International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications

Vol. 7, No. 2, March, 2013

7

A Fuzzy Logic Based Software Cost Estimation Model


Ziauddin
1
, Shahid Kamal
2
, Shafiullah khan
3
and Jamal Abdul Nasir
4

1
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Vehari, Pakistan
2
FSKSM , Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
3
Kohat University of Science & Technology, Kohat, Pakistan
4
ICIT, Gomal University, D.I.Khan, Pakistan
1
ziasahib@gmail.com,
2
skamaltipu@gmail.com,
3
skkust@hotmail.com,
4
jamal_icit@hotmail.com
Abstract
Software cost estimation is a challenging and onerous task. Estimation by analogy is one
of the expedient techniques in software effort estimation field. However, the methodology
utilized for the estimation of software effort by analogy is not able to handle the categorical
data in an explicit and precise manner. Early software estimation models are based on
regression analysis or mathematical derivations. Todays models are based on simulation,
neural network, genetic algorithm, soft computing, fuzzy logic modelling etc. This paper aims
to utilize a fuzzy logic model to improve the accuracy of software effort estimation. In this
approach fuzzy logic is used to fuzzify input parameters of COCOMO II model and the result
is defuzzified to get the resultant Effort. Triangular fuzzy numbers are used to represent the
linguistic terms in COCOMO II model. The results of this model are compared with
COCOMO II and Alaa Sheta Model. The proposed model yields better results in terms of
MMRE, PRED(n) and VAF.

Keywords: Fuzzy logic, Triangular Fuzzy Number, Membership function and Fuzziness,
Software Effort Estimation

1. Introduction
Estimating the work-effort and the schedule required to develop and/or maintain a software
system is one of the most critical activities in managing software projects. The task is known
as Software Cost Estimation [27]. During the development process cost and time estimates
are useful for the initial rough validation and monitoring of the projects progress; after
completion, these estimates may be useful for project productivity assessment for example.
There are different techniques used in software cost estimation:
Algorithm model, also called parametric model, is designed to provide some mathematical
equations to provide software estimation. LOC-based models are algorithm models such as [2,
6, 7, 8]. Ali Idri and Laila Kjjri [9] proposed the use of fuzzy sets in the COCOMO-81
models [8]. Musilek P. and others [18] proposed f-COCOMO model, using fuzzy sets. The
methodology of fuzzy sets giving rise to f-COCOMO [18] is sufficiently general to be applied
to other models of software cost estimation such as function point method [14]. W. Pedrycz
and others [19] found that the concept of information granularity and fuzzy sets, in particular,
plays an important role in making software cost estimation models more user friendly. Harish
Mittal and Pradeep Bhatia [17] used triangular fuzzy numbers for fuzzy logic sizing. Lima,
O.S.J. and Others [13] proposed the use of concepts and properties from fuzzy set theory to
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol. 7, No. 2, March, 2013


8

extend function point analysis to Fuzzy function point analysis, using trapezoid shaped fuzzy
numbers for the linguistic variables of function point analysis complexity matrixes.
In this paper we propose triangular fuzzy numbers to represent the linguistic variables. The
results can be optimised for the given application by varying fuzziness of the triangular fuzzy
numbers. To apply fuzzy logic first fuzzification is done using triangular fuzzy number,
Fuzzy output is then evaluated and estimation is done by defuzzification technique given in
this paper.

