Can Function Points Be Counted/Estimated From User Stories?

Trusted Advisor


Since the invention of function points (FPs) any time new development methods, techniques, or technologies are introduced the following questions always arise:

  • Can we still use FPs?
  • Do FPs apply?
  • How do we approach FP counting?

These questions came up around middleware, real-time systems, web applications, component-based
development, and object-oriented development, to name a few. With the increased use of Agile methodologies, and therefore the increased use of User Stories, these questions are being asked again.  It is good to ask these questions and have conversations to ensure that the use and application of FPs is consistent throughout the industry in all situations.  The short answers to the questions are:

  • Can we still use FPs? YES. 
  • Do FPs apply? YES. 
  • How do we approach FP counting? The answer to this last question is what this article will address.

Getting Started – Determine the Purpose and Scope

As with any FP count, it is important to identify the purpose of the count and to fully understand how the resulting data will be used.  This will ensure that the correct timing, scope, and approach is used for the FP count.  The following are examples of situations where FPs can be useful.

Purpose: High-level estimate to determine feasibility

If the purpose is to determine the feasibility of moving forward with the project or to complete a proposal, then typically a high-level estimate in a range is adequate. For this count the timing would be "now," and the scope would be whatever functionality is going to be developed. At this point in the life cycle not all information may be available, so some assumptions may need to be made. It is important to document these assumptions so that if the project progresses differently than planned it can be explained. For example, a User Story may state that "As a User I want to have a Dashboard showing application statistics."  It may be too soon to know the exact details, so an assumption of five average complexity External Outputs (EOs) may need to be made.  

Purpose: Estimate for Project Planning

Once a detailed plan is required, then more detailed estimates for effort and cost are necessary. For this purpose, the FP sizing should be completed at the start of the life cycle and updated at each major development stage. For Waterfall it could be at Requirements, Logical Design, and Physical Design phases. For Agile, the timing could be at Program Increment (PI) planning, or Sprint planning or both.  This purpose will require more accurate and thorough data, which requires a more detailed FP count, so more detailed User Stories are typically available. For example, the above Dashboard User Story may be broken down into 5 separate User Stories each describing a specific report: "As a User I want to be able to see a pie chart showing customer complaints by type."  In this case, each report can be examined to determine uniqueness and counted accordingly.

Purpose: Manage Change of Scope

Once a project is underway it is a good idea to track changes in scope to determine if the effort, cost, and schedule are going to be impacted by the change. These types of counts can be completed at different phases or at the time the scope change is identified. Once a change is sized using FPs, estimates can be developed to determine if the change should be incorporated into the current project and/or Sprint, or moved to another project and/or Sprint. A new User Story could be "As a User I want to be able to search customer complaints by type." In this case, a new report would be identified. If the User Story was "As a User, I want to be able to choose the color of customer complaint types in the pie chart;" this would be a change to the initial report we counted.

Purpose: Measure Quality and Productivity

If the purpose of the FP count is to support measuring the actual quality and productivity achieved for a project, PI, or Sprint, then typically User Stories wouldn’t be the source document of choice. This type of count is completed once functionality has been delivered, so ideally one would want to use the "live" system or user manuals to identify the actual functionality delivered to obtain the most accurate measurement. However, if access to the system isn’t available, User Stories may be the only source documentation available. Often documentation isn’t updated after the fact to show changes of what was and what wasn’t implemented so for this purpose it is important to confirm with development staff and/or users what was actually delivered along with referencing the User Stories. 

Utilizing User Stories for FP Counting – Overall Approach

Once the purpose and scope have been determined, the actual FP counting can begin. Applying the International Function Point User Group (IFPUG) rules is the same regardless of the purpose; however, the level of detail and the inclusion of functionality may be different depending on how the data will be used.

Conducting FP counts from User Stories is a bit easier than from other documentation since the majority of User Stories focus on the User perspective of "what" functionality is desired and not on "how" the functionality will be developed and delivered. Sometimes this perspective is difficult to find when looking at Designs or even the flow of physical screens. User Stories by their nature keep the FP analyst seeing things from the User perspective.

The IFPUG counting process starts with defining scope and boundaries and then moves on to identifying data functions and transaction functions. With a list of User Stories, it is more likely that all of this will be decided together as the count develops.

When counting from User Stories, the best approach is to just start walking through them one by one.  Oftentimes User Stories are grouped by categories (e.g. Order Entry, Validations, Reporting, Financials, etc.). If that is the case, it is best to focus on one category at a time. If it is early in the life cycle and the application boundaries are uncertain, it is best to take a first cut at counting the functions. Once the full scope of functionality is known boundaries can be determined and the FP count can be adjusted as necessary.

In following the IFPUG rules, it is important to count the logical functions. This can be difficult depending on the level of User Stories. It would be wonderful if everyone followed the same format and wrote User Stories the same way, but unfortunately that is not the case. One organization may have one high-level User Story for a project, while another organization may write multiple User Stories for the same functionality. One of the benefits of using FPs for sizing is that the method is consistent across all methodologies and isn’t impacted by how the documentation is completed. For example:

High Level – One User Story

  • As a User, I want to be able to enter, update, delete and view orders in the system to avoid manual paperwork.

Lower Level – Multiple User Stories

  • As a User, I want to be able to enter new orders in the system to stop paperwork.
  • As a User, I want to be able to edit orders previously entered in the system to stop paperwork.
  • As a User, I want to be able to delete orders previously entered to avoid incorrect orders be processed.
  • As a User, I want to be able to enter selection criteria to view orders previously entered in the system to stop searching paperwork.
  • As a User, I want the system to use entered selection criteria to display the correct orders to stop searching paperwork.
  • As a User, I want the system to validate the data entered into the fields when an order is added or updated to ensure accurate data is entered.
  • As a User, I want the system to validate the ordered product is "on hand" before accepting the order.

In the above examples, the FP count would be the same. When a User Story seems to be at a high level, it is important to break it down into all of the Elementary Processes (EP). When User Stories are written at a lower level, it is important to look at all of the similar stories together to potentially combine them into the EPs.

The result of the example above is as follows:

User Stories and Function Points

User Stories typically equate to the Transactional Functions (EIs, EOs, EQs); however, it is important for the FP Analyst to also keep Data Functions in mind while analyzing the User Stories. There may not be a list of tables or a data model available, so the FP Analyst may have to assume the ILFs based on the transaction functions.

If early in the life cycle assumptions may need to be made as documented above. Since the User Stories imply the project is automating a manual system then all functions would be new. That would mean that in order to edit or display orders previously entered, they would need to be stored somewhere; hence counting the ILF. 

If at all possible, the FP Analyst should meet with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) who understand the User Stories to get a full understanding and/or answer any questions. In addition, the FP Analyst should reference existing systems that may be comparable or past counts that may be relevant. FP Analysts usually have knowledge of many types of systems. It is okay to bring that knowledge and experience to the FP count to help identify potential functionality. Of course, everything still should be validated by the SMEs. 

If SME involvement is not possible, or if things are still not clear, then any assumptions that are made need to be documented fully. This will ensure that the FP count can be explained and updated correctly as the project progresses. In the example above, the assumptions document how the complexity was determined (e.g. Product file used for validation on Create and Edit EIs; Data Element Type (DET) assumptions). In addition, any further questions are documented (e.g. Need to check for multiple order Types that could impact the Record Element Types (RETs) and thus functional complexity of the ILF – this may also impact the number of Transactional functions).

Agile Development - Additional FP Counting Considerations

Since User Stories are typically associated with Agile development, it is worth mentioning a few items to consider for the FP counting in terms of timing and inclusion.

