Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An empirical study of the effect of complexity, platform, and program type on software development effort of business applications

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several popular cost estimation models like COCOMO and function points use adjustment variables, such as software complexity and platform, to modify original estimates and arrive at final estimates. Using data on 666 programs from 15 software projects, this study empirically tests a research model that studies the influence of three adjustment variables—software complexity, computer platform, and program type (batch or online programs) on software effort. The results confirm that all the three adjustment variables have a significant effect on effort. Further, multiple comparison of means also points to two other results for the data examined. Batch programs involve significantly higher software effort than online programs. Programs rated as complex have significantly higher effort than programs rated as average.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abran A, Robillard PN (1996) Function point analysis: an empirical study of its measurement processes. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 22(12):895–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht AJ, Gaffney JE (1983) Software function, source lines of code, and development effort prediction: a software science validation. IEEE Trans Softw Eng Se-9(6):639–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Banker RD, Datar SM, Kemerer CF, Zweig D (1993) Software complexity and maintenance costs. Commun ACM 36(11):81–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Banker RD, Slaughter SA (1997) A field study of scale economies in software maintenance. Manage Sci 43(12):1709–1725

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Berenson ML, Levine D, Goldstein M (1983) Intermediate statistical methods and applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm BW (1981) Software engineering economics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm B, Clark B, Horowitz E, Westland C, Madachy R, Selby R (1995) Cost models for future software life cycle processes: COCOMO 2.0. In: Arthur JD, Henry SM (eds) Annals of software engineering special volume on software process and product measurement. Baltzer, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Briand LC, Wust J (2001) The impact of design properties on development cost in object-oriented systems. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Software Metrics, London, 4–6 April 2001, pp 260–271

  • Burgess CJ, Lefley L (2001) Can genetic programming improve software effort estimation? A comparative evaluation. Inf Softw Technol 43(14):863–873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chulani S, Boehm B, Steece B (1999) Bayesian analysis of empirical software engineering cost models. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25(4):573–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrysler E (1978) Some basic determinants of computer programming productivity. Commun ACM 21(6):472–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowderoy AJC, Jenkins JO (1988) Cost estimation by analogy as good management practice. In: Pyle IC (ed) Second IEE/BCS Conference on Software Engineering, Liverpool, pp 80–84

  • Fairley RE (1992) Recent advances in software estimation techniques. ICSE 1992, Melbourne, pp 382–391

  • Fenton N, Pfleeger S (1997) Software metrics: a rigorous & practical approach. PWS, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorla N, Ramakrishnan R (1997) Effect of software structure attributes on software development productivity. J Syst Softw 36:191–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray AR, MacDonnel SG, Shepperd MJ (1999) Factors systematically associated with errors in subjective estimates of software development effort: the stability of expert judgment. Proceedings of the 6th International Software Metrics Symposium, Boca Raton, 4–6 November 1999, pp 216–227

  • Huang S (2001) Early project estimation in the formal communication protocol development. Inf Manage 38:449–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen RW (1984) A comparison of the Jensen and COCOMO schedule and cost estimation models. Proc Int Soc Paramet Anal, pp 96–106

  • Jenson RL, Bartley JW (1991) Parametric estimation of programming effort: an object-oriented model. J Syst Softw 15:107–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson PM, Moore CA, Dane JA, Brewer RS (2000) Empirically guided software effort guesstimation. IEEE Softw 17(6):51–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones C (1996) By popular demand: software estimating rules of thumb. Computer 29(3):116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen M (2004) A review of studies on expert estimation of software development effort. J Syst Softw 70:37–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung H, Pivka M, Kim J (2000) An empirical study of complexity metrics in COBOL programs. J Syst Softw 51:111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchenham BA, Taylor NR (1985) Software project development cost estimation. J Syst Softw 5:267–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemerer CF (1987) An empirical validation of software cost estimation models. Commun ACM 30:416–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemerer CF, Porter BS (1992) Improving the reliability of function point measurement: an empirical study. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 18(11):1011–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudon KC, Laudon JP (2000) Management information systems: organization and technology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederer AL, Mirani R, Neo BS, Pollard C, Prasad J, Ramamurthy K (1990) Information systems cost estimating: a management perspective. MIS Q 14(2):159–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederer AL, Prasad J (1992) Nine management guidelines for better cost estimating. Commun ACM 35:50–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee A, Cheng CH, Balakrishnan J (1998) Software development cost estimation: integrating neural network with cluster analysis. Inf Manage 34:1–9

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lind RK, Vairavan K (1989) An experimental investigation of software metrics and their relationship to software development effort. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 15(5):649–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe T (1976) A complexity measure. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 2(4):308–320

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mendes E, Watson I, Triggs C, Mosley N, Counsell S (2002) A comparison of development effort estimation techniques for Web hypermedia applications. Proceedings of the 8th IEEE Symposium on Software Metrics, Ottawa, 4–7 June 2002, pp 131–140

  • Mukhopadhyay T, Vicinanza SS, Prietula MJ (1992) Examining the feasibility of a case-based reasoning model for software effort estimation. MIS Q 16(11):5–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesi P, Querci T (1998) Effort estimation and prediction of object-oriented systems. J Syst Softw 42(1):89–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norden PV (1963) Useful tools for project management, in operations research in research and development. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendharkar PC, Subramanian GH (2002) Connectionist models for learning, discovering, and forecasting software effort: an empirical study. J Comput Inf Syst 43(1):7–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendharkar P, Subramanian GH (2004) An empirical study of ICASE learning curves and probability bounds for software development effort. Working paper. Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown

  • Pendharkar P, Subramanian GH, Rodger J (2005) A probabilistic model for predicting software development effort. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 31(7):615–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam LH (1978) A general empirical solution to the macro software sizing and estimation problem. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 4(34):5–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam LH, Putnam DT, Thayer LP (1984) A tool for planning software projects. J Syst Softw 5:147–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Reifer DJ (1987) SoftCost-R: user experiences and lessons learned at the age of one. J Syst Softw 7:279–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rule G (2000) Bees and the art of estimating. In: Boehm BW, Fairley RE (eds) Software estimation perspectives. IEEE Softw 17:22–25

  • Shelly GB, Cashman TJ, Rosenblatt HJ (2001) Systems analysis and design course technology. Thomson, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen VY, Conte SD, Dunsmore HE (1983) Software science revisited: a critical analysis of the theory and its empirical support. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 9(2):155–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith RK, Hale JE, Parrish AS (2001) An empirical study using task assignment patterns to improve the accuracy of software effort estimation. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 27(3)264–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamelos I, Angelis L, Sakellaris E (2003) On the use of Bayesian belief networks for the prediction of software productivity. Inf Softw Technol 45(1):51–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens WP, Myers GJ, Constantine LL (1974) Structured design. IBM Syst J 13(2):115–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian GH, Breslawski S (1995) An empirical analysis of software effort estimate alterations. J Syst Softw 31:135–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian GH, Zarnich G (1996) An examination of some software development effort and productivity determinants in ICASE tool projects. J Manage Inf Syst 12(4):143–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Symons CR (1988) Function points analysis: difficulties and improvements. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 14(1):2–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tam KY, Hui KL (2001) A choice model for the selection of computer vendors and its empirical estimation. J Manage Inf Syst 17(4)97–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Tegarden DP, Sheetz SD, Monarchi DE (1993) A software complexity model of object-oriented systems. Decis Support Syst 13:241–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrigley CD, Dexter AS (1991) A model of measuring information system size. MIS Q 15(2):245–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelkowitz MV (1988) Resource utilization during software development. J Syst Softw 8:331–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, E355 Olmsted Building, Penn State Harrisburg, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA, 17057, USA

    Girish H. Subramanian & Parag C. Pendharkar

  2. Computer Aid Corporation, Harrisburg, PA, USA

    Mary Wallace

Authors
  1. Girish H. Subramanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Parag C. Pendharkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary Wallace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Girish H. Subramanian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Subramanian, G.H., Pendharkar, P.C. & Wallace, M. An empirical study of the effect of complexity, platform, and program type on software development effort of business applications. Empir Software Eng 11, 541–553 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-006-9023-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-006-9023-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation