The Impact of Individual Assumptions on Functional Size Measurement

  • Oktay Turetken
  • Ozden Ozcan Top
  • Baris Ozkan
  • Onur Demirors
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5338)


Having been improved, evolved and standardized by the Organiza-tion for Standardization (ISO), Functional Size Measurement (FSM) methods have become widely used. However, the measurers still face difficulties in measuring the software products which include unconventional components. We faced the challenge to observe if different interpretations or assumptions of the measurers cause significant differences in the measurement results. In this study, we present the results of a multiple case study we conducted in order to observe the impact of individual assumptions for well known FSM methods.


Functional Size Measurement COSMIC FSM IFPUG FPA MkII FPA 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Albrecht, A.J.: Measuring Application Development Productivity. In: Proc. of the IBM Applications Development Symposium, Monterey, California, pp. 83–92 (1979)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abran: COSMIC FFP 2.0: An Implementation of COSMIC Functional Size Measurement Concepts. In: FESMA 1999, Amsterdam (October 7, 1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Desharnais, J.-M., Abran, A., Cuadrado, J.: Convertibility of Function Points to COSMIC-FFP: Identification and Analysis of Functional Outliers. In: MENSURA 2006, Conference Proceedings edited by the Publish Service of the University of Cadiz, Cadiz, Spain, November 4-5, 2006, pp. 190–205 (2006),
  4. 4.
    Fetcke, T., Abran, A., Dumke, R.: A Generalized Representation for Selected Functional Size Measurement Methods. In: Dumke, R., Abran, A. (eds.) Current Trends in Software Measurement, pp. 1–25. Shaker (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gencel, C., Demirors, O., Yuceer, E.: A Case Study on Using Functional Size Measurement Methods for Real Time Systems. In: Proc. of the 15th. International Workshop on Software Measurement, Montreal, Canada, September 12-14, 2005, pp. 159–178. Shaker-Verlag (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garmus, D., Herron, D.: Function Point Analysis: Measurement Practices for Successful Software Projects. Information Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gencel, C., Demirors, O.: Functional Size Measurement Revisited. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (to be published, July 2008) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    IFPUG, Counting Practices Manual (CPM), Release Z.0, IFPUG, Westerville, Ohio (1986)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    IFPUG, CPM, Release 2.0, IFPUG, Westerville, Ohio (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IFPUG, Function Point CPM, Release 3.0, IFPUG, Westerville, Ohio (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    IFPUG, Function Point CPM, Release 4.0, IFPUG, Westerville, Ohio (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    IFPUG, Function Point CPM, Release. 4.1, IFPUG, Westerville, OH (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    IFPUG, Function Point Counting Practices Manual, Release 4.2.1 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    IEEE Std. 14143.1: Implementation Note for IEEE Adoption of ISO/IEC 14143-1:1998 - Information Technology- Software Measurement- Functional Size Measurement -Part 1: Definition of Concepts (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO/IEC 14143-1: Information Technology - Software Measurement - Functional Size Measurement - Part 1: Definition of Concepts (1998) (updated, 2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO/IEC 14143-2: Information Technology - Software Measurement - Functional Size Measurement - Part 2: Conformity Evaluation of Software Size Measurement Methods to ISO/IEC 14143-1:1998 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO/IEC TR 14143-3: Information Technology - Software Measurement - Functional Size Measurement - Part 3: Verification of Functional Size Measurement Methods (2003) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO/IEC TR 14143-4: Information Technology - Software Measurement - Functional Size Measurement - Part 4: Reference Model (2002) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO/IEC TR 14143-5: Information Technology - Software Measurement - Functional Size Measurement - Part 5: Determination of Functional Domains for Use with Functional Size Measurement (2004) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO/IEC FCD 14143-6: Guide for the Use of ISO/IEC 14143 and related International Standards (2005) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ISO/IEC IS 20968:2002: Software Engineering - MK II Function Point Analysis - Counting Practices Manual (2002) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ISO/IEC IS 20926:2003: Software Engineering - IFPUG 4.1 Unadjusted Functional Size Measurement Method - Counting Practices Manual (2003) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ISO/IEC 19761:2003: Software Engineering - COSMIC-FFP: A Functional Size Measurement Method (2003) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ISO/IEC IS 24570:2005: Software Engineering - NESMA functional size measurement method Ver.2.1 - Definitions and counting guidelines for the application of FPA (2005) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ISO/IEC IS 29881:2008: Software Engineering - FISMA functional size measurement method Ver.1.1 (2008) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lother, M., Dumke, R.: Points Metrics - Comparison and Analysis. In: International Workshop on Software Measurement (IWSM 2001), Montréal, Québec, pp. 155–172 (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    NESMA, Definitions and Counting Guidelines for the Application of Function Point Analysis, Version 1.0 (1990)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    OMG, Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, Ver.2.0, Formal/05-07-04, Object Management Group (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rollo, T.: Sizing e-Commerce. In: Proc. of the ACOSM 2000 – Australian Conference on Software Measurement, Sydney (2000)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rule, G.: A Comparison of the Mark II and IFPUG Variants of Function Point Analysis (1999),
  31. 31.
    Santillo, L., Abran, A.: Software Reuse Evaluation Based on Functional Similarity in COSMIC-FFP Size Components. In: Software Measurement European Forum – SMEF 2006, Rome, Italy, May 10-12, 2006, pp. 167–176 (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Symons, C.: Function Point Analysis: Difficulties and Improvements. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 14(1) (January 1988)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Symons, C.: Conversion between IFPUG 4.0 and MkII Function Points, Software Measurement Services Ltd., Version 3.0 (1999)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Symons, C.: Come Back Function Point Analysis (Modernized) – All is Forgiven!). In: Proc. of the 4th European Conf. on Software Measurement and ICT Control (FESMA-DASMA 2001), Germany, pp. 413–426 (2001)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    The Common Software Measurement International Consortium (COSMIC), Functional Size Measurement Method Version 3.0 Measurement Manual (2007)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    The Common Software Measurement International Consortium (COSMIC): Guideline for Sizing Business Applications Software Using COSMIC-FFP, Version 1.0 (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Turetken, O., Demirors, O., Gencel, C., Ozcan Top, O., Ozkan, B.: The Effect of Entity Generalization on Software Functional Sizing: A Case Study. In: Jedlitschka, A., Salo, O. (eds.) PROFES 2008. LNCS, vol. 5089, pp. 105–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oktay Turetken
    • 1
  • Ozden Ozcan Top
    • 1
  • Baris Ozkan
    • 1
  • Onur Demirors
    • 1
  1. 1.Informatics InstituteMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations