Phase distribution of software development effort

ABSTRACT

Effort distribution by phase or activity is an important but often overlooked aspect compared to other steps in the cost estimation process. Poor effort allocation is among the major root causes of rework due to insufficiently resourced early activities. This paper provides results of an empirical study on phase effort distribution data of 75 industry projects, from the China Software Benchmarking Standard Group (CSBSG) database. The phase effort distribution patterns and variation sources are presented, and analysis results show some consistency in effects of software size and team size on code and test phase distribution variations, and some considerable deviations in requirements, design, and transition phases, compared with recommendations in the COCOMO model. Finally, this paper discusses the major findings and threats to validity and presents general guidelines in directing effort allocation. Empirical findings from this study are beneficial for stimulating discussions and debates to improve cost estimation and benchmarking practices.

REFERENCES

• 1: Barry Boehm , Chris Abts , Sunita Chulani, Software development cost estimation approaches – A survey, Annals of Software Engineering, v.10 n.1-4, p.177-205, 2000 [doi>10.1023/A:1018991717352]
• 2: Magne Jorgensen , Martin Shepperd, A Systematic Review of Software Development Cost Estimation Studies, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.33 n.1, p.33-53, January 2007 [doi>10.1109/TSE.2007.3]
• 3: Basili, V. R.: Software development: a paradigm for the future. Proceedings of the 13th Annual International Computer Software and Application Conference, (1989) 471--485.
• 4: Joseph Feller , Brian Fitzgerald, A framework analysis of the open source software development paradigm, Proceedings of the twenty first international conference on Information systems, p.58-69, December 2000, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
• 5: The Standish Group. 2004 the 3rd Quarter Research Report, (2004). http://www.standishgroup.com
• 6: Barry W. Boehm , Clark , Horowitz , Brown , Reifer , Chulani , Ray Madachy , Bert Steece, Software Cost Estimation with Cocomo II with Cdrom, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2000
• 7: Reifer, D.: Industry software cost, quality and productivity benchmarks, software. Tech News 7(2) (July 2004)
• 8: Kroll, P.: Planning and estimating a RUP project using IBM rational SUMMIT ascendant. Technical report, IBM Developerworks (May 2004)
• 9: QSM Inc.: The QSM Software Almanac: Application Development Series (IT Metrics Edition) Application Development Data and Research for the Agile Enterprise. Quantitative Software Management Inc., McLean, Virginia, USA (2006)
• 10: Heijstek, W. and Chaudron, M. R. V.: Effort distribution in model-based development. 2nd Workshop on Model Size Metrics (2007)
• 11: Barry W. Boehm, Software Engineering Economics, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1981
• 12: Philippe Kruchten, The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2003
• 13: Drazen Milicic , Claes Wohlin, Distribution Patterns of Effort Estimations, Proceedings of the 30th EUROMICRO Conference, p.422-429, August 31-September 03, 2004 [doi>10.1109/EUROMICRO.2004.27]
• 14: Norden P. V.: Curve Fitting for a Model of Applied Research and Development Scheduling. IBM J. Research and Development, Vol. 3, No. 2, (1958), 232--248.
• 15: Putnam, L. and Myers, W. (1992), Measures for Excellence, Yourdon Press Computing Series.
• 16: He, M., et al.: An Investigation of Software Development Productivity in China. ICSP 2008, (2008) 381--394
• 17: SEER-SEM. http://www.galorath.com/index.php
• 18: Peleg Yiftachel , Dan Peled , Irit Hadar , Dan Goldwasser, Resource allocation among development phases: an economic approach, Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Economics driven software engineering research, May 27-27, 2006, Shanghai, China [doi>10.1145/1139113.1139124]
• 19: LiGuo Huang , Barry Boehm, Determining how much software assurance is enough?: a value-based approach, Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on Economics-driven software engineering research, p.1-5, May 15-15, 2005, St. Louis, Missouri
• 20: Peleg Yiftachel , Dan Peled , Irit Hadar , Dan Goldwasser, Resource allocation among development phases: an economic approach, Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Economics driven software engineering research, May 27-27, 2006, Shanghai, China [doi>10.1145/1139113.1139124]
• 21: Jiang, Z., Naudé, P. and Comstock, C.: An investigation on the variation of software development productivity. International Journal of Computer, Information, and Systems Sciences, and Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 2 (2007) 72--81
• 22: ISBSG Benchmark Release 8. http://www.isbsg.org
• 23: SPR Programming Languages Table 2003, Software Productivity Research. ttp://www.spr.com
• 24: Manish Agrawal , Kaushal Chari, Software Effort, Quality, and Cycle Time: A Study of CMM Level 5 Projects, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.33 n.3, p.145-156, March 2007 [doi>10.1109/TSE.2007.29]
• 25: Software Measurement Services Ltd. 'Small project', 'medium-size project' and 'large project': what do these terms mean?" http://www.measuresw.com/library/Papers/Rule/RulesRelativeSizeScale%20v1b.pdf
• 26: http://www.csbsg.org

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.8 Metrics
          Subjects: Process metrics

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.8 Metrics
          Subjects: Product metrics
      D.2.9 Management
          Subjects: Cost estimation

General Terms:
Management, Measurement

Keywords:
cost estimation, development type, effort allocation, effort distribution, estimation accuracy, phase distribution