Wiarygodność metod szacowania pracochłonności przedsięwzięć rozwoju systemów oprogramowania wspomagających zarządzanie

• Autorzy: Beata Czarnacka-Chrobot

Warianty tytułu

Reliability of the BSS Development and Enhancement Projects Effort Estimation Methods

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Kluczowym wymaganiem wobec metod szacowania pracochłonności przedsięwzięć rozwoju systemów oprogramowania jest ich wiarygodność w określonym obszarze aplikacyjnym. Jednym z zasadniczych obszarów są systemy oprogramowania wspomagające zarządzanie (SOWZ), dlatego wiarygodność metod estymacji pracochłonności ich rozwoju stanowi przedmiot wielu badań. Ich rezultaty są zróżnicowane, niekiedy nawet sprzeczne. Powstaje zatem pytanie, czy na ich tle można dostrzec prawidłowości, które mogą stanowić wskazówkę co do wyboru najwłaściwszego dla przedsięwzięć rozwoju SOWZ sposobu szacowania pracochłonności. Celem artykułu jest próba wyprowadzenia ewentualnych takich prawidłowości na podstawie analizy dostępnych w literaturze i rezultatów badań nad wiarygodnością pięciu zasadniczych metod estymacji pracochłonności rozważanych przedsięwzięć.(abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

The key requirement for software development and enhancement projects effort estimation methods is reliability of such methods in a specified application area. Business Software Systems (BSS) are the fundamental area of employing information technology. That is why the reliability of methods used for BSS development and enhancement projects effort estimation is the subject of a lot of studies. Their results are different, sometimes even conflicting. So the question arises whether there is a possibility to find on their basis any regularities for BSS development and enhancement projects, which could be a conclusive suggestion for the selection of the most adequate effort estimation method for such projects. This article is aimed at investigating such possible regularities on the basis of the analysis of the studies' results presented in the subject literature, concerning the reliability of five essential effort estimation methods used for such projects. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Tworzenie oprogramowania; Komputerowe wspomaganie zarządzania; Pracochłonność

EN

Software development; Computer aiding management; Labour intensity

• Czasopismo: Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu. Informatyka Ekonomiczna
• Rocznik: 2010
• Tom: 15
• Numer: nr 88 Informatyka w zarządzaniu
• Strony: 163-176