1.1. Fuzzy Logic
In 1965, Lofti Zadeh formally developed multi-value set theory, and introduced the term
fuzzy logic [5]. Fuzzy Logic (FL) starts with the concept of fuzzy set theory. It is a theory of
classes with un-sharp boundaries, and considered as an extension of the classical set theory.
The membership of an element x of a classical set A, as subset of the universe X, is defined
as follows:
A (x) = 1 if x A
A(x) = 0 if x A
A system based on FL has a direct relationship with fuzzy concepts (such as fuzzy sets,
linguistic variables, etc.) and fuzzy logic. The popular fuzzy logic systems can be categorised
into three types: Pure fuzzy logic systems, Takagi and Sugenos fuzzy system, and fuzzy
logic system with fuzzifier and defuzzifier . Since most of the engineering applications
produce crisp data as input and expects crisp data as output, the last type is the most widely
used type of fuzzy logic systems. Fuzzy logic system with fuzzifier and defuzzifier, first,
proposed by Mamdani and it has been successfully applied to a variety of industrial processes
and consumer products [16]. The main three steps of applying fuzzy logic to a model are:
Step 1: Fuzzification: It converts a crisp input to a fuzzy set
Step 2: Fuzzy Rule-Based System: Fuzzy logic systems use fuzzy IF-THEN rules.
Fuzzy Inference Engine: Once all crisp input values are fuzzified into their respective
linguistic values, the inference engine accesses the fuzzy rule base to derive linguistic values
for the intermediate and the output linguistic variables. Step 3: Defuzzification: It converts
fuzzy output into crisp output.
Use of fuzzy sets in logical expression is known as fuzzy logic. A fuzzy set is
characterized by a membership function, which associates with each point in the fuzzy set a
real number in the interval (0,1), called degree or grade of membership [3, 4, 20, 21]. The
membership function may be triangular, trapezoidal, parabolic etc. Fuzzy numbers are special
convex and normal fuzzy sets, usually with single modal value, representing uncertain
quantitative information.
A fuzzy number is a quantity whose value is imprecise, rather than exact as in the case of
ordinary single valued numbers [4, 9, 20, 21, 23]. Any fuzzy number can be thought of as a
function, called membership function, whose domain is specified, usually the set of real
numbers, and whose range is the span of positive numbers in the closed interval (0, 1). Each
numerical value of the domain is assigned a specific value and 0 represents the smallest
possible value of the membership function, while the largest possible value is 1. In many
respects fuzzy numbers depict the physical world more realistically than single valued
numbers. The curve in Figure 1a is a triangular fuzzy number, the curve in Figure 1b is a
trapezoidal fuzzy number, and the curve in Figure1c is bell shaped fuzzy number.

International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol. 7, No. 2, March, 2013


9


Figure 1. Fuzzy Membership Functions

A triangular fuzzy number (TFN) is described by a triplet ( ,m, ), where m is the modal
value, and are the right and left boundary respectively. Fuzziness of a TFN (, m,) is
defined as:
Fuzziness of TFN (F) =

, 0 < F< 1
The higher the value of fuzziness, the more fuzzy is TFN.

1.2. COCOMO II
The COCOMO I [7] model is a regression-based software cost estimation model, which
was developed by Boehm in 1981 and thought to be the most cited and the most plausible
model among all traditional cost estimation models. The COCOMO I was a stable model on
that time. One of the problems with the use of COCOMO I today is that it does not match the
development environment of the late 1990s. Therefore, in 1997, Boehm developed the
COCOMO II to solve most of the COCOMO I problems.
Figure 2 shows the process of software schedule, cost, and manpower estimation in the
COCOMO II. The COCOMO II includes several software attributes such as: 17 Effort
Multipliers (EMs), 5 Scale Factors (SFs), Software Size (SS), and Effort estimation that are
used in the Post Architecture Model of the COCOMO II.








Figure 2. COCOMO II Estimation Process
The formula for the process is given by:
ffort (P)=ASize
B
0.01 S
j

j=1

i
17
i=1

()

Personnel = Effort/Schedule

Where A=2.94; B=0.91; C=3.67; D=0.28
More details about the Model can be found in [7].
EMs (17)
SF (5)
SS (1)
Effort
Schedule
Personne
l

COCOMO II
Effort
Estimation
Model
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol. 7, No. 2, March, 2013


10

2. Proposed Model
Our model is established based on the COCOMO II and Fuzzy Logic. The COCOMO II
includes a set of input software attributes: 17 Effort Multipliers (EMs), 5 Scale Factors (SFs),
one Size in KDLOC (SZ) and one output, Effort. The architecture of the Model is shown in
Figure 3.













Figure 3. Fuzzy Logic Model for Software Effort Estimation

2.1. Inputs
There are three set of inputs
Size in KLOC
17 Effort Multipliers
5 Scale Factors
All these inputs are provided as crisp data. These inputs are directed to fuzzification module.

2.2. Fuzzification
This module is sub divided into three sub modules. SZ-Fuzzifications module converts the
Size input to the fuzzy variable, SF-Fuzzification module converts Scale Factors input to
fuzzy variables whereas EM- Fuzzification module converts the Effort Multiplier input to
Fuzzy variable.
The Terms Very Low, Low, Nominal, High, Very High and extra High have been defined
for each variable. We defined a fuzzy set for each linguistic value for Triangular Membership
Function.
A Triangular Membership Function (TMF) is a three-point function [8], defined by
minimum (),aximum () and modal (m) values, that is, T (, m, ), where ( m ).
We take each linguistic variables as a triangular Fuzzy numbers, TFN (, m, ), m, m.
The membership function ((x)) for which is defined as:

0, x
(x) = x- / m - , x m
-x / -m , m x
0, x

Where m is the mean of input sizes.
EMs (17)
SF (5)
SZ (1)
EM-Fuzzification
SF- Fuzzification
SZ- Fuzzification

Inference
Engine
Rule Base
Database
Defuzzification
EFFORT
Fuzzification
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol. 7, No. 2, March, 2013


11

The Fuzzy Set defined for Size is shown in Figure 4a. The Size range has been divided into
small intervals to get a better fuzzy number. Figure 4b represents Fuzzy Set for Scale Factor
RESL whereas Figure 4c represents Fuzzy Set for Effort Multiplier PERS. All the scale
factors and effort multipliers have scaling range from Very Low to Extra High.


Figure 4a. Fuzzy Set for SIZE



Figure 4b. Fuzzy Set for Risk Resolution (RESL)



Figure 4c. Fuzzy Set For Personnel Capability (PERS)

The Fuzzication Process converts the crisp data to linguistic variables which are passed to
Inference Engine.

International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol. 7, No. 2, March, 2013


12

2.3. Inference Engine
Inference engine operates on a set of fuzzy rules. The Fuzzy Model rules contain the
linguistic variables related to the project. We have implemented this model using FIS tool in
MATLAB. A sample of the rules is presented below:
if (PREC is VL) then (EFFORT is XH)
if(PREC is LO) then (EFFORT is VH)
if(FLEX is VL) then (EFFORT is XH)
The number of rules that have been used in the proposed model are 281.

2.4. Defuzzification
This module calculates and converts the fuzzy output into crisp data form. The
defuzzification has been performed using Centeroide Method. It has been used to calculate
the Centre of Gravity (COG) area under the curve as
COG =
()

()

3. Experimental Study
In order to carry out our experiments to evaluate the efficiency of our proposed model, we
have chosen 30 projects data, developed in local software house, ranging from Very Small to
Large. We have chosen two estimation methods, COCOMO II and Alaa Sheta [1a] estimation
method.
We have used following MMRE, PRED (L) and VAF as criteria for assessment of these
models.
The Mean Magnitude of Relative Error, MMRE, is probably the most widely used
evaluation criterion for assessing the performance of competing models. One purpose
of MMRE is to assist us to select the best model as it gives us accuracy prediction of the
competing models. MMRE is calculated as average of the Magnitude of Relative Errors
MREs of each estimate. The MRE and MMRE are calculated as:

MRE =

Variance Account For (VAF) is used in the context of statistical models whose main
purpose is the prediction of future outcomes on the basis of other related information. It is the
proportion of variability in a data set that is accounted for by the statistical model. It provides
a measure of how well future outcomes are likely to be predicted by the model. It is
calculated as:
VAF(%) = (
(

)
()
)

Where is the actual ffort and is the Calculated ffort.

International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol. 7, No. 2, March, 2013


13

Prediction PRED (L) is the probability of the model having relative Error less than or equal
to L. It is calculated:
PRED (L) = K / N
Where K is the number of Observations where MRE is less than or equal to L and N are total
number of observations.
Table 1 shows estimated efforts of all three models. It also shows MRE of all three models
for every estimate. Table 2 shows comparison of these models. The estimation results are
graphically shown in Figure 5, 6 and 7. Comparison of the model results in Table 2 shows
that the proposed model has better estimation accuracy as compared to other models having
7.512 MMRE with 98.77% likeliness to have the same ratio of MMRE if the model is tested
under different environment with different information. In order to further verify the
prediction we have analysed the results for 25%, 15%, 10% and 8% prediction. The results
show that the proposed model is 63.33% confident to have its average MRE, which shows the
stability of its estimates.
The stability of estimates of the proposed model can also be verified from Figure 5, 6, 7.
The Figure 7 shows that there are minute variations in actual and estimated calculations.

Table 1. Estimated Efforts and MREs of all Three Models
P.No Size Actual
COCOMO
II
Alaa
Sheta Proposed
MRE
COCOMO
MRE
Alaa
Sheta
MRE
Proposed
1 18 301 214 243 293 28.90365 19.2691 2.657807
2 50 1063 841 931 984 20.88429 12.41769 7.431797
3 40 605 601 453 537 0.661157 25.12397 11.23967
4 22 243 282 181 201 16.04938 25.5144 17.28395
5 13 141 128 95 127 9.219858 32.62411 9.929078
6 12 112 131 91 121 16.96429 18.75 8.035714
7 3 16 15 13 16 6.25 18.75 0
8 11 91 78 65 82 14.28571 28.57143 9.89011
9 42 781 751 634 722 3.841229 18.82202 7.554417
10 16 233 241 201 249 3.433476 13.73391 6.866953
11 21 334 304 289 318 8.982036 13.47305 4.790419
12 52 982 1043 756 890 6.211813 23.01426 9.368635
13 23 305 361 300 281 18.36066 1.639344 7.868852
14 27 421 459 398 401 9.026128 5.463183 4.750594
15 9 45 48 36 41 6.666667 20 8.888889
16 15 189 197 178 192 4.232804 5.820106 1.587302
17 4 17 19 14 17 11.76471 17.64706 0
18 6 22 23 19 22 4.545455 13.63636 0
19 2 8 8 7 8 0 12.5 0
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol. 7, No. 2, March, 2013


14

20 7 34 39 31 29 14.70588 8.823529 14.70588
21 13 84 97 72 79 15.47619 14.28571 5.952381
22 18 274 329 241 268 20.07299 12.0438 2.189781
23 24 403 398 365 379 1.240695 9.42928 5.955335
24 26 371 352 322 362 5.121294 13.20755 2.425876
25 61 1241 1459 871 1102 17.56648 29.81467 11.20064
26 29 677 605 561 638 10.63516 17.13442 5.760709
27 19 291 271 202 263 6.872852 30.58419 9.621993
28 10 110 128 94 119 16.36364 14.54545 8.181818
29 21 239 201 189 213 15.89958 20.9205 10.87866
30 12 145 168 156 189 15.86207 7.586207 30.34483


Table 2. Comparison of the Models
COCOMO
II
Alaa Sheta Proposed
MMRE 11.003% 16.838% 7.512%
VAF 95.86% 93.90% 98.77%
PRED(25) 93.33% 80% 96.33%
PRED(15) 63.33% 53.33% 93.33%
PRED(10) 50% 20% 80%
PRED(8) 40% 10% 63.33%



Figure 5. COCOMO II Vs Actual Calculation of Effort

International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol. 7, No. 2, March, 2013


15


Figure 6. Alaa Sheeta Vs Actual Calculation of Effort


Figure 7. Proposed Model Vs actual Calculation of Effort

4. Conclusion
In this paper, we have presented a Software Effort Estimation Model using Fuzzy Logic
Model. Triangular membership function has been used to generate linguistic fussy values.
One can easily develop the same model using trapezoidal or Gauss-Bell membership
functions. Similarly ther is still margin of improvement in fuzzification process. If
fuzziffication process is further optimized, it will certainly result in substantial reduction in
number of fuzzy rules implemented in inference engine.


International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol. 7, No. 2, March, 2013


