Advertisement

Activity-Based Software Estimation using Work Break down Structure

  • M.J Basavaraj
  • K.C Shet
Conference paper

Abstract

Software Cost estimation at activity level is very much accurate than macro estimation with respect to phases of software development life cycle, but the same is very difficult to achieve[1]. Activity based estimation focus on key activities should not be left out and if any effort variance occurs it will be possible to track at particular activity level rather than affecting the entire activities[1]. Activity-based Software estimation based on work break down structure has been explained by collecting and analyzing the data for 12 Enhancements from Application service Maintenance project which were already delivered. This paper explains how to arrive accurate estimation at different micro level activities of Software Development Life Cycle(SDLC).

Keywords

Quality Assurance Control Chart Actual Effort Config Management Line Chart 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Capers Jones, “Estimating Software Costs”, Tata McGraw Hill, Edition 2005Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Marc I. Kellner, Raymond J Madachy and David M. Raffo,” Software Process Simulation Modelling : Why ? What? How? ”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 46, No. 2/3 (15 April 1999)Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Kathlen Peters, “Software Project Estimation”Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Capers Jones, Assuring Productivity and Quality Applied Software MeasurementsGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Emilia Mendes, Nile Mosely, Steve Counsell, Early Web Size Measures and Effort Prediction for Web Costimation_take Early Web Size Measures and Effort Prediction for Web Costimation_take”, Proceedings of the Ninth International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS’03), 2003 IEEEGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Luciana barsei, Sandrao Morasca, and Paolo Paolini, ” Estimating the Design Effort of Web Applications”, Proceedings of the Ninth International Software Metrics, Symposium(METRICS’03),2003 IEEEGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Silvia Abrahao, Geo Poels and Oscar pastor, ” Evaluating a Functional Size Measurement Method for Web Applications: An Empirical Analysis”, Proceedings of the 10th International ”, Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Software Metrics (METRICS’04),IEEEGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    http://sern.ucalgary.ca/courses/seng/621/W98/johnsonk/cost.htmGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    http://www.geocities.com/shiv_koirala/fp/fp.htmGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Function Points Counting Practices Manual Release 4.1.1, IFPUGGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. Brian Dreger ,”Function Point Analysis”, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Roger S. Pressman, “Function Point Analysis – A Practitioner’s Approach” , McGraw HillGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/softcomp/fpfaq.htmGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Capers Jones, Assuring Productivity and Quality Applied Software MeasurementsGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    http://www.softwaremetrics.com/fpafund.htmGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • M.J Basavaraj
    • 1
  • K.C Shet
    • 2
  1. 1.Perot Systems, EPIP Phase II, Whitefield Industrial AreaBangalore-560 066
  2. 2.Professor, Computer Department, National Institute of Technology KarnatakaSurathkal

Personalised recommendations