Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement 2016
DOI: 10.1145/2961111.2962613
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Function Point Analysis for Software Maintenance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A reason to retrospective make a function point analysis in this case was the author's lack of luck to debug and support the site after the creator passed away and the vendor upgraded the PHP-version, rendering the site down. This lack of skills can be attributed in some part to Fredric Brooks -'The mythical man month' [5] but also the teachings of Peter Naur, 'Computing a human activity' and 'Programming as theory building' [15][16][17]. In the section 'program life, death and revival' ties well into the problem not having access to programmers with working knowledge [16].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…A reason to retrospective make a function point analysis in this case was the author's lack of luck to debug and support the site after the creator passed away and the vendor upgraded the PHP-version, rendering the site down. This lack of skills can be attributed in some part to Fredric Brooks -'The mythical man month' [5] but also the teachings of Peter Naur, 'Computing a human activity' and 'Programming as theory building' [15][16][17]. In the section 'program life, death and revival' ties well into the problem not having access to programmers with working knowledge [16].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…General system characteristics (GSC) were evaluated for their degree of influence (DOI) summing to the total degrees of influence (TDI): data communication; distributed data processing; performance; heavily used configuration; transaction rate; on-line data entry; end-user efficiency; online update; complex processing; reusability; installation ease; operational ease; multiple sites; and facilitate change. Each GSC was rated for degree of influence (DOI) on a scale from 0 to 5: not present or no influence (0); incidental influence (1); moderate influence (2); average influence (3); significant influence (4); and strong influence (5). The value adjustment factor (VAF) was calculated as 0.01 times TDI + 0.65.…”
Section: External Output (Eo)mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Moreover, the authors of several articles focused only on the selected group or type of software metrics, limiting considerations to e.g. analysis of the software maintainability (Hira and Boehm 2016), or software cost estimation (Menzies et al 2017).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are two types of effort estimation models which are widely used: (i) algorithmic-based models and (ii) non-algorithmic-based models. Some of the most common algorithmic-based models are: COCOMO II [13], Function Point Analysis [14] and Use-Case Points [15]. Whereas, some of the non-algorithmic-based models are: Expert Judgement [16], Analogy Based Estimation [17] and Delphi [18].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%