Effort estimation of use cases for incremental large-scale software development

ABSTRACT

This paper describes an industrial study of an effort estimation method based on use cases, the Use Case Points method. The original method was adapted to incremental development and evaluated on a large industrial system with modification of software from the previous release. We modified the following elements of the original method: a) complexity assessment of actors and use cases, and b) the handling of non-functional requirements and team factors that may affect effort. For incremental development, we added two elements to the method: c) counting both all and the modified actors and transactions of use cases, and d) effort estimation for secondary changes of software not reflected in use cases. We finally extended the method to: e) cover all development effort in a very large project. The method was calibrated using data from one release and it produced an estimate for the successive release that was only 17% lower than the actual effort. The study identified factors affecting effort on large projects with incremental development. It also showed how these factors can be calibrated for a specific context and produce relatively accurate estimates.

REFERENCES

• 1: Albrecht, A.J. Measuring application development productivity. In Proceedings of the IBM Applic. Dev. Joint SHARE/GUIDE Symposium, Monterey, CA, 1979, 83--92.
• 2: Bente Anda , Hege Dreiem , Dag I. K. Sjøberg , Magne Jørgensen, Estimating Software Development Effort Based on Use Cases-Experiences from Industry, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language, Modeling Languages, Concepts, and Tools, p.487-502, October 01-05, 2001
• 3: Anda, B. Comparing effort estimates based on use cases with expert estimates. In Proceedings of Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2002) (Keele, UK, April 8-10, 2002), 13 p.
• 4: Ray Ashman, Project Estimation: A Simple Use-Case-Based Model, IT Professional, v.6 n.4, p.40-44, July 2004 [doi>10.1109/MITP.2004.41]
• 5: Boehm, B., Clark, B., Horowitz, E., Westland, C., Madachy, R., Selby, R. Cost models for future software life cycle processes: COCOMO 2.0. USC center for software engineering, 1995. http://sunset.usc.edu/publications/TECHRPTS/1995/index.html
• 6: Barry Boehm , A. Winsor Brown , Ray Madachy , Ye Yang, A Software Product Line Life Cycle Cost Estimation Model, Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE'04), p.156-164, August 19-20, 2004 [doi>10.1109/ISESE.2004.6]
• 7: Carbone, M., Santucci, G. Fast&&Serious: a UML based metric for effort estimation. In Proceedings of the 6th ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering (QAOOSE'02) (Spain, June 11, 2002), 12 p.
• 8: Yue Chen , Barry W. Boehm , Ray Madachy , Ricardo Valerdi, An Empirical Study of eServices Product UML Sizing Metrics, Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE'04), p.199-206, August 19-20, 2004 [doi>10.1109/ISESE.2004.8]
• 9: Alistair Cockburn, Writing Effective Use Cases, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2000
• 10: Stephen G. Eick , Todd L. Graves , Alan F. Karr , J. S. Marron , Audris Mockus, Does Code Decay? Assessing the Evidence from Change Management Data, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.27 n.1, p.1-12, January 2001 [doi>10.1109/32.895984]
• 11: Karner, G. Metrics for Objectory. Diploma thesis, University of Linköping, Sweden. No. LiTH-IDA-Ex-9344:21, December 1993.
• 12: Karner, G. Resource estimation for Objectory projects. Objective Systems SF AB (copyright owned by Rational Software), 1993.
• 13: Chris F Kemerer, An empirical validation of software cost estimation models, Communications of the ACM, v.30 n.5, p.416-429, May 1987 [doi>10.1145/22899.22906]
• 14: M. M. Lehman , D. E. Perry , J. F. Ramil, Implications of Evolution Metrics on Software Maintenance, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance, p.208, March 16-19, 1998
• 15: Stephen G. MacDonell , Martin J. Shepperd, Combining techniques to optimize effort predictions in software project management, Journal of Systems and Software, v.66 n.2, p.91-98, 15 May 2003 [doi>10.1016/S0164-1212(02)00067-5]
• 16: Parastoo Mohagheghi , Reidar Conradi, An Empirical Study of Software Change: Origin, Acceptance Rate, and Functionality vs. Quality Attributes, Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE'04), p.7-16, August 19-20, 2004 [doi>10.1109/ISESE.2004.9]
• 17: Juan F. Ramil , Meir M. Lehman, Metrics of Software Evolution as Effort Predictors - A Case Study, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'00), p.163, October 11-14, 2000
• 18: http://www.processwave.net/, July 2004.
• 19: Geri Schneider , Jason P. Winters, Applying use cases: a practical guide, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1998
• 20: Smith, J. The estimation of effort based on use cases. Rational Software, White paper, 1999.
• 21: Charles R. Symons, Software sizing and estimating: Mk II FPA (Function Point Analysis), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1991
• 22: Takuya Uemura , Shinji Kusumoto , Katsuro Inoue, Function Point Measurement Tool for UML Design Specification, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Software Metrics, p.62, November 04-06, 1999

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.9 Management
          Subjects: Cost estimation

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.9 Management
          Subjects: Life cycle

General Terms:
Experimentation, Management

Keywords:
estimation, incremental development, use cases