Software development effort estimation

Software development effort estimation is the process of predicting the most realistic amount of effort (expressed in terms of person-hours or money) required to develop or maintain software based on incomplete, uncertain and noisy input. Effort estimates may be used as input to project plans, iteration plans, budgets, investment analyses, pricing processes and bidding rounds.[1]

State-of-practice

Published surveys on estimation practice suggest that expert estimation is the dominant strategy when estimating software development effort.[2]

Typically, effort estimates are over-optimistic and there is a strong over-confidence in their accuracy. The mean effort overrun seems to be about 30% and not decreasing over time. For a review of effort estimation error surveys, see.[3] However, the measurement of estimation error is not unproblematic, see Assessing the accuracy of estimates. The strong over-confidence in the accuracy of the effort estimates is illustrated by the finding that, on average, if a software professional is 90% confident or “almost sure” to include the actual effort in a minimum-maximum interval, the observed frequency of including the actual effort is only 60-70%.[4]

Currently the term “effort estimate” is used to denote as different concepts as most likely use of effort (modal value), the effort that corresponds to a probability of 50% of not exceeding (median), the planned effort, the budgeted effort or the effort used to propose a bid or price to the client. This is believed to be unfortunate, because communication problems may occur and because the concepts serve different goals.[5][6]

History

Software researchers and practitioners have been addressing the problems of effort estimation for software development projects since at least the 1960s; see, e.g., work by Farr [7] and Nelson.[8]

Most of the research has focused on the construction of formal software effort estimation models. The early models were typically based on regression analysis or mathematically derived from theories from other domains. Since then a high number of model building approaches have been evaluated, such as approaches founded on case-based reasoning, classification and regression trees, simulation, neural networks, Bayesian statistics, lexical analysis of requirement specifications, genetic programming, linear programming, economic production models, soft computing, fuzzy logic modeling, statistical bootstrapping, and combinations of two or more of these models. The perhaps most common estimation methods today are the parametric estimation models COCOMO, SEER-SEM and SLIM. They have their basis in estimation research conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and are since then updated with new calibration data, with the last major release being COCOMO II in the year 2000. The estimation approaches based on functionality-based size measures, e.g., function points, is also based on research conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, but are re-calibrated with modified size measures and different counting approaches, such as the “use case points” [9] in the 1990s and COSMIC in the 2000s.

Estimation approaches

There are many ways of categorizing estimation approaches, see for example.[10][11] The top level categories are the following:

Below are examples of estimation approaches within each category.

Estimation approach Category Examples of support of implementation of estimation approach
Analogy-based estimation Formal estimation model ANGEL, Weighted Micro Function Points
WBS-based (bottom up) estimation Expert estimation Project management software, company specific activity templates
Parametric models Formal estimation model COCOMO, SLIM, SEER-SEM, TruePlanning for Software
Size-based estimation models[13] Formal estimation model Function Point Analysis,[14] Use Case Analysis, SSU (Software Size Unit), Story points-based estimation in Agile software development
Group estimation Expert estimation Planning poker, Wideband Delphi
Mechanical combination Combination-based estimation Average of an analogy-based and a Work breakdown structure-based effort estimate
Judgmental combination Combination-based estimation Expert judgment based on estimates from a parametric model and group estimation

Selection of estimation approaches

The evidence on differences in estimation accuracy of different estimation approaches and models suggest that there is no “best approach” and that the relative accuracy of one approach or model in comparison to another depends strongly on the context .[15] This implies that different organizations benefit from different estimation approaches. Findings, summarized in,[16] that may support the selection of estimation approach based on the expected accuracy of an approach include:

The most robust finding, in many forecasting domains, is that combination of estimates from independent sources, preferable applying different approaches, will on average improve the estimation accuracy.[16][17][18]

In addition, other factors such as ease of understanding and communicating the results of an approach, ease of use of an approach, cost of introduction of an approach should be considered in a selection process.

Assessing the accuracy of estimates

The most common measure of the average estimation accuracy is the MMRE (Mean Magnitude of Relative Error), where the MRE of each estimate is defined as:

MRE = \frac{|\text{actual effort} - \text{estimated effort}|}\text{actual effort}

This measure has been criticized [19] [20] [21] and there are several alternative measures, such as more symmetric measures [22] , Weighted Mean of Quartiles of relative errors (WMQ) [23] and Mean Variation from Estimate (MVFE).[24]

A high estimation error cannot automatically be interpreted as an indicator of low estimation ability. Alternative, competing or complementing, reasons include low cost control of project, high complexity of development work, and more delivered functionality than originally estimated. A framework for improved use and interpretation of estimation error measurement is included in.[25]

Psychological issues

There are many psychological factors potentially explaining the strong tendency towards over-optimistic effort estimates that need to be dealt with to increase accuracy of effort estimates. These factors are essential even when using formal estimation models, because much of the input to these models is judgment-based. Factors that have been demonstrated to be important are: Wishful thinking, anchoring, planning fallacy and cognitive dissonance. A discussion on these and other factors can be found in work by Jørgensen and Grimstad.[26]

Humor

The chronic underestimation of development effort has led to the coinage and popularity of numerous humorous adages, such as ironically referring to a task as a "small matter of programming" (when much effort is likely required), and citing laws about underestimation:

The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time.[27]
— Tom Cargill, Bell Labs
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
— Douglas Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid[28]

See also

References

  1. ↑ http://www.infoq.com/articles/software-development-effort-estimation
  2. ↑ Jørgensen, M. "A Review of Studies on Expert Estimation of Software Development Effort".
  3. ↑ Molokken, K. Jorgensen, M. "A review of software surveys on software effort estimation".
  4. ↑ Jørgensen, M. Teigen, K.H. Ribu, K. "Better sure than safe? Over-confidence in judgement based software development effort prediction intervals". horizontal tab character in |author= at position 27 (help)
  5. ↑ Edwards, J.S. Moores, T.T. (1994), "A conflict between the use of estimating and planning tools in the management of information systems.". European Journal of Information Systems 3(2): 139-147.
  6. ↑ Goodwin, P. (1998). Enhancing judgmental sales forecasting: The role of laboratory research. Forecasting with judgment. G. Wright and P. Goodwin. New York, John Wiley & Sons: 91-112. Hi
  7. ↑ Farr, L. Nanus, B. "Factors that affect the cost of computer programming". horizontal tab character in |author= at position 9 (help)
  8. ↑ Nelson, E. A. (1966). Management Handbook for the Estimation of Computer Programming Costs. AD-A648750, Systems Development Corp.
  9. ↑ Anda, B. Angelvik, E. Ribu, K. "Improving Estimation Practices by Applying Use Case Models". horizontal tab character in |author= at position 9 (help)
  10. ↑ Briand, L. C. and I. Wieczorek (2002). Resource estimation in software engineering. Encyclopedia of software engineering. J. J. Marcinak. New York, John Wiley & Sons: 1160-1196.
  11. ↑ Jørgensen, M. Shepperd, M. "A Systematic Review of Software Development Cost Estimation Studies". horizontal tab character in |author= at position 14 (help)
  12. ↑ http://www.oxagile.com/services/custom-software-design-and-development/
  13. ↑ Hill Peter (ISBSG) - Estimation Workbook 2 - published by International Software Benchmarking Standards Group ISBSG - Estimation and Benchmarking Resource Centre
  14. ↑ Morris Pam — Overview of Function Point Analysis Total Metrics - Function Point Resource Centre
  15. ↑ Shepperd, M. Kadoda, G. "Comparing software prediction techniques using simulation" (PDF). horizontal tab character in |author= at position 13 (help)
  16. 1 2 Jørgensen, M. "Estimation of Software Development Work Effort:Evidence on Expert Judgment and Formal Models".
  17. ↑ Winkler, R.L. "Combining forecasts: A philosophical basis and some current issues Manager".
  18. ↑ Blattberg, R.C. Hoch, S.J. "Database Models and Managerial Intuition: 50% Model + 50% Manager" 36: 887–899. JSTOR 2632364. horizontal tab character in |author= at position 16 (help)
  19. ↑ Shepperd, M. Cartwright, M. Kadoda, G. "On Building Prediction Systems for Software Engineers". horizontal tab character in |author= at position 13 (help)
  20. ↑ Kitchenham, B. Pickard, L.M. MacDonell, S.G. Shepperd,. "What accuracy statistics really measure". horizontal tab character in |author= at position 15 (help)
  21. ↑ Foss, T. Stensrud, E. Kitchenham, B. Myrtveit, I. "A Simulation Study of the Model Evaluation Criterion MMRE". IEEE. horizontal tab character in |author= at position 9 (help)
  22. ↑ Miyazaki, Y. Terakado, M. Ozaki, K. Nozaki, H. "Robust regression for developing software estimation models". horizontal tab character in |author= at position 13 (help)
  23. ↑ Lo, B. Gao, X. "Assessing Software Cost Estimation Models: criteria for accuracy, consistency and regression". horizontal tab character in |author= at position 7 (help)
  24. ↑ Hughes, R.T. Cunliffe, A. Young-Martos, F. "Evaluating software development effort model-building techniquesfor application in a real-time telecommunications environment". horizontal tab character in |author= at position 13 (help)
  25. ↑ Grimstad, S. Jørgensen, M. "A Framework for the Analysis of Software Cost Estimation Accuracy". horizontal tab character in |author= at position 13 (help)
  26. ↑ Jørgensen, M. Grimstad, S. "How to Avoid Impact from Irrelevant and Misleading Information When Estimating Software Development Effort". horizontal tab character in |author= at position 14 (help)
  27. ↑ Bentley, Jon (1985). "Programming pearls". Communications of the ACM (fee required) 28 (9): 896–901. doi:10.1145/4284.315122. ISSN 0001-0782.
  28. ↑ Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. 20th anniversary ed., 1999, p. 152. ISBN 0-465-02656-7.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Monday, April 25, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.