Skip to main content

Quantitative Functional Change Impact Analysis in Activity Diagrams: A COSMIC-Based Approach

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Software Measurement (Mensura 2015, IWSM 2015)

Abstract

Change requests are inevitable in every phase of the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC), and responding to a change request without jeopardizing the project success remains a challenge for software developers/managers. Expressing functional changes in terms of COSMIC Function Point units can be helpful in identifying changes leading to a potential impact on the software functional size; this latter can be used as a means to plan the project activities. This paper proposes to analyze the impact of functional changes on the size of UML activity diagrams, one artifact type produced early in the SDLC. The proposed analysis handles directly as well as indirectly affected elements in both modelling levels of the activity diagrams.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Briand, L.C., Sullivan, Y., Labiche, L.O., Sowka, M.M.: Automated impact analysis of UML models. J. Syst. Softw. 79, 339–352 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Russo, B., Steff, M.: What can changes tell about software processes? In: International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics, Hyderabad, India, pp. 1–7 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mala, D.J., Geetha, S.: Object Oriented Analysis and Design Using UML (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Germán, D.M., Robles, G., Hassan, A.E.: Change impact graph: determining the impact of prior code changes. In: International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation, Beijing, China, September 2008

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fu, Y., Li, M., Chen, F.: Impact propagation and risk assessment of requirement changes for software development projects based on design structure matrix. Int. J. Proj. Manage. 30, 263–373 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Goknil, A., Kurtev, I., Van den Berg, K., Spijkerman, W.: Change impact analysis for requirements: a metamodeling approach. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56, 950–972 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Inpirom, A., Prompoon, N.: Diagram change types taxonomy based on analysis and design models in UML. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science, Beijing, pp. 283–287 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  8. COSMIC (The Common Software Measurement International Consortium), The COSMIC Functional Size Measurement Method, Version 4.0.1, Measurement Manual (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gencel, C., Demirors, O.: Functional size measurement revisited. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 17(3), 71–106 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language (UML) Version 2.5 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sellami, A., Haoues, M., Ben-Abdallah, H.: Automated COSMIC-based analysis and consistency verification of UML activity and component diagrams. In: Filipe, J., Maciaszek, L.A. (eds.) ENASE 2013. CCIS, vol. 417, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Bohner, S.A.: Software change impacts-an evolving perspective. In: International Conference on Software Maintenance (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chaumun, M.A., Kabaili, H., Keller, R.K., Lustman, F.: A change impact model for changeability assessment in object-oriented software systems. In: European Working Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Vargas, R.T., Nugroho, A., Chaudron, M.,Visser, J.: The use of UML class diagrams and its effect on code change-proneness. In: International Workshop on Experiences and Empirical Studies in Software Modelling (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  15. JayPrakash, L.T.: impact analysis of UML design changes using model slicing. In: CPSM, Eindhoven, pp. 1–10, September 2013

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hoa, K.D., Winikoff, M.: Supporting change propagation in UML models. In: International Conference on Software Maintenance, Timisoara, pp. 12–18, September 2010

    Google Scholar 

  17. Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y., Soccar, G.: Automating impact analysis and regression test selection. In: International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 252–261 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sellami, A., Haoues, M., Ben-Abdallah, H.: Analyzing UML activity and component diagrams - an approach based on COSMIC functional size measurement. In: International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fairly, R.E.: Managing and Leading Software Projects. IEEE Computer Society, Hoboken (2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. The Unified Modeling Language, UML Activity Diagram Example: Ticket Vending Machine (2014). http://www.uml-diagrams.org/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariem Haoues .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix A

Appendix A

As proposed in our previous work [18], the FS(UML-AD) is computed as follows:

$$ FS\,\,(UML - AD\,)\,\,\, = \,\,\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {FS\,\,(A_{i} )} $$
(1)

Where:

  • n: the number of activities in the activity diagram UML-AD (functional level).

  • FS(A i ): the functional size of the activity Ai in UML-AD (dynamic level).

To measure the functional size of an activity Ai, we use formula (2) [18].

$$ FS(A_{i} )\,\, = \,\,FScond\,\,(Pcond\,\,A_{i} )\, + \,\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{m} {FS(act_{ij} )} $$
(2)

Where:

  • FS(Ai): the FS of the activity Ai (\( 1 \le i \le n \))

  • m: the number of actions detailing the activity Ai (dynamic level).

  • FS(actij): the FS of an action actij (dynamic level).

  • FScond(Pcond Ai): the FS of the pre-condition of Ai. (1CFP if it exists).

To measure the FS of an action (actii), we use formula (3) [18].

$$ FS(act_{ij} )\,\, = \,\,FScond\,\,\,\,(Pcond\,\,\,act_{ij} )\, + \,FSparam\,\,\,\,(Param\,\,\,act_{ij} ) $$
(3)

Where:

  • FScond(Pcond act ij ): the FS of the pre-condition of actii (1 CFP if it exists).

  • FSparam(Param act ij ) = 1 CFP if actij includes input or output parameters).

To measure the functional size of a guard condition, we use formula (4) [18].

$$ FScond\,\;(\,CondGuard\,\,)\; = \left\{ \begin{aligned} 1\;CFP\quad if\,act_{ij} \,has\,\,a\,guard\,\,condition \hfill \\ 0\quad \quad \;\;\;otherwise.\quad \quad \hfill \\ \end{aligned} \right. $$
(4)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Haoues, M., Sellami, A., Ben-Abdallah, H., Ayed, N.E.B. (2015). Quantitative Functional Change Impact Analysis in Activity Diagrams: A COSMIC-Based Approach. In: Kobyliński, A., Czarnacka-Chrobot, B., Świerczek, J. (eds) Software Measurement. Mensura IWSM 2015 2015. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 230. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24285-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24285-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24284-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24285-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics