Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

Estimating size in incremental software development projects

Estimating size in incremental software development projects

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
£12.50
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Name:*
Email:*
Your details
Name:*
Email:*
Department:*
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
 
 
 
 
 
IEE Proceedings - Software — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

The motivation for this work is derived from the current interest in speeding up development schedules. A key implication of the shift to more rapid development methods is the growing emphasis on fixed time and fixed effort delivered during such projects. However, there appears to be little work that addresses the impacts of dealing with bound effort levels. The result of binding time and effort is to deprive project managers of the normal parameters that are used in trade-offs. The paper attempts to introduce a quantitative analytical framework for modelling effort-boxed development in order to uncover the effects on the overall development effort and the potential leverage that can be derived from incremental delivery in such projects. Models that predict product size as an exponential function of the development effort are used in the paper to explore the relationships between effort and the number of increments, thereby providing new insights into the economic impact of incremental approaches to effort-boxed software projects.

References

    1. 1)
      • C. Jones . (1994) Assessment and control of software risks.
    2. 2)
      • M. Thomas . IT projects sink or swim. British Computer Society Review 2001
    3. 3)
      • B.W. Boehm , R. Turner . (2003) Balancing agility and discipline.
    4. 4)
    5. 5)
      • (2000) Chaos 2000.
    6. 6)
      • H.V. Vliet . (2000) Software engineering: Principles and practice.
    7. 7)
      • J. Stapleton . (1997) DSDM dynamic systems development method.
    8. 8)
      • B.W. Boehm , C. Abts , A.W. Brown , S. Chulani , B.K. Clark , E. Horowitz , R. Madachy , D. Reifer , B. Steece . (2000) Software cost estimation with COCOMO II.
    9. 9)
      • K. Beck . (2000) Extreme programming explained: embrace change.
    10. 10)
      • B.W. Boehm . (1981) Software engineering economics.
    11. 11)
      • Clark, B., Devnani-Chulani, S., Boehm, B.W.: `Calibrating the COCOMO II Post-Architecture Model', Proc. 20th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), April 1998, Kyoto, Japan, p. 470–480.
    12. 12)
      • M.A. Cusumano , R.W. Selby . (1995) Microsoft secrets: how the world's most powerful company creates technology, shapes markets, and manages people.
    13. 13)
      • D. Dalcher , M. Stevens . (2002) Life cycle design and management, Project management pathways: a practitioner's guide.
    14. 14)
      • R.S. Pressman . (2005) Software engineering: A practitioner's approach.
    15. 15)
      • C. Jones . (2000) Software assessments, benchmarks and best practices.
    16. 16)
      • M. Denne , J. Cleland-Huand . (2004) Software by numbers – low-risk, high-return development.
    17. 17)
      • Dalcher, D.: `Falling down is part of growing up; the study of failure and the software engineering community', Proc. 7th SEI Education in Software Engineering Conf., 1994, San Antonio, Texas, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 489–496.
    18. 18)
    19. 19)
      • Layman, L.: `Empirical investigation of the impact of extreme programming practices on software projects', Companion to the 19th Annual ACM Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA ‘04), 2004, p. 328–329.
    20. 20)
      • S.H. Kan . (2003) Metrics and models in software quality engineering.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/ip-sen_20050019
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/ip-sen_20050019
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address