Experimental evaluation of an object-oriented function point measurement procedure

Abrahão, Silvia; Poels, Geert

doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2006.06.001

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A systematic review of 159 systematic reviews in medicine found that "in the majority of meta-analyses exclusion of trials with inadequate or unclear concealment 1 and trials without double-blinding led to a change towards less beneficial treatment effect, which was often substantial" [13]. In a recent systematic review of homeopathy, including low-quality studies, such as simplistic quasi-experiments (i.e.…”

Section: The Importance Of Quality Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three empirical studies on the agreement of reviewers about the quality of software engineering experiments

Kitchenham

Sjøberg

Dybå

et al. 2012

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: During systematic literature reviews it is necessary to assess the quality of empirical papers. Current guidelines suggest that two researchers should independently apply a quality checklist and any disagreements must be resolved. [Type text]However, there is little empirical evidence concerning the effectiveness of these guidelines. Aims: This paper investigates the three techniques that can be used to improve the reliability (i.e. the consensus among reviewers) of quality assessments, specifically, the number of reviewers, the use of a set of evaluation criteria and consultation among reviewers. We undertook a series of studies to investigate these factors. Method: Two studies involved four research papers and eight reviewers using a quality checklist with nine questions. The first study was based on individual assessments, the second study on joint assessments with a period of inter-rater discussion. A third more formal randomised block experiment involved 48 reviewers assessing two of the papers used previously in teams of one, two and three persons to assess the impact of discussion among teams of different size using the evaluations of the "teams" of one person as a control. Results: For the first two studies, the inter-rater reliability was poor for individual assessments, but better for joint evaluations. However, the results of the third study contradicted the results of study 2. Inter-rater reliability was poor for all groups but worse for teams of two or three than for individuals. Conclusions: When performing quality assessments for systematic literature reviews, we recommend using three independent reviewers and adopting the median assessment. A quality checklist seems useful but it is difficult to ensure that the checklist is both appropriate and understood by reviewers. Furthermore, future experiments should ensure participants are given more time to understand the quality checklist and to evaluate the research papers.

show abstract

Section: The Importance Of Quality Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We selected 4 of these 8 papers at random to include in our first study. The selected papers were labelled as A [29]; B [21]; C [1]; D [20].…”

Section: Selection Of Research Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three empirical studies on the agreement of reviewers about the quality of software engineering experiments

Kitchenham

Sjøberg

Dybå

et al. 2012

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the IFPUG community warns that the standard FP counting manual fails to provide sufficient detail with respect to new and emerging technologies, for example, object-oriented systems (Abrahao and Poels 2007;Jones 1997), Internet and Intranet applications, and cross-organizational ERP, among others. For the IFPUG counting process to be applied to projects implementing new technologies, the standard definitions of the IFPUG data and process counting components must be rethought in the contexts of these projects and adapted to them (Abrahao and Poels 2007;Daneva 1999b, Jones 1997. For example, researchers in the field of functional size measurement have already advanced in terms of adapting FP counting definitions and validating their application in object-oriented development projects (Abrahao and Poels 2007).…”

Section: What Makes Up a Cost Estimation Model For Cross-organizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the IFPUG counting process to be applied to projects implementing new technologies, the standard definitions of the IFPUG data and process counting components must be rethought in the contexts of these projects and adapted to them (Abrahao and Poels 2007;Daneva 1999b, Jones 1997. For example, researchers in the field of functional size measurement have already advanced in terms of adapting FP counting definitions and validating their application in object-oriented development projects (Abrahao and Poels 2007). What is unique about the application of the IFPUG standard to ERP is that a set of rules must be established for mapping the data and process counting components of the IFPUG standard onto the components of the data and process requirements models in the ERP business requirements document (Daneva 1999b).…”

Section: What Makes Up a Cost Estimation Model For Cross-organizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost estimation for cross-organizational ERP projects: research perspectives

Daneva

Wieringa

2008

Software Qual J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many methods for estimating size, effort, schedule and other cost aspects of IS projects, but only one specifically developed for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Stensrud, Info Soft Technol 43 (7): [413][414][415][416][417][418][419][420][421][422][423] 2001) and none for simultaneous, interdependent ERP projects in a cross-organizational context. The objective of this paper is to sketch the problem domain of cross-organizational ERP cost estimation, to survey available solutions, and to propose a research program to improve those solutions. In it, we: (i) explain why knowledge in the cost estimation of cross-organizational ERP is fragmented, (ii) assess the need to integrate research perspectives, and (iii) propose research directions that an integrated view of estimating cross-organizational ERP project cost should include.

show abstract

“…The notion of B-ITa is the key concept in the research. B-ITa is often associated with an individual enterprise and not with a networked organization 1 . The focus in this dissertation is on B-ITa in CNOs.…”

Section: Definitional Foundationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing business-IT alignment in networked organizations

Tapia¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experimental evaluation of an object-oriented function point measurement procedure

Cited by 18 publications

References 20 publications

Three empirical studies on the agreement of reviewers about the quality of software engineering experiments

Three empirical studies on the agreement of reviewers about the quality of software engineering experiments

Cost estimation for cross-organizational ERP projects: research perspectives

Assessing business-IT alignment in networked organizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About