16

References
[1] A. . Sheta, Estimation of the COCOMO Model Parameters Using Genetic Algorithms for NASA Software
Projects, Journal of Computer Science, vol. 2, no. 2, (2006), pp. 118-123.
[2] A. J. Albrecht, easuring application development productivity, SHAR/GUID IB Application
development Symposium.
[3] A. S. Andreou and E. Papatheocharous, Software Cost Estimation using uzzy Decision Trees, in 23rd
IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, (2008), pp. 371-374.
[4] I. Attarzadeh and S. Hockow, Improving the Accuracy of Software Cost Estimation Model Based on a New
Fuzzy Logic Model, World Applied Sciences Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, (2010), pp. 177-184.
[5] J. W. Bailey and Basili, A eta model for software development resource expenditure, Proc. Intl. Conf.
Software Engineering, (1981), pp. 107-115.
[6] V. R. Basili and K. Freburger, Programming easurement and stimation in the Software ngineering
Laboratory, Journal of System and Software, vol. 2, (1981), pp. 47-57.
[7] B. Boehm, Software Cost stimation with COCOO II, Prentice Hall, (2000).
[8] B. Boehm, Software ngineering Economics, nglewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, (1981).
[9] A. Idri, A. Abran and L. Kjiri, COCOO cost model using uzzy Logic, 7
th
International Conference on
Fuzzy Theory & Technology Atlantic, New Jersy, (2000).
[10] A. Idri, A. Abran and T. M. Khoshgoftaar, uzzy Analogy: A new Approach for Software Cost stimation,
11 Intemational Workshop in Software Measurements, Montreal, (2001) August 28-29, pp. 93-101.
[11] C. Jones, Programming Languages Table, Release 8.2, (1996) March.
[12] I. R. Khan, A. Alam and H. Anwar, Efficient Software Cost Estimation using Neuro-Fuzzy Technique,
National Conference on Recent Developments in Computing and its Applications, (2009), pp. 376-381.
[13] O. S. J. Lima, P. P. Farias and A. D. Belchor, A uzzy odel for Function Point Analysis to Development
and Enhancement Project Assessments, CLI J, vol. , no. 2, (2002).
[14] J. E. Matson, B. E. Barrett and J. M. ellichamp, Software Development Cost stimation Using unction
Points, I Trans. on Software Engineering, vol. 20, no. 4, (1994), pp. 275-287.
[15] E. Mendes and N. osley, Web Cost stimation: An Introduction, Web engineering: principles and
techniques, Ch 8, (2005).
[16] A. Mittal, K. Parkash and H. ittal, Software cost estimation using fuzzy logic, SIGSOT Software
Engineering Notes, vol. 35, no. 1, (2010), pp. 1-7.
[17] H. Mittal and P. Bhatia, Optimization Criterion for ffort stimation using uzzy Technique, CLI
Electronic Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, (2007), pp. 2.
[18] P. Muslek, W. Pedrycz, G. Succi and M. Reformat, Software Cost stimation with uzzy odels, ACM
SIGAPP Applied Computing Review, vol. 8, no. 2, (2000), pp. 24-29.
[19] W. Pedrycz, F. F. Peters and S. Ramanna, A uzzy Set Approach to Cost stimation of Software Projects,
Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering Shaw
Conference Center, Edmonton Alberta, Canada, (1999).
[20] P. V. G. D. Prasad Reddy, K. R. Sudha, P. Rama Sree and S. N. S. V. S. C. Ramesh, Fuzzy Based Approach
for Predicting Software Development ffort, International Journal of Software Engineering (IJSE), vol. 1,
no. 1, (2010), pp. 1-11.
[21] P. Reddy PVGD, Particle Swarm Optimization In The Fine Tuning Of Fuzzy Software Cost Estimation
Models, International Journal of Software Engineering (IJSE), vol. 1, no. 2, (2010), pp. 12-23.
[22] R. S. Pressman, Software ngineering; A Practitioner Approach, c Graw-Hill International Edition,
Sixth Edition, (2005).
[23] C. S. Reddy and K. Raju, An Improved Fuzzy Approach for COCOMO's Effort Estimation using Gaussian
embership unction, Journal of Software, vol. 4, no. 5, (2009), pp. 452459.
[24] C. Yau and R. H. L. Tsoi, Assessing the uzziness of General System Characteristics in stimating
Software Size, IEEE, (1994), pp. 189-193.
[25] L. A. Zadeh, rom Computing with numbers to computing with words-from manipulation of measurements
to manipulation of perceptions, Int. J. Appl. Math. Computer Sci., vol. 12, no. 3, (2002), pp. 307-324.
[26] L. A. Zadeh, uzzy Sets, Information and Control, vol. 8, (1965), pp. 338-353.
[27] Z. Zia, A. Rashid and K. U. Zaman, Software cost estimation for component based fourth-generation-
language software applications, IT Software, vol. 5, no. 1, (2011), pp. 103-110.
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol. 7, No. 2, March, 2013


17


Authors

Ziauddin
Dr. Ziauddin is working as Assistant Professor in COMSATS Institute
of Information Technology, Vehari. He has worked in Gomal University
for 22 years. He has published more than 15 research papers in reputed
International journals. His area of expertise is Software Engineering,
Software Process Improvement, Software Reliability Engineering,
Software Development Improvement, Software Quality Assurance and
Requirement Engineering. He is Gold Medalist from Peshawar
University in M.Sc Computer Science. He has Diploma in Computer
Forensics from School of Education, Indiana University USA.

Shahid Kamal
Shahid Kamal Tipu is working as Assistant Professor in Institute of
Computing & Information Technology, Gomal University, D.I.Khan
since 2000. Currently he is doing his Ph.D. in Malaysia. His area of
expertise is Information System Security and Software Quality. He has
published his research in reputed International Journals. He is a
renowned software engineer in local industry.


Shafiullah Khan
Dr. Shafiullah Khan is Assistant professor in Institute of Information
Technology, Kohat University of Science and Technology, Pakistan. He
has done his PhD from the School of Engineering and Design, Brunel
University, UK. His research mainly focuses on wireless broadband
network architecture, security and privacy, security threats and mitigating
techniques.


Jamal Abdul Nasir
Jamal Abdul Nasir is working as Assistant Professor in Institute of
Computing & Information Technology, Gomal University, D.I.Khan
since 1988. Currently he is doing his Ph.D. in CIIT, Islamabad. His area
of expertise is Data Mining and Artificial Intelligence. He has published
his research in reputed International Journals. He is a one of the pioneers
of Information technology in the country.





International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol. 7, No. 2, March, 2013


18