lecture 6 estimation estimate size, then estimate effort, schedule and cost from size bound...

Lecture 6 Estimation

Estimate size, thenEstimate effort, schedule and cost from sizeBound estimates

CS 540 – Quantitative Software Engineering

Proposed System

Proposed System

Check Status

Create Order

Shipment Notice

Inventory

Assign Inventory to Order

Inventory Assigned

New Inventory for Held Orders

Assign Order to Truck

Truckload Report

Shipping Invoices

Order Update

Order Display

Problem ResolutionDispatch

Accounting

Management Reports

Customer

Check Credit &

Completion

Users

Catalog

Orders

OrderCreation

Credit Check

InventoryAssignment

Held OrderProcessing

Completion

DispatchSupport

ProblemResolution

ManagementReporting

OA&M

Project Metrics

Cost and schedule estimation Measure progress Calibrate models for future estimating Metric/Scope Manager Product

Number of projects x number of metrics = 15-20

Approaches to Cost Estimation

• By expert

• By analogies

• Decomposition

• Parkinson’s Law; work expands to fill time available

• Price to win/ customer willingness-to -pay

• Lines of Code

• Function Points

• Mathematical Models: Function Points & COCOMO

Time

Staff-month

Ttheoretical

75% * Ttheoretical

Impossible design

Linear increase

Boehm: “A project can not be done in less than 75% of theoretical time”

Ttheoretical = 2.5 * 3√staff-months

But, how can I estimate staff months?

Sizing Software Projects

Effort = (productivity)-1 (size)c

productivity ≡ staff-months/kloc

size ≡ kloc

Staff

months

Lines of Code or

Function Points

500

Understanding the equations

Consider a transaction project of 38,000 lines of code, what is the shortest time it will take to develop? Module development is about 400 SLOC/staff month

Effort = (productivity)-1 (size)c

= (1/.400 KSLOC/SM) (38 KSLOC)1.02

= 2.5 (38)1.02 ≈ 100 SMMin time = .75 T= (.75)(2.5)(SM)1/3

≈ 1.875(100)1/3

≈ 1.875 x 4.63 ≈ 9 months

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 2560 5120 10240 20480 40960

Function Points

Bell Laboratories data

Capers Jones data

Prod

uctiv

ity (F

unct

ion

poin

ts /

staf

f mon

th)

Productivity= f(size)

Lines of Code

LOC ≡ Line of Code KLOC ≡ Thousands of LOC KSLOC ≡ Thousands of Source LOC NCSLOC ≡ New or Changed KSLOC

Productivity per staff-month:» 50 NCSLOC for OS code (or real-time system)

» 250-500 NCSLOC for intermediary applications (high risk, on-line)

» 500-1000 NCSLOC for normal applications (low risk, on-line)

» 10,000 – 20,000 NCSLOC for reused code

Reuse note: Sometimes, reusing code that does not provide the exact functionality needed can be achieved by reformatting input/output. This decreases performance but dramatically shortens development time.

Bernstein’s rule of thumb

Productivity: Measured in 2000

Classical rates 130 – 195 NCSLOC

Evolutionary approaches 244 – 325 NCSLOC

New embedded flight software

17 – 105 NCSLOC

QSE Lambda Protocol

Prospectus Measurable Operational Value Prototyping or Modeling sQFD Schedule, Staffing, Quality Estimates ICED-T Trade-off Analysis

Heuristics for requirements engineering

Move some of the desired functionality into version 2

Deliver product in stages 0.2, 0.4… Eliminate features Simplify Features Reduce Gold Plating Relax the specific feature specifications

Function Point (FP) Analysis

Useful during requirement phase Substantial data supports the methodology Software skills and project characteristics are accounted

for in the Adjusted Function Points FP is technology and project process dependent so that

technology changes require recalibration of project models.

Converting Unadjusted FPs (UFP) to LOC for a specific language (technology) and then use a model such as COCOMO.

Function Point Calculations

Unadjusted Function Points

UFP= 4I + 5O + 4E + 10L + 7F, Where

I ≡ Count of input types that are user inputs and change data structures. O ≡ Count of output typesE ≡ Count of inquiry types or inputs controlling execution.

