The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.04 - July-Aug. (2012 vol.29)
pp: 67-74
Charles Symons , Common Software Measurement International Consortium
ABSTRACT
Estimates of effort and duration for a new software project often have to be adjusted to deal with an imposed target delivery date or a constraint on staffing. Estimating methods assume an effort/duration trade-off relationship based mostly on theory or expert judgment. This paper describes a process for analyzing actual project effort and duration data which is designed to explore the trade-off relationship. I assume a reference relationship of a simple power-curve with variable power ‘N’ and use this (a) as a means of comparing the trade-off relationships assumed by four well-known estimating methods, and (b) as the basis for a process to analyze actual project data. Results are presented of applying the process to 16 sub-sets of project data. These suggest, for example, that the value of ‘N’ differs between new development projects and enhancement projects. The Web Extra presents more results for each step in the effort-duration trade-off process described in the main article.
INDEX TERMS
Mathematical model, Schedules, Equations, Software, Estimation, Size measurement, Data models, performance measures, software project management, software metrics, cost estimation, time estimation, schedule and organizational issues, project control and modeling
CITATION
Charles Symons, "Exploring Software Project Effort versus Duration Trade-offs", IEEE Software, vol.29, no. 4, pp. 67-74, July-Aug. 2012, doi:10.1109/MS.2011.126
REFERENCES
1. L.H. Putnam, "A General Empirical Solution to the Macro Software Sizing and Estimating Problem," IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. SE–4, no. 4, 1978, pp 345–361.
2. "SEER for Software: Estimating Software Projects," product webpage, Galorath, 2011; http://www.galorath.com/index.php/products/ softwareC5.
3. Y. Yang et al., Effect of Schedule Compression on Project Effort, Univ. Southern Calif., Center for Systems and Software Eng., tech report, 2005; http://csse.usc.edu/csse/TECHRPTS/2005/usccse2005-520 usccse2005-520.pdf.
4. "True S: Software Acquisition and Development," product webpage, Price Systems, 2012; www.pricesystems.com/productstrue_s.asp.
5. C.R. Symons, "The Performance of Business Application, Real-Time and Component Software Projects: An Analysis of COSMIC-Measured Projects in the ISBSG Database," tech. report, Int'l Software Benchmarking Standards Group, Mar. 2012.
6. Function Point Counting Practices Manual, rel. 4.3, Int'l Function Point User Group, Jan. 2010; www.ifpug.org.
7. The COSMIC Method v3.0.1 Measurement Manual, Common Software Measurement Int'l Consortium, May 2009; www.COSMICon.com.
8. P. Hill and Int'l Software Benchmarking Standards Group, Practical Software Project Estimation: A Toolkit for Estimating Software Development Effort & Duration, McGraw-Hill, 2011.
9. T.K. Abdel-Hamid, "Investigating the Cost/Schedule Trade-off in Software Development," IEEE Software, vol. 7, no. 1, 1990, pp. 97–105.
32 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool