Transcript Software Benchmarking

Software Productivity Research
an Artemis company
Software Benchmarking:
What Works and What Doesn’t?
Capers Jones, Chief Scientist
6 Lincoln Knoll Drive
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803
Tel.: 781.273.0140 Fax: 781.273.5176
http://www.spr.com
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
November 27, 2000
PRJ/1
Basic Definitions of Terms
• Assessment: A formal analysis of software development
practices against standard criteria.
• Baseline: A set of quality, productivity, and assessment
data at a fixed point in time, to be used for measuring future
progress.
• Benchmark: A formal comparison of one organization’s
quality, productivity, and assessment data against similar
data points from similar organizations.
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/2
Major Forms of Software Benchmarks
•
Staff compensation and benefits benchmarks
•
Staff turnover and morale benchmarks
•
Software budgets and spending benchmarks
•
Staffing and specialization benchmarks
•
Process assessments (SEI, SPR, etc.)
•
Productivity and cost benchmarks
•
Quality and defect removal benchmarks
•
Customer satisfaction benchmarks
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/3
TWELVE CRITERIA FOR BENCHMARK SUCCESS
The Benchmark data should:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Benefit the executives who fund it
Benefit the managers and staff who use it
Generate positive ROI within 12 months
Meet normal corporate ROI criteria
Be as accurate as financial data
Explain why projects vary
Explain how much projects vary
Link assessment and quantitative results
Support multiple metrics
Support multiple kinds of software
Support multiple activities and deliverables
Lead to improvement in software results
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/4
SEVEN BENCHMARK HAZARDS
The Benchmarks should not:
1. Conceal the names of projects and units
2. Show only overall data without any details
3. Omit non-coding activities
4. Omit “soft factors” that explain variances
5. Support only one metric such as LOC
6. Omit quality and show only productivity
7. Be used to set ambiguous or abstract targets:
- 10 to 1 productivity improvement
- 10 to 1 quality improvement
- 30% schedule improvement
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/5
REACTIONS TO SOFTWARE BENCHMARKS
Management Level
Benchmark Reactions
Board of Directors
CEO/President
Senior Vice Presidents
Software Vice Presidents
Software Directors
Third-line Managers
Second-line Managers
First-line Managers
Supervisors
Technical Staff
Interested and supportive
Very Interested
Very interested
Interested but apprehensive
Apprehensive
Very apprehensive
Very apprehensive
Very apprehensive
Very apprehensive
Somewhat apprehensive
Conclusion: Software middle management is most apprehensive.
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/6
Software Benchmark Data
Size Data
Source Code
Function Points
“Soft” Attribute data
Environment
Tools, Processes
Audit trails
“Hard” Data
Staffing
Schedules
Effort
Costs
Defects
SIZING
ASSESSING
PLANNING
&
ESTIMATING
BENCHMARKS
MEASURES
&
TRACKING
Normalized Data
Productivity
Quality
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/7
Function Points and Software Benchmarks
• Function points are the major metric for software benchmarks
involving productivity, schedules, costs, or quality.
• Lines of code (LOC) metrics have serious problems and do
not measure economic productivity. In some cases use of
LOC metrics for benchmarks may be professional malpractice.
• Total volume of U.S. benchmark data using function points
exceeds 150,000 projects as of 2000.
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/8
MIGRATION TO FUNCTIONAL METRICS
100%
Other Metrics (Functional)
(5,000)
Measurements Based on
IFPUG Function Points
90%
80%
Measurements Based on
Lines of Source Code
70%
(About 20,000
projects in 2000
60%
(About 150,000 projects
in 2000 < 1% of total)
50%
40%
No Measurements At All
30%
20%
(About 36,000,000 installed projects in 2000
and 6,000,000 new projects in development.)
10%
0%
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Calendar Year
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/9
Software Function Point Metrics: 1979 to 2000
• In 1979 IBM placed the function point metric in the public domain.
