Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A mapping model for assessing project effort from requirements

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Information Systems and e-Business Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the effort required to develop a system depends on its requirements, it is important to consider the resulting effort when deciding on the requirements. Miscalculating the effort may lead to requirements that cannot be implemented within given budget constraints. In order to support requirements engineers in calculating the effort resulting from the requirements they elaborate correctly, we develop a mapping model for assessing project effort from requirements (MMAPER) in this paper. MMAPER incorporates effort estimation into requirements engineering and thereby enables engineers to proactively assess project effort without demanding that they spend significant additional time on this task. MMAPER measures system size using function point analysis and assesses the resulting effort using the Constructive Cost Model 2. The theoretical underpinning of the methods stems from theoretical perspectives from which we derive theories of how requirements determine the resulting project effort. We also take into consideration that it is important to distinguish requirements of different size but also implemented in different contexts for estimating the resulting effort. We empirically evaluate the model using data from five case studies which we conducted with a financial services organization. The developed model provides very accurate effort estimations, across both controlled experiments and field applications.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdel-Hamid TK, Madnick SE (1991) Software project dynamics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahão S, Poels G (2007) Experimental evaluation of an object-oriented function point measurement procedure. Inf Softw Technol 49(4):366–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abts C, Clark B, Devnani-Chulani S, Horowitz E, Madachy R, Reifer D, Selby R, Steece B (2000) COCOMO II model definition manual. Center for Software Engineering, USC

    Google Scholar 

  • Adem NAZ, Kasirun ZM (2010) Automating function points analysis based on functional and non-functional requirements text. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computer and automation engineering, pp 664–669

  • Agrawal K, Bajpai SK, Tripathi SP (2009) Application of role activity diagrams in finding problem frames and determination of function points. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software technology and engineering, pp 17–20

  • Agrawal K, Bajpai SK, Tripathi SP (2010) Determination of problem frames based on role activity diagrams leading to function points: a case study. Int J Comput Sci Commun 1(2):121–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht AJ (1979) Measuring application development productivity. In: Proceedings of IBM applications development symposium, pp 83–92

  • Banker RD, Datar SM, Kemerer C (1991) A model to evaluate variables impacting the productivity of software maintenance projects. Manag Sci 37(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker RD, Chang H, Kemerer C (1994) Evidence on economies of scale in software development. Inf Softw Technol 36(5):275–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker RD, Davis GB, Slaughter SA (1998) Software development practices, software complexity, and software maintenance performance. Manag Sci 44(4):433–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat I, Goldstein DK, Mead M (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Q 11(3):369–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett K, Rajlich V (2000) Software maintenance and evolution: a roadmap. Conference on the future of software engineering, pp 73–87

  • Bergman M, King JL, Lyytinen K (2002) Large scale requirements analysis as heterogeneous engineering. Scand J Inf Syst 14:37–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm BW (1984) Software engineering economics. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 10(1):4–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm BW, Sullivan KJ (2000) Software economics: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the conference on the future of software engineering, pp 319–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm BW, Abts C, Devnani-Chulani S (2000) Software development cost estimation approaches—a survey. Ann Softw Eng 10(1–4):177–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks FP (1987) No silver bullet: essence and accidents of software engineering. IEEE Comput 20(4):10–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi S, Park S, Sugumaran V (2006) Function point extraction method from goal and scenario based requirements text. In: Kop C, Fliedl G, Mayr HC, Métais E (eds) Natural language processing and information systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3999, pp 12–24

  • Clark B, Devnani-Chulani S, Boehm BW (1998) Calibrating the COCOMO II post-architecture model. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on software engineering, Kyoto, Japan, pp 477–480

  • Condori-Fernández N, Abrahão S, Pastor O (2007) On the estimation of the functional size of software from requirements specifications. J Comput Sci Technol 22(3):358–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dardenne A, van Lamsweerde A, Fickas S (1993) Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci Comput Program 20:3–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darimont R, van Lamsweerde A (1996) Formal refinement patterns for goal-driven requirements elaboration. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on foundations of software engineering, vol 21, no 6, pp 179–190

  • Davis A (1993) Software requirements. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Bianco V, Lavazza L (2009) Applying the COSMIC functional size measurement method to problem frames. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international conference engineering complex computer systems, pp 282–290

  • Dubé L, Paré G (2003) Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS Q 27(4):597–635

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetcke T, Abran A, Nguyen TH (1997) Mapping the OO-Jacobson approach into function point analysis. In: Proceedings of the technology of object-oriented languages and systems conference, Santa Barbara, CA, pp 192–202

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerlich R, Denskat U (1994) A cost estimation model for maintenance and high reuse. In: Proceedings of ESCOM, Ivrea, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  • Glinz M (2007) On non-functional requirements. IEEE joint international conference on requirements engineering (RE’07), pp 21–26

  • Grau G, Franch X (2007) Using the PRiM method to evaluate requirements models with COSMIC-FFP. In: Proceedings of the IWSM-MENSURA, pp 110–120

  • Grau G, Franch X, Maiden NAM (2008) Prim: an i*-based process reengineering method for information systems specification. Inf Softw Technol 50(1–2):76–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information system. MIS Q 30(3):611–642

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner AR, Chatterjee S (2010) Design research in information systems, theory and practice. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussain I, Kosseim L, Ormandjieva O (2010) Towards approximating COSMIC functional size from user requirements in agile development processes using text mining. In: Natural language processing and information systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6177, pp 80–91

  • IFPUG (1999) Function point counting practices manual release 4.1. International Function Point Users Group, Westerville

  • ISO (2003a) ISO/IEC 19761: COSMIC full function points measurement manual, version 2.2

  • ISO (2003b) ISO/IEC 20926: software engineering—IFPUG 4.1 unadjusted FSM method-counting practices manual

  • ISO (2004) ISO/IEC TR 14143-5: information technology-software measurement-functional size measurement, part 5: determination of functional domains for use with functional size measurement

  • Ivari J (2007) A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scand J Inf Syst 19(2):39–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson M (1995) Software requirements and specifications. Addison-Wesley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet JP, Abran A (1997) From software metrics to software measurement methods: a process model. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international software engineering standards symposium, pp 128–135

  • Jørgensen M, Shepperd M (2007) A systematic review of software development cost estimation studies. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(1):33–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman SA (1995) At home in the universe. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavakli E, Loucopoulos P (2003) Goal driven requirements engineering: evaluation of current methods. In: Proceedings of the 8th CAiSE/IFIP workshop on evaluation of modeling methods in systems analysis and design

  • Kemerer CF (1993) Reliability of function points measurement. Commun ACM 36(2):85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchenham B, Pickard L, Pfleeger SL (1995) Case studies for method and tool evaluation. IEEE Softw 12(4):52–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotonya G, Sommerville I (1998) Requirements engineering: processes and techniques. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauesen S (2006) COTS tenders and integration requirements. Requir Eng 11(2):111–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavazza L, Del Bianco V (2008) Functional size measurement based on problem frames: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on applications and advances of problem frames, pp 44–47

  • Letier E, van Lamsweerde A (2002) Deriving operational software specifications from system goals. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering, Charleston, pp 119–128

  • Levy Y, Ellis T (2006) A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Inf Sci J 9:181–212

    Google Scholar 

  • March ST, Smith GF (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis Support Syst 15(4):251–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mckeen JD, Smith HA (2002) New developments in practice II: enterprise application integration. Commun ACM 8:451–466

    Google Scholar 

  • Menges R, Eigenmann U (1996) Design for assembly. In: Bullinger HJ, Warschat J (eds) Concurrent simultaneous engineering systems, the way to successful products. Springer, Berlin, pp 190–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Mihm J, Loch L, Huchzermeier A (2003) Problem-solving oscillations in complex engineering projects. Manag Sci 49(6):733–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moløkken K, Jørgensen M (2003) A review of surveys on software effort estimation. In: Proceedings of the 2003 international symposium on empirical software engineering, Washington, DC, pp 223–230

  • Natt Och Dag J, Regnell B, Carlshamre P, Andersson M, Karlsson J (2002) A feasibility study of automated natural language requirements analysis in market-driven development. Requir Eng 7(1):20–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl K (1994) Three dimensions of requirements engineering: framework and its application. Inf Syst 19(3):243–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pries-Heje J, Venable J, Baskerville R (2008) Strategies for design science research evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on information systems, Galway, Ireland, pp 255–266

  • Putnam L, Myers W (1992) Measures for excellence—reliable software on time, within budget. Yourdon Press/Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Respect-IT (2007) A KAOS tutorial. http://www.objectiver.com/fileadmin/download/documents/KaosTutorial.pdf

  • Sametinger J (1997) Software engineering with reusable components. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer S (2001) Analysis by long walk: some approaches to the synthesis of multiple sources of evidence. In: Trauth E (ed) Qualitative research in IS: issues and trends. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 163–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Selby R (1988) Empirically analyzing software reuse in a production environment. In: Tracz W (ed) Software reuse: emerging technology. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 176–189

  • Shaw M (1990) Prospect for an engineering discipline of software. IEEE Softw 7(6):15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepperd M, Schofield C (1997) Estimating software project effort using analogies. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 23(12):736–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1996) The science of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun Y, Kantor PB (2006) Cross-evaluation: a new model for information system evaluation. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57(5):614–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takeda H, Veerkamp P, Tomiyama T, Yoshikawam H (1990) Modeling design processes. AI Mag 11(4):37–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaishnavi V, Kuechler W (2005) Design research in information systems. http://desrist.org/design-research-in-information-systems

  • van Aken JE (2004) Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. J Manag Stud 41(2):219–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Lamsweerde A (2001) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: RE’01—5th IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 249–263

  • van Lamsweerde A (2004) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a roundtrip from research to practice. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, Kyoto, Japan, pp 4–7

  • van Lamsweerde A, Darimont R, Massonet P (1995) Goal-directed elaboration of requirements for a meeting scheduler: problems and lessons learnt. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering, pp 194–203

  • Venable J (2006) The role of theory and theorising in design science research. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design science in information systems and technology, Claremont, CA, pp 1–18

  • Walkerden F, Jeffery R (1999) An empirical study of analogy-based software effort estimation. Empir Softw Eng 4:135–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls JG, Widmeyer GR, El Sawy OA (1992) Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Inf Syst Res 3(1):36–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls JG, Widmeyer GR, El Sawy OA (2004) Assessing information system design theory in perspective: how useful was our 1992 initial rendition? J Inf Technol Theory Appl 6(2):43–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter R (2008) Design science research in Europe. Eur J Inf Syst 17:470–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (1994) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu E (1994) Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. PhD thesis (also technical report DKBS-TR-94-6). Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

  • Yu E, Mylopoulos J (1998) Why goal-oriented requirements engineering. In: 4th international workshop on requirements engineering: foundations of software quality, Pisa, Italy

  • Zickert F, Beck R (2010) Because effort matters! - a mapping model for assessing project effort in requirements engineering. Bus Inf Syst Eng 2(3):165–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Business Administration, esp. E-Finance and Services Science, Goethe University Frankfurt, Grüneburgplatz 1, 60323, Frankfurt, Germany

    Frank Zickert & Roman Beck

Authors
  1. Frank Zickert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roman Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Zickert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zickert, F., Beck, R. A mapping model for assessing project effort from requirements. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 11, 377–401 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-012-0195-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-012-0195-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation