DOCSLIB.ORG

The Development and Achievements of Software Size Measurement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Development and Achievements of Software Size Measurement The Development and Achievements of Software Size Measurement Tharwon Arnuphaptrairong A. Lines of Code Abstract—Software size measurement is crucial for the software development process. It is used for project planning Measuring software size in Lines of Code (LOC) can be and control purposes during the project execution. It is achieved by either “counting” or “estimating / required for productivity measurement after the project approximating”. finished. Software size is also an important driver of software effort and cost estimation. This paper analyzed software sizing Lines of Code Counting articles reviewed from the literature and presents the development, and achievements of software size measurement. Lines of Code (LOC) or Source lines of code (SLOC) is Comments on the findings and future trends and challenges of probably the oldest software matrix used to measure the software size estimation models are also given. software size, since the first program was typed on cards one instruction per line per card. It is simply counting the Index Terms— Software Size, Software Sizing Software size number of lines in the text of the program's source codes. measurement. Counting for SLOC is feasible when the program is completed. The counting is helpful for productivity and I. INTRODUCTION performance measurement and evaluation. However, for oftware size is crucial for the software development planning of software effort, duration and cost purpose, one Sprocess. It is used for project planning and control cannot wait until the software is finished. Estimating or purposes during the project execution. It is required for approximating the LOC of the program to be developed is productivity measurement after the project finished. then necessary before it is actually built. Software size is also an important driver of software effort and costs estimation. Most of the software effort estimation methods require software size. Boehm asserted in his list Lines of Code Estimation that “the biggest difficulty in using today’s algorithm There are two methods in order to estimate the lines of software cost models is the problem of providing sound code (LOC), either by using a model with some parameters sizing estimates [1].” or without any parameters. To estimate the LOC using a model with some parameters is sometimes called model Lines of Code (LOC) and Function Points (FP) are two based method or derived method. To estimate the LOC well known measures for software sizing. Over the years, without any parameters is also known as non-model based there have been a lot of researches contributed to this area. This method or direct method [2]. The direct methods or direct intrigues the question on how software sizing research has estimation methods include: expert judgment, Delphi, been developed and achieved. Hence, the objective of this Wideband Delphi (expert consensus), analogy or case-based paper is to review and analyze the software sizing articles reasoning (CBR), thumb’s rule, standard component, and from the literature and present the general picture the three points estimation. The derive methods comprises of development and update the status of research in the field of methods such as, extrapolative counts, components based software size measurement. method and backfiring. The following section gives more details for these methods. The remaining of this paper is organized as follows: Section II gives a review of the software size. Section III concludes and discusses the findings. Future trends of Direct estimation method software sizing are also discussed in section IV. Expert judgment [1], [3], [4], sometimes called heuristic method, refers to the estimation method based on the expertise, skill and experience of one or more experts. This II. SOFTWARE SIZE MEASUREMENT REVIEW method needs someone who already familiar with the domain of the software to be built. Review from the literature has shown that software size Delphi or Shang technique [2]-[4] was originally can be measured in either lines of codes, or function points developed by Rand Corporation in 1944. This method may and its variants. Only few other measures were mentioned. be considered as a subset of expert judgment method, where group of experts are asked for the estimates until the consensus is reached. T. Arnuphaptrairong is with the Department of Statistics, Chulalongkorn Wideband Delphi or expert consensus [3], [4] is a Business School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10250 Thailand (e- mail: [email protected]). subset of Delphi method proposed by Rand Corporation and later modified by Boehm [5]. Original Delphi technique avoids discussions. Wideband Delphi accommodates group Backfiring method, this method came from the research discussion to achieve the consensus. of Caper Jones [14]. This method estimates the lines of Analogy or Case-Based reasoning (CBR) [4], [6], [7] codes needed to implement a Function Point value involves the retrieval of the similar projects from the (Albrecth’s Function Points) of a program or a piece of repository and use of the knowledge learned from those software for different languages. Details of this method are projects for the estimation of the new project. Accessing the discussed in the next section –Function Points Estimation. similarity may use variety of techniques including -- B. Function Point Euclidian distance, nearest distance, manually guided induction, template retrieval, goal directed preference, Function Point (FP) was originated in 1979 and widely specialty preference, frequency preference, recency accepted with a lot of variants, from both academics and preference, and fuzzy similarity. practitioner [15]. The research in this area is also known as Thumb’s Rule [3], [8], the estimation is made according Function Point Analysis (FPA) or Function Size to a rough and ready practical rule or way of guessing, not Measurement (FSM). The FP measurement could be based on science or exact measurement. classified into FP counting and estimation [2]. Standard component or three point estimation [2] or PERT technique [4], this is rather a technique than a Function Point Counting method to accompany with other direct estimation method Function Point was introduced by Albrecht [16], the in order to improve the estimation. It involves the expert concept is based on the idea that the functionality of the judgment of three possible estimates – the highest (Max), software delivered is the driver of the size of the software the most likely and the lowest possible (Min). The estimate (LOC). In other words, the more the functions delivered, the of the LOC is computed as: LOC = (Max + 4 Most likely + more the LOC. The functionality size is measured in terms Min) / 6. of Function Points (FP). Machine Learning (ML), a subfield of artificial FPA assumes that a software program comprises of intelligence, has been applied in the area [9, 10]. Machine functions or processes. In turn each function or process learning method is to automatically inducing knowledge in consists of five unique components or function types as the forms such as models, functions, rules and patterns, shown in Figure 1. The five function types are External from historical project data. Regolin et al. [10] demonstrated Input (EI), External Output (EO), External Query (EQ), how two machine learning algorithms --genetic Internal Interface File (ILF), and External Interface File programming (GP) and neural networks (NN) can be used (EIF). to predict lines of code from function points (FP), or Each of these five function types is individually assessed number of components (NOC) [11]. Machine learning for complexity and given a Function Point value which algorithms such as genetic programming (GP) and neural varies from 3 (for simple external inputs) to 15 (for complex networks are considered as “black boxes” and therefore it is internal files). The Function Point values are based the not easy to explain how it works to the users [12]. complexity of the feature being counted. The low, average and high complexity level of ILF and Derived method EIF are based on the number of Record Element Type This LOC estimation method uses a model with some (RET) and Data Element Type (DET). A Record Element known (at the point of estimation) software attributes as Type (RET) is a subgroup of the data element (record) of an parameters or drivers to estimate the LOC. ILF or ELF. A data element type is a unique non-repeated data field. Extrapolative counts, this method extrapolates the LOC The complexity level of EI and EO and EQ are based on from the countable components using statistical method or the number of File Type Referenced (FTR) and Data other theoretical basis, for example, work of Tan, Zhao and Element Type (DET). A File Type Referenced (FTR) is an Yuan [13]. Zhao, Yuan and Zhang [13] used conceptual ILF or EIF. data model to estimate the LOC. By using regression techniques they found the relations between KLOC (Kilo Source Lines of Code), C (number of class), R (Number of relation) and Ā (Average number of attributes per class). The relation can be expressed as: KLOC = β0 + β1 C + β2 R+ β3 Ā From the dataset they analyzed, the Java-Based system, the relation is as: KLOC = -10.729 + 1.342 C + 1.254 R+ 0.889 Ā Components based method, Verner and Tate [11] discussed a method that is bottom up approach by sizing the individual software components e.g., menus, screen, report Fig. 1. The Albrecht five function types components, relations and updates. Then sum up all of the The Unadjusted Function Points (UFP) or Unadjusted components sizes to obtain the software size. Function Points Counts (UFC) is calculated as follows [4]: The sum of all the occurrences is computed by method. Expert judgment, Delphi or Shang techniques and multiplying each function count (N) with a Function Point Wideband Delphi (expert consensus) are also called expert weighting (W), and then the UFP is attained by adding up opinion method [2].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Principles of Sizing and Estimating Projects Using
    Principles of Sizing… www.davidconsultinggroup.com The Principles of Sizing and Estimating Projects Using International Function Point User Group (IFPUG) Function Points By David Garmus, David Consulting Group Introduction Software practitioners are frequently challenged to provide early and accurate software project estimates. It speaks poorly of the software community that the issue of accurate estimating, early in the lifecycle, has not been adequately addressed and standardized. The CHAOS Report by The Standish Group’s study on software development projects revealed: 60% of projects were behind schedule 50% were over cost, and 45% of delivered projects were unusable. At the heart of the estimating challenge are two issues: 1) the need to understand and express (as early as possible) the software problem domain and 2) the need to understand our capability to deliver the required software solution within a specified environment. Then, and only then, can we accurately predict the effort required to deliver the product. The software problem domain can be defined simply as the scope of the required software. The problem domain must be accurately assessed for its size and complexity. To complicate the situation, experience tells us that at the point in time that we need an initial estimate (early in the systems lifecycle), we cannot presume to have all the necessary information at our disposal. Therefore, we must have a rigorous process that permits a further clarification of the problem domain. Various risk factors relating to environment, technology, tools, methodologies, and people skills and motivation influence our capability to deliver. An effective estimating model, as contained in Figure 1, considers three elements: size, complexity and risk factors, to determine an estimate.
