What do you do ?

]]>

I would retain the full value. When it's translated to effort you don't want a round up error. The full value will look fine on a report. - Royce]]>

When you report a number (like adjusted FP) that is based on components that are made up of integers (3,4,6, 4,5,7, 7,10,1, 5,7,10) it is statistical folly to even profess an accuracy (or precision!) that is closer than +/- 50% of the largest granularity number that goes into the mix. (I.e., +/- 50% of 15 is 7.5 so uFP is really no more accurate than +/- 7.5 FP).

When you then multiply the uFP by a two decimal point number, it is even more misguided to introduce a decimal point into the mix - this "pretends" we have some magical accuracy out of the multiplication process (ref: How to lie with statistics!) As if you can gauge even a single FP let alone a fraction of one.

It gets even worse when we are "estimating" thee function points from incomplete requirements which further introduces inaccuracies into the mix. We are doing our customers a disservice when we report anything but integer results.

No wonder when people say that their estimate is 100.1 FP that the project team rolls their eyes and management thinks we are wizards! We have to start acting our age when it comes to metrics and what we communicate!

This is a long answer to your short question, but I would never report the decimal place. Go with 100 FP and you'll find that the consequences lead to higher reliability on the part of the business and to your credibility.]]>

Let's use simple maths here. If the value is equal to or greater than .5, you have an advantage to round it up to 1 but if value is lesser than .5 then it's advisable to round it down. In your case you should take value as 100 not 101.

Hope this answers your question.

Regards,

Faisal Shakeel]]>