Project Tracking Using Functional Size Measurement - Total Metrics
Recommend Documents
a strategy phase, a mapping phase, and a measurement phase. ...... Montpellier, France, June 18-20 2008b, Z. Bellahsene, C. Woo, E. Hunt, X. Franch AND R.
Abstract. The non-functional requirements (NFRs) of software systems are well known to add a degree of uncertainty to the process of estimating the cost.
Software Measurement topics in SWEBOK – Prior work –– 3. .... applied the
Zelkowitz & Wallace taxonomy to a single SWEBOK KA: Software Construction (
2001 ...
early phases; that is, to the 'cone of uncertainty' phenomenon. [11] where the earlier the estimation, the larger the MRE as compared to the final results. Second ...
functional size estimation, reproducibility, and accuracy. Limitations: This is an ..... iable: the use of AFP versus FPA sizing a web application. A between-subject ...
[PDF]functional size measurement by KISS - CiteSeerXhttps://www.researchgate.net/.../Faster-and-more-accurate-functional-size-measuremen...Cachedby P Forselius - âCited by 5 - âRelated articlesAug 3, 2006 - It is more or less compatible with all
on the solution space (software product) to focusing on the problem space ( ... Architecture) approaches [35], which allow the generation of the applications by ... analysis model, and a design model), the rules to apply the procedure, the ... (2) to
with a Model-Driven Development (MDD) method is critical to software project managers for .... functional size of the piece of software that has been measured. ..... different class that is used in the condition formula of a transition that changes.
May/June 2009 IEEE SoftwarE. 71 focus 2. Although functional size measurement (FSM) methods give roughly similar results, they've been designed neither to ...
well-known FSM methods for the measurement of the functional size of a software system; the International. Function Point Users Group (IFPUG) Function Point.
Software Functional size measurement, Functional Size. Measurement Methods, Formalization, Software Models. 1. INTRODUCTION. Functional size is one ...
The objective of this paper is to test two hypotheses in the context of managing return on investment (ROI): (1) that a meaningful functional metric (FM) assigned ...
Updates from IFPUG on changes to the. CFPS and CPM. • Measurement Process
. Standard ISO 15939. Individual Highlights: CFPS Update. 1. Support Metrics.
Nov 1, 2012 - The first usage to KPIs was in 1961 in the companies by D. Ronald Daniel to ... making related to improvements (Enoma and Allen, 2007).
Arthroplasty System (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN) [4] was designed to address these cases by optimising guidance in femoral size measurement and flexion ...
Nov 2, 2011 ... versions of MS-Project up to 2003 and employed these techniques. ... example a
more verbose wording might read: Select the Tools menu, ...
Nov 2, 2011 ... Practical Microsoft Project for Project Planning and Tracking ..... used in the
images and diagrams in this guide was Microsoft Project 2003 –.
process and modern software development in order to ... acquisition and development capability maturity. ... submitted proposals have to be evaluated. It is clear ...
On the Ability of Functional Size Measurement Methods to Size Complex Software Applications. Luigi Lavazza Sandro Morasca Davide Tosi. Dipartimento di ...
Feb 23, 2011 - Guest editorial: Advances in functional size measurement and effort estimation â. Extended best papers. Measurement is essential in software ...
suitable for automation based on source code (IFPUG, Nesma,. COSMIC, commercial or ... Nesma and COSMIC to people in their mailing lists. Besides that,.
Others, such as Mark ... different in Mark II Function Points. Mark II. Function Points define a different set of .... Garmus and Herron [10] and Lokan [20] both note.
COSMIC Guideline for Early or Rapid Functional Size Measurement using .... Chapter 11 deals with approximate sizing of changes to software and with 'scope ...
Project Tracking Using Functional Size Measurement - Total Metrics
Functional Size. Measurement. ◇ISO/IEC approved methods for FSM : ➢ISO/IEC
20926 - IFPUG Function Point Method. ➢ISOIEC 20968 - MKII Function Point ...
Project Tracking Using Functional Size Measurement Presented by : Pam Morris TOTAL METRICS 7th Australian Management Performance Symposium Canberra February 2003
“Without objective data you are just another person with an opinion” Role 2 - 1
Agenda Functionality
Based Software Tracking Model ¾Product tracking model ¾Overview of Functional Size Measurement technique ¾Tracking Project Progress ¾Reporting Project Progress ¾Benefits and Limitations Role 2 - 2
Tracking Deliverables vs Tasks Process Based Tracking
INPUTS
PROJECT TASKS
Product Based Tracking
OUTPUTS
Process Based Tracking Measures
project progress by the completion of processes Project Work items tracked = tasks and activities Project Costs, Effort and Schedule are allocated to activities based on phased breakdown
Role 2 - 4
Product Based Tracking Measures
project progress by completeness of individual software product components Project work items tracked = functional requirements Work items may be equivalent to: ¾Functional modules ¾Requirements statements ¾Use Cases ¾Base Functional Components (as defined in ISO/IEC 14143-1) Role 2 - 5
ISO/IEC 14143-1 Functional Size Measurement Base
Functional Component (BFC)
“An
elementary unit of functional user requirements defined by and used by an FSM Method for measurement purposes.”
Functional User Requirements “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.” Role 2 - 6
“FSM Method: A specific implementation of FSM defined by a set of rules, which conforms to the mandatory features of this part of ISO/IEC 14143”
ISO/IEC approved methods for FSM : ¾ISO/IEC 20926 - IFPUG Function Point Method ¾ISOIEC 20968 - MKII Function Point Method ¾ISO IEC 19761 - COSMIC-FFP Functional Size Method
Role 2 - 7
Functional Size Based Tracking
Each
Base Functional Unit is measured for size in function points Project Effort is allocated to each Base Functional Unit based its functional size and the assigned productivity rate Tracking compares actual effort consumed for that BFC to earned effort based on function points completed Project scope changes can be quantitatively tracked and measured in function points impacted Project estimates can be made at functional requirements stage based on functional size Role 2 - 8
WHAT is Functional Size Measurement? ¾
ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC7 Standard #14143 -1 definition:
“Functional
Size : A size of software derived by quantifying the functional user requirements” Role 2 - 9
Origins of Functional Size Measurement Developed
late 1970’s by Alan Albrecht at IBM Needed a measure of size which was independent of language, tools, techniques and technology Size = functions delivered to the user Allowed comparative measures of productivity ISO standard 14143 :1998
Role 2 - 10
Characteristics of Functional Size Measurement
Measures Functional User Requirements external ‘User’ view applied any time in SDLC derived in terms understood by users derived without reference to: ¾ effort ¾ methods used ¾ physical or technical components Role 2 - 11
Information ENQUIRY Data INPUT Extracted on stored to Store as OUTPUT Data
Points are allocated to each Transaction and Data File based on the type and complexity of the function. Role 2 - 13
Steps in Product Tracking Decompose Product into Base Functional Components (IFPUG method groups BFCs by: ¾ Transactions ¾ Data Groups)
Measure Function Size of each BFC in function points (FPs) Determine Productivity Rate to deliver a function point Map Project Phase to Completeness Indicator Calculate Project Resource Estimates using FPs Predict total Effort Hours Predict total Elapsed time (duration) Predict total Costs
Assign Predicted Effort hours to each function Record Project Metrics Effort expended against each function Completion Status of each function
Report Completion status of Project
Role 2 - 14
1. Decompose Product Data Group BFCs
Transaction BFCs
2. Assign Points to each BFC Type Complexity
FSM Rules calculate Function Points based on Type and Complexity
BFC Size = 6 function points
2. Assign Points to each BFC
BFC Size = 3 function points
2. Assign Points to each BFC
BFC size = 7 function points
7
2. Determine Productivity Rate
Productivity rate = effort hours / function point of product delivered ¾ Use Industry based figures International Software Benchmarking Group (ISBSG) - Publicly Available Data based on Functional Size measurement ¾ Release 8, February 2003 ¾ >2000 projects ¾ >20 Countries ¾ Over 70 programming languages Role 2 - 19
Productivity Factors Team
Size Context Organisation
Development
Platform
Language,
Team
type, business area
DBMS, type of computer
Skills
¾ Reference “Soft” Factors and Software Productivity – Which Ones Matter Chris Lokan, University of NSW, 2002
Role 2 - 20
Typical Productivity Rates PDR
Platform Options
Microsoft Access Visual Basic Oracle Customised Package Java
= product delivery rate = hours per function point Median PDR hours / fp (ISBSG Release 7)
2.4 7.5
Π
Predicted Total Effort Hours
286 893
Π
Predicted Total Cost per fp (@ $120/hr
Predicted Total Cost
$288/fp
$34,272
$900/fp
$107,100
Π
10.3
1226
$1236/fp
$147,084
9.8
1166
$1176/fp
$139,944
2332
$2332.4/fp
$279,888
19.6
Ο
Ο
4. Map BFC Completeness to Phase Percentage Total Effort by Phase Implement 9%
Plan 6%
Test 17% Build 48%
Specifiy 20%
Plan Specifiy Build Test Implement
International Software Benchmarking Standards Group - ISBSG – The Software Metrics Compendium - 2002 Role 2 - 22
4. Map BFC Completeness to Phase
Function % completeness determined when BFC has completed each milestone.
Percent Complete for Each Stage 100% 100%
91%
Percent Complete
Function
90%
74%
80% 70%
Planned
60%
Specified
50%
Built
40%
Tested
26%
30%
Implemented
20% 10%
6%
0%
Project Stage
Role 2 - 23
5. Calculate Project Resource Estimates Productivity Rate = 2.4 hours / fp Size = 119 fps Maximum Team Size = 2 Effort Costs = $120 /hour Total Predicted Effort = 286 hours = (119*2.4) Cost rate = $288 / fp Total Predicted Cost = $34,272 Project Start Date = 1st March 2002 ++ Predicted End Date = 1st July 2002
Create Assignm ent Modify Assignment View / Print Assignment Detail Assign Contractor to Assignmnt Remove Contractor Assignmnt List Assignment Contractors Quotation Success List Assignments Date Range Create Assignment Type Modify Assignment Type Delete Assignment Type View Assignment Type List /Print Assignment Type
etc……………
Predicte d PDR (hrs/fp)
Com pleted Stage
Current Com pletion %
Function Points
Predicted Total Hours
Completed % Status of Function predicts Effort Consumed FP Predicted Actual Hours Hours Consum ed Consum ed
Actual Hours Rem aining
2.4 Specified 2.4 Specified
26% 26%
6
14.4
3.0
3.7
11.4
6
14.4
5.0
3.7
9.4
2.4 Specified
26%
3
7.2
5.0
1.9
2.2
2.4 Specified
26%
4
9.6
4.0
2.5
5.6
2.4 Specified
26%
3
7.2
7.0
1.9
0.2
2.4 Specified 2.4 Built
26% 74%
4 4
9.6 9.6
4.0 6.0
2.5 7.1
5.6 3.6
2.4 Built
74%
3
7.2
1.5
5.3
5.7
2.4 Built
74%
4
9.6
6.5
7.1
3.1
2.4 Built
74%
4
9.6
5.5
7.1
4.1
2.4 Specified
26%
3
7.2
1.5
1.9
5.7
2.4 Specified
26%
3
7.2
1.5
1.9
5.7
91%
3
7.2
4.7
6.6
2.5
285.6
105.9
139.5
178.2
2.4 Tested etc……
TOTAL
119
8. Progress Reporting 01-Mar-02 25-Apr-02
start today PDR
Week Number 8 Actual Original Plan
1.8
2.4
Actual Value Calculation based on: Hours consumed for FPs delivered FPs by Percentage completion
Function Points Delivered Effort Hours Consumed Effort Hours Remaining Weeks Remaining Due Completion Date
58.1 105.9 178.2 10.5 07-Jul-02
46.5 132.8 161.8
Recorded by team for work against a function Total hours predicted minus hours consumed Relationship between Effort and Duration
9.6 01-Jul-02 Predicted by Remaining hours
8. Progress Reporting start today
01-Mar-02 25-Apr-02
Week Number 8 Actual Original Plan
% Product Delivered
48.9%
% Effort Consumed
40.2%
%Schedule Consumed
45.1%
Π Π Ο
39.1%
48.9%
36.0%
Calculation based on:
%FPs Delivered of total compared to that predicted to be delivered for effort consumed %Effort Consumed of total compared to Effort predicted to be consumed for FPs delivered %Schedule Consumed of total compared to predicted to be consumed for the effort expended
Benefits
Internationally Standardised method of breaking User requirements into Base Functional Components Base Functional Components are individually objectively sized (not assumed to be all equivalent) Internationally standardised method of project sizing Publicly available Productivity data for estimating resources and schedules based on Functional size Formalises and facilitates auditable and objective ¾ Planning ¾ Estimating of schedule and effort ¾ Data collection ¾ Translation of effort to costs ¾ Monitoring of impact of Scope creep ¾ Reporting progress to client Early warning of project slippage Fits with southernSCOPE method contract management methodology Role 2 - 28
Limitations
Requires Skilled Resources to : ¾ Select appropriate FSM Method ¾ perform the FSM sizing ¾ assess productivity criteria and select appropriate PDR to selected functional areas Requires Committed staff to : ¾ accurately record effort against functions ¾ maintain BFC size as requirements change Difficulty in apportioning effort : ¾ to specific BFCs when working on ‘common use’ modules ¾ spent on “non-functional requirements” Need for tools to integrate functional sizing and project tracking Only trialled on smaller projects
