Analysis of Software Development and Enhancement Projects Work Effort per Unit Based on the COSMIC Method with Regard to Technological Factors—Case Study

Beata Czarnacka-Chrobot

Institute of Information Technology and Digital Economy, Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland.

DOI: 10.4236/jsea.2013.611072                

Abstract

This paper aims to present a case study that consists in the analysis of work effort per unit of software systems Development and Enhancement Projects (D&EP) depending on technological factors. That analysis was commissioned by one of the largest public institutions in Poland. This is the COSMIC (Common Software Measurement International Consortium) function points method that is chosen by this institution as a point of reference for size of software systems developed/enhanced for supporting its functions and therefore this method is the base for the analysis of D&EP work effort per unit with regard to technological factors.

Keywords

Software Systems Development and Enhancement Projects; Work Effort per Unit; Functional Size Measurement; COSMIC Method; IFPUG Method

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	B. Czarnacka-Chrobot, “The Economic Importance of Business Software Systems Development and Enhancement Projects Functional Assessment,” International Journal on Advances in Systems and Measurements, Vol. 4, No. 1-2, 2011, pp. 135-146.
[2]	ISO/IEC 14143, “1998-2011 Information Technology—Software Measurement—Functional Size Measurement—Part 1-6,” ISO, Geneva.
[3]	B. Czarnacka-Chrobot, “The ISO/IEC Standards for the Software Processes and Products Measurement,” Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 199, 2009, pp. 187-200.
[4]	B. Czarnacka-Chrobot, “The Effectiveness of Business Software Systems Functional Size Measurement,” Proceedings of the 6th International Multi-Conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology (ICCGI 2011), Luxemburg City, Luxemburg, 2011, pp. 63-71.
[5]	ISO/IEC 20926, “2009 Software and Systems Engineering—Software Measurement—IFPUG Functional Size Measurement Method,” 2nd Edition, ISO, Geneva, 2009.
[6]	ISO/IEC 24570, “2005 Software Engineering—NESMA Functional Size Measurement Method Version 2.1. Definitions and Counting Guidelines for the Application of Function Point Analysis,” ISO, Geneva.
[7]	ISO/IEC 20968, “2002 Software engineering—Mk II Function Point Analysis—Counting Practices Manual,” ISO, Geneva.
[8]	ISO/IEC 19761, “2011 Software Engineering—COSMIC: A Functional Size Measurement Method,” 2nd Edition, ISO, Geneva.
[9]	ISO/IEC 29881, “2008 Information Technology—Software and Systems Engineering—FiSMA 1.1 Functional Size Measurement Method,” ISO, Geneva.
[10]	C. Jones, “Sources of Software Benchmarks, Version 13,” Capers Jones & Associates LLC., Narragansett, 2011.
[11]	B. Czarnacka-Chrobot, “The Role of Benchmarking Data in the Software Development and Enhancement Projects Effort Planning,” Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 199, 2009, pp. 106-127.
[12]	ISO/IEC 15939, “2007 Systems and Software Engineering—Measurement Process,” ISO, Geneva.
[13]	International Software Benchmarking Standards Group, “Data Demographics-Release 11,” ISBSG, Hawthorn, VIC, 2009.
[14]	International Software Benchmarking Standards Group, “Release 10 Repository Demographics,” ISBSG, Hawthorn, VIC, 2007.
[15]	H. Heeringen and Ch. Symons, “The Performance of Business Application, Real-Time and Component Software Projects. An Analysis of COSMIC-Measured Projects in the ISBSG Database, COSMIC and ISBSG,” 2012.
[16]	B. Czarnacka-Chrobot, “(Dis)economies of Scale in Business Software Systems Development and Enhancement Projects,” Computer Technology and Application, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2012, pp. 88-97.
[17]	Common Software Measurement International Consortium, “The COSMIC Functional Size Measurement Method, Version 3.0, Advanced and Related Topics,” COSMIC, Québec, 2007.
[18]	International Function Point Users Group, “Function Point Counting Practices Manual, Release 4.3, Part 0-5,” IFPUG, NJ, 2010.
[19]	J. Cuadrado-Gallego, D. Rodríguez, F. Machado and A. Abran, “Convertibility between IFPUG and COSMIC Functional Size Measurements,” Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Product-Focussed Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2007), Riga, 2-4 July 2007, pp. 273-283.
[20]	B. Czarnacka-Chrobot, “Functional Measurement of Management Software Systems Development and Enhancement Projects,” Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, 2009.
[21]	G. Xunmei, S. Guoxin and Z. Hong, “The Comparison between FPA and COSMIC-FFP,” Proceedings of Software Measurement European Forum (SMEF) Conference, Rome, 10-12 May 2006, pp. 113-114.
[22]	H. Heeringen, “Changing from FPA to COSMIC. A Transition Framework,” Proceedings of Software Measurement European Forum (SMEF) Conference, Rome, 9-11 May 2007.
[23]	Common Software Measurement International Consortium (COSMIC), 2013. http://www.cosmicon. com/advantagecs.asp
[24]	J. Cuadrado-Gallego, L. Buglione, M. Domínguez-Alda, M. de Sevilla, J. Gutierrez de Mesa and O. Demirors, An “Experimental Study on the Conversion between IFPUG and COSMIC Functional Size Measurement Units,” Information and Software Technology, Vol. 52, No. 3, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.12.001
[25]	J. Cuadrado-Gallego, L. Buglione, R. Rejas-Muslera and F. Machado-Piriz, “IFPUG-COSMIC Statistical Conversion,” Proceedings of the 34th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering, Parma, 1-5 September 2008.
[26]	C. Gencel and C. Bideau, “Exploring the Convertibility between IFPUG and COSMIC Function Points: Preliminary Findings,” Proceedings of Joint Conference of the 22nd International Workshop on Software Measurement and the 7th International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement, Assisi, 17-19 October 2012.
[27]	C. Jones, “Estimation Software Costs,” McGraw Hill, New York, 2007.