FP counting can be completed at the Program Increment (PI) level and/or the Sprint level. The PI usually encompasses the final delivered functionality, so the FP counting is completed normally. For an estimate, the count can be completed at PI planning. For quality and productivity measures, the counting occurs at delivery of the PI. Counting Sprints is handled a little differently.

Sprints can also be counted for estimation/planning and at the end of the Sprint for productivity and quality measures.  However, the sum of the Sprints is often greater than the PI count. The level
at which the User Stories are written can be impacted by the time boxing of the Sprints. For example, an initial User Story may be, "As a User, I want to be able to create a new order." During Sprint planning, it may be determined that the entire function cannot be completed in one Sprint, so it may be changed to two User Stories:

  • As a User, I want to be able to enter general information when creating an order.
  • As a User, I want to be able to enter order details when creating an order.

In this case, the FP count of the Transaction would be as follows:

FP count of user stories

The Sprints cannot be added together to obtain the total FP count for the project. Counting at the Sprint level is usually for internal measures to ensure the PI goals will be attained. It can also point out inefficiencies in the development process. If too much "rework" is occurring, perhaps changes need to made in how the project is being planned and managed. The ultimate goal would be to complete an entire EP in one Sprint and only have to revisit it in a later Sprint if new requirements are discovered.


FPs are the best measure for "size" and can be used for all methodologies and technologies. FPs can be counted from any documentation or from just interviewing SMEs. The most efficient and accurate FP counting uses both supporting documentation and information from SMEs. User Stories are an excellent source of information for FP counting. User Stories represent the User perspective and are typically written in a way that describes the functionality required. So, “Can function points be counted/estimated from user stories?” Absolutely. “What level of granularity is required?” Any level can be used; however, as with any documentation used, the more detailed the User Story the more accurate the FP count.

Written by Default at 05:00
Categories :

A Customized Sizing Model

We work with a lot of clients, and they vary in size, industry, and location. They also, of course, vary in the reason they come to us for help. Sometimes they're in need of training, sometimes they're looking for help in one specific area, and sometimes they need help identifying what their actual problem even is. The common theme between all of our engagements is that our focus is on value: What value can we provide to our clients that will truly impact their organization, beyond even IT?

In a recent engagement, a business came to us with a problem. They were bidding on a Navy contract. The contract required the use of function points. Their experience with sizing was minimal. Could we help?


But, we believed that the company needed more than just one simple size for the entire project. The value we provided was in leveraging our experience to build a customized, flexible sizing model to most effectively meet the needs of the client - and for less than the cost of our competitors.

Read the case study to find out more about the engagement.





Written by Default at 05:00

Are Function Points Still Relevant?

Let's start with a quick overview of Function Point Analysis:

Function Point Analysis is a technique for measuring the functionality that is meaningful to a user, independent of technology.  It was invented by Allan Albrecht of IBM in 1979. Several standards exist in the industry, but the International Function Point Users Group (IFPUG) is the most widely used.  IFPUG produces the Function Point Counting Practices Manual, used by Certified Function Point Specialists (CFPS) to conduct function point counts.  IFPUG is one of the ISO standards for software sizing (ISO/IEC 28926:2009). 

Function Point Analysis considers five major components of an application or project: External Inputs, External Outputs, External Inquiries, Internal Logical Files and External Interface Files. The analyst evaluates the functional complexity of each component and assigns an unadjusted function point value. The analyst can also analyze the application against 14 general system characteristics to further refine the sizing and determine a final adjusted function point count.

Function Point Analysis

“The effective use of function points centers around three primary functions: estimation, benchmarking and identifying service-level measures.” [i] 

More and more organizations are adopting some form of Agile framework for application development and enhancement.  The most recent VisionOne State of Agile Survey reveals that 94% of organizations practice Agile.[ii]   Hot technologies such as big data, analytics, cloud computing, portlets and APIs are becoming ever more popular in the industry.

Let’s explore each of the three primary functions of function points and their relevance in today’s Agile dominated IT world and with new technologies.