• Function points are the weighted totals of five external factors:
Factor
Number of Inputs
Number of Outputs
Number of Inquiries
Number of Logical files
Number of Interfaces
Number
10
10
50
5
10
Unadjusted function points
Complexity adjustment multiplier
Adjusted function points
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
Weight
X 5
X 4
X 5
X 10
X 7
TOTAL
=
=
=
=
=
50
40
250
50
70
_____
460
1.2
552
PRJ/10
FUNCTIONAL METRICS IN INDUSTRY
VALUE ANALYSIS
AND USAGE STUDIES
PRODUCTION
STUDIES
Software
Projects
Software
Portfolios
Individual
Users & Value
90,000 function points
A
Enterprise
Usage & Value
30,000 function points
Managers
100 to 10,000
function points
Organizational
Users & Value
175,000 function
points
Engineering
Engineers
15,000 function points
B
200,000 to
1,000,000
function
points
Salesmen
Marketing & Sales
Administrators
1,000,000 to
10,000,000
function
points
C
Supervisors
• Sizing
• Productivity
• Quality
• Schedules
• Costs
• Size
• Replacement Cost
• Productivity
• Quality
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
Manufacturing
Purchasing
PRJ/11
ENTERPRISE MEASURES AND BENCHMARKS
Enterprise
Measurement
Program
Function point uses highlighted in blue.
Production
Library &
Backlog
Measures
Soft Factor
Measures
Quality
Measures
User
Satisfaction
Measures
Operational
Measures
Defect
Measures
Non-Test
Measures
Testing
Measures
Post-Release
Measures
Annual
Satisfaction
Survey
• Ease of Use
• Functionality
• Support
Monthly
Monthly
Quality
Quality
Report
Report
•
•
•
•
•
Enterprise
Demographic
Measures
Employee
Opinion
Survey
Defect Volumes
Defect Severities
Defect Origins
Defect Causes
Removal Efficiency
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
Down
Time
Response
Time
Productivity
Measures
On-Going
Project Measures
Milestone
Measures
Cost & Budget
Variance Measures
Monthly
Progress
Report
• Completed Milestones
• Plan vs. Actuals
• Red Flag Items
Reuse
Measures
•
•
•
•
•
•
Completed
Project Measures
Designs
Code
Documents
Test Cases
Estimates
Plans
Annual
Annual
Productivity
Productivity
Report
Report
•
•
•
•
•
Development
Enhancement
Conversion
Packages
Contracts
PRJ/12
BENCHMARKS AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
BENCHMARKS
ASSESSING
QUANTITATIVE
DATA
QUALITATIVE
DATA
Size
Effort
Schedule
Documentation
Defects
Personnel
Processes
Technology
Environment
Productivity Rates
Quality Levels
IMPROVING
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
Where You Are
Project Profiles
Department Models
Best Case Models
How You Should Be
Why You Are
PRJ/13
SPR BENCHMARK EXAMPLES
• Software Productivity Research (SPR) has been performing
assessments and benchmark studies since 1985.
• SPR data in 2000 now exceeds 10,000 projects representing
more than 600 enterprises.
• The following data points are samples of “lessons learned”
during software assessment and benchmark studies.
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/14
BENCHMARKS AND SOFTWARE CLASSES
– Systems software
Best quality measurements
Best software quality
– Information systems
Best productivity measurements
Best use of function point metrics
– Outsource vendors
Best benchmark measurements
Best baseline measurements
Shortest delivery schedules
– Commercial software
Best user satisfaction measurements
Best testing metrics
– Military software
Most SEI process assessments
Best software reliability
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/15
FUNCTION POINT RULES OF THUMB
• Function points ^ 0.40 power = calendar months in schedule
• Function points ^ 1.15 power = pages of paper documents
• Function points ^ 1.20 power = number of test cases
• Function points ^ 1.25 power = software defect potential
• Function points / 150 = development technical staff
• Function points / 1,500 = maintenance technical staff
NOTE: These rules assume IFPUG Version 4.1 counting rules.
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/16
U.S. AVERAGE COSTS PER FUNCTION POINT
Unburdened
Fully Burdened
End-user Software
Information Systems Software
Outsource Software
Commercial Software
Systems Software
Military Software
$150
$600
$550
$1,000
$1,200
$2,500
$250
$1,000
$1,500
$1,700
$2,000
$5,000
Average
$1,000
$1,908
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/17
FUNCTION POINTS AND MANAGEMENT TOOLS
SELECTED TOOLS
Lagging
1 Project planning
1,000
2 Cost estimating
-3 Methodology mgt.
-4 Statistical analysis
-5 Personnel mgt.
