Welcome back! It has been two yearssince the last issue of MetricViews waspublished—much too long, in my book.Since then much has happened in IFPUG.

We renamed the annual conference to appeal to a broader audi-ence, then had to cancel the ISMA Conference due to HurricaneKatrina. We’ve introduced the Certified Software MeasurementProgram and evolved the CFPS extension program. We’ve seen

significant growth in our membership in places like India, Brazil and Korea andhave added new chapters across the world.

MetricViews is an important benefit of IFPUG membership. In an organizationas big and diverse as IFPUG, we need to have consistent channels for communi-cation, and MetricViews is an important component of that. It’s a great forum forsharing ideas, getting updates from committees, reading about the most recentevents and getting information on those that are coming up, and a whole lotmore. With this in mind, we have revamped and rebuilt MetricViews to make itbigger and better than before. We still plan on making this a biannual publica-tion—twice a year, that is—or is that semi-annual? And we’ll also be getting theIFPUG Bi-Monthly Newsletter out four times a year to supplement MetricViews,so I want to take this space and give you a preview of what to expect in thesetwo publications.

MetricViewsFeatured Articles – The anchor of each issue of MetricViews will be a set of

featured articles that delve deep into a particular topic. This issue features ourPoint/Counterpoint position papers on the Multiple Media issue, as well as twoarticles written by IFPUG members and previously published in other industrypublications. We’ll be looking for great content in the future, so when you haveideas or articles that you’d like to share, don’t hesitate to submit them.

What’s Your (Function) Point? – The IFPUG bulletin board online hasalways been a place where members could ask questions and express opinionsand—except for the recent battle with SPAMbots—this has been a good forum.We’d like to expand this popular feature to our print publications by creating asection in MetricViews for opinion letters and other op-ed pieces written by themembership. Watch for it to appear in future issues and definitely look for our“call for letters.”

Upcoming Events – Keep up to date on all IFPUG events as well as other relevant industry events, including deadlines for abstract submissions. The more that IFPUG members speak at other conferences, the broader audienceswe can reach. If you have a particular event to include on our tracking list,please submit it to cmc@ifpug.org.

IFPUG Updates – MetricViews will continue to showcase committee work,headquarters reports, and reports/updates from our latest conferences and workshops. We will highlight one chapter per issue to share lessons learned and best practices for chapter activities and organization. We will continue to list the most recent CFPS achievers as well as the new CSMS designees tocongratulate them on their accomplishments.

Vendors World! Vendors World! – This section of MetricViews allows current advertisers an opportunity to provide insight on recent business devel-opments, measurement tools and trends they have seen in the marketplace.

From theEditor’s Desk

Inside...

Conference Reportsee page 6

A Message from Headquarters` 3

Upcoming Events 3

Point/Counterpoint “Multiple Media” 4

Conference Report 6

Workshops Report 13

Feature Article: Macro Trends 14

Committee Updates 16

Vendors World! Vendors World! 18

Board of Directors 18

Committee Lists 19

New CFPS 20

New CSMS 22

Feature Article: Beyond Budget 23

continued on page 2

F a l l 2 0 0 6

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 62

Bi-Monthly NewsletterThe bi-monthly Newsletter will be a much shorter publication and differs

from MetricViews both in audience and format. It will be published four times a year and will be distributed electronically to IFPUG’s entire mailing list (notjust to members) in PDF format. There will be some overlap in content withMetricViews, but they will be distinct in feel and substance.

Repeats – The bi-monthly Newsletter will have the Upcoming Events sectionwith a rolling set of events and deadlines. We feel it’s important to keep readersapprised of these on a regular basis so this section will be consistent acrossboth publications.

Counting on You – Like the op-ed section in MetricViews, this section is driven by reader submissions, but instead of letters the intent is to focus Q&Aon function point counting or measurement issues, helpful hints on countingfunction points, or other helpful tips and hints from the world of function points.We’ll be soliciting ideas from the membership so be on the look out for that aswell.

Committees at Work – The Newsletter will be the main forum for committeesto explain the projects on which they are working. Given the large number ofcommittees, you will likely hear from each committee about once every otherissue.

Chapter News – With the broad distribution of The Newsletter, we will bereaching people beyond our membership. Providing overviews of recent chapteractivity and chapter contacts will provide non-members with a local channel andconnection to IFPUG and hopefully, will encourage greater participation andenhance our membership to boot!

Feedback Forum – These are your publications, so we will provide evenmore space for you to express your opinions and ideas.

More Sponsorship Opportunities – The electronically distributed bi-monthlyNewsletter, will reach a much broader and diverse audience than MetricViews.Advertising in the Newsletter provides vendors an opportunity to reach beyondIFPUG members to market to people they might not otherwise reach. We’re currently working on the structure of this program and should have it readyby the next Newsletter.

