P.U.B.S – The defining factors for FP Implementation. … Proceedings/ISMA7-2012/Sahoo-PUBS...Basis of this presentation . ISMA7 P.U.B.S – The defining factors for FP Implementation

P.U.B.S – The defining factors for FP

Implementation. The Way Ahead

Abinash Sahoo Amdocs, Pune, India

● ISMA7, 31 Oct 2012

Basis of this presentation

ISMA7 P.U.B.S – The defining factors for FP Implementation. The Way Ahead Abinash Sahoo

2

Four years FP practice

Senior Management Engagement

Twenty Two customers

Roles & Responsibilities:

FP Process set up

Counting FP

Estimations & RFPs

Productivity Analysis

Quality Analysis

Improvement drivers

Third Party Audits

The Four Driving Factors

3

• Person or Thing

• Provides Requirements

• Application Sizing

• Effort Estimation

• Productivity Analysis

• Quality Assessment

• Project Contracts

• Vendor Assessment

• Logical View • User’s view • Application

Independency • Sale-ability

• Multi Geography Development

• Multiple Vendor’s contract

• Subset of software

• Decided by Purpose

• Impacted by boundary

• Driven by the count type

Purpose User

Boundary Scope


An Analogy

4

5 ft

10 ft

Size of the room = 300 sq ft

Size of the room = 300 sq ft !

Is a third dimension also missing in Function Point sizing ?


Case 1: Effort Estimation

5

Req 1 5 PD

Req 2 7 PD

Req 3 3 PD

Req 4 4 PD

Req 5 10 PD

Req 6 8 PD

Total Effort 37 PD

Total FP 7 FP

Req 1

Req 2

Req 3

Req 4

Req 5

Req 6

EP 1

Transactions

Req

Num

ber

The Vertical Extreme

Req 1

EP 1 EP 2 EP 3 EP 4

Req

Num

ber

Transactions

The Horizontal Extreme

Req 1 5 PD

Total FP 28 FP

Req -> Requirement Number EP -> Elementary Process PD -> Person Days

All requirements deployed in production together

PUBS



6

Each requirement deployed in live separately

Transactions R

eq N

umbe

r EP 1

Req 2

Transactions

Req

Num

ber EP 1

Req 1

Transactions

Req

Num

ber EP 1

Req 3

Effort and FP calculated separately in each release

PUBS

Req 1 5 PD Total FP 7 FP





7

Req # EP # FP Effort

Req 1 EP 1 7 5

Req 2 EP 2 7 7

Req 3 EP 3 7 3

Req 4 EP 1 7 4

Req 5 EP 1 7 10

Req 6 EP 2 7 8

Req 1 EP 3 7 5

Req 2 EP 1 7 7

Req 4 EP 3 7 4

Req 3 EP 4 7 3

Req 6 EP 4 7 8

Total 77 FP 64 PD

Req

Num

ber

Transactions

Req 1

Req 2

Req 3

Req 4

Req 5

Req 6

EP 1 EP 2 EP 3 EP 4

How Customers Want It

PUBS


Case 2: Nothing Crosses Boundary

8

FP for this scenario

00:01 hrs

DB Files DB Files

EOD Job Apply Business

Logic/Transformation/ Derivation of

Data

DB Files DB Files

Input Read Output Updated

PUBS


Case 2: Nothing Crosses Boundary

9

So what’s the Matter Meaningful to the user Constitutes a complete transaction Self-contained Leaves the business of the application in consistent state

х No External Input Not EI х No External Output Neither EO nor EQ

All user identifiable functional transactions need not always cross boundary

All business DETs (external, internal) should be considered

PUBS


Case 3: Multi Vendor Outsourcing

10

FP used for vendor productivity assessment

Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3

Customer Outsources

Component 1

Front End

Component 2

Middle Layer

Component 3

Back End

PUBS


Case 3: Multi Vendor Outsourcing

11

FP used for vendor productivity assessment

Component 1

Vendor 1

Component 2

Vendor 2

Component 3

Vendor 3

Classical definition of Application Boundary, User, Elementary Processes do not help the objective of FP implementation in this case Vendor 2 suffers from the complexity loss. As a middle layer with no database, all transactions are low/avg complex FP

DETs

1-5 6-19 >19

FTR

0-1 L L A

2-3 L A H

>3 A H H

Single Logical Application Boundary

PUBS


Case 4: Higher Effort Not Higher FP

12

The Limitation of the numbers

DETs

1-5 6-19 20

FTR

0-1 L Low A

2-3 L A H

4 A H H

45 % of the Matrix

PUBS



13

What is required – Option 1

DETs

1-5 6-19 20-35 35-50 51-70 71-100 >100

FTR

0-1 4 4 5 7 10 15 20

2-3 4 5 7 10 15 20 25

3-6 5 7 10 15 20 25 30

7-9 7 10 15 20 25 30 35

10-13 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

14-17 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

18-20 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

PUBS



14

Option 2 – The SNAP way

Dynamic equations for Function Point

# of FTRs

0-3 4-9 10-15 16-20

Complexity Level Low Avg High Very

High

Equations based on FTR Complexity Level Low Avg High Very High

FP Equation 1* #DETs 3* #DETs 5* #DETs 9 * #DETs

OR FP = (X * # FTRs) + (Y * # DETs)

X,Y are constants to be decided

PUBS

EXAMPLE


Why Change?

15

One Stop Solution

Not just another alternative

Functional size-Effort co-relation

Acceptability


The Way Ahead

16

Proactive engagement with “Customers of Function Point”

Adapt to real world software needs & practices

Approved white papers merged to CPM as guidelines

Emphasis on practical and pragmatic view for CFPS


17 ISMA7 P.U.B.S – The defining factors for FP Implementation. The Way Ahead Abinash Sahoo

18 ISMA7 P.U.B.S – The defining factors for FP Implementation. The Way Ahead Abinash Sahoo

Documents

P.U.B.S – The defining factors for FP Implementation. … Proceedings/ISMA7-2012/Sahoo-PUBS...Basis of this presentation . ISMA7 P.U.B.S – The defining factors for FP Implementation