500
6 Quality estimating
-7 Process Assessment
-8 Risk analysis
-9 Value analysis
-10 Department budgets 500
TOTALS
TOOLS USED
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
2,000
3
Average
Leading
1,500
300
-750
1,000
-500
-250
700
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
1,500
1,500
1,000
5,000
22,000
7
10
PRJ/18
AVERAGE STAFF SIZES
10,240
5,120
Information systems and
outsourcers have smaller
staffs than average
2,560
Application Size in Function
Points
1,280
640
320
160
Military and systems projects
have larger staffs than average.
Projects with tight schedules
have larger staffs than average.
80
40
20
10
0
1
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
256
Full-Time Equivalent Staff
(analysts, programmers, management, support)
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/19
GROWTH OF PROJECT FUNCTIONS AFTER
REQUIREMENTS
50%
Range is 1% to 3% per month
growth in new requirements
Contents
Post-Requirements
Growth in Functional
40%
30%
20%
Maximum growth > 250%
10%
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
1280
2560
5120
10240
Application Size in Function Points
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/20
PLANNED VERSUS ACTUAL PROJECT SCHEDULES
10,240
Planned
Schedule
5120
Function points raised
to the 0.3 power is the
average schedule plan
2560
Application Size in
Function Points
1280
Actual
Schedule
640
320
Function points raised
to the 0.4 power is the
average schedule result
160
80
40
20
10
0
1
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
Project Schedule from Initiation to Delivery
in Calendar Months
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/21
SOFTWARE PAPERWORK
10,240
5,120
Web applets and client-server < 250
words per function point in plans, specifications
Less Paperwork
Than Expected
2,560
640
Function Points
Application Size in
1,280
320
160
80
More Paperwork
Than Expected
40
20
Military software > 4000 words per function
point in plans, specs, and manuals
10
0
10
20
40
80
160
320
640 1280 2560 5120 10240 20480 40960 81920
Total Volume of Pages Produced
(Requirements, Design, Documentation)
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/22
RISK OF PROJECT FAILURE
10,240
5,120
2,560
640
SEI CMM 1 > 50% failures
320
Points
Application Size in Function
1,280
SEI CMM 3 < 10% failures
160
80
SEI CMM 5 < 1% failures
40
for 10,000 function point
projects
20
10
0
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Probability of Cancellation
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/23
SOFTWARE LIFE EXPECTANCY
10,240
5,120
Application Size in Function
Points
2,560
1,280
640
After 10 years compilers
may not be available
320
160
80
After 5 years restructuring and
complexity analysis are needed
40
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Years in Production Before
Replacement
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/24
ANNUAL ENHANCEMENTS
10,240
5,120
2,560
Application Size in
Function Points
1,280
640
320
Expect about 7% per year new
and changed features after the
first release
160
80
40
20
10
0
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
1280
Annual New And Changed Function Points
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/25
AVERAGE PRODUCTIVITY RATES (NEW PROJECTS)
Maximum productivity
> 100 function points per staff month
16
15
Function Points per Staff Month
14
13
12
11
10
Average productivity
is 8 -12 function points
per staff month
9
8
7
6
5
Minimum productivity
< 0.5 function points per
staff month
4
3
2
1
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
1280
2560
5120
10240
Application Size in Function Points
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/26
PRODUCTIVITY RATES FOR ENHANCEMENT SOFTWARE
PROJECTS
16
15
Function Points per Staff Month
14
New features for
existing applications
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
Major structural
changes
5
4
3
2
1
Overhead of
base application
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
1280
2560
5120
10240
Application Size in Function Points
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/27
PRODUCTIVITY RATES (OVERALL AVERAGE)
16
15
Function Points per Staff Month
14
13
12
11
Mid-sized projects
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
Small
Enhancements
Massive new
projects
2
1
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
1280
2560
5120
10240
Application Size in Function Points
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/28
THE 10 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST NET COST PER
FUNCTION POINT PRODUCED
Country
Net Project Cost per
Function Point in U.S. Dollars
1. Japan
$1,600
2. Sweden
$1,500
3. Switzerland
$1,450
4. France
$1,425
5. United Kingdom
$1,400
6. Denmark
$1,350
7. Germany
$1,300
8. Spain
$1,200
9. Italy
$1,150
10. United States
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
$1,000
PRJ/29
THE 10 COUNTRIES WITH THE LOWEST NET COST PER
FUNCTION POINT PRODUCED
Country
Net Project Cost per
Function Point in U.S. Dollars
1. India
$125.00
2. Pakistan
$145.00
3. Poland
$155.00
4. Hungary
$175.00
5. Thailand
$180.00
6. Indonesia
$185.00
7. Venezuela
$190.00
8. Columbia
$195.00
9. Mexico
$200.00
10. Argentina
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
Note: India has more
companies at SEI CMM
levels 4 and 5 than any
country outside the U.S.
$250.00
PRJ/30
SOFTWARE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
Defects
per FP
10
.
9
Malpractice
8
7
SEI CMM 1
6
5
.
U.S.
Average
4
3
.
SEI CMM 3
2
Best in Class
1
SEI CMM 5
0
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Defect Removal Efficiency
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/31
CURRENT U.S. AVERAGES FOR SOFTWARE QUALITY
(Data expressed in terms of defects per function point)
Defect Origins
Defect
Potential
Requirements
Design
Coding
Documents
Bad Fixes
1.00
1.25
1.75
0.60
0.40
77%
85%
95%
80%
70%
0.23
0.19
0.09
0.12
0.12
TOTAL
5.00
85%
0.75
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
Removal
Efficiency
Delivered
Defects
PRJ/32
‘BEST IN CLASS’ RESULTS FOR SOFTWARE QUALITY
(Data expressed in terms of defects per function point)
Defect Origins
Defect
Potential
Requirements
Design
Coding
Documents
Bad Fixes
0.40
0.60
1.00
0.40
0.10
85%
97%
99%
98%
95%
0.08
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
TOTAL
2.50
96%
0.13
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
Removal
Efficiency
Delivered
Defects
PRJ/33
IMPROVING SOFTWARE PRODUCTIVITY AND QUALITY
• Start with an assessment to find out what is right and wrong
with current practices.
• Commission a benchmark study to compare your
performance with best practices in your industry
• Stop doing what is wrong.
• Do more of what is right.
• Set targets: Best in Class, Better than Average, Better than
Today.
• Develop a three-year technology plan.
• Include: capital equipment, offices, tools, methods,
education, culture, languages and return on investment (ROI).
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/34
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE GOALS
What It Means to be Best In Class
1. Software project cancellation due to cost or schedule overruns = zero
2. Software cost overruns < 5% compared to formal budgets
3. Software schedule overruns < 3% compared to formal plans
4. Development productivity > 50 function points per staff month
5. Software reuse of design, code and test cases averages > 75%
6. Development cost < $250 per function point at delivery
7. Software development schedules average 15% shorter than average
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/35
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE GOALS (cont.)
8. Software defect potentials average < 2.5 per function point
9. Software defect removal efficiency averages > 97% for all projects
10. Software delivered defects average < 0.075 per function point
11. Software maintenance assignment scopes > 3,500 function points
12. Annual software maintenance < $75 per function point
13. Customer service: Best of any similar corporation
14. User satisfaction: Highest of any similar corporation
15. Staff morale: Highest of any similar corporation
16. Compensation and benefits: Best in your industry
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/36
FACTORS CAUSING SIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS IN
SOFTWARE QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY
Rank
Worst-case results
Best-case results
1
Inexperienced managers
Experienced managers
2
Inexperienced staff
Experienced staff
3
Irrational schedules
Achievable schedules
4
Unstable requirements
Stable requirements
5
Unstructured methods
Structured methods
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/37
FACTORS CAUSING SIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS IN
SOFTWARE QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY
Rank
Worst-case results
Best-case results
6
No inspections
Formal inspections
7
Perfunctory testing
Planned testing
8
Manual estimates
and plans
Automated estimates
and plans
9
No milestone tracking
Careful milestone tracking
Low design/code reuse
High design/code reuse
10
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/38
FACTORS CAUSING SIGNFICANT VARIATIONS IN
SOFTWARE QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY
Rank
Worst-case results
Best-case results
11
Low level languages
High level languages
12
Crowded offices
Private offices
13
Poor organization
Good organization
14
Generalists only
Specialists as needed
15
Severe size constraint
No size constraint
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/39
FACTORS CAUSING SIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS IN
SOFTWARE QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY
Rank
Worst-case results
Best-case results
16
Severe performance goals
No performance goals
17
Marginal tools
Integrated tool suites
18
Unstable hardware
Stable hardware
19
Marginal computers
Powerful computers
20
No historical data
Accurate historical data
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/40
ATTRIBUTES OF BEST IN CLASS COMPANIES
1. Good project management
2. Good technical staffs
3. Good support staffs
4. Good measurements
5. Good organization structures
6. Good methodologies
7. Good tool suites
8. Good environments