Whether it is a move from traditional waterfall to Agile or from mainstream technologies to new innovations, project teams still have a responsibility to the business to deliver on time and within budget.  Estimates of the overall project spend and duration are critical for financial and business planning.

Parametric estimation is the use of statistical models, along with parameters that describe a project to derive cost and duration estimates.  These models use historical data to make predictions.  The key parameters necessary to describe a project are size, complexity and team experience.   Many other parameters can be used to further calibrate the estimate and increase its accuracy, including whether the project is using an Agile framework.  Several tools can be used to perform parametric estimation, including SEER, SLIM and COCOMO. 

Project size can be described in several ways, with software lines of code (SLOC) and function points being the most common.  SLOC has some inherent problems, one being that inefficient coding produces more lines of code, another being the fact that determining the SLOC size of a project before it is coded is itself an estimate.  That’s where function point analysis provides real value as a sizing tool.  Even in software developed using the latest innovations in technology, the five components of function point analysis still exist so function point counting remains a valuable tool for measuring software size.  Because a function point count can be done based on a requirements document or user stories, and the expected variance in function point counts between two certified function point analysts is between 5% and 10%, an accurate and consistent measure of the project size can be derived.  And because function point analysis is based on the users view and independent of technology it works just as well as technology evolves.

The function point size, along with the other parameters described above are then used by the parametric estimation tool to provide a range of cost and duration estimates for the entire project within a cone of uncertainty.  This information can be used for financial budgeting and business planning.  

Projects in an Agile framework can create estimates for the individual user stories with techniques like planning poker, t-shirt size or relative mass valuation.  These estimates are used for sprint planning and are refined through the backlog grooming process.  As the team measures and refines its velocity the estimates are further updated.   Ultimately all of these estimates should converge on the overall projected estimate created using parametric estimation.

Regardless of the technologies used for development, in this way estimates of the overall project through parametric estimation and Agile estimation techniques can coexist and complement each other in support of the business’s need for financial and business planning.


Whatever technology or development framework is being used, constant improvement is essential to an organizations ability to survive and thrive in a competitive environment.  Baselining an organization’s performance relative to productivity, quality and timeliness is the starting point for benchmarking and the first step toward an IT organization’s delivery improvement. 

Function points are a common currency for metrics equations.  They provide a consistent measure of the functionality delivered, allowing benchmark comparison of performance over time, of one technology against another, internally across various departments or vendors, and externally against the industry in which a company competes.  Benchmarking is also used in outsourcing governance models as a way to ensure a vendor is providing value with respect to contractual commitments and competitors in the marketplace.

A large amount of function point based industry benchmark data is available from many suppliers.  Some of the suppliers include: The Gartner Group, Rubin Systems Inc. META Group, Software Productivity Research, International Software Benchmarking Standards Group (ISBSG) and DCG Software Value. 

To execute a benchmark, data is collected for the target projects, including function point size, effort and duration.  The data is analyzed and functional metrics are created and baselined for the target projects.  Quantitative comparison of these baselines is done against suitable industry benchmarks.  Qualitative assessment is done to further analyze the target projects and determine contributing factors to performance differences with the benchmark.

Regardless of the development framework or technology used, function points is the basis for baselining and benchmarking an organization to determine their performance relative to the industry and allowing for improvements to move toward best-in-class performance.

Service-Level Measures:

Service-level metrics are most commonly used in outsourcing governance to measure the performance of the outsourcer to ensure contract compliance.  With IT’s increased alignment with the business, service-level metrics are increasingly used internally as well.  Delivery framework and technology don’t change the need for this kind of oversight. 

Outsourcing is typically done at the individual project or application level, for application maintenance, or the entire ADM environment.  Let’s examine each of these outsourcing models and how function point based service-level metrics can be used to monitor them.

Individual project or application:

In the case of individual project or application outsourcing service-level definition is based on the provider’s responsibility, the standards required by the customer and how success is defined.  Function point analysis has a role in all three of these areas. 

Definition of the outsourcer’s responsibilities helps identify the hand-off points.  Function point sizing at requirements hand-off provides an initial baseline of the project size for all metrics to be built upon.  As requirements change throughout the project the baseline can be updated through change control. 

The standards and development practices lead to establishment of compliance measures and targets for the outsourcer to meet.  Function point sizing can be used here as the basis of measures like productivity.

Success can be measured with function point based measures of delivery rate, duration and quality against contractual requirements or internal standards.

Application maintenance:

Measurement of maintenance in an outsourcing includes customer expectations, response time, defect repair, portfolio size, application expertise and others.  Let’s explore those that involve function point analysis.

Customer expectations can be thought of as the size of the portfolio being maintained, as well as the cost of maintaining it.  The portfolio size can be measured with function points to establish the maintenance baseline and its growth over time can be monitored. 

Support efficiency can be measured as the size of the support staff needed to maintain the maintenance baseline.  This can also be measured over time to show trends.

Entire ADM environment:

The measurement needs for ADM outsourcing are different from those of the previous two scenarios.  A multi-year outsourcing requires more complex measures to ensure the services provided by the outsourcer meet contractual commitments.  To do this more complex metrics dashboards are often built to allow a wide range of measurements to be analyzed. 

To build a metrics dashboard that provides the level of monitoring required, many factors must be considered including contractual requirements, end customer expectations and organizational standards and goals. 

The table below describes metrics derived from performance considerations and business drivers. [iii]

Function Points

Many of these metrics are based on functional size so function point analysis can be used to build the measurements.

For outsourcing and internal IT, effective measurement is critical to monitor performance and improvements and should be linked to the organizations goals and objectives.  Metrics based on functional size are key to a service-level measurement program without regard to the delivery framework or technology used.


We have seen above that function point analysis is versatile and adaptable with changing technology and processes.  All technologies still have the five basis components of function point analysis and organizations are still asking “when it will be done?”, “how much will it cost?” and “what will I get?”.  It is for these reasons that function point analysis remains relevant in today’s IT world.


  1. Garmus, D. Herron, D., Function Point Analysis, Measurement Practices for Successful Projects, Addison-Wesley, 2001
  2. IFPUG Metrics View, February 2016, International Function Point Users Group
  3. 9th Annual State of Agile Survey, VersionOne Inc., 2015
Written by Default at 05:00

Avoid the Expert Effect When Consulting

The “expert effect,” roughly, is the inability of someone who has achieved mastery of a subject to relate that concept to a non-expert. This is especially important to be aware of with consulting. As a Certified Function Point Specialist (CFPS), I spend a great deal of time working with Subject Matter Experts (SME) discussing function point counts for various software projects.

A lot of these discussions focus on the SME explaining how a particular piece of software functions. Of course, he or she knows everything about the software – I don’t, but I need to be as informed as possible in order to appropriately size it. Essentially there is a gap in my knowledge and I am dependent on the SME to fill it – which is not always easy (“Why can’t you understand what I’m talking about?!” is a commonly unexpressed, but felt, sentiment).

Keeping the expert effect in mind, there are a few things you can do to make it easier to collaborate with an a SME.

In discussions with a SME, always be mindful of the effort it took to become an expert. Every word of what seems like a “simple” explanation or question is back-loaded with hours, days, years of contextualized study and experience. Keep that in mind and be patient when relating concepts. Do not expect the SME to “get it” in the ‘”right” context (i.e. your context) immediately when sharing a concept or asking them a question. Losing patience is disrespectful to not only the SME, but also to your own efforts in becoming an expert!

Be aware that a SME can also have the tendency to be overconfident in the simplicity of an explanation. This is the other side of that coin. Sometimes when the consultant (me!) searches for clarity on a concept or asks for more detail, the SME will get annoyed because they feel it has already been explained simply. Find a polite way to point out that the reason for more questions is that there is still a knowledge gap to bridge for your own unique perspective. Of course, if it were so simple to know their system, they would not be the expert!

Working with an expert is obviously valuable – he or she knows the topic at hand to the fullest extent. But, distilling that knowledge into digestible pieces can be an exasperating challenge. Understanding that challenge is the first step to opening the door to communication – and a more efficient engagement.

Karl Jentzsch
Senior Analyst


Written by Karl Jentzsch at 05:00

The Mathematical Value of Function Points

"Anything you need to quantify can be measured in some way this is superior to not measuring it
all." – Gilb’s Law(1).

To assess the value of function points (any variety), it is important to step back and address
two questions.  The first is “What are function points (in a macro sense)” and secondly “Why do we measure?”

Function points are a measure of the functional size of software. What are IFPUG Function
Points? IFPUG Function Points (there are several non-IFPUG variants) are a measure of the functionality delivered by the project or application. The measure is generated by counting features and functions of the project or application based on a set of rules. In this case, the rules for counting IFPUG Function Points are documented in the IFPUG Counting Practices Manual. Using the published rules, the measure of IFPUG Function Points is a consistent and repeatable proxy for size. Consistency and repeatability increase the usefulness of estimating and measurement. An analogy for the function point size of a project is the number of square feet of a house when building or renovating. Knowing the number of square feet provides one view of the house, but not the other attributes, such as the number of bedrooms. A project function point count is a measure of the function size a project while an application count is a measure of the functional size of the application. 

The question of why do we measure is more esoteric. The stated reasons for measuring often

  • To measure performance,
  • To ensure our processes are efficient,
  • To provide input for managing,
  • To estimate,
  • To pass a CMMI appraisal,
  • To control specific behaviour, and
  • To predict the future.

Douglas Hubbard (2) summarizes the myriad reasons for measuring into three basic categories.  
1. Measure to satisfy a curiosity.
2. Measure to collect data that has external economic value (selling of data).
3.Measure in order to make a decision.

The final reason, to make a decision, is the crux of why measurement has value in most organizations. The decision is the driver to the value of counting function points. The requirements for making a decision are uncertainty (lack of complete knowledge), risk (a consequence of making the wrong decision) and a decision maker (someone to make the decision).  

The attribute of uncertainty is the direct reflection that there exists more than one possible outcome for a decision. Represent the measurement of uncertainty as a set of probabilities assigned to the possible outcomes. For example, there are two possibilities for the weather tomorrow, precipitation or no precipitation. The measurement of uncertainty might be expressed as a 60% chance of rain (from the statement we can infer a 40% chance of no rain). Define risk as the uncertainty that a loss or some other “bad thing” will occur.  In this case, the risk might be that we intend to go picnic if it does not rain and must spend $30 for food the day before that will perish if we can't go on the picnic.  
Measurement of risk is the quantification of the set of possibilities that combines the probability of occurrence with the quantified impact of an outcome.  We would express the risk as a 60% chance of rain tomorrow with a potential loss of $30 for the picnic lunch that won't be eaten. In simplest terms, we measure so we can reduce the risk of a negative outcome. In our picnic example, a measure would have value if it allows us to reduce the chance that we spend $30 for a picnic on a rainy day.

A simple framework hybridized from Hubbard’s How to Measure Anything or determining the value of counting function points to support decision making is:

  • Define the decision.
  • Determine what you already know (it may be sufficient).
  • Determine if knowing functional size will reduce uncertainty.
  • Compute the value of knowing functional size (or other additional information).
  • Count the function points if they have economic value.
  • Make the decision!

The Process and an Example:

1. Define the decision.

Function points provide useful information when making some types of decisions. Knowing the size of the software delivered or maintained would address the following questions:

  • How much effort will be required to deliver a set of functionality?
  • Given a potential staffing level, is a date or budget possible?
  • Given a required level of support, is staffing sufficient?

Summarizing the myriad uses of function points into four primary areas is useful for understanding where knowing size reduces uncertainty.

a) Estimation: Size is a partial predictor of effort or duration. Estimating projects is an important use of software size. Mathematically, the effort is a function of size, behaviour, and technical complexity. All parametric estimation tools, home-grown or commercial, require project size as one of the primary inputs. The simple parametric model that equates effort to size, behavior and complexity are an example of how knowing size reduces uncertainty.
b)Denominator: Size is a descriptor that is generally used to add interpretive information
to other attributes or as a tool to normalize other attributes. When used to normalize other measures or attributes, size is usually used as a denominator. Effort per function point is an example of using function points as the denominator. Using size as a denominator helps organizations make performance comparisons between projects of differing sizes. For example, if two projects discovered ten defects after implementation, which had better quality? The size of the delivered functionality would have to be factored into the discussion of quality.  
c) Reporting: Collect the measures needed to paint a picture of project performance,
progress or success. Leverage measurement data for Organizational report cards and performance comparisons. Use functional metrics as a denominator to synchronize many disparate measures to allow comparison and reporting.
d) Control: Understanding performance allows project managers, team leaders, and project team members to understand where they are in an overall project or piece of work and, therefore, take action to change the trajectory of the work. Knowledge allows the organization to control the flow of work in order to influence the delivery of functionality and value in a predictable and controlled manner.

2. Determine what you already know (it may be enough).

Based on the decision needs, the organization may have sufficient information to reduce
uncertainty and make the decision. For example, if a table update is made every month, takes 10 hours to build and test, then no additional information is needed to predict how much effort is needed to make the change next month. However, when asked to predict a release of a fixed but un-sized backlog, collect more data.

3. Determine if knowing functional size will reduce uncertainty.

Not all software development decisions will be improved by counting function points (at
least in their purest form). Function point counting for work that is technical in nature (hardware and platform related), non-functional in nature (changing the color of a screen) or an effort to correct defects rarely provides significant economic value.

4. Compute the value of knowing the functional size (or other additional information).

One approach to determining whether measurement will provide economic value is to calculate the expected opportunity loss. As a simple example assume a high profile $10M project, estimated to have a 50% chance of being on a budget (or below) and a 50% probability of being 20% over budget.  
In table form:

Mathematical Value of Function Points

The expected opportunity loss is $1M (50% * 2M, very similar to the concept of Weighted Shortest Job First used in SAFe®). In this simple example, if we had perfect information we could make a decision to avoid a $2M over budget scenario.  The expected value of perfect information is $2M. If counting function points and modeling the estimate improves the probability of meeting the budget to 75% then the expected opportunity loss is $500K (a 50% reduction).

5. Count the function points if there is economic value.

Assuming that the cost of the function point count and the estimate is less than the improvement in the opportunity loss, there is value to counting function points.  The same basic thought process is valid to determine whether to make any measure.

6. Make the decision!

Using the reduction of uncertainty make the decision. For example, if the function point count and estimate based on that count reduce our uncertainty that we can meet the estimate by 50% we would be more apt to decide to do the project and to worry less about the potential ramifications to our career. 


While the scenario used to illustrate the process is simple, the basic process can be used to evaluate the value of any measurement process. The difference in the expected gain and the expected value or the percentage not spent on measurement is the value of the function point count. Modeling techniques
such as Monte Carlo Analysis and calibrated estimates are useful to address more robust scenarios in addition to the use of historical data. Counting function points reduces the amount of uncertainty so that we can make better decisions. If this simple statement is true, we can measure the economic value of counting function points.


1. Demarco, Tom and Lister, Tim. Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams (3rd Edition). 2013.
2. Hubbard, Douglas. How to Measure Anything. (Third Edition). 2014. Wiley. 


The report can downloaded here.

Written by Default at 05:00

"It's frustrating that there are so many failed software projects when I know from personal experience that it's possible to do so much better - and we can help." 
- Mike Harris, DCG Owner

Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Join over 30,000 other subscribers. Subscribe to our newsletter today!