1. Function Points
Synthetic measure of program size used to estimate size early in the project
Easier (than lines of code) to calculate from requirements
Standards at the International Function Point Users Group (IFPUG)

2. FP Rules: #FPs depends on:
External Inputs
External Outputs
External Queries
Internal Logical Files
External Interface Files

3. FP Rules: #FPs depends on:
External Inputs
Screens, forms, dialogs, controls
User or other program adds, deletes, modifies data
Any input that requires processing logic
External Outputs
External Queries
Internal Logical Files
External Interface Files

4. FP Rules: #FPs depends on:
External Inputs
External Outputs
Screens, reports, dialog boxes, control signals generated for end user or other program
External Queries
Internal Logical Files
External Interface Files

5. FP Rules: #FPs depends on:
External Inputs
External Outputs
External Queries
I/O combinations in which an input results in a simple output
Queries retrieve data with no formatting. Output is formatted
Internal Logical Files
External Interface Files

6. FP Rules: #FPs depends on:
External Inputs
External Outputs
External Queries
Internal Logical Files
Major logical groups of end-user data completely controlled by the program
Might be a flat file, a database table, or a collection of other data
External Interface Files

7. FP Rules: #FPs depends on:
External Inputs
External Outputs
External Queries
Internal Logical Files
External Interface Files
Files controlled by other programs

8. FP Rules: Complexity Multipliers
Low Complexity
Medium Complexity
High Complexity
External Inputs 3 4 6
External Outputs 5 7
External Queries
Internal Logical Files 10 15
External Interface Files

9. LOC vs FP (Boehm 2000, Stutzke 2005)
Language
LOC per FP
Ada 50 C
128 C# 55
C++
Java
Assembly
213
Perl 20 VB 32

10. FP results Certified counters vary by 10%
Untrained counters vary by much more
The multipliers may or may not be useful (some research indicates unadjusted FPs are more closely correlated with effort)
The LOC have on average a range of 3x wrt FPs

11. COCOMO

12. COCOMO COCOMO  COnstructive COst MOdel
Model to help reason about the cost and schedule implications of decisions
Project Budgets
Scheduling
Planning
Risk Management Decisions

13. 3 Types of COCOMO Estimates
Basic
good for quick estimate of software costs
Does not account for differences in hardware constraints, personnel quality and experience, or use of modern tools and techniques
Early Design Model
High level model
Used to explore architectural alternatives or incremental development strategies
Post-Architecture Model
Detailed model
Used once the project is ready to sustain a fielded system

14. 3 classes of projects Organic projects Semi-detached projects
"small" teams
with "good" experience
working with "less than rigid" requirements
Semi-detached projects
"medium" teams
with mixed experience
working with a mix of rigid and less than rigid requirements
Embedded projects
developed within a set of "tight" constraints (hardware, software, operational, ...)

15. Basic COCOMO Equations
Effort Applied (in person-months) = a * (KLOC)b
Development Time (in months) = c * (Effort Applied)d
People required = Effort Applied / Development Time a b c d
Organic
2.4
1.05
2.5
0.38
Semi-detatched
3.0
1.12
0.35
Embedded
3.6
1.20
0.32

16. Intermediate COCOMO
Development effort is function of program size and "cost drivers"
Subjective assessment of product, hardware, personnel and project attributes.
Product attributes (required reliability, size of database, product complexity)
Hardware attributes (performance and memory constraints)
Personnel attributes
Analyst capability
Software engineering capability
Applications experience
Virtual machine experience
Programming language experience
Project attributes (use of tools and methods)

17. Intermediate COCOMO Cost Drivers
15 attributes
Rated on 6-point scale (very low to extra high)
Effort multipliers (from 0.9 to 1.4) from table
Intermediate Cocomo formula:
E=a (KLoC)b * EAF
E: effort applied in person-months
KLoC: estimated number of thousands of lines of code for the project
EAF: factor calculated above

18. COCOMO II: Post Architecture
PM = 2.45*EAF*(SLOC/1000)^P DM = 2.50*(PM)^T ST = PM/DM PM - person-months needed for project EAF - effort adjustment factor ( ) SLOC - source lines of code P - project complexity ( ) DM - duration time in months for project T - sloc-dependent coefficient ( ) ST - average staffing necessary

19. Effort Per Phase Schedule