A.N.E., 2002. Estimation using use case points. Proc. ISECON.

[22]Efe, P., Demirors, O., Gencel, C., 2006. Mapping concepts of functional size measurement methods. In: Dumke, R., Abran, A. (Eds.), COSMIC Function Points: Theory and Advanced Practices. CRC Press, USA.

[23]Fetcke, T., Abran, A., Nguyen, T.H., 1997. Mapping the OO-Jacobson approach into function point analysis. Proc. Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, p.192-202.

[24]Fetcke, T., Abran, A., Nguyen, T.H., 1998. Function point analysis for the OO-Jacobson method: a mapping approach. Proc. FESMA, p.403-410.

[25]Gencel, C., Buglione, L., Demirors, O., et al., 2006. A case study on the evaluation of COSMIC-FFP and use case points. Proc. 3rd Software Measurement European Forum, p.121-140.

[26]Gupta, R., Gupta, S.K., 1996. Object Point Analysis. IFPUG Fall Conf.

[27]IFPUG, 1990. Function Points Counting Practices Manual 3.0. International Function Point User Group, Westerville, Ohio.

[28]IFPUG, 1994. Function Points Counting Practices Manual 4.0. International Function Point User Group, Westerville, Ohio.

[29]IFPUG, 1999. Function Points Counting Practices Manual 4.1. International Function Point User Group, Westerville, Ohio.

[30]IFPUG, 2000. Function Points Counting Practices Manual 4.1.1. International Function Point User Group, Westerville, Ohio.

[31]IFPUG, 2004. Function Points Counting Practices Manual 4.2. International Function Point User Group, Westerville, Ohio.

[32]IFPUG, 2010. Function Points Counting Practices Manual 4.3. International Function Point User Group, Westerville, Ohio.

[33]ISO/IEC, 2002. ISO/IEC 20968: Software Engineering Mk II Function Point Analysis - Counting Practices Manual. International Standardization Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

[34]ISO/IEC, 2003. ISO/IEC 19761: Software Engineering COSMIC: a Functional Size Measurement Method. International Standardization Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

[35]ISO/IEC, 2005. ISO/IEC 24750: Software Engineering - NESMA Functional Size Measurement Method, Definitions and Counting Guidelines for the Application of Function Point Analysis. International Standardization Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

[36]ISO/IEC, 2009. ISO/IEC 20926: Software and Systems Engineering - Software Measurement - IFPUG Functional Size Measurement Method. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

[37]ISO/IEC, 2010. ISO/IEC 29881: FiSMA 1.1 Functional Size Measurement Method. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

[38]Kammelar, J., 2000. A sizing approach for OO-environments. Proc. 4th Int. ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering.

[39]Karner, G., 1993. Resource Estimation for Objectory Projects. Objective Systems SF AB.

[40]Laranjeira, L.A., 1990. Software size estimation of object-oriented systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 16(5):510-522.

[41]Lehne, A., 1997. Experience report: function points counting of object oriented analysis and design based on the OOram method. Proc. Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications.

[42]Marin, B., Pastor, O., Abran, A., 2010. Towards an accurate functional size measurement procedure for conceptual models in an MDA environment. Data Knowl. Eng., 69(5):472-490.

[43]Minkiewicz, A., 2004. Use case sizing. 19th Int. Forum on COCOMO and Software Cost Modeling.

[44]Minkiewicz, A.F., 1999. Measuring object oriented software with predictive object points. Proc. Project Control for Software Quality.

[45]Nageswaran, S., 2001. Test effort estimation using use case points. Proc. Quality Week, p.1-6.

[46]NESMA, 1990. Definitions and Counting Guidelines for the Application of Function Points Analysis: a Practical Manual 1.0. Nederlandse Software Metrieken Associatie, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

[47]NESMA, 1995. Definitions and Counting Guidelines for the Application of Function Points Analysis: a Practical Manual 1.1. Nederlandse Software Metrieken Associatie, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

[48]NESMA, 2004. Definitions and Counting Guidelines for the Application of Function Points Analysis: a Practical Manual 2.0. Nederlandse Software Metrieken Associatie, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

[49]NESMA, 2005. Definitions and Counting Guidelines for the Application of Function Points Analysis: a Practical Manual 2.1. Nederlandse Software Metrieken Associatie, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

[50]NESMA, 2009. Definitions and Counting Guidelines for the Application of Function Points Analysis: a Practical Manual 2.2.1. Nederlandse Software Metrieken Associatie, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

[51]Ouwerkerk, J., Abran, A., 2006. An evaluation of the design of Use Case Points (UCP). Proc. Int. Conf. on Software Process and Product Measurement, p.83-97.

[52]Rains, E., 1991. Function points in an Ada object-oriented design. OOPS Messenger, 2(4):23-25.

[53]Ribu, K., 2001. Estimating Object-Oriented Software Projects with Use Cases. MS Thesis, University of Oslo, Norway.

[54]Smith, J., 1999. The Estimation of Effort Based on Use Cases. Rational Software White Paper, IBM.

[55]Svetinovic, D., Berry, D.M., Day, N.A., et al., 2007. Unified use case statecharts: case studies. Requir. Eng., 12(4):245-264.

[56]Symons, C.R., 1988. Function point analysis: difficulties and improvements. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 14(1):2-11.

[57]Symons, C., 2001. Come back function point analysis (modernized)—all is forgiven! Proc. 4th European Conf. on Software Measurement and ICT Control, p.413-426.

[58]Teologlou, G., 1999. Measuring OO software with predictive object points. Proc. 10th European Software Control and Metrics Conf.

[59]Uemura, T., Kusumoto, S., Inoue, K., 1999. Function point measurement tool for UML design specification. Proc. 6th Int. Software Metrics Symp., p.62-69.

[60]Whitmire, S.A., 1992. Applying function points to object-oriented software models. In: Keyes, J. (Ed.), Software Engineering Productivity Handbook. McGraw-Hill, p.229-244.

[61]Zhang, Y., Lin, Y., Wang, H., 2009. Study on object-oriented software metrics. Comput. Dig. Eng., 3:117-119.

[62]Zhao, H., Stockman, T., 1995. Software sizing for OO software development—object function point analysis. Proc. 2nd GSE Int. Conf. on Information Technology and Management, p.413-425.