Function Point Estimation

PROJECT SIZING AND ESTIMATING EFFECTIVELY USING FUNCTIONAL MEASUREMENT
Southern California Software Process Improvement Network
www.davidconsultinggroup.com
Topics
The User Perspective Program Start-up Characteristics of an Effective Sizing Metric Use of Function Points Project Estimation Quantitative & Qualitative Assessments Establishing and Using Baseline Data Modeling Improved Performance
Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.
The User Perspective

How do we indicate the value of sizing to our users/customers? When we say that a project represents 50 Function Points from the 'users perspective, what does this really mean to the user? or to the developer? How do we engage both parties in understanding size?
Functional value delivered to the user/customer

Comparative analysis (size, cost per unit of work, defects)
Functional description and accountability (user) Management of delivery expectations Credibility in project estimation
Program Start-up
Planning
How will the information be used (objectives)? Who is counting? What is being counted? History versus industry?
Path of least resistance

Easy to count (transaction based) Agreeable user
Culture
Internal versus external Pilot/rollout versus organization-wide
Scope (what doesnt get counted) Continually evaluating the program

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc. 4
Costs/Required Resources, Start-up and Ongoing

Less than 1% of total budget (labor) Internal
Training (several days) Mentoring Frequency/ skill level User group knowledge sharing
External
Economies of scale Awareness & orientation Internal resources required
Positioned for Success

Other measures to be utilized Process improvement activities monitored and measured
When to Size
1
DEFINE
2
DESIGN BUILD TEST
3
IMPLEMENT
SIZING
SIZING
SIZING
1) Initial sizing during or after Requirements Phase 2) Subsequent sizing after System Design or when Change occurs 3) Final sizing after Install
Characteristics of an Effective Sizing Metric

Meaningful to developer and user/customer Defined (industry recognized)
Consistent (methodology)
Easy to learn and apply Accurate, statistically based
Available when needed (early)

Addresses project level information needs
Function Points - An Effective Sizing Metric

Function Point Analysis is a standardized method for measuring the functionality delivered to an end user.
Benefits: Quantitative (Objective) Measure Industry Data as Basis for Comparison Expectations (Perceived Customer Value) Managed Software Process Improvement Requirements Satisfied
Benefits of Using Function Points
A vehicle to estimate cost and resources required for software development, enhancements and/or maintenance A tool to quantify performance levels and to monitor progress made from software process improvement initiatives A tool to determine the benefit of an application to an organization by counting functions that specifically match requirements A tool to size or evaluate purchased application packages
9
Approach to Function Points
A function point count is performed to produce a functional size measure The size can be used to generate project estimates
Estimates should be based upon delivery rates
Analysis - plan versus actual comparisons

How good is the information received during requirements? How good (accurate) is project estimating?
10
Function Point Counting Process
Review the available documentation Meet with SME to gain a thorough understanding of the functionality Apply the function point methodology, and compute a functional size
Generate an estimate based on available delivery rates
11
The Function Point Methodology

Five key components are identified based on logical user view
Inputs Outputs Inquiries Internal Logical Files External Interface Files
Input
Inquiry
Output
Internal Logical Files External Interface File
Application
12
Logical View of User Requirements

Inquiries
USER LIST OF MOLDS USER WORK CENTERS VENDOR INFORMATION
Interface
VENDOR SUPPLY
PARTS PLANT MOLDS
Output
PARTS LISTING USER ORDER PARTS
Internal Logical Files

BILL OF MATERIALS
PLANT INFORMATION CENTER
Inputs
USER CHANGE BILL
13

Each identified component is assigned a Function Point size value based upon the make-up and complexity of the data Complexity
Components: Internal Logical File (ILF) External Interface File (EIF) External Input (EI) External Output (EO) External Inquiry (EQ) Low __ x 7 __ x 5 1 x3 __ __ x 4 __ x 3 Avg . __ x 10 __ x 7 __ x 4 __ x 5 __ x 4 High __ x 15 __ x 10 __ x 6 __ x 7 __ x 6 Total ___ ___ 3 ___ ___ ___ 3 ___
Total Unadjusted FPs
Data Relationships
Record Element Types or File Types Referenced
Data Elements (# of unique data fields)
Low Low Average
Low Average High
Average High High
14

14 Optional General Systems Characteristics are evaluated and used to compute a Value Adjustment Factor (VAF)
General System Characteristics

Data Communication Distributed Data Processing Performance Objectives Heavily Used Configuration Transaction Rate On-Line Data Entry End-User Efficiency On-Line Update Complex Processing Reusability Conversion & Install Ease Operational Ease Multiple-Site Use Facilitate Change
The final calculation is based upon the Unadjusted FP count X VAF

Function Point Calculation

Enhancement FPs as they relate to existing master count:
External Inputs (EI) (2) Add/Change Account; change; high complexity; total unadjusted FPs = 2 x 6 = 12 External Input (EI) Issue Material; change; high complexity; total unadjusted FPs = 1 x 6 = 6 External Input (EI) Add Tax; change; low complexity; total unadjusted FPs = 1 x 3 = 3
Total Unadjusted FPs: 21 Value Adjusted Factor: 1.01 Total Adjusted FPs: 21
16
Example Counting Accuracy

Estimate: Resulting size = 150 function points Matching profile, rate of delivery = 10 FP/EM Estimated effort = 15 effort months Actuals: Size 175 fps Effort 19 effort months Results +17% +27%
17
Example Scope Accuracy

Counting Activity Resulting Requirements size = Resulting Design size = Resulting Install size = FP 120 144 174
Analysis:
Inputs Outputs Inquiries Interfaces Files 75 10 15 7 13 80 25 17 7 15 95 40 17 7 15
Total 120 144 174

18
Project Estimation
DEFINITION
CAPABILITY
ESTIMATE
Schedule
REQUIREMENT
PROJECT SIZE
PROJECT COMPLEXITY
RISK FACTORS
Effort
Costs
FUNCTION POINT ANALYSIS
19
Capability Analysis
Collect project data
Project metrics (e.g., effort, size, cost, duration, defects) Project characteristics Project attributes (e.g., skill levels, tools, process, etc.) Project complexity variables
Analyze data
Performance comparisons (identification of process strengths and weaknesses) Industry averages and best practices Performance modeling (identify high impact areas)
20
DCG Data Base

Characteristics
Project Type Platform Data Base Method Language
Complexity Variables
Logical Algorithms Mathematical Algorithms Data Relationships Functional Size Reuse Code Structure Performance Memory Security Warranty
Metrics
Size Cost Effort Duration Defects Management Definition Design Build Test Environment
Attributes
Process Skill Levels Quality Practices Measures
21
Quantitative & Qualitative Assessments

Research
MEASURES CHARACTERISTICS
Software Size Level of Effort Time to Market Delivered Defects Cost
Skill Levels Automation Process Management User Involvement Environment
Analysis
PERFORMANCE LEVELS
PROFILES
Results
Correlate Performance Levels to Characteristics Substantiate Impact of Characteristics Identify Best Practices
22
Estimating Using Historical Delivery Rates
DEFINITION
CAPABILITY
ESTIMATE
Schedule
REQUIREMENT
PROJECT SIZE and COMPLEXITY
RATE OF DELIVERY
Effort
Costs
FUNCTION POINT SIZE
FUNCTION POINTS Per EFFORT MONTH
23
Analysis of Results
Analyze estimating accuracy
Plan vs. actual comparisons Effectiveness of delivery rates
Evaluate the system level documentation

Change in scope (size) through the various stages Clarity of requirements and design documents
Recommend improvements
Improve the level of documentation for more accurate sizing Establish a more effective estimating practice
24
Develop a Baseline of Data

Product Deliverable
C B
Performance
D D
Profiles Size Platform Language
Time to Deliver - Duration - Number of days Level of Effort Defects
SIZE
A B C D : 136 276 435 558 759
PROJECT MEASURES
PROFILES
10 mnths 35 effort mnths 10 defects
Rate of Delivery Time to Market Defect Density
25
Establish A Baseline
Size is expressed in terms of functionality delivered to the user Software
Size 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2 4
Performance Productivity
A representative selection of projects is measured
Organizational Baseline
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Rate of Delivery
Function Points per Person Month
Rate of delivery is a measure of productivity
26
Compare To Industry Benchmarks

