Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Restored revision 1260757152 by 2A0D:3344:1D9:1C10:44C4:6CCD:8314:5D75 (talk): WP:EL |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 14:
* [[Object Management Group|OMG]]: ISO/IEC 19515:2019 Information technology — Object Management Group Automated Function Points (AFP), 1.0
The first five standards are implementations of the over-arching standard for [[Software measurement|Functional Size Measurement]] ISO/IEC 14143.<ref name="ISO/IEC 14143">{{cite web |url=https://www.iso.org/standard/38931.html |title=ISO/IEC 14143 |author=ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7 Software and systems engineering |date=2007-02-01 |publisher=International Standards Organization |access-date=2019-02-26}}</ref> The OMG Automated Function Point (AFP) specification, led by the [[CISQ|Consortium for IT Software Quality]], provides a standard for automating the Function Point counting according to the guidelines of the International Function Point User Group ([[IFPUG]]) However, the current implementations of this standard have a limitation in being able to distinguish External Output (EO) from External Inquiries (EQ) out of the box, without some upfront configuration.<ref>OMG/CISQ Specification "Automated Function Points", February 2013, OMG Document Number ptc/2013-02-01 http://www.omg.org/spec/AFP/1.0</ref>
== Introduction ==
Function points were defined in 1979 in ''Measuring Application Development Productivity'' by Allan J. Albrecht at [[IBM]].<ref>A. J. Albrecht, "Measuring Application Development Productivity," Proceedings of the Joint SHARE, GUIDE, and IBM Application Development Symposium, Monterey, California, October 14–17, IBM Corporation (1979), pp. 83–92.</ref> The [[functional requirements|functional user requirements]] of the software are identified and each one is categorized into one of five types: outputs, inquiries, inputs, internal files, and external interfaces. Once the function is identified and categorized into a type, it is then assessed for complexity and assigned a number of function points. Each of these functional user requirements maps to an end-user business function, such as a data entry for an Input or a user query for an Inquiry. This distinction is important because it tends to make the functions measured in function points map easily into user-oriented requirements, but it also tends to hide internal functions (e.g. algorithms), which also require resources to implement.
There is currently no ISO recognized FSM Method that includes algorithmic complexity in the sizing result. Recently there have been different approaches proposed to deal with this perceived weakness, implemented in several commercial software products. The variations of the Albrecht-based IFPUG method designed to make up for this (and other weaknesses) include:
Line 35:
== Criticism ==
Albrecht observed in his research that Function Points were highly correlated to lines of code,<ref>Albrecht, A. Software Function, Source Lines of Code, and Development Effort Estimation – A Software Science Validation. 1983.</ref> which has resulted in a questioning of the value of such a measure if a more objective measure, namely counting lines of code, is available. In addition, there have been multiple attempts to address perceived shortcomings with the measure by augmenting the counting regimen.<ref>Symons, C.R. "Function point analysis: difficulties and improvements." IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. January 1988. pp. 2-111.</ref><ref>Hemmstra, F. and Kusters R. "Function point analysis: evaluation of a software cost estimation model." European Journal of Information Systems. 1991. Vol 1, No 4. pp 229-237.</ref><ref>Jeffery, R and Stathis, J. "Specification-based software sizing: An empirical investigation of function metrics." Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Software Engineering Workshop. 1993. p 97-115.</ref><ref>Symons, C. Software sizing and estimating: Mk II FPA (Function Point Analysis). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1991</ref><ref>Demarco, T. "An algorithm for sizing software products." ACM Sigmetrics Performance Evaluation Review. 1984. Volume 12, Issue 2. pp 13-22.</ref><ref>Jeffrey, D.R, Low, G.C. and Barnes, M. "A comparison of function point counting techniques." IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 1993. Volume 19, Issue 5. pp 529-532.
== See also ==
* [[COCOMO]] (Constructive Cost Model)
* [[Comparison of development estimation software]]
* [[COSMIC functional size measurement]]
* [[MK II FPA|Mark II method]]
* [[Object point]]
Line 53 ⟶ 54:
== External links ==
* [http://www.ifpug.org/ The International Function Point Users Group (IFPUG)]
[[Category:Software metrics]]
| |||