IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Comparative Evaluation of Functional Size Measurement Methods: An Experimental Analysis

Listed author(s):
  • G. POELS



A number of Functional Size Measurement (FSM) methods have been proposed in the literature, but so far there has been no systematic evaluation of these methods. A major criticism is that little attention has been paid to the empirical validation of FSM methods. By empirical validation we refer to the evaluation of the efficacy of the method and its likely adoption in practice using experimental techniques and statistical data analysis. This paper describes a laboratory experiment which compares Function Points Analysis, a standard FSM method supported by the International Functional Point Users Group (IFPUG FPA) and OOMethod Function Points (OOmFP), a recently proposed FSM method for sizing object-oriented (OO) software systems that are developed using the OO-Method approach. The goal is to investigate whether OOmFP results in better size assessments and is more likely to be adopted in practice, within the context of an OO-Method development process. As OOmFP and IFPUG FPA are FSM methods, only the functional size of a software system is quantified, meaning that only the functional system requirements as seen from the user’s perspective are considered as contributing to system size. The methods are compared using a range of performance-based and perception-based variables, including efficiency (effort required to apply the methods), reproducibility, accuracy, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and intention to use. An important contribution is the development and empirical testing of a theoretical model for evaluating FSM methods in general. The results show that OOmFP is more timeconsuming that IFPUG FPA but the measurement results are more consistent and accurate. Also, OOmFP is perceived to be a useful FSM method in the context of OO-Method systems development. Moreover, the theoretical model proposed might help to bridge the gap between research and practice in Empirical Software Engineering research, as it addresses the issue of method adoption in practice, which has been ignored by ESE researchers.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration in its series Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium with number 04/234.

in new window

Length: 50 pages
Date of creation: Mar 2004
Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:04/234
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Hoveniersberg 4, B-9000 Gent

Phone: ++ 32 (0) 9 264 34 61
Fax: ++ 32 (0) 9 264 35 92
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. James E. Bailey & Sammy W. Pearson, 1983. "Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 530-545, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:04/234. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Nathalie Verhaeghe)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.