Industry baseline performance
2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 Software 1200 Size 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 Rate of Delivery
Function Points per Person Month
27
Function Points Per Person Month

Average of Recent Projects Across Different Platforms Client Server Main Frame Web e-business Web Vendor Packages Data Warehouse 15 13 22 12 19 11
28
Function Points Supported By One FTE

Average of Support Provided for Corrective Maintenance by One FTE Client Server Main Frame AS 400 Web e-business Web Vendor Packages Data Warehouse 642 943 597 748 464 760 546
29
Analyze Results
COLLECT QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECT QUALITATIVE DATA
Collection
Size Effort Duration Cost Quality Measured Performance
Process Methods Skills Tools Management Capability Profiles
Analysis Results Action
Baseline Performance
Opportunities For Improvement Best Practices
30
Model Performance
Develop parametric models that utilize historical data points for purposes of analyzing the impact of selected process improvements Provide a knowledge base for improved decision making
Identify areas of high impact (e.g., productivity and quality

Create an atmosphere of measuring performance
Opportunity for comparison to industry best practices

Quantitative Performance Evaluation

Quantitative Assessment
COLLECT QUANTITATIVE DATA
Size Effort Duration Cost Quality Measured Performance
Perform functional sizing on all selected projects. Collect data on project level of effort, cost, duration and quality. Calculate productivity rates for each project, including functional size delivered per staff month, cost per functional size, time to market, and defects delivered.
Results
Baseline Productivity 133 10.7 6.9 $939 0.0301
Average Project Size Average FP/SM Average Time-To-Market (Months) Average Cost/FP Delivered Defects/FP
32
Qualitative Performance Evaluation

COLLECT QUALITATIVE DATA
Process Methods Skills Tools Management Capability Profiles
Qualitative Assessment Conduct Interviews with members of each project team. Collect Project Profile information. Develop Performance Profiles to display strengths and weaknesses among the selected projects.
Results
Project Nam e Profile Score Managem ent Definition Design Build Test Environm ent
Accounts Payable Priotity One HR Enhancements Client Accounts ABC Release Screen Redesign Customer Web Whole Life Regional - East Regional - West Cashflow Credit Automation NISE Help Desk Automation Formula One Upgrade
55.3 27.6 32.3 29.5 44.1 17.0 40.2 29.2 22.7 17.6 40.6 23.5 49.0 49.3 22.8
47.73 50.00 29.55 31.82 31.82 22.73 45.45 56.82 36.36 43.18 56.82 29.55 38.64 54.55 31.82
82.05 48.72 48.72 43.59 53.85 43.59 23.08 28.21 43.59 23.08 71.79 48.72 56.41 74.36 38.46
50.00 11.36 0.00 0.00 34.09 0.00 38.64 22.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.27 20.45 0.00
46.15 38.46 42.31 30.77 38.46 15.38 53.85 26.92 30.77 26.92 38.46 38.46 30.77 53.85 11.54
43.75 0.00 37.50 37.50 53.13 0.00 50.00 18.75 9.38 9.38 43.75 6.25 53.13 50.00 25.00
50.00 42.31 42.31 42.31 42.31 30.77 34.62 53.85 30.77 26.92 38.46 26.92 53.85 38.46 46.15
33
Modeled Improvements
55.3 27.6 32.3 29.5 44.1 17.0 40.2 29.2 22.7 17.6 40.6 23.5 49.0 49.3 22.8
47.73 50.00 29.55 31.82 31.82 22.73 45.45 56.82 36.36 43.18 56.82 29.55 38.64 54.55 31.82
82.05 48.72 48.72 43.59 53.85 43.59 23.08 28.21 43.59 23.08 71.79 48.72 56.41 74.36 38.46
50.00 11.36 0.00 0.00 34.09 0.00 38.64 22.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.27 20.45 0.00
46.15 38.46 42.31 30.77 38.46 15.38 53.85 26.92 30.77 26.92 38.46 38.46 30.77 53.85 11.54
43.75 0.00 37.50 37.50 53.13 0.00 50.00 18.75 9.38 9.38 43.75 6.25 53.13 50.00 25.00
50.00 42.31 42.31 42.31 42.31 30.77 34.62 53.85 30.77 26.92 38.46 26.92 53.85 38.46 46.15
Baseline Productivity 133 10.7 6.9 $939 0.0301
Process Improvements: Code Reviews and Inspections Requirements Management Defect Tracking Configuration Management
Performance Improvements: Productivity ~ +131% Time to Market ~ -49% Defect Ratio ~ -75%
75.3 57.6 52.3 69.5 74.1 67.0 59.2 50.2 57.7 52.6 67.6 60.5 79.0 79.3 52.8
61.73 57.00 32.55 53.82 55.82 43.73 49.45 49.82 59.36 55.18 66.82 41.55 68.64 64.55 49.82
82.05 55.72 51.72 65.59 69.85 63.59 27.08 32.21 49.59 30.08 71.79 78.72 76.41 74.36 52.46
60.00 18.36 23.00 12.00 49.09 21.00 58.64 27.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.27 47.45 0.00
60.15 45.46 42.31 50.77 52.46 36.38 53.85 31.92 30.77 33.92 49.46 50.46 65.77 63.85 31.54
53.75 22.00 57.50 67.50 63.13 20.00 54.00 24.75 9.38 19.38 53.75 26.25 53.13 54.00 25.00
50.00 49.31 49.31 49.31 49.31 51.77 49.62 53.85 50.77 26.92 49.46 46.92 53.85 58.46 56.15
Productivity Improvement 133 24.8 3.5 $467 0.0075
34
Conclusions
Project Management can be successful Requirements can be managed Projects can be sized Performance can be successfully estimated Process improvement can be modeled Measurement can be accomplished
35
Contact Information
David Consulting Group web site: www.davidconsultinggroup.com David Garmus dg@davidconsultinggroup.com
36
Contact Information
International Function Point Users Group (IFPUG) www.ifpug.org Practical Software and Systems Measurement (PSM) www.psmsc.com Software Engineering Institute (SEI) www.sei.cmu.edu Software Quality Engineering (SQE) www.sqe.com Quality Assurance Institute (QAI) www.qaiusa.com
37