As you can see, a lot of thought and consideration has gone into the reshaping of IFPUG’s publications. But as I mentioned before, these are yourpublications. We are always looking for feedback and ideas to make them better, more readable and more relevant to you. Don’t hesitate to contribute orshare your ideas. That’s what this whole endeavor is all about, isn’t it? l

Ian BrownIFPUG Secretary and Director of Communications and Marketing CommitteeMetricViews Editor

MetricViewsis published twice a year in June and December, by the

International Function Point UsersGroup (IFPUG), headquartered inPrinceton Junction, New Jersey.

MetricViews

EditorIan Brown

IFPUG Board of Directors

PresidentMauricio Aguiar

Vice PresidentTom Cagley

SecretaryIan Brown

TreasurerMary Dale

Past PresidentMary Bradley

Loredana FrallicciardiChris Kohnz

Bruce RogoraMárcio Silveira

IFPUG Administration

Association ManagerBarbara Swanda

Assistant Association ManagerElena Caracappa

Executive AdvisorAl Vrancart

Please submit all articles, news releases and advertising to:

IFPUG / MetricViews191 Clarksville Road

Princeton Junction, NJ 08550609/ 799-4900

ifpug@ifpug.org www.ifpug.org

Editor's Desk, continued from page 1

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 6 3

Message from Headquarters

Regional CFPS Exam – Bangalore, India November 30, 2006, 10 am – 1 pmIndian Institute of Management – Bangalorewww.ifpug.org/certification/sites.htm

Regional CFPS Exam – Gurgaon, India December 11, 2006, 9 am – 12 pmPalm Courtwww.ifpug.org/certification/sites.htm

Regional CFPS Exam – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil December 16, 2006, 9:30 am – 12:30 pmHotel Novo Mundowww.ifpug.org/certification/sites.htm

Regional CFPS Exam –Sao Paulo, Brazil December 16, 2006, 9:30 am – 12:30 pmHotel Quality Faria Limawww.ifpug.org/certification/sites.htm

Regional CFPS Exam – Brasilia, Brazil December 16, 2006, 9:30 am – 12:30 pmHotel Mercure Apartments Brasilia Liderwww.ifpug.org/certification/sites.htm

Regional CFPS Exam – Chennai, IndiaDecember 16, 2006, 10 am – 1 pmChellammal College for Womenwww.ifpug.org/certification/sites.htm

Regional CFPS Exam – Wiesbaden, Germany January 19, 2007, 10 am – 1 pmHotel Dorint Sofitel Pallas Wiesbadenwww.ifpug.org/certification/sites.htm

SEPG 2007March 26-29, 2007 – Austin, Texas Austin Convention Centerwww.sei.cmu.edu/sepg/2007

2007 Functional Spring Workshops and Sizing Summit (FSS)April 22-26, 2007 – Vancouver,British Columbia, CanadaSheraton Wall Centre HotelAbstracts for the FSS due no later than December 4, 2006www.ifpug.orgUS citizens are required to have a passport. travel.state.gov/passport/passport_1738.html

4th Annual Software Measurement European ForumMay 10-12, 2007 – Rome, ItalyAbstracts due no later than November 14, 2006www.iir-italy.it/smef2007

2007 Practical Software Quality and Testing (PSQT) Conference WestMay 7-11, 2007 – Las Vegas, Nevadawww.psqtconference.com/2007west

2007 Software Testing Analysis & Review(STAR) Conference EastMay 14-18, 2007 – Orlando, Florida Rosen Center HotelAbstracts due no later than December 1, 2006www.sqe.com/stareast/speak.asp

2007 Better Software Conference and ExpoJune 18-21, 2007 – Las Vegas, Nevada The Venetian HotelAbstracts due no later than December 31, 2006www.sqe.com/bettersoftwareconf/speak.asp

2007 Systems and Software Technology ConferenceJune 18-21, 2007 – Tampa, Florida Marriott Tampa Waterside Hotel and MarinaAbstracts due no later than November 22, 2006www.stsc.hill.af.mil/conference/

2007 International Software Measurement and Analysis (ISMA) Conference and FallWorkshops sponsored by IFPUGSeptember 9-14, 2007 – Las Vegas, Nevada Flamingo Las Vegas Hotel

Fall 2006With a new look and format,

MetricViews is back! In reviving and revamping this members-onlypublication, our goal is to ultimatelyprovide insightful, helpful informationto IFPUG members on a regular basis.You can stay more connected to theassociation and be aware of participa-tion opportunities, conferences andother events allowing you to remainactive in the function point community.This is also a forum for member andboard member opinions and will serveas a communication network amongpeers. Let us hear from you.

Joining the IFPUG headquartersteam in September, I was just in timeto attend the ISMA Conference andFall Workshops. What an incredibleway to be introduced to IFPUG! Al Vrancart, Executive Advisor and Elena Caracappa, AssistantAssociation Manager/ConferencePlanner were also on hand. With afirmly united headquarters team inplace, I look forward to providing thenecessary attention

IFPUG needs to run on aday-to-day basis. Alreadythis fall, my colleagues andI have worked together toaddress the challengesIFPUG has faced in thepast. We are currently implementingnew practices to bring the organiza-tion to its optimal level. This highly-organized plan will carry IFPUG into2007 with a positive outlook and willprovide consistency to all activities.

At a time when the function pointindustry is taking a critical look atitself and is assessing how to best stayon the cutting edge, we look forwardto working on your behalf to ensureoptimal business practices are put in

place to maintain IFPUG’s values andphilosophies. Many IFPUG membersagree we must do more to recognize our uniqueness as an internationalorganization that is made up of so many diverse and creative minds. I hope

as IFPUG enters the new year as a leading professional association, we can work to consciouslyexpand our focus outside of the United States’ bound-aries and enhance the service to our peers aroundthe globe.

With a successful ISMAConference in San Diego completed,we are already hard at work on April’sFunctional Sizing Summit and SpringWorkshops in Vancouver.

Best wishes for the holidays and for a happy and successful 2007. I look for-ward to seeing you all again soon. l

Barbara Swanda IFPUG Association Manager(609) 799-4900bswanda@cmasolutions.com

Upcoming Events

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 64

Point/Counterpoint - Part One

Vote YES! on the Multiple Media IssueA YES vote assures that Multiple

Media rules will be based on appropri-ate research, analysis and membershipinput. Your YES vote does not changeany rules or reject the CountingPractices Committee’s (CPC) proposal.A YES vote simply gives members the opportunity to provide input soIFPUG can make the right decision. A No vote, however, will endorse acontroversial and premature rulechange that can have a far-reachingimpact on Function Point (FP) count-ing and diminish the global value ofthe IFPUG standard. The followingdescribes the criticality of the issueand why your YES vote is important.

Background The key purpose and practical role

of Function Point Analysis (FPA) is,and always has been, to quantify software size as a key input to soft-ware estimation, productivitymeasurement and facilitatingprocess improvement.

This central purpose must continueto be the foundation for FPA rulechanges and clarifications. If a clarifi-cation/change degrades the techniqueand related purposes, then the basisof that clarification/change should bere-visited.

Impact of CPC Proposal on the Benefits of FPA

CPC’s Multiple Media proposal goesfar beyond merely eliminating similarreports delivered online versus printed.The proposal can bundle multipledistinct inputs, outputs or inquiriesinto a single elementary process even when there are obvious distinguishing characteristics.

Under the proposal a project thatdevelops functionality that allows auser to inquire on bank balance via aBank Teller, ATM or Interactive VoiceResponse would receive a SINGLEEXTERNAL INQUIRY even if theTHREE LOGICAL REQUIRE-MENTS were independently identi-fied, documented, coded and tested.What counted as 12 FPs in CPM 4.2would now be reduced to 4 FPs eventhough the developers’ effort was 3

times as great as delivering a singleinquiry.

The counting solution should bebased on what is logical and intuitivefrom basic counting principles andwhat is MOST USEFUL FROM AMEASUREMENT AND ESTIMAT-ING PERSPECTIVE.

A YES vote will STOP the immediatechange and allow us to survey mem-ber practices and reasoning in orderto establish a workable solution.

Consistency of CountingThe CPC’s number one stated goal

for the proposed rule change is count-ing consistency. Unfortunately theproposed change will lead to greaterinconsistency for the following reasons.• It adds exceptions and complexity

to the rules.– It contradicts the guiding

principles of counting. UniqueDETs and processing logic will no longer provide uniquefunctionality.

– The introduction of “Optional”DETs is a confusing new con-cept open to misinterpretation.

• It changes previously documentedrules stated in CPM 3.X as relatedto inputs, outputs and inquiries. For example:

– “Input processes, which ifspecifically requested by theuser duplicate a previouslycounted External Input are eachcounted (example: ATM andTeller transaction).”

• Multiple Media was historicallycounted and is still counted bythe majority of counters, based onrules that existed and were neverformally changed.

– IFPUG Certified training materials and workshops teachmultiple media as being countedwhen unique DETs and/or processing logic are required.

– Thousands of counters havebeen trained to count multiplemedia and most will likely con-tinue.

• It will encourage misuse.– Organizations will continue to

count Multiple Media for thesake of internal consistency andto comply with their interpreta-tion of logical user functionality.

– Organizations will countMultiple Media so that countscan be used effectively for estimating and measuring productivity.

• It makes counts more difficult tovalidate as the identified processesno longer align with the real-worlduser view.

We need a consistent standardChanges to the IFPUG standard

since CPM 3.4 have reduced counts by approximately 25%. The proposedmultiple media change will reducethis further by over 40% on some projects.

A reduction to software size willnegatively affect all of your organi-zation’s metrics captured over theyears related to:

– Productivity – Quality– Staffing – Cost– Schedule.

• We need a FP standard that has relevance and consistency to itsoriginal and continuing purpose.

Take a detailed look at the CPC proposal and determine its impact on your organization.

Technical Requirements and ISO ConformityMultiple Media does not impactISO Conformity

The ISO/IEC 14143 standards relatingto functional size measurement doesnot mention nor specifically addressmultiple media. ISO has not made anychanges or introduced any new stan-dardization that requires any changesto the IFPUG method.

The choice of media is not a“Technical Requirement”

In the context of information tech-nology, the term “media” is used to

continued on page 19

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 6 5

Point/Counterpoint - Part Two

CPC’s position on the Multiple Media IssueThe Counting Practices Committee(CPC) requests that you vote no.

Let’s move forward,

keep IFPUG FPA the world’s leader

There is only one way to go

Vote NO

As IFPUG President, MauricioAguiar, explained in his October 11themail to the IFPUG membership, theissue is:

“how to count multiple media interms of IFPUG standard functionpoints. Put simply, if you have areport on a screen and the capabil-ity to print and e-mail that samereport, do you count one externaloutput or three?”

IFPUG’s President also writes:“The CPC followed the proper pro-cedures, reached a determinationthat multiple media should not becounted more than once and wereready to proceed to the final step in the process, which is to conductan impact study.”

The CPC has been studying theMultiple Media issue since 1994.There have been differences in opinionbetween Certified Function PointSpecialists and even within the CPC.This inconsistency has had a negativeimpact on the credibility and reliabili-ty of IFPUG Function Point Analysis(FPA), because the results can be con-siderably different. As a consequence,this has a negative influence onbenchmarking data and on the use ofIFPUG FPA as a sizing methodology.

A key development occurred in2002, when the IFPUG FPA methodwas recognized as an ISO functionalsizing method. The ISO FSM Standardstates that a recognized method maysize only functional requirements andmust disregard other types of require-ments (i.e., technical and qualityrequirements).

As part of the research for the mul-tiple media issue, the CPC studied theISO and IEEE definitions of require-ments. This research yielded guidancefor classifying requirements as eitherfunctional or non-functional. The CPCfelt that this guidance needed to beshared with the IFPUG membershipand published its findings in the paper“Framework for Functional Sizing”(2003). This paper is available fordownload from the IFPUG website.

Using this guidance along with inputfrom ISO specialists, the CPC came tothe unanimous conclusion that a func-tion delivered via multiple media mustbe counted only once. This conclusionwas based on the realization that themedia in which the function is deliv-ered satisfies a technical requirementand thus should not be sized usingFPA. The CPC explained its decisionand provided guidance in the paper“Practical Guidelines for IdentifyingUnique Elementary Processes”.

A key element is that this decisionis not based on a popularity contest(i.e., what the majority do, or wouldlike to do), but based on ISO require-ments. This decision will be permanent.On the other hand, a popularity con-test would mean that what is counteddepends on what is fashionable at thetime, rather than a consistent directionand vision. This could result in amethod of little value to anyone.

When the draft paper was publishedin late 2005, the CPC asked IFPUGmembers to review the paper and provide feedback (Step 4 in the CPC’sdocumented change managementprocess). Although the membershipreview was not intended to be a vote,a majority of the responses were positive. In asking for feedback, theCPC was specifically looking for convincing arguments that it hadincorrectly classified multiple mediaas non-functional. There were no sucharguments, although a minority of the feedback disagreed with the CPCproposal. The feedback also indicatedthat additional emphasis and clarifica-tion was needed in some key areas.The CPC will include the multiplemedia decision in the new ISO CPM

that is in the process of being writtenand will address the member feed-back in the rewritten content includedin the new CPM.

Some opponents of the CPC deci-sion have argued that by not countingmultiple media, FPA cannot be usedas an estimating tool. This statementis not true. Throughout the world,many software houses and vendorshave excluded multiple media formany years, yet they are effectivelyusing FPA as an input to their estima-tion processes.

For more than ten years membershave been asking for a resolution tothe multiple media issue. Based onthe research, the CPC is convincedthat multiple media satisfies non-functional requirements and thereforeaccording to ISO should not be meas-ured using FPA. It follows that anopposing decision to measure multiplemedia would result in the loss ofIFPUG’s recognition as an ISO FSMMethod.