Twórcy

autor

Beata Czarnacka-Chrobot

• Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie

Bibliografia

• Abran A., Robillard RN., Reliability of function points productivity models for enhancement projects (a field study), [w:] Conference on Software Maintenance 1993-CSM-93, Montreal, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos 1993, s. 80-97.
• Acquiring Custom-Build Software Policy, Government of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia, August 2000.
• Blattberg R.C., Hoch S.J., Database models and managerial intuition: 50% model + 50% manager, "Management Science" 1990, vol. 36, no. 8, s. 887-899.
• CHAOS Summary 2008, Standish Group, West Yarmouth, Massachusetts, 2008.
• Chulani S., Stecce B., COCOMO II calibration, [w:] Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Forum on COCOMO and Software Cost Modeling, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, October 24-27, 2000, s. 3-19.
• Clark B., Yang Y., COCOMO II calibration status, [w:] Proceedings of the 19lh International Forum on COCOMO and Software Cost Modeling, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, October 26-29, 2004, s. 1-19.
• Czamacka-Chrobot B., Usage of the software projects scope estimation methods by Polish MIS Providers, [w:] Information Management, B. Kubiak (ed.), The 9th International Conference on Information Management, Gdańsk University Press, Gdańsk 2009, s. 229-238.
• Czamacka-Chrobot B., Kobyliński A., Ocena miar zakresu produktu programowego, [w:] Informatyka Ekonomiczna. Aspekty informatyzacji organizacji, red. A. Nowicki, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu nr 55, Wrocław 2009, s. 76-89.
• Devnani-Chulani S. i in., Calibration Approach and Results of the COCOMO II Post-Architecture Model, International Society of Parametric Analysts, June 1998.
• Ferens D.V., Christensen D.S., Does calibration improve predictive accuracy?, "CrossTalk. The Journal of Defence Software Engineering", April 2000, s. 14-17.
• Ferens D.V., Gurner R.B., An evaluation of tree function point models for estimation of software effort, [w:] Proceedings of the IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (NAECON), vol. 2, 1993, s. 635-642.
• Furey S., Why we should use function points, "IEEE Software" vol. 14, no. 2, March 1997, s. 28-30.
• Gamsey M. i in., COCOMO and SCORM: Cost estimation model for Web based training, [w:] Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference, Orlando, Florida, December 4-7, 2006.
• Gontarz A., Ile kosztuje program?, "Computerworld" 2003, nr 11 (wydanie elektroniczne).
• Goodwin P., Improving the voluntary integration of statistical forecasts and judgment, "International Journal of Forecasting" 2000, vol. 16, no. 1, s. 85-99.
• Heemstra F.J., Software cost estimation, "Information and Software Technology" 1992, vol. 34, no. 10, s. 627-639.
• [Hill P.R., Some practical uses of the ISBSG history data to improve Project Management, ISBSG, Hawthorn VIC, Australia, 2007.
• IFPUG Function Point Counting Practices Manual, Release 4.2, Part 1 -4, International Function Point Users Group, Princeton Junction, NJ, January 2004.
• Jeffery D.R., Low G.C., Calibrating estimation tools for software development, "Software Engineering Journal", July 1990, s. 215-221.
• Jeffery D.R., Low G.C., Barnes M" A comparison of function point counting techniques, "IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering" 1993, vol. 19, no. 5, s. 529-532.
• Jones T.C, Sizing up software, "Scientific American Magazine" 1998, vol. 279, no. 6, s. 104 -111.
• Jones T.C, Software Project Management in the Twenty-first Century, Software Productivity Research, Burlington 1999.
• Jorgensen M., Estimation of software development work effort: Evidence on expert judgment and formal models, "International Journal of Forecasting" 2007, no. 23(3), s. 449-462.
• Kemerer C.F., An empirical validation of software cost estimation models, "Communications of the ACM" 1987, vol. 30, no. 5, s. 416-429.
• Kemerer C.F., Reliability of function points measurement: A field experiment, "Communication of the ACM" 1993, vol. 36, no. 2, s. 85-97.
• Maddix J.L., A comparison of function point analysis versus Engineer Experience in Predicting Semiconductor FAB Integration Software Project Durations, [w:] 20,h Computer Science Seminar, SE3-T4-1, Hartford 2004, s. 1-6.
• Sage Technology. Report on the SCUD Methodology Review, June 2000.
• Shepperd M., Schofield C, Estimating software project effort using analogy, "IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering" 1997, SE-23:12, s. 736-743.
• Siddiqee W., Function point delivery rates under various environments: Some actual results, [w:] Proceedings of the Computer Management Group's International Conference, San Diego, CA, December 5-10, 1993, s. 259-264.
• SouthernSCOPE, Reference Manual, Version I, Government of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. September 2000.
• The ISBSG Report: Software Project Estimates - How accurate are they?. International Software Benchmarking Standards Group, Hawthorn VIC, Australia, January 2005.
• Verner J., Graham T, A software size model, "IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering" 1992. vol. 18, no. 4, s. 265-278.
• Vicinanza S., Mukhopadhyay T, Prietula J., Software-effort estimation: an exploratory study of export performance, "Information Systems Research" 1991, vol. 2, no. 4, s. 243-262.
• Whitecotton S.M., Sanders D.E., Norris K.B, Improving predictive accuracy with a combination of human intuition and mechanical decision aids, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes" vol. 76, no. 3, 1998, s. 325-348.
• Yang Y. i in., Effect of schedule compression on project effort, [w:] 27th Conference of the International Society of Parametric Analysts, Denver, June 2005, s. 1-14.