[think menu selections]L ≡ Count of logical internal files, internal data used by system

[think index files; they are group of logically related data entirely within the applications boundary and maintained by external inputs. ]

F ≡ Count of interfaces data output or shared with another application

Note that the constants in the nominal equation can be calibrated to a specific software product line.

External Inputs – One updates two files

External Inputs (EI) - when data crosses the boundary from outside to inside.  This data may come from a data input screen or another application.

External Interface Table

For example, EIs that reference or update 2 File Types Referenced (FTR’s) and has 7 data elements would be assigned a ranking of average and associated rating of 4.

File Type References (FTR’s) are the sum of Internal Logical Files referenced or updated and External Interface Files referenced.

External Output from 2 Internal Files

External Outputs (EO) – when data passes across the boundary from inside to outside.  

External Inquiry drawing from 2 ILFs

External Inquiry (EQ) - an elementary process with both input and output components that result in data retrieval from one or more internal logical files and external interface files.  The input process does not update Internal Logical File, and there is no derived data.

EO and EQ Table mapped to Values

Adjusted Function Points

Accounting for Physical System Characteristics

Characteristic Rated by System User

• 0-5 based on “degree of influence”

• 3 is average

UnadjustedFunction

Points (UFP)

UnadjustedFunction

Points (UFP)

General SystemCharacteristics

(GSC)

General SystemCharacteristics

(GSC)

X

=

AdjustedFunction

Points (AFP)

AdjustedFunction

Points (AFP)

AFP = UFP (0.65 + .01*GSC), note GSC = VAF= TDI

1. Data Communications

2. Distributed Data/Processing

3. Performance Objectives

4. Heavily Used Configuration

5. Transaction Rate

6. On-Line Data Entry

7. End-User Efficiency

8. On-Line Update

9. Complex Processing

10. Reusability

11. Conversion/Installation Ease

12. Operational Ease

13. Multiple Site Use

14. Facilitate Change

Complexity Table

TYPE: SIMPLE AVERAGE COMPLEX

INPUT (I) 3 4 6

OUTPUT(O) 4 5 7

INQUIRY(E) 3 4 6

LOG INT (L) 7 10 15

INTERFACES (F)

5 7 10

Complexity Factors

1. Problem Domain ___2. Architecture Complexity ___3. Logic Design -Data ___4. Logic Design- Code ___

Total ___

Complexity = Total/4 = _________

Problem Domain Measure of Complexity (1 is simple and 5 is complex)

1. All algorithms and calculations are simple.2. Most algorithms and calculations are simple.3. Most algorithms and calculations are moderately

complex.4. Some algorithms and calculations are difficult.5. Many algorithms and calculations are difficult.

Score ____

Architecture ComplexityMeasure of Complexity (1 is simple and 5 is complex)

1. Code ported from one known environment to another. Application does not change more than 5%.2. Architecture follows an existing pattern. Process design is straightforward. No complex hardware/software interfaces.3. Architecture created from scratch. Process design is straightforward. No complex hardware/software interfaces.4. Architecture created from scratch. Process design is complex. Complex hardware/software interfaces exist but they are well defined and unchanging.5. Architecture created from scratch. Process design is complex. Complex hardware/software interfaces are ill defined and changing.

Score ____

Logic Design -Data

1. Simple well defined and unchanging data structures. Shallow inheritance in class structures. No object classes have inheritance greater than 3.

2. Several data element types with straightforward relationships. No object classes have inheritance greater than

3. Multiple data files, complex data relationships, many libraries, large object library. No more than ten percent of the object classes have inheritance greater than three. The number of object classes is less than 1% of the function points

4. Complex data elements, parameter passing module-to-module, complex data relationships and many object classes has inheritance greater than three. A large but stable number of object classes.

5. Complex data elements, parameter passing module-to-module, complex data relationships and many object classes has inheritance greater than three. A large and growing number of object classes. No attempt to normalize data between modules

Score ____

Logic Design- Code

1. Nonprocedural code (4GL, generated code, screen skeletons). High cohesion. Programs inspected. Module size constrained between 50 and 500 Source Lines of Code (SLOCs).

2. Program skeletons or patterns used. ). High cohesion. Programs inspected. Module size constrained between 50 and 500 SLOCs. Reused modules. Commercial object libraries relied on. High cohesion.

3. Well-structured, small modules with low coupling. Object class methods well focused and generalized. Modules with single entry and exit points. Programs reviewed.

4. Complex but known structure randomly sized modules. Some complex object classes. Error paths unknown. High coupling.

5. Code structure unknown, randomly sized modules, complex object classes and error paths unknown. High coupling.

Score __

Complexity Factors

1. Problem Domain ___2. Architecture Complexity ___3. Logic Design -Data ___4. Logic Design- Code ___

Total ___

Complexity = Total/4 = _________

Computing Function Points

See http://www.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS/course.des/cis525/js/f00/artan/functionpoints.htm

Adjusted Function Points

Now account for 14 characteristics on a 6 point scale (0-5) Total Degree of Influence (DI) is sum of scores. DI is converted to a technical complexity factor (TCF)

TCF = 0.65 + 0.01DI Adjusted Function Point is computed by

FP = UFP X TCF For any language there is a direct mapping from Function

Points to LOC

Beware function point counting is hard and needs special skills

Function Points Qualifiers

Based on counting data structures Focus is on-line data base systems Less accurate for WEB applications Even less accurate for Games, finite state machine and

algorithm software Not useful for extended machine software and compliers

An alternative to NCKSLOC because estimates can be based on requirements and design data.

Initial Conversion

Language Median SLOC/function pointC 104

C++ 53

HTML 42

JAVA 59

Perl 60

J2EE 50

Visual Basic 42

http://www.qsm.com/FPGearing.html

SLOC

Function Points = UFP x TCF = 78 * .96 = 51.84 ~ 52 function points

78 UFP * 53 (C++) SLOC / UFP = 4,134 SLOC

≈ 4.2 KSLOC

.

(Reference for SLOC per function point: http://www.qsm.com/FPGearing.html)

Understanding the equations

For 4,200 lines of code, what is the shortest time it will take to develop? Module development is about 400 SLOC/staff month

From COCOMO:Effort = 2.4 (size)c

By Barry Boehm

What is ‘2.4?’

Effort = 2.4 (size)c = 1/(.416) (size)c

Effort = (productivity)-1 (size)c

where productivity = 400 KSLOC/SM from the statement of the problem

= (1/.400 KSLOC/SM)(4.2 KSLOC)1.16

= 2.5 (4.2)1.16 ≈ 13 SM

Minimum Time

Theoretical time = 2.5 * 3√staff-months

Min time = .75 Theorectical time= (.75)(2.5)(SM)1/3

≈ 1.875(13)1/3

≈ 1.875 x 2.4 ≈ 4.5 months

How many software engineers?

1 full time staff week = 40 hours, if 1 student week = 10 hours.

Therefore, the estimate of 13 staff months is actually 52 student months.

The period of coding is December 2004 through April 2005; a period of 5 months.

52 staff months/5 months = 10 student software engineers

Design Simplification to cut FP in half is a must, as there are only five student software engineers onboard

Function Point pros and cons

Pros:

• Language independent

• Understandable by client

• Simple modeling

• Hard to fudge

• Visible feature creep

Cons:• Labor intensive• Extensive training • Inexperience results in

inconsistent results• Weighted to file

manipulation and transactions

• Systematic error introduced by single person, multiple raters advised

Specification for Development Plan

Project Feature List Development Process Size Estimates Staff Estimates Schedule Estimates Organization Gantt Chart

Wide Band Delphi

Convene a group of expert Coordinator provides each expert with spec Experts make private estimate in interval format: most

likely value and an upper and lower bound Coordinator prepares summary report indicating group

and individual estimates Experts discuss and defend estimates Group iterates until consensus is reached

Heuristics to do Better Estimates

Decompose Work Breakdown Structure to lowest possible level and type of software.