The next CPM must be published in 2008 in order to retain its ISOrecognition. That CPM must be con-formant to ISO requirements in termsof structure and format. Because ofthe importance of the subject and thecredibility of IFPUG FPA, the multiplemedia issue must be resolved in thenew CPM. A delay in moving forwardwith the decision on multiple mediawill likely result in missing the 2008ISO deadline. IFPUG would lose itsISO recognition.

Thanks to the ISO recognitionIFPUG FPA has been adopted world-wide by national governments (likeBrazil, Korea) as a functional sizingmetric. If IFPUG FPA should lose its ISO recognition, it will lose itsposition as the leading functional sizing metric in the world. Other ISOrecognized competing functional sizing methods like NESMA FPA,Mark II FPA or COSMIC Full Function Points will take over.

Please support your CPC, the decision on multiple media, and theexisting change management process,

continued on page 15

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 66

Conference Report - San Diego, CA • September 2006

First Annual International Software Measurement & Analysis Conference 2006 Summary

The city of San Diego did not pro-vide much sun and warmth during theweek of September 10th; however, theFirst Annual International SoftwareMeasurement and Analysis (ISMA)Conference sponsored by IFPUG generated a lot of heat. Over 125 participants from around the globeflocked to the Doubletree MissionValley to learn the latest in metrics,data analysis, project management,software estimation, process improve-ment and, of course, function points.The week proved to be a wild ridewith extreme ideas, innovative presentations, exotic animals and passionate topics discussed.

Conference Kickoff

Conference activities beganTuesday evening, September 12th,with an update from the CountingPractices Committee (CPC) – MultipleMedia Counting Rules and theirImpact on Your Organization. IFPUGPast President David Garmus andCPC Co-Chair Bonnie Brown weath-ered some heated questions from theaudience about the pending changesto the Counting Practices Manual. The tone later lightened when DanBradley and Tony Rollo presented IT Performance – Benchmarkingwith ISBSG (International SoftwareBenchmarking Standards Group). Danand Tony explained the relationshipbetween IFPUG and ISBSG and pro-vided the audience with the currentISBSG membership, which includesAustralia, China, Finland, Germany,

India, Italy, Japan, South Korea,Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.

IFPUG Vice President Tom Cagleywelcomed new members of IFPUGearly Wednesday morning. He briefedthe audience on the history of IFPUG,introduced IFPUG officers, explainedthe various committees and invitedmembers to volunteer.

Wednesday Morning KeynoteAddress – Straight from SEI

IFPUG PresidentMauricio Aguiarwelcomed ISMAparticipants onSeptember 13th to this inauguralevent, and encour-aged them to befully engaged inconference activi-ties. Well, theseISMAers were quitedevoted, as theywoke up early thatWednesday morningto hear Watts Humphrey, founder of the Software Process Program ofthe Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. Wattsreviewed the most common problemswith large-scale development work.Additionally, he described the condi-tions making these problems morepervasive in the future, and ways to address them, citing scalableprocesses as a viable solution.

Wednesday Afternoon KeynoteAddress – Emergency Substitution

IFPUG Past President ScottGoldfarb stepped in when featuredspeaker Stephen Few was suddenlystricken with an illness, preventinghim from traveling. As the newly minted Wednesday afternoon keynotespeaker, Scott provided the audiencewith The Productivity Pitfalls ofProcess Improvement. He correctedthree common misconceptions aboutprocess improvement:1. “Quality is Free” … until you hit

the point of diminishing returns;2. Process Improvement leads to

Productivity Improvement – withthe proper processes and focus; and

3. If you can measure it – analyze andconclude the right things – then youcan manage it.

Track Highlights – Wednesday,September 13th Function Point Track

The Function Point Track kicked off on Wednesday with Tom Cagley’s(The David Consulting Group, Inc.)cautionary session, When GoodNumbers Go Bad. While not strictlyrelated to function points, the presen-tation illustrated to the audience thateven when data collected is accurate;it can be misused or misunderstood.Citing industry notables, Cagley highlighted the reasons why this happens and the steps that can betaken to prevent them.

The next presentation, by DebraMachino and Olga Makar-Limanov(EDS), entitled Wave of the Future:Function Point Sizing and COTSSupport, walked through a real lifeexample of how to quickly develop a baseline function point count for a larger COTS client engagement. In the rapidly changing technologyenvironment, new methods such asthis have to be developed and utilizedto successfully and economically support large COTS applications.

Committee members enjoy the "Thank You"reception on Tuesday night.

IFPUG President Mauricio Aguiar wel-comes everyone to the2006 ISMA Conference.

Watts Humphries imparts his wealth of knowledgeon conference attendees.

continued on page 8

BenchmarkAnalysis

FunctionPointAnalysis

ProjectEstimating

OutsourcingManagement

Estimation &Measurement Tools

SoftwareQuality

ProcessImprovement

ProductPricing

Training &Education

Software Measurement can make you the Star

in your organizationConsulting, Training and Tools for Measurement and Process Improvement

Let Q/P Management Group show you how.