Function Point Estimation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Function Point Estimation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

PROJECT SIZING AND ESTIMATING EFFECTIVELY USING FUNCTIONAL MEASUREMENT

Southern California Software Process Improvement Network

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

The User Perspective

Functional value delivered to the user/customer

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

Path of least resistance

Scope (what doesnt get counted) Continually evaluating the program

Costs/Required Resources, Start-up and Ongoing

Positioned for Success

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

Characteristics of an Effective Sizing Metric

Available when needed (early)

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

Function Points - An Effective Sizing Metric

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

Benefits of Using Function Points

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

Approach to Function Points

Analysis - plan versus actual comparisons

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

Function Point Counting Process

Generate an estimate based on available delivery rates

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

The Function Point Methodology

Internal Logical Files External Interface File

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

Logical View of User Requirements

PARTS PLANT MOLDS

Internal Logical Files

PLANT INFORMATION CENTER

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

The Function Point Methodology

Total Unadjusted FPs

Record Element Types or File Types Referenced

Data Elements (# of unique data fields)

Low Low Average

Low Average High

Average High High

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

The Function Point Methodology

General System Characteristics

The final calculation is based upon the Unadjusted FP count X VAF

Function Point Calculation

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

Example Counting Accuracy

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

Example Scope Accuracy

Total 120 144 174

FUNCTION POINT ANALYSIS

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

DCG Data Base

Process Skill Levels Quality Practices Measures

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

Quantitative & Qualitative Assessments

Software Size Level of Effort Time to Market Delivered Defects Cost

Skill Levels Automation Process Management User Involvement Environment

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.

Estimating Using Historical Delivery Rates

PROJECT SIZE and COMPLEXITY

FUNCTION POINT SIZE

FUNCTION POINTS Per EFFORT MONTH

Copyright 2005. The David Consulting Group, Inc.