    [Show full text]
  • A Metrics-Based Software Maintenance Effort Model
    A Metrics-Based Software Maintenance Effort Model Jane Huffman Hayes Sandip C. Patel Liming Zhao Computer Science Department Computer Science Department Computer Science Department Lab for Advanced Networking University of Louisville University of Kentucky University of Kentucky [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract planning a new software development project. Albrecht introduced the notion of function points (FP) to estimate We derive a model for estimating adaptive software effort [1]. Mukhopadhyay [19] proposes early software maintenance effort in person hours, the Adaptive cost estimation based on requirements alone. Software Maintenance Effort Model (AMEffMo). A number of Life Cycle Management (SLIM) [23] is based on the metrics such as lines of code changed and number of Norden/Rayleigh function and is suitable for large operators changed were found to be strongly correlated projects. Shepperd et al. [27] argued that algorithmic cost to maintenance effort. The regression models performed models such as COCOMO and those based on function well in predicting adaptive maintenance effort as well as points suggested an approach based on using analogous provide useful information for managers and maintainers. projects to estimate the effort for a new project. In addition to the traditional off-the-self models such as 1. Introduction COCOMO, machine-learning methods have surfaced recently. In [17], Mair et al. compared machine-learning Software maintenance typically accounts for at least 50 methods in building software effort prediction systems. percent of the total lifetime cost of a software system [16]. There has also been some work toward applying fuzzy Schach et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Application of Sizing Estimation Techniques for Business Critical Software Project Management
    International Journal of Soft Computing And Software Engineering (JSCSE) e-ISSN: 2251-7545 Vol.3,No.6, 2013 DOI: 10.7321/jscse.v3.n6.2 Published online: Jun 25, 2013 Application of Sizing Estimation Techniques for Business Critical Software Project Management *1 Parvez Mahmood Khan, 2 M.M. Sufyan Beg Department of Computer Engineering, J.M.I. New Delhi, India 1 [email protected] , 2 [email protected] Abstract Estimation is one of the most critical areas in software project management life cycle, which is still evolving and less matured as compared to many other industries like construction, manufacturing etc. Originally the word estimation, in the context of software projects use to refer to cost and duration estimates only with software-size almost always assumed to be a fixed input. Continued legacy of bad estimates has compelled researchers, practitioners and business organizations to draw their attention towards another dimension of the problem and seriously validate an additional component – size estimation. Recent studies have shown that size is the principal determinant of cost, and therefore an accurate size estimate is crucial to good cost estimation[10]. Improving the accuracy of size estimates is, therefore, instrumental in improving the accuracy of cost and schedule estimates. Moreover, software size and cost estimates have the highest utility at the time of project inception - when most important decisions (e.g. budget allocation, personnel allocation, etc). are taken. The dilemma, however, is that only high- level requirements for a project are available at this stage. Leveraging this high-level information to produce an accurate estimate of software size is an extremely challenging and high risk task.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Measuring Software Size
    Appendix A: Measuring Software Size Software size matters and you should measure it. —Mary Gerush and Dave West Software size is the major determinant of software project effort. Effectively measuring software size is thus a key element of successful effort estimation. Failed software sizing is often the main contributor to failed effort estimates and, in consequence, failed projects. Measuring software size is a challenging task. A number of methods for mea- suring software size have been proposed over the years. Yet, none of them seems to be the “silver bullet” that solves all problems and serves all purposes. Depending on the particular situation different size metrics should typically be used. In this appendix we provide a brief overview of the common software sizing approaches: functional and structural. These approaches represent two, often- confused, perspectives on software size: customer perspective and developer per- spective. The first perspective represents value of software, whereas the second perspective represents the cost (work) of creating this value. We summarize the most relevant strengths and weaknesses of the two most popular sizing methods that represent these perspectives: function point analysis (FPA) and lines of code (LOC). In technical terms, FPA represents “what” whereas LOC represent “how” in software development. Finally, we provide guidelines for selecting appropriate sizing methods for the purpose of effort estimation. A.1 Introduction There are two aspects to sizing a system: what is the count, and what is the meaning or definition of the unit being counted? —Phillip G. Armour A. Trendowicz and R. Jeffery, Software Project Effort Estimation, 433 DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-03629-8, # Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014 434 Appendix A: Measuring Software Size A.1.1 What Is Software Size? One of the key questions project managers need to answer is “how big is my development project going to be?” The key to answering this question is software size.
    [Show full text]
  • Automating Software Quality Measurement with Standards
    Automating Software Quality Measurement with Standards Paul C. Bentz Amsterdam June 18, 2019 Why Automate? ©2019 CISQ 2 Complexity 1 Unit Level • Code style & layout • Expression complexity • Code documentation • Class or program design • Basic coding standards J • Developer level APIs JSP ASP.NET Java Java Java a 2 Technology Level Web v Services • Single language/technology layer • layer Architecture layer a Intra-technology architecture - • Intra-layer dependencies Hibernate Messaging • Inter-program invocation Struts .NET • Security vulnerabilities Spring • Development team level COBOL PL/SQL T/SQL EJB language, multi - 3 System Level SQL Server . Integration quality . Data access control Oracle Multi . Architectural compliance . SDK versioning DB2 . Risk propagation . Calibration across Sybase IMS . Application security technologies . Resiliency checks . IT organization level . Transaction integrity . Function point, . Effort estimation Technology Stack ©2019 CISQ 3 Velocity ©2019 CISQ 4 Automated Complex Toolchains • Production metrics, objects and feedback • Requirements • Design of the software and • Business metrics configuration • Update release metrics • Coding including code quality • Release plan, timing and business case and performance • Security policy and requirement • Software build and build performance • Infrastructure storage, • Release candidate database and network provisioning and configuring • Application provision and configuration • Acceptance testing • Regression testing • Security and vulnerability analysis
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Software Size: a Search for Value©
    Software Engineering Technology The Evolution of Software Size: A Search for Value© Arlene F. Minkiewicz PRICE Systems, LLC Software size measurement continues to be a contentious issue in the software engineering community. This article reviews soft- ware sizing methodologies employed through the years, focusing on their uses and misuses. It covers the journey the software community has traversed in the quest for finding the right way to assign value to software solutions, highlighting the detours and missteps along the way. Readers will gain a fresh perspective on software size, what it really means, and what they can and cannot learn from history. hen I first started programming, it evolved throughout the last 25 years. It In the ’70s, the LOC measure never occurred to me to think focuses on reasons why these approaches seemed like a pretty good device. aboutW the size of the software I was were attempted, the technological or Programming languages were simple developing. This was true for several rea- human factors that were in play, and the and a fairly compelling argument could sons. First of all, when I first learned to degree of success achieved in the use of be made about the equivalence among program, software had a tactile quality each approach. Finally, it addresses some LOC. Besides, it was the only measure in through the deck of punched cards of the reasons why the software engineer- town. required to run a program. If I wanted to ing community is still searching for the In the late ’70s, RCA introduced the size the software, there was something I right way to measure software size.
    [Show full text]
  • Language-Independent Volume Measurement
    Language-independent volume measurement Edwin Ouwehand [email protected] Summer 2018, 52 pages Supervisor: Ana Oprescu Organisation supervisor: Lodewijk Bergmans Second reader: Ana Varbanescu Host organisation: Software Improvement Group, http://ww.sig.eu Universiteit van Amsterdam Faculteit der Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Informatica Master Software Engineering http://www.software-engineering-amsterdam.nl Contents Abstract 3 1 Introduction 4 1.1 Problem statement...................................... 5 1.2 Research Questions...................................... 5 1.3 Software Improvement Group................................ 6 1.4 Outline ............................................ 6 2 Background 7 2.1 Software Sizing........................................ 7 2.1.1 Function Points.................................... 7 2.1.2 Effort estimation................................... 8 2.2 Expressiveness of programming languages......................... 8 2.3 Kolmogorov Complexity................................... 8 2.3.1 Incomputability and Estimation .......................... 9 2.3.2 Applications ..................................... 9 2.4 Data compression....................................... 9 2.4.1 Compression Ratio.................................. 10 2.4.2 Lossless & Lossy................................... 10 2.4.3 Archives........................................ 10 3 Research Method 12 3.1 Methodology ......................................... 12 3.2 Data.............................................. 12 3.3 Counting
    [Show full text]
  • Quality Characteristics and Metrics for Reusable Software (Preliminary Report)
    Quality Characteristics and Metrics for Reusable Software (Preliminary Report) W. J. Salamon D. R. Wallace Prepared by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Technology Administration National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899 for the Department of Defense Ballistic Missile Defense Organization —Qe 100 .U56 NIST NO. 5459 1994 4 NISTIR 5459 Quality Characteristics and Metrics for Reusable Software (Preliminary Report) W. J. Salamon D. R. Wallace Prepared by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Technology Administration National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899 for the Department of Defense Ballistic Missile Defense Organization May 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Ronald H. Brown, Secretary TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION Mary L Good, Under Secretary for Technology NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY Arad Prabhakar, Director ABSTRACT This report identifies a set of quality characteristics of software and provides a summary of software metrics that are useful in measuring these quality characteristics for software products. The metrics are useful in assessing the reusability of software products. This report is preliminary. Additional research is needed to ensure the completeness of the quality characteristics and supporting metrics, and to provide guidance on using the metrics. KEYWORDS Reusable Software; Quality Characteristics; Software Reliability; Completeness; Correctness; Software Metrics ,fi> i^fi.'4»^lw(ti>bi ncwp>t «frfT' '^^m'^ki^'m m tBtis ir^m^t »mw^g ' ^ .. ^ W : IBIOL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Software Producibility Manufacturing Operations Development and Integration Laboratory (Software Producibility MODIL) was established at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 1992. The Software Producibility MODIL was one of four MODILs instituted at national laboratories by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Development Cost Estimation Approaches – a Survey1
    Software Development Cost Estimation Approaches – A Survey1 Barry Boehm, Chris Abts University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-0781 Sunita Chulani IBM Research 650 Harry Road, San Jose, CA 95120 1 This paper is an extension of the work done by Sunita Chulani as part of her Qualifying Exam report in partial fulfillment of requirements of the Ph.D. program of the Computer Science department at USC [Chulani 1998]. Abstract This paper summarizes several classes of software cost estimation models and techniques: parametric models, expertise-based techniques, learning-oriented techniques, dynamics-based models, regression-based models, and composite-Bayesian techniques for integrating expertise- based and regression-based models. Experience to date indicates that neural-net and dynamics-based techniques are less mature than the other classes of techniques, but that all classes of techniques are challenged by the rapid pace of change in software technology. The primary conclusion is that no single technique is best for all situations, and that a careful comparison of the results of several approaches is most likely to produce realistic estimates. 1. Introduction Software engineering cost (and schedule) models and estimation techniques are used for a number of purposes. These include: § Budgeting: the primary but not the only important use. Accuracy of the overall estimate is the most desired capability. § Tradeoff and risk analysis: an important additional capability is to illuminate the cost and schedule sensitivities of software project decisions (scoping, staffing, tools, reuse, etc.). § Project planning and control: an important additional capability is to provide cost and schedule breakdowns by component, stage and activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancement in Function Point Analysis
    International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.3, No.6, November 2012 ENHANCEMENT IN FUNCTION POINT ANALYSIS Archana Srivastava1 , Dr. Syed Qamar Abbas2 , Dr.S.K.Singh3 1 Amity University, Lucknow, India [email protected], [email protected], 2Director, Ambalika Institute of Management & Technology , Lucknow, India 3Professor, Amity University, Lucknow, India ABSTRACT Early and accurate estimation of software size plays an important role in facilitating effort and cost estimation of software systems. One of the commonly used methodologies for software size estimation is Function Point Analysis (FPA). The purpose of Software size estimation and effort estimation techniques is to provide a useful measure of the software complexities, efforts, and costs involved in software development. Despite almost three decades of research on software estimation, the research community has yet not able to provide a reliable estimation model for End-User Development (EUD) environments. EUD essentially out-sources development effort to the end user. Hence one element of the size and effort is the additional design time expended in end-user programming. This paper discusses the concept end-user programming and enhancement of FPA by adding end-user programming as an additional General System Characteristic (GSC). KEYWORDS size estimation, end user programming, function point analysis, end user development 1. INTRODUCTION End-User Programming system aims to give some programmable system functionality to people who are not professional programmers. One of the most successful computer programs of all times is the spreadsheet applications. The primary reason for its success is that end users can program it without going into the background details of logic and programming.
    [Show full text]
  • COSMIC FFP Measurement Manual V2.2
    The COSMIC Functional Size Measurement Method Version 4.0.1 Guideline on Non-Functional & Project Requirements How to consider non-functional and project requirements in software project performance measurement, benchmarking and estimating Version 1. November 2015 Version control Date Reviewer(s) Modifications / Additions March 2014 v0.1 followed by 15 iterations November See Acknowledgements First version 1.0 published 2015 Copyright 2015. All Rights Reserved. The Common Software Measurement International Consortium (COSMIC). Permission to copy all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage and that the title of the publication, its version number, and its date are cited and notice is given that copying is by permission of the Common Software Measurement International Consortium (COSMIC). To copy otherwise requires specific permission. Acknowledgements Authors and reviewers who have contributed to the development of v1.0 (alphabetical order) Alain Abran, Diana Baklizky Carol Buttle École de Technologie Supérieure, TI Metricas Safety and Security Engineering Université du Québec Council Brazil Canada United Kingdom Jean-Marc Desharnais Peter Fagg Cigdem Gencel École de Technologie Supérieure, Pentad Ltd DEISER Université du Québec United Kingdom Spain Canada Barbara Kitchenham, Arlan Lesterhuis Roberto Meli Keele University Data Processing Organization United Kingdom The Netherlands Italy Dylan Ren Luca Santillo Hassan Soubra Measures Agile Metrics Ecole Supérieure
    [Show full text]
  • Software Estimation, Measurement, and Metrics Chapter 13: Software Estimation, Measurement & Metrics GSAM Version 3.0
    Part 3: Management GSAM Version 3.0 Chapter 13 Software Estimation, Measurement, and Metrics Chapter 13: Software Estimation, Measurement & Metrics GSAM Version 3.0 Contents 13.1 Chapter Overview .................................................................................. 13-4 13.2 Software Estimation ............................................................................... 13-4 13.2.1 Measuring Software Size................................................................... 13-6 13.2.2 Source Lines-of-Code Estimates ....................................................... 13-7 13.2.3 Function Point Size Estimates........................................................... 13-7 13.2.4 Feature Point Size Estimates.............................................................. 13-9 13.2.5 Cost and Schedule Estimation Methodologies/Techniques ............. 13-10 13.2.6 Ada-Specific Cost Estimation ......................................................... 13-12 13.3 Software Measurement ......................................................................... 13-13 13.3.1 Measures and Metrics, and Indicators ............................................. 13-13 13.3.2 Software Measurement Life Cycle................................................... 13-15 13.3.3 Software Measurement Life Cycle at Loral...................................... 13-16 13.4 Software Measurement Process........................................................... 13-18 13.4.1 Metrics Plan ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]