Q/P Management Group, Inc. 10 Bow Street, Stoneham, MA 02180-1343 Tel: 781-438-2692www.QPMG.com info@QPMG.com• •

•

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 68

Conference ReportThe afternoon session featured

Lori Holmes’ (Q/P ManagementGroup, Inc.) presentation FP Countingvia the Internet, in which she educatedparticipants in conducting functionpoint counts over the phone with participants remotely located whileleveraging web-based technologiessuch as NetMeeting and WebEx. Sheadvised on the challenges specific toconducting this type of count as wellas techniques to overcome them.

Data Analysis TrackThe Data Analysis Track began with

a very interesting presentation fromScott Goldfarb (Q/P ManagementGroup, Inc.) Function Point Analysisand Its Impact on the Economy. Theresearch was based on a study fromthe US Bureau of Economics Analysiscreating a price index for customapplication development and in-housedevelopment. The price index is similar to other price indices, and has its foundation in function points.

Following Goldfarb, Lee Fischmanand Karen McRitchie (Galorath, Inc.) presented Normalizing the ISBSGSoftware Benchmark. Here, the twoshared a process to normalize ISBSGdata that is used to calibrate estimatesdone by the SEER-SEM tool.

For anyone within an organizationmigrating to CMMI levels 4 and 5,Duane Shields’ (EDS) presentationwas a gift – Data Analysis in Supportof Goal Achievement. This presentationclosed the day with several techniquesand examples mapping business goalsto project quality and performanceobjectives, a central theme to levels 4 and 5.

Metrics TrackBarbara Beech (AT&T Consumer

Services) kicked off the metrics trackpresentations with Using Metrics inOutsourcing – What Works/WhatDoesn’t. Beech shared with partici-pants what has worked well at AT&Tand a checklist to help determinewhat type of metrics is required for an outsourcing contract. Additionally,Barbara discussed benchmarking outsource metrics and how they canassist in the development of metricimprovements.

Al Hoefer III (Computer SciencesCorporation) followed with CSCBalanced Scorecard Process SM:Measuring for Success. Hoefer sharedwith the audience techniques used byCSC, one of the largest applicationoutsourcers in the world. The method-ologies include a company-variant ofthe CMMI for software and an originalmeasurement approach called theCSC Balanced Scorecard Process SM.

Pam Morris (Total Metrics) closedthe Metrics Track with Metrics inProcess Governance. Morris presenteda rigorous approach to project con-trol, introducing function point-basedmetrics to quantify the status andscope of the project from start to end.She also provided case studies todemonstrate the effectiveness of thisstrategy.

Project Management TrackRiley Rice (Booz Allen Hamilton)

presented Requirements VolatilityImpact – A Measure for All Seasons.He revealed that the effect of require-ments changes vary across the lifecycle,and provided a tool that will enableestimators to measure the impact ofchange at any phase.

David Garmus (The David ConsultingGroup, Inc.) followed with AgileDevelopment and its Impact ofProductivity. Garmus discussed the differences between Agile and tradi-tional methodologies. Additionally, heoffered specific ways to measure suchdifferences using function points,enabling participants to determine ifAgile development is right for a partic-ular project under consideration.

Don Beckett (Quantitative SoftwareMeasurement) closed Wednesday’sProject Management Track with The Impact of Team Size on ProjectProductivity. Beckett used a studycontaining nearly 700 projects com-pleted since 2001 to explore varioustrends that impact a developmentteam’s productivity. Areas exploredincluded software size documented in effective source lines of code, andoptimal team sizes associated withcategories of software size.

Wednesday evening brought theVendor Reception, featuring severalservice providers and tool vendors.

ISMA-ers enjoyedcocktails anddelicious appetiz-ers that couldsubstitute for a nice meal.Stations featured

pizzas and a variety of pastas andsauces, while the main venue sportedvarious cheeses and vegetables,spring rolls and crab cakes to name a few.

Good food and drink brought thebest out of participants, who mingledwith each other and got to hear fromthe many vendors that sponsored the event. These vendors includedCharismatek, Total Metrics, Q/PManagement Group Inc., The DavidConsulting Group, Inc., Galorath Inc. and Quantitative SoftwareMeasurement.

Track Highlights – Thursday,September 14th

Keynote Address – Bringing the “International” to ISMA

Speaker Manfred Bundschuh, AXA Service AG and President ofDASMA (German-speaking UserAssociation for Software Metrics andEffort Estimation), provided the finalkeynote address at ISMA 2006. Hespoke of the importance of measure-ment-based early estimates, prior toproject start. Manfred introducedregression analysis as a tool to developearly function point estimates, pro-ducing an approximate 15% margin of error. He also shared with the audience the benefits of function

"Professor" Al Hoeferemphasizes a point.

Keynote Speaker Manfred Bundschuh with ISMA Conference organizers Leah Upshawand Deborah Harris.

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 6 9

Conference Reportpoint utilization for tool-based earlyeffort estimation with an estimationproject portfolio.

Track Highlights – Thursday,September 14th Function Point Track

Roger Heller (Q/P ManagementGroup, Inc.) began Thursday’sFunction Point Track with TheChallenges of Short Cut FPATechniques. Heller shared with theaudience various alternative methodsto quickly determine function pointcounts. Such techniques included backfiring from lines of code andestablishing counts using files only.Heller provided rationale for whenand why such methods may be appro-priate as well as when they are completely inappropriate.

Priya Lobo (Satyam ComputerServices, Ltd.) followed with SizingLogical Data in a Data Warehouse –A Consistent and Auditable Approach.Lobo provided ISMA participants

with techniques based on IFPUG’sCounting Practices Manual Release4.2 that were successfully adopted in consistently counting the logicaldata files in a data warehouse. Themethodology is based on practicalcounting experience in multiple sites,both for development and enhance-ment data warehouse projects.

Robyn Lawrie (CharismatekSoftware Metrics) concludedThursday’s Function Point Track with Thriving on Uncertainty – AMethod for Functional Sizing Basedon Early Requirements. Recognizingthat even experienced counters havelittle to go on when sizing from earlylife-cycle requirements, Lawrie provid-ed the audience with a practical step-by-step method that can be usedwhen requirements are scant. Themethod uses project knowledge thatis available early in the life cycle and produces a defensible functionalsizing of the project.

Metrics TrackThursday’s Metrics Track began with

a dissertation from Steve Coffman onthe Potential Dangers and HiddenOpportunities of a MeasurementProgram highlighting pitfalls that canderail a measurement program initiativeas well as benefits and areas of strengththat may otherwise be overlooked.

The track continued with Janet Russac’s(The David Consulting Group, Inc.)Paving the Road to SoftwareMeasurement Program which provided a roadmap to establishing a successfulprogram and outlined how to avoid theobstacles common to the establishmentof a program.

The track wrapped up Thursday with Defect Collection and Analysis –The Basis for Software QualityImprovement by Joe Schofield (SandiaNational Labs). Included in the discus-sion were examples of actual data used by Schofield’s team and how that data is presented to management in their on-going mission to improvesoftware quality.

continued on page 10

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 61 0

Conference ReportSoftware Estimation Track (1)

Ian Brown (Booz Allen Hamilton)began this Software Estimation Track with A Fool with a Tool:Improving Software Cost andSchedule Estimation. Many organiza-tions foolishly view purchasing anestimation tool as the “silver bullet” to solve their problems with softwareestimation. Brown provided the audience with estimation best prac-tices available to organizations, anddiscussed the criticality of havingwell-documented, repeatable estimationprocesses in place.

Christine Green (EDS) followedwith PMI PMBOK and Estimating.The Project Management Institute(PMI) Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) introducesdifferent types of estimating techniques– the naming convention is differentthan the approach usually used in estimating. Green’s presentationaccomplished two things – introducethe PMBOK approach and theoryaround estimating – as well as

describe how the different estimatingtechniques match each other. Greenalso provided a mapping betweenPMBOK definition and Guidelines to Software Measurement.

Paul Below (EDS) completed thistrack with Data Mining for ModelCreation. Below described the use ofdata mining techniques to filter manyvariables to a few that are essential to build or improve model-based estimates. Below provided examplesin four categories: classification,regression, clustering and association.

Software Estimation Track (2)Karen McRitchie (Galorath Inc.)

kicked off the Software EstimationTrack (2) with Software Sizing, Cost,Schedule, and Risk…the 10-StepProcess. McRitchie explained how aneffective software estimate providesthe information needed to design aworkable software development plan.Additionally, such an estimate is a toolthat can facilitate important project

decisions, predict performance, anddefine objectives and plans.

Bill Hufschmidt’s (Decision Support Center) Sizing for Survival,demonstrated how companies haveused measurement and analysis toproactively influence outsourcingdecisions. Hufschmidt’s explainedhow companies can save via offshoreoutsourcing and provided a frame-work to determine which metrics tocollect, how to collect them quickly,and how to prove and report value.

Dwayne Pepper (Intel Corporation)completed this track with StatisticalToolset for Maximizing Informationfrom Function Point Data. This dis-cussion was follow-up from Pepper’spresentation at the 2006 FunctionalSizing Summit, that lead participantsthrough the core expectations for statistically valid use of function point data. Topics included avoidingstatistical malpractice in summarypresentations, the essentials of block-ing and using correct sample sizes forinferences and estimations.

