An Empirical Evaluation of Effort Prediction Models Based on Functional Size Measures

Software development effort estimation is among the most interesting issues for project managers, since reliable estimates are at the base of good planning and project control. Several different techniques have been proposed for effort estimation, and practitioners need evidence, based on which they can choose accurate estimation methods. The work reported here aims at evaluating the accuracy of software development effort estimates that can be obtained via popular techniques, such as those using regression models and those based on analogy. The functional size and the development effort of twenty software development projects were measured, and the resulting dataset was used to derive effort estimation models and evaluate their accuracy. Our data analysis shows that estimation based on the closest analogues provides better results for most models, but very bad estimates in a few cases. To mitigate this behavior, the correction of regression toward the mean proved effective. According to the results of our analysis, it is advisable that regression to the mean correction is used when the estimates are based on closest analogues. Once corrected, the accuracy of analogy-based estimation is not substantially different from the accuracy of regression based models

A Review of Metrics and Modeling Techniques in Software Fault Prediction Model Development

This paper surveys different software fault predictions progressed through different data analytic techniques reported in the software engineering literature. This study split in three broad areas; (a) The description of software metrics suites reported and validated in the literature. (b) A brief outline of previous research published in the development of software fault prediction model based on various analytic techniques. This utilizes the taxonomy of analytic techniques while summarizing published research. (c) A review of the advantages of using the combination of metrics. Though, this area is comparatively new and needs more research efforts

Using Functional Complexity Measures in Software Development Effort Estimation

Several definitions of measures that aim at representing the size of software requirements are currently available. These measures have gained a quite relevant role, since they are one of the few types of objective measures upon which effort estimation can be based. However, traditional Functional Size Measures do not take into account the amount and complexity of elaboration required, concentrating instead on the amount of data accessed or moved. This is a problem since the amount and complexity of the required data elaboration affect the implementation effort, but are not adequately represented by the current size measures, including the standardized ones. Recently, a few approaches to measuring aspects of user requirements that are supposed to be related with functional complexity and/or data elaboration have been proposed by researchers. In this paper, we take into consideration some of these proposed measures and compare them with respect to their ability to predict the development effort, especially when used in combination with measures of functional size. A few methods for estimating software development effort \u2013both based on model building and on analogy\u2013 are experimented with, using different types of functional size and elaboration complexity measures. All the most significant models obtained were based on a notion of computation density that is based on the number of computation flows in functional processes. When using estimation by analogy, considering functional complexity in the selection of analogue projects improved accuracy in all the evaluated cases. In conclusion, it appears that functional complexity is a factor that affects development effort; accordingly, whatever method is used for effort estimation, it is advisable to take functional complexity into due consideration

The role of the measure of functional complexity in effort estimation

2Background. Currently there are several definitions of measures that should represent the size of software functional requirements. These measures have gained a quite relevant role, since they are one of the few basis upon which effort estimation can be based. However, traditional Functional Size Measures do not take into account the amount and complexity of the elaboration required, concentrating instead on the amount of data accessed or moved. This is a problem, when it comes to effort estimation, since the amount and complexity of the required data elaborations affect the implementation effort, but are not adequately represented by the current measures (including the standardized ones). Objective. The paper evaluates different types of functional size measures as effort estimators. Moreover, the consequences of taking into consideration also the amount and complexity of required elaboration in the effort estimation models are evaluated. Methods. In this paper we take into consideration a representative set of functional size measures (namely, function points, COSMIC function points and use case points) and a recently proposed elaboration complexity measure (Paths) and evaluate how well these measures are correlated with the development effort. To this end, we measured a set of 17 projects and analyzed the resulting data. Results. We found that it is possible to build statistically valid models of the development effort that use the functional size and complexity measures as independent variables. In fact, we discovered that using the measure of elaboration complexity in addition to the functional size substantially improves the precision of the fitting. Conclusions. The analysis reported here suggests that a measure of the amount and complexity of elaboration required from a software system should be used, in conjunction with traditional functional size measures, in the estimation of software development effort. Further investigations, involving a greater number of projects, are however needed to confirm these findings.noneLavazza Luigi; Robiolo GabrielaLavazza, LUIGI ANTONIO; Robiolo, Gabriel