the significance of ifpug base functionality types in effort estimation cigdem gencel
TRANSCRIPT
www.eng.it
An Empirical Study (Revised) The Significance of IFPUG Base Functionality Types in Effort
Estimation
25°International Workshop on Software Measurement
(IWSM) and 10th International Conference on
Software Process and Product Measurement
(MENSURA)
Krakow (Poland) - October 5-7, 2015
PIFs for Projects
(PifPro’15)
Luigi Buglione
Cigdem Gencel
www.eng.it
Engineering At a glance
www.eng.it
www.eng.it4 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
BFC Types Goals of the presentation
G1. Help project managers and estimators to obtain better estimates usingthe same historical data
G2. Propose a list of filtering criteria helping in obtaining betterhomogeneous 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 yourhistorical database, that help in consolidating CMMI ML2 goals and achievingfaster ML3 ones with better PALs (Process Asset Libraries)
G5. Stimulate improvements in your organization supporting more andmore experience by quantitative data depicting projects’ profiles
www.eng.it5 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
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
www.eng.it6 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Introduction Why profiling?
www.eng.it7 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Introduction A FSM History
Source: FSM webpage: http://www.semq.eu/leng/sizestfsm.htm
www.eng.it8 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Introduction Estimation Techniques
Source: Briand L., Wieczorek I., Resource Estimation in Software Engineering, ISERN Technical Report00-05, International Software Engineering Research Network, 2000, URL: http://isern.iese.de/moodle/
www.eng.it9 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
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 Evils3. The Quest for an Industry Standard Set of Measures4. Not Linking Measures to Behaviour; Failing to Realize that the
Measures Are the System5. Assuming that One Set of Measures Will Be Good for "All Time"6. Measuring the Wrong IT Output7. Measuring in Business Terms, but the Wrong Business Terms8. Failure to Quantify in Business Terms; Failure to Plan for Benefits9. Neglecting the Full Range of IT-Related Outcomes10. 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://goo.gl/YhRBos
www.eng.it10 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Introduction Estimation and SPI (CMMI-DEV, ML2)
MA – Measurement & Analysis PP – Project Planning
PMC – Project Monitoring & ControlREQM – Requirement Mgmt
SG1Establish
Estimates
SG2 Develop a
Project Plan
SG3 Obtain
Committment
to the Plan
MeasurementData
An agreed-to set of requirements
Planning Data
Project Plans
www.eng.it11 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Introduction Estimation and SPI (CMMI-DEV, ML3)
Senior Management
Project Mgmt, Support &
Engineering PAs
OT Org.
Training
OPF Org.
Process Focus
OPD Org.
Process
Definition Improvement Information (e.g. lessons learned, data, artifacts)
Process Improvement proposals; participation in definining, assessing, and
deploying processes
Resources and Coordination
Std processes and other assets
Training for projects and support groups in std process and assets
Organization’s business objectives
Std process, work
environment std, and other assets
www.eng.it12 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Introduction Estimation and SPI (CMMI-DEV, ML3 - OPD)
Create Org.
Process Assets
SP1.2 Establish lifecycle model
descriptions
SP1.3 Establish Tailoring Criteria &
GL
Make Supporting Process Assets
Available
SP1.4Establish
Org. Meas. Repository
SP1.5 Establish Org. PAL
SP1.6 Establish
Work Env. Std
Lifecycle models
Org. Standard Processes
Org. Measur. Repository
Org. Library of Process Doc
Tailoring Guidelines
SP1.1 Establish Standard Processes
www.eng.it13 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Source: Gencel C. & Buglione L., Do Different Functionality Types Affect the Relationship betweenSoftware Functional Size and Effort?, Proceedings of IWSM/MENSURA 2007, Palma de Mallorca (Spain),November 5-8 2007, pp. 235-246
)()()()()(_ 543210 EIFBILFBEQBEOBEIBBEffortNW
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
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!
Related Works Analysis on the use of single BFC types
www.eng.it14 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Related Works
Study/Year Obs Source FSMM Filters R2
w/CFPR2
w/BFCDiff. %
Buglione-Gencel (2008)
34ISBSG r10 COSMIC
v2+ DQR/NewDev 0.7639 0.8919 +16.7
30 ISBSG r10 COSMIC v2+
DQR/Enh 0.7086 0.8755 +23.6
Bajwa-Gencel (2009)
24 ISBSG r10 COSMIC v2+
DQR/ApplType (2)
0.29 0.78 +64.1
24 ISBSG r10 COSMIC v2+
DQR/ApplType (3)
0.29 0.86 +66.3
Ferrucci-Gravino-Buglione (2010)
15 Company’s data
COSMIC v2.2
Web-based portals (all)
0.824 0.875 +5.82
8 Company’s data
COSMIC v2.2
Web-based portals (subset
1)
0.910 0.966 +5.79
7 Company’s data
COSMIC v2.2
Web-based Inf. Utilities (subset
2)
0.792 0.831 +4.69
Analysis on the use of single BFC types
www.eng.it15 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
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%
www.eng.it16 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Empirical Study Data Collection (ISBSG r11, 2009)
Entity Attribute Definition
Product Count Approach The description of the technique that was usedto size the project (e.g. IFPUG, COSMIC, etc.)
Product Functional SizeThe count of unadjusted FP. The unit is basedon the measurement method that is used tomeasure 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. Forthose projects that have covered less than acomplete life cycle effort, this value is anestimate. For those projects covering the full lifecycle and those projects whose developmentlife cycle coverage is not known, this value andvalue 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 theorganisation being addressed by the project. Itmay be different to the organisation type or thesame. (e.g.: Manufacturing, Personnel,Finance).
Project Programming Language Type
The primary language used for thedevelopment: JAVA, C++, PL/1, Natural, Coboletc.
www.eng.it17 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Empirical Study Data Preparation
Step Attribute FilterProjectsExcluded
RemainingProjects
0 --- --- --- 5052
1 Count Approach = IFPUG 1,253 3,799
2 Data Quality Rating (DQR) = {A | B} 3,799 3,614
3Quality Rating for Unadjusted Function Points (UFP)
= {A | B} 3,614 2,879
4 BFC Types = {Not Empty} 1,482 1,397
Four subsets derived:
ID# projects
Dev Type
Application Type Bus. Type Prog.Lang.
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
www.eng.it18 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Empirical Study Statistical Analysis & Results - UFP
A typical elaboration (subset #3) only with UFP…
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 Statp-level
H0 (2%)rejected?
Intercept 2149.62 849.57 -102.01 4401.26 2.53 0.03 No
Total(IFPUG FP) 3.97 0.78 1.91 6.03 5.11 0.00 Yes
T (2%) 2.65
www.eng.it19 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
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
www.eng.it20 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Empirical Study Statistical Analysis & Results – BFC+
..and applying more BFCs (…next)
Coeff.StdError LCL UCL t Stat p-level
H0 (2%)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
www.eng.it21 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Empirical Study Statistical Analysis & Results
Subset # prjR2
w/Total FP
Is Total FP significant?
R2 w/FP for each BFC Type
Diff% (R2)
Which BFC Types are
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)
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%
% distribution of BFC types by value
Summary Data
www.eng.it22 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
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 improvesignificantly estimates, helping in saving resources to be reinvested in other projectactivities, anticipating also the achievement of ML3 concepts (e.g. PAL) functionalprofiles
Precondition: gather historical FSM data at that level of granularity …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 effortwithin the defined project scope
New issues ISBSG D&E r13 increased the number of projects to 6670, more fields (also for Agile
projects) Same analysis (and profiles) can be investigated for nfsu (e.g. using non-functional
models/techniques) for depicting non-functional profiles
www.eng.it23 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Lessons Learned...BFC Types
UR
L:
ww
w.d
ilbert
.com
www.eng.it24 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Q & A
Dziękuję za uwagę!
Thanks for your attention!
BFC Types
www.eng.it25 PifPro’15– Krakow, Oct 5 2015 – © 2015 L.Buglione, C.Gencel
Our Contact Data
CigdemGencelDeiser
Luigi Buglione
Engineering Ingegneria Informatica/[email protected]
BFC Types