Review assumptions with all stakeholders Do your homework - past organizational experience Retain contact with developers Update estimates and track new projections (and warn) Use multiple methods Reuse makes it easier (and more difficult) Use ‘current estimate’ scheme

Heuristics to Cope with Estimates

Add and train developers early Use gurus for tough tasks Provide manufacturing and admin support Sharpen tools Eliminate unrelated work and red tape (50% issue) Devote full time end user to project Increase level of exec sponsorship to break new ground (new

tools, techniques, training) Set a schedule goal date but commit only after detailed design Use broad estimation ranges rather than single point estimates

Easy?

“When performance does not meet the estimate, there are two possible causes:

poor performance or poor estimates.

In the software world, we have ample evidence that our estimates stink, but virtually no evidence that people in general don’t work hard enough or intelligently enough.” -- Tom DeMarco

Capers Jones Expansion Table

Bernstein’s Trends in Software Expansion

Small ScaleReuse

1990SubsecTime Sharing

1995ObjectOrientedProgramming

1960MachineInstructions

1965MacroAssembler

1970High LevelLanguage

1975Database Manager

1980On-line

1985Prototyping

2000Large ScaleReuse

1

10

100

1000

3

15

3037.5

47

75 81113

142

475

638

RegressionTesting

4GL

Order of MagnitudeEvery Twenty Years

ExpansionFactor

TechnologyChange

SLOC Defined

:• Single statement, not two separated by semicolon• Line feed• All written statements (OA&M)• No Comments• Count all instances of calls, subroutines, …

There are no industry standards and SLOC can be fudged

Sizing Software Projects

Effort = (productivity)-1 (size)c

Staff

months

Lines of Code or

Function Points

500 1000

Regression Models

• Effort:» Watson-Felix: Effort = 5.2 KLOC 0.91

» COCOMO: Effort = 2.4 KLOC 1.05 » Halstead: Effort = 0.7 KLOC 1.50

• Schedule:» Watson-Felix: Time = 2.5E 0.35

» COCOMO: Time = 2.5E 0.38

» Putnam: Time = 2.4E 0.33

COCOMO

COnstructive COst MOdel Based on Boehm’s analysis of a database of 63 projects -

models based on regression analysis of these systems Linked to classic waterfall model Effort is number of Source Lines of Code (SLOC) expressed in

thousands of delivered source instructions (NCKSLOC) - excludes comments and unmodified software

Original model has 3 versions and considers 3 types of systems:• Organic - e.g.,simple business systems• Embedded -e.g., avionics• Semi-detached -e.g., management inventory systems

COCOMO Model

Effort in staff months =b*NCKSLOCc

b c

organic 2.4 1.05

semi-detached

3.0 1.12

embedded 3.6 1.20

COCOMO System Types

SIZE INNOVATION DEADLINE CONSTRAINTS

Organic Small Little Not tight Stable

Semi-Detached

Medium Medium Medium Medium

Embedded Large Greater Tight Complex hdw/customer interfaces

Intermediate COCOMO

Adds 15 attributes of the product that has to be rated on a six point scale from Very Low to Extra High

There are 4 categories of attributes: product, computer, personnel and project.

The ratings are reflected in P of the equation

Effort in staff months =(b*KDLOCc)*P

Intermediate COCOMO attributes

PRODUCT:

• RELY - required reliability

• DATA- data bytes per DSI (smaller db)

• CPLX - code complexity (VH= real time)

COMPUTER:

• TIME - execution time, % used

• STOR - storage requirements, % used

• VIRT - changes made to hdw and OS

• TURN- Dev turnaround time, batch vs interactive

PERSONNEL

• ACAP - analyst capability, skills

• PCAP - programmer capability

• AEXP- applications experience

• LEXP - language experience

• VEXP- virtual machine experience PROJECT

• MODP - Modern Development Practices

• TOOL - use of sfw tools

• SCED - amount of schedule compression

Intermediate COCOMO Attributeshttp://www.cs.unc.edu/~stotts/COMP145/cocomo6.gif

COCOMO II

Post Architecture Model is the most detailed model. Differs from original COCOMO in set of cost drivers, and range of values to parameters. New cost drivers are:

» Documentation needs

» Personnel continuity

» Required reusability

» Multi-site development

» (-) computer turnaround time

» (-) use of modern programming practices

COCOMO II

Effort = a (size)c П EM(i)c = 1.01 + 0.01+∑SF(j); where SF(j) are 5 scale factors and EM(i) has 17 cost

drivers

See: http://sunset.usc.edu/research/COCOMOII

We will use the original COCOMO model in CS 540.

