Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 115 views

    Software Engineering Methodologies

    Uploaded by

    hk3987gmailcom
    The document defines and compares four common software estimation techniques: SLIM, SEER-SEM, COCOMO II, and PROBE. SLIM uses lines of code and a productivity index calculated from historical project data to estimate effort. SEER-SEM considers size, personnel, environment, complexity and constraints. COCOMO II is an updated version of the original COCOMO model, allowing different techniques and factors besides lines of code. PROBE divides a project into conceptual parts that are compared to existing parts to estimate lines of code. The techniques vary in their inputs, models, and licensing. SLIM and COCOMO II are composite models based on lines of code, while SEER-SEM and PROBE use additional

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Software Engineering Methodologies

    Uploaded by

    hk3987gmailcom
    115 views4 pages
    The document defines and compares four common software estimation techniques: SLIM, SEER-SEM, COCOMO II, and PROBE. SLIM uses lines of code and a productivity index calculated from historical project data to estimate effort. SEER-SEM considers size, personnel, environment, complexity and constraints. COCOMO II is an updated version of the original COCOMO model, allowing different techniques and factors besides lines of code. PROBE divides a project into conceptual parts that are compared to existing parts to estimate lines of code. The techniques vary in their inputs, models, and licensing. SLIM and COCOMO II are composite models based on lines of code, while SEER-SEM and PROBE use additional

    Original Description:

    Software Engineering Methodologies

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document defines and compares four common software estimation techniques: SLIM, SEER-SEM, COCOMO II, and PROBE. SLIM uses lines of code and a productivity index calculated from historical project data to estimate effort. SEER-SEM considers size, personnel, environment, complexity and constraints. COCOMO II is an updated version of the original COCOMO model, allowing different techniques and factors besides lines of code. PROBE divides a project into conceptual parts that are compared to existing parts to estimate lines of code. The techniques vary in their inputs, models, and licensing. SLIM and COCOMO II are composite models based on lines of code, while SEER-SEM and PROBE use additional

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    115 views4 pages

    Software Engineering Methodologies

    Uploaded by

    hk3987gmailcom
    The document defines and compares four common software estimation techniques: SLIM, SEER-SEM, COCOMO II, and PROBE. SLIM uses lines of code and a productivity index calculated from historical project data to estimate effort. SEER-SEM considers size, personnel, environment, complexity and constraints. COCOMO II is an updated version of the original COCOMO model, allowing different techniques and factors besides lines of code. PROBE divides a project into conceptual parts that are compared to existing parts to estimate lines of code. The techniques vary in their inputs, models, and licensing. SLIM and COCOMO II are composite models based on lines of code, while SEER-SEM and PROBE use additional

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The key takeaways are that SLIM, SEER-SEM, COCOMO II, and PROBE are four common software estimation techniques that vary in complexity, basis in historical data, major inputs, and flexibility. Multiple estimation approaches should be used when estimating software costs.

    The four common software estimation techniques discussed are SLIM, SEER-SEM, COCOMO II, and PROBE.

    SLIM uses a Productivity Index based on prior projects along with the Rayleigh distribution equation. COCOMO II uses lines of code as a base factor and has different models that use different cost drivers, rules, and equations.

    Question 3: Define and compare the SLIM,COCOMO

    II, Seer

    Sem, and PROBE software estimation tech-

    niques.
    Software estimation techniques vary between complexity, basis in historical data, major input, and flexibility. This paper defines four common types of software estimation techniques
    and then compares them.

    3.1

    SLIM

    The SLIM software cost estimation technique, created in 1976, consists of measuring the cost
    of software based on the number of lines of code as its major input and includes the expertise obtained from Lawrence Putnam in his pioneering paper that compared 2600 different
    software projects from data obtained from the U.S. Army Computer Systems Command[2].
    SLIM stands for Software Lifecycle Management and was created by Putnam at his company
    Quantitative Software Management, Inc.

    3.1.1

    Calculation

    The SLIM technique uses a Productivity Index, which is the measure of efficiency and complexity, of the various software projects that have been completed from the persons company.
    There exists a broad range of indexes depending on the type of software being developed,
    such as Business, Scientific, System, etc, that can be used if the company has no prior experience developing software. This productivity index is calculated by a combination of SLOC,
    Effort, and Time. (LOC = PI * Effort ^ (1/3) * time ^(4/3). This productivity index is
    then coupled with the Rayleigh distribution equation (which is project personnel vs time)to
    display a close cost estimation. This number is a combination of real world software projects
    and the companies personal experience developing software.

    3.2

    SEER-SEM

    The SEER-SEM uses the size, personnel, environment, complexity, and constraints to estimate the effort, cost, schedule, risk, and maintenance of a software project. It was developed
    by Dan Galorath. Galorath Inc currently owns the SEER-SEM trademark. SEER stands for
    System Evaluation and Estimation of Resources and the SEM stands for Software Estimation
    Model.

    3.3

    COCOMO II

    COCOMO was originally developed by Barray Boehm in 1981 and is short for COnstructive
    COst MOdel. Its metrics are based on the number of lines of code and uses adjustment
    factors based on historical data. COCOMO II is the updated model which allows for more
    types of software engineering techniques, including Object Oriented design, reuse driven
    approaches, rapid-development processes, and other factors. COCOMO II still uses the
    number of lines of code as its base estimation factor. COCOMO II has three different
    models: Application Composition Model, which is good for rapid application development,
    Early Design Model, which is good for rough estimates, and the Post-Architecture Model,
    which is used after the architecture has been completed for the software. Each model has
    different cost drivers, rules, and equations. COCOMO II is an improvement over COCOMO
    as it doesnt have to use SLOC. It can use object points or functional points to defined the
    size of the project. Additionally, COCOMOII EAF equation includes seventeen cost drivers
    that are more refined for modern software, as opposed to COCOMO original fifteen EAF
    cost drivers. COCOMO is the most popular method of software cost estimation.

    3.3.1

    Calculation

    PROBE is a technique to estimate program size and effort. Probe stands for Proxy based
    estimation and uses proxy of objects. The project is divided into conceptual parts and then
    these parts are compared to existing parts. This will help you judge the size of the project
    2

    at a high level. Proxies can be different things, such as files, objects, or procedures. These
    parts can be compared and then summed to estimate the number of lines of code. This
    type of estimation technique can be difficult if parts are hard to compare. Additionally
    implementation differences can skew numbers.

    3.4
    3.4.1

    Comparison
    License

    The license usage for these models are all different. The SEER-SEM and SLIM are both
    proprietary commercial models. COCOMO II is considered public domain.

    3.4.2

    Types of Models

    Both SLIM and COCOMO II is considered composite models, which are a combination of
    analytic techniques. Both SLIM and COOCMO II both take the number of lines of code
    as its major input. The advantage of this approach is that accuracy can be improved by
    modeling more similar enviornments.

    3.4.3

    Calculation Complexity

    Considering the number of factors for each type of software estimation technique, SLIM
    offers the fewest parameters to create an estimation. However, it is more heavily dependent
    on historical data of the community and ones own engineering past. COCOMO II requires
    a large number of factors to estimate it cost.

    3.5

    Conclusion

    Overall, when estimating cost for software, one should use multiple approaches. Most software estimation models depend on the size of the software that is being developed [1].

    References
    [1] C. Jones. Applied Software Measurement: Assuring Productivity and Quality. McGrawHill Software Engineering Series. McGraw-Hill, 1991.
    [2] L. H. Putnam. A general empirical solution to the macro software sizing and estimating
    problem. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 4(4):345361, July 1978.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy