[Logo] Function Point Analysis And Software Estimation Forum
  [Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent Topics   [Hottest Topics] Hottest Topics   [Members]  Member Listing   [Groups] Back to home page 
[Moderation Log] Moderation Log   [Register] Register / 
[Login] Login 
Messages posted by: glanza
Forum Index » Profile for glanza » Messages posted by glanza
Author Message
That's depend from the user point of view.
If the portal is a precise requirement and it is known to the user it can be counted.

In your scenario It seems that the user is completely transparent to wich application is running. He sees the WEB Potal and a flux of data. In this context what you have to count is what the user sees.

Of course, first of all, you are to establish who is the user.

If the user can see the different applications and the portal is only a mean to input/view Data, then the portal can see a simple technical requirement.

best regards
Your world is quite complex but it is usual.

For a metric project I suggest:

To initiate step by step (you can count also using early estimate method, for example Early & Quick fp( http://www.dpo.it/eqfp/Downloads/2004-smef-conte-en.pdf), or to count one product and the other for analogy.

To correlate the cost to the FP you have to consider the different factors of the project. FP is a Product Measure, not a Project measure, so there are some activities in the project that are not correlated with FP, these activities have to be not correlated with the measure in FP but considered apart.

You can associate your project some distinct characteristic and to each characteritic associate a particular weight. One of this characteritic can be the Functional Measure (FP).
After all, according to the project weight you can divide them in categories of complexity.

It's not an easy task but this permits to involve in many people to collaborate.

Metrics help you but the best practice is, IMHO, the experience.

Best regards
It's a good question Sergav but the answer is a difficult one
In my company we're using fp since 1998 in some areas, but we have not been able to measure all the applications asset, that is very large (I'suppose more than 200000 fp).

IMHO the problem is not only to measure and how much time it deserves to but to introduce the culture of measure.
This have to be done at any levels, from the top managers to the developers.

First of all You have to know that metrics are a mean and not a solution of the problems.
Initially, many people can think that from a Function Point Measure you can obtain, with an automatic process, effort, cost, defects and so on.
It's not true!

Function Point is a product measure and is useful if you use it properly.
So the main advice that I can give you is, before measure, to introduce this concept and to use a set of metrics:
Function Point are a functional metric, they weight the functional requirements, but there are also the non functional requirements (you can see SNAP, released by IFPUG last September).

Furthermore you have to ask which is exactly your goal, why to measure?
Is it mandatory to count all the software you did?
If you want to measure to better estimate the developing effort you can start choosing some products.
To measure is a dirty job, you can measure and collect data, so after a while you will have your historical data, and this is better than using literature data.

The measure process has to involve in many people, and you have a better chance to win if you're not a teacher but a witness.

Only if all the people understand the culture of measuring the process of measure can be worthwhile.

I hope to have been a bit worthwhile.
Good luck and good counting!

Best regards

Hi all,
The problem, IMHO, is not to find a unique standard measure for the software but some means tha permit us to know better what we are doing.

The Software metric world is not an easy word, and it could not be easy for a simple reason: the ICT Word is not an easy world.

The metrics help us to work better, but they will never be the solution of our problems.

I'm using COSMIC and IFPUG in the counting of the same product (for example using COSMIC FP to measure the batch stream and IFPUG to measure the Front Office functionality), of course you can not to sum them (it would be as summing apples to oranges).

Each measure can permit you to know the functional dimension of that piece of software. How to transform it in effort and cost this is another story.

To know the relation betweenthe functional size and effort and cost the best thing is to do a dirty job: to collect your historical data and to obatin your proper factors.

Best Regards

The conversion from Use Case Points in Function Points is a very delicate process.
It depends how the use cases have been written. There can be a use case that contains more elementary processes and another one that constituites a single elementary process.

To find a rate of conversion we have to establish some restricted rules to build the Use Cases.
In any case the question is : if we want the function point why don't we count them?

A good counter can have a productivity of 100 FP an hour if the use case are written well and there is someone that can clear some doubts.

Best regards
Hi all
The manual say :
An internal logical file (ILF) is a user recognizable group of logically related
data or control information maintained within the boundary of the application
being measured. The primary intent of an ILF is to hold data maintained
through one or more elementary processes of the application being measured.

An external interface file (EIF) is a user recognizable group of logically
related data or control information, which is referenced by the application
being measured, but which is maintained within the boundary of another
application. The primary intent of an EIF is to hold data referenced through
one or more elementary processes within the boundary of the application
measured. This means an EIF counted for an application must be in an ILF in
another application.

In this case there is no application that maintains the Logical Files, so we cannot consider
the table as a logical file.
Without logical file we can not consider any elementary process to maintain the data.

This manual activities would be perhaps be counted as non functional requirements through the SNAP counting manual released by IFPUF in September 2011.

Best regards
Forum Index » Profile for glanza » Messages posted by glanza
Go to:   
Powered by Function Point Modeler © FPM Team