Case Study

Light Planning Undergraduate Project Eight students October 15 to May 1

Prospectus

Theater group uses a CAD tool to design and set up lighting plots. Our objective is to design an easy to use, GUI based system that guides the user through the lighting design phase.

It will be capable of representing the lighting design of a theatre of any size. The involved parts of the theatre include: the room that encloses the stage, the stage itself, show set, lighting bars, their wiring, and the objects that hang on them. All items in the diagram will be selected from an inventory through the use of an inventory management system.

The program will also be able to print out clear, concise, lighting plots and wiring plots that conform to the industry standards for lighting.

Since the theatre has several different Operating System portability is an issue. As a result, the project will be written in JAVA, with an XML backend to store the data.

MOV

Cut Time spent learning/using CAD software by 25%.

Cut Time spent by electricians by 5%,with clearer diagrams and save $7308.00

No software licensing fee

Requirements

1. Design a lighting scheme for a show2. Edit stage space, set space, bars, lighting plot, and instrument properties.3. Save and load all data in XML4. Create and maintain equipment inventory.5. View concurrent information between different aspects of design with a GUI driven

interface using 2D drawing and text.6. Store each design in its own separate XML file.7. Maintain multiple lighting schemes for different plays. 8. Load user defined design space; use default on startup.9. Open one scheme at a time.10. Use JAVA data structures while the program is running.11. Read and write to XML file on saves, loads and timed backups and error check

XML files for design types when this happens. 12. Build a print routine for workspace, inventory screen, wiring sheet, bar diagram.13. Print workspace design aspects individually or overlapped.14. Use English or Metric measures for integer coordinates

UFP = 4I + 5O + 4E + 10L + 7F

Number of input types, I =3 Number of output types O=1 Number of inquiry types E =5 Number of logical internal files L=1 Number of interfaces F =1 UFP = 4(3) + 5(1) + 4(5) + 10(1) + 7(1) = 54

Unadjusted Function Points

Technical Complexity Factor (TCF)

General System Characterists Influence (GSC) Rating• Data Communication = 2• Distributed Function =1• Performance = 3• Heavily Used Configuration =1• Transaction Rate= 2• Online Data Entry =0• End-User Efficiency =5• Online Update =0• Complex Processing= 3• Reusability= 4• Installation Ease =3• Operational Ease= 3• Multiple Sites =1• Facilitate Change =3 Total:31

TCF = .65 + .01GSC TCF = .65 + .01(31) = .96

SLOC

Function Points = UFP x TCF = 54 * .96 = 51.84 ~ 52 function points

54 UFP * 77 (C)LOC / UFP = 4,158 SLOC

= 4.2 KSLOC

.

(Reference for SLOC per function point: http://www.qsm.com/FPGearing.html)

Time

Staff-month

Ttheoretical

75% * Ttheoretical

Impossible design

Linear increase

Boehm: “A project can not be done in less than 75% of theoretical time”

Ttheoretical = 2.5 * 3√staff-months

But, how can I estimate staff months?

Sizing Software Projects

Effort = (productivity)-1 (size)c

productivity ≡ staff-months/KSLOC

size ≡ KSLOC

Staff

months

Lines of Code or

Function Points

500

Understanding the equations

For 4,200 lines of code, what is the shortest time it will take to develop? Module development is about 400 SLOC/staff month

From COCOMO:Effort = 2.4 (size)c

What is ‘2.4?’

From COCOMO:Effort = 2.4 (size)c

Effort = (productivity)-1 (size)c

where productivity = 400 KSLOC/SM

= (1/.400 KSLOC/SM)(4.2 KSLOC)1.16

= 2.5 (4.2)1.16 ≈ 13 SM

Exponent

Calculate c using c = 1.01 + .01(w) where w is the sum of the weights in the following table.

Precedentness =3

Development Flexibility =3

Architecture/Risk Resolution = 4

Team Cohesion =2

Process Maturity = 3; w = 15

c = 1.01 + .01(w) = 1.01 + .15 = 1.16

Minimum Time

Theoretical time = 2.5 * 3√staff-months

Min time = .75 Theorectical time= (.75)(2.5)(SM)1/3

≈ 1.875(13)1/3

≈ 1.875 x 2.4 ≈ 4.5 months

How many software engineers?

1 full time staff week = 40 hours, 1 student week = 20 hours.

Therefore, our estimation of 13 staff months is actually 26 student months.

The period of coding is December 2004 through April 2005, which is a period of 5 months.

26 staff months/5 months = 5 student software engineers

Proposed System

Proposed System

Check Status

Create Order

Shipment Notice

Inventory

Assign Inventory to Order

Inventory Assigned

New Inventory for Held Orders

Assign Order to Truck

Truckload Report

Shipping Invoices

Order Update

Order Display

Problem ResolutionDispatch

Accounting

Management Reports

Customer

Check Credit &

Completion

Users

Catalog

Orders

OrderCreation

Credit Check

InventoryAssignment

Held OrderProcessing

Completion

DispatchSupport

ProblemResolution

ManagementReporting

OA&M

Case Study:Use Cases Transactions Type Complexity UFP

End UsersLogon 1 I 3 3View Last Bill 1 Q 6 6Create Account 1 I 6 6View Current Services 1 Q 4 4Establish Analog CATV Service 1 I 6 6Add Data Service 1 I 6 6Add/Delete a Premium Channel 1 I 4 4Add/Delete a Digital Package 1 I 6 6View Trouble Status 1 Q 4 4View Order Status 1 Q 3 3View Information 5 Q 3 15

BackEndGet Account & Service Info 1 N 10 10Get Last Bill 1 N 10 10Create Account 1 N 10 10Create Order 1 N 10 10Account Validation 3 N 7 21Order Validation 3 N 7 21Get Trouble Status 1 N 7 7Get Order Status 1 N 7 7

ManagementView Customer Use Statistics 5 Q 4 20Troubleshoot Customer Scenario 5 Q 6 30

OA&MUser Administration 2 F 7 14Table Administration 15 F 7 105Usage DB Administration 1 F 15 15Temp DB Admin 1 F 15 15Schedule Reports 1 I 4 15Control Application 1 I 4 15Create Reports 1 I 6 15Application Alarms 1 O 7 15

Total Unadjusted Function Points 418

GSC

General System Characteristic Rating1 Data Communications 52 Distributed Data/Processing 43 Performance Objectives 54 Heavily Used Configuration 55 Transaction Rate 56 On-Line Data Entry 37 End-User Efficiency 58 On-Line Update 39 Complex Processing 3

10 Reusability 211 Conversion/Installation Ease 312 Operational Ease 413 Multiple Site Use 414 Facilitate Change 4

Total Degree of Influence 55

UFP (.65+.01*GSC)418 1.2

Adjusted Function Points 502

Average Median Low High Consultant

Applying the equations

For 418 UFP x 63 (Java) SLOC/FP = 26334 SLOC

≈ 30 KSLOC

How long will it take to develop?

Module development is about 330 SLOC/staff month

COCOMO Model

Effort in staff months =b*NCKSLOCc

b c

organic 2.4 1.05

semi-detached

3.0 1.12

embedded 3.6 1.20

What is ‘2.4?’

From COCOMO:Effort = (productivity)-1 (size)c

where productivity = 330 KSLOC/SM

= (1/330 KSLOC/SM)(30 KSLOC)1.12

= 3 (30)1.12 ≈ 100 SM

Minimum Time

Theoretical time = 2.5 * 3√staff-months

= (2.5)(100)1/3

≈ 12 months

Software Costs by extrapolated history

Cost Development using FPA Estimate

• Requirements Engineering (1/3 of implementation

• Design (1/5 of implementation)• Testing (1/4 of implementation• Documentation & Training

FP per mo 5Dev Staff Mos 65.8Dev Staff Yrs 5.5Sys Eng 1.8Design 1.1Test 1.8Doc 1.0Trng 1.0Total 12.2

Staff Cost $150,000Project Cost $1,836,173

7.6