Software Cost Estimation using Function Point with Non Algorithmic Approach

Software Cost Estimation using Function Point with Non Algorithmic Approach

V.Vignaraj Ananth

Contact

Dr. N. Balaji

Contact

N.Shivakumar

Contact

α Thiagarajar College of Engineering

Software Cost Estimation using Function Point with Non Algorithmic Approach

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

CSTSDET6VA0

Software Cost Estimation using Function Point with Non Algorithmic Approach Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Connecting with the Eternal Ground

Abstract

Cost estimation is one of the most challenging tasks in project management. It is to accurately estimate needed resources and required schedules for software development projects. The software estimation process includes estimating the size of the software product to be produced, estimating the effort required, developing preliminary project schedules, and finally, estimating overall cost of the project. Nearly one-third projects over run their budget and late delivered and two-thirds of all major projects substantially over run their original estimates. Effort is a function of size. For estimating effort first we face sizing problem. In direct approach size is measured in lines of code (LOC). In indirect approach, size is represented as Function Points (FP). In this paper we use both approach with different technique.

References

10 Cites in Article

Reference Format

M Boraso,C Montangero,H Sedehi (1996). Software cost estimation: An experimental study of model performances.
O Benediktsson,D Dalcher,K Reed,M Woodman (2003). COCOMO based effort estimation for iterative and incremental software development.
T Menzies,D Port,Zhihao Chen,J Hihn,S Stukes (2005). Validation methods for calibrating software effort models.
B Boehm,C Abts,A Brown,S Chulani,B Clark,E Horowitz,R Madachy,D Reifer,B Steece (2000). Software cost estimation with COCOMO II.
Function Point Counting Practices Manual: Release 4.
(1994). Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory annual report, October 1, 1993-- September 30, 1994.
Alaa Sheta (2006). Estimation of the COCOMO Model Parameters Using Genetic Algorithms for NASA Software Projects.
Ali Idri,Abdelali Zakrani,Alain Abran (2000). Functional Equivalence between Radial Basis Function Neural Networks and Fuzzy Analogy in Software Cost Estimation.
J Baiely,Basili (1981). A Meta model for Software Development Resource Expenditure.
A Idri,A Abran COCOMO Cost Model Using fuzzylogic.

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

V.Vignaraj Ananth. 2013. \u201cSoftware Cost Estimation using Function Point with Non Algorithmic Approach\u201d. Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology - C: Software & Data Engineering GJCST-C Volume 13 (GJCST Volume 13 Issue C8): .

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

Download Article

GJCST Volume 13 Issue C8
Pg. 1- 5

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/gjcst

Print ISSN 0975-4350

e-ISSN 0975-4172

Keywords

budget effort Estimation FP LOC

Submission ReceivedDecember 14, 2012
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted January 2, 2013
Published January 15, 2013

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

July 31, 2013

Language

Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 108

Country: India

Subject: Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology - C: Software & Data Engineering

Authors: Dr. N. Balaji, N.Shivakumar, V.Vignaraj Ananth (PhD/Dr. count: 1)

View Count (all-time): 290

Total Views (Real + Logic): 9503

Total Downloads (simulated): 2424

Publish Date: 2013 07, Wed

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 43 views
Month 2: 51 views
Month 3: 42 views
Month 4: 31 views
Month 5: 32 views
Month 6: 41 views
Month 7: 45 views
Month 8: 30 views
Month 9: 51 views
Month 10: 36 views
Month 11: 19 views
Month 12: 22 views
Month 13: 18 views
Month 14: 35 views
Month 15: 12 views
Month 16: 11 views
Month 17: 40 views
Month 18: 27 views
Month 19: 27 views
Month 20: 32 views
Month 21: 28 views
Month 22: 37 views
Month 23: 38 views
Month 24: 34 views
Month 25: 15 views
Month 26: 15 views
Month 27: 34 views
Month 28: 45 views
Month 29: 37 views
Month 30: 27 views
Month 31: 41 views
Month 32: 17 views
Month 33: 28 views
Month 34: 35 views
Month 35: 23 views
Month 36: 28 views
Month 37: 32 views
Month 38: 36 views
Month 39: 32 views
Month 40: 44 views
Month 41: 32 views
Month 42: 13 views
Month 43: 30 views
Month 44: 24 views
Month 45: 16 views
Month 46: 45 views
Month 47: 25 views
Month 48: 27 views
Month 49: 30 views
Month 50: 31 views
Month 51: 23 views
Month 52: 43 views
Month 53: 20 views
Month 54: 33 views
Month 55: 27 views
Month 56: 28 views
Month 57: 36 views
Month 58: 36 views
Month 59: 18 views
Month 60: 28 views
Month 61: 33 views
Month 62: 33 views
Month 63: 26 views
Month 64: 23 views
Month 65: 29 views
Month 66: 34 views
Month 67: 34 views
Month 68: 39 views
Month 69: 27 views
Month 70: 35 views
Month 71: 36 views
Month 72: 39 views
Month 73: 34 views
Month 74: 40 views
Month 75: 36 views
Month 76: 22 views
Month 77: 33 views
Month 78: 35 views
Month 79: 37 views
Month 80: 31 views
Month 81: 27 views
Month 82: 33 views
Month 83: 20 views
Month 84: 28 views
Month 85: 44 views
Month 86: 26 views
Month 87: 16 views
Month 88: 30 views
Month 89: 28 views
Month 90: 20 views
Month 91: 22 views
Month 92: 17 views
Month 93: 41 views
Month 94: 47 views
Month 95: 16 views
Month 96: 17 views
Month 97: 42 views
Month 98: 45 views
Month 99: 35 views
Month 100: 26 views
Month 101: 30 views
Month 102: 38 views
Month 103: 29 views
Month 104: 21 views
Month 105: 23 views
Month 106: 40 views
Month 107: 32 views
Month 108: 37 views
Month 109: 42 views
Month 110: 28 views
Month 111: 17 views
Month 112: 40 views
Month 113: 27 views
Month 114: 32 views
Month 115: 23 views
Month 116: 27 views
Month 117: 20 views
Month 118: 32 views
Month 119: 36 views
Month 120: 44 views
Month 121: 29 views
Month 122: 20 views
Month 123: 26 views
Month 124: 14 views
Month 125: 14 views
Month 126: 36 views
Month 127: 47 views
Month 128: 48 views
Month 129: 30 views
Month 130: 47 views
Month 131: 25 views
Month 132: 37 views
Month 133: 20 views
Month 134: 16 views
Month 135: 18 views
Month 136: 26 views
Month 137: 31 views
Month 138: 37 views
Month 139: 38 views
Month 140: 44 views
Month 141: 30 views
Month 142: 24 views
Month 143: 31 views
Month 144: 18 views
Month 145: 17 views
Month 146: 28 views
Month 147: 37 views
Month 148: 34 views
Month 149: 39 views
Month 150: 38 views
Month 151: 34 views
Month 152: 44 views
Month 153: 57 views
Month 154: 43 views

Total Views: 9503

Total Downloads: 2424

2026 Trends

Published Article

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]