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/41
GOOD PROJECT MANAGEMENT
•Without good project management the rest is unachievable
•Attributes of project good management:
–
Fairness to staff
–
Desire to be excellent
–
Strong customer orientation
–
Strong people orientation
–
Strong technology orientation
–
Understands planning and estimating tools
–
Can defend accurate estimates to clients and executives
–
Can justify investments in tools and processes
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/42
GOOD SOFTWARE ENGINEERING TECHNICAL STAFFS
•Without good engineering technical staffs tools are not effective
•Attributes of good technical staffs:
–
Desire to be excellent
–
Good knowledge of applications
–
Good knowledge of development processes
–
Good knowledge of quality and defect removal methods
–
Good knowledge of maintenance methods
–
Good knowledge of programming languages
–
Good knowledge of software engineering tools
–
Like to stay at the leading edge of software engineering
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/43
GOOD SUPPORT STAFFS
•Without good support technical staffs and managers are handicapped
•Support staffs > 30% of software personnel in leading companies
•Attributes of good support staffs:
–
Planning and estimating skills
–
Measurement and metric skills
–
Writing/communication skills
–
Quality assurance skills
–
Data base skills
–
Network, internet, and web skills
–
Graphics and web-design skills
–
Testing and integration skills
–
Configuration control and change management skills
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/44
GOOD SOFTWARE MEASUREMENTS
• Without good measurements progress is unlikely
• Attributes of good measurements:
–
Function point analysis of entire portfolio
–
Annual function point benchmarks
–
Life-cycle quality measures
–
User satisfaction measures
–
Development and maintenance productivity measures
–
Soft factor assessment measures
–
Hard factor measures of costs, staffing, effort, schedules
–
Measurements used as management tools
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/45
GOOD ORGANIZATION STRUCTURES
• Without good organization structures progress is unlikely
• Attributes of good organization structures:
–
Balance of line and staff functions
–
Balance of centralized and decentralized functions
–
Organizations are planned
–
Organizations are dynamic
–
Effective use of specialists for key functions
–
Able to integrate “virtual teams” at remote locations
–
Able to integrate telecommuting
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/46
GOOD PROCESSES AND METHODOLOGIES
• Without good processes and methodologies tools are ineffective
• Attributes of good methodologies:
–
Flexible and useful for both new projects and updates
–
Scalable from small projects up to major systems
–
Versatile and able to handle multiple kinds of software
–
Efficient and cost effective
–
Evolutionary and able to handle new kinds of projects
–
Unobtrusive and not viewed as bureaucratic
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/47
GOOD TOOL SUITES
•Without good tool suites, management and staffs are handicapped
•Attributes of good tool suites:
–
Both project management and technical tools
–
Functionally complete
–
Mutually compatible
–
Easy to learn
–
Easy to use
–
Tolerant of user errors
–
Secure
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/48
GOOD ENVIRONMENTS AND ERGONOMICS
• Without good office environments productivity is difficult
• Attributes of good environments and ergonomics:
–
Private office space for knowledge workers
(> 90 square feet; > 6 square meters)
–
Avoid small or crowded cubicles with 3 or more staff
–
Adequate conference and classroom facilities
–
Excellent internet and intranet communications
–
Excellent communication with users and clients
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/49
SOFTWARE BENCHMARK AND IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DO
DON’T
•
Think long range: 3 to 5 years
• Expect immediate results
•
Consider all factors:
• Concentrate only on process
or any other “silver bullet”
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
Management
Process
Tools
Organization
Skills and training
Programming Languages
Environment
Plan expenses of up to $15,000 per
staff member over 3 years
Consider your corporate culture
• Expect major improvements for
minor expenses
• Ignore resistance to change
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/50
Software Benchmark Information Sources
• Software Assessments, Benchmarks, and Best Practices
Addison Wesley Longman, 2000. (Capers Jones)
• Measuring the Software Process: A Guide to Functional Measurement
Prentice Hall, 1995 (David Herron and David Garmus)
• Function Point Analysis
Prentice Hall, 1989 (Dr. Brian Dreger)
• http://www.IFPUG.org
(International Function Point Users Group)
• http://www.SPR.com
(Software Productivity Research web site)
Copyright © 2000 by SPR. All Rights Reserved.
PRJ/51