Software Benchmarking... the Key to SuccessQ/P Management Group’s Benchmarking Process and Industry Leading Database can unlock the doors to success

Q/P Management Group is the leader in benchmarkingsoftware development and support. Our benchmarkservices include:

• Quality and Productivity Baselines• Standard Benchmark Studies• Benchmarking Outsourcer Performance• Client Tailored Reporting• Specific Project Estimating

Our benchmark database is the largest, most accurate source of comparative metrics in the world. Our benchmark data, which contains software measurementstatistics on over 10,000 projects and applications from Fortune 500 companies, commercial softwaredevelopers and government agencies may be licensed for corporate benchmarking purposes.

Find out how we can enhance your performance by contacting us today at (781) 438-2692, visitingus on the web at www.qpmg.com or writing to info@qpmg.com.

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 6 1 1

Conference ReportBirds of a Feather

Due to a resounding approval ratingat the 2006 Functional Sizing Summit,the inaugural ISMA conference hostedanother “Birds of a Feather” – anopportunity to discuss several hot topics facilitated by an industry expert.Topics at this Birds of a Featherincluded:• Benchmarking Software

Development and Support;• Counting Multiple Media;• Getting the Most Out of Your

Measurement Investment;• Outsourcing;• Establishing an FP Program;• Counting in the Fast Lane; and• Different Levels of Counting.

Birds of a Feather began promptlyafter lunch. This gave ISMA-ers theopportunity to walk around to differ-ent tables or focus on one topic, andcasually enjoy their dessert and coffeewhile chatting away. Overall feedbackof the Birds of a Feather was excel-lent so we will continue to sponsorthis activity!

Speaking of Sponsors….We’d like to recognize and thank

our corporate sponsors for their participation, and making the FirstAnnual ISMA Conference very special:• Gold Sponsor – Q/P Management

Group, Inc. provided the registrationbags, lanyards and padfolios. Thissponsorship also included theWednesday Function Point Track.

• Silver Sponsor – The DavidConsulting Group, Inc. provided the hearty breakfasts served onWednesday and Thursday mornings.

• Other Patrons – Quality PlusTechnologies, Inc. and SoftwareProductivity Research co-sponsoredthe registration desk.

Other Notables from ThursdayA stitch in time means wine?

For the second time within the span of six months Pam Morris ofTotal Metrics raffled a coveted bottleof Australian wine. Amazingly, thissecond bottle was won by RamonaRoberts from DFAS, a friend of TraciThompson, 2006 FSS winner of theAustralian wine. The two were seatednext to each other during the drawing.Did Traci pass along the good luckstreak?

Off to the ZooISMA-ers enjoyed a cool evening

at the San Diego Zoo. The adventurebegan with a double-decker bus tourthroughout the zoo. Unfortunately,several animal species had begun tosettle in for the evening. However,there were some unexpected treats.There was a rather exuberant koalathat showed off for his visitors, climb-ing across his eucalyptus tree home.Usually, these Australian marsupialsare seen lounging and sleeping.

Following the bus ride, participantsenjoyed a much needed cocktail outside on the patio. During the happyhour, ISMA-ers had a close introduc-tion to many interesting animals thatwould never be seen together in thewild. To name a few – an elderly owl,a honey-loving aardvark, a cube-shaped armadillo (when in camou-flage mode), and in “truth-is-stranger-than-fiction” form, a real-life alligatorthat had been rescued from the sewer.

After dousing their hands with hand sanitizer, ISMA-ers left the animal show and the cool evening airto partake in a civilized meal. It wasanother opportunity for folks to min-gle with participants from differentcountries, companies and cultures.

Track Highlights – Friday, September 15th Function Point Track

Steve Keim (The David ConsultingGroup, Inc.) opened Friday’s FunctionPoint Track with Countflation. Keim

invited the audience to explore common techniques that cause counts to inflate. Additionally, Keimincorporated discussion about theCPC white paper introduced at theconference on Tuesday.

Metrics TrackSheila Dennis (The David

Consulting Group, Inc.) openedFriday’s Metrics Track with Use aBalanced Scorecard? The Answer isCLEAR! Dennis highlighted techniquesto ease the determination of a soft-ware deliverable’s functional size. She also included cost and benefittradeoffs inherent in different func-tional sizing techniques.

Pierre Almen and Frank Mazzucco(Compass America) followed withOutsourcing – A Fact-BasedDecision? Almen and Mazzuccoaddressed a measurement framework,beginning with baselining of currentperformance. They continued withongoing governance designed toensure favorable outcomes to boththe client and the vendor.

Kim Caputo (Motorola) changed thepace, allowing participants to playSpare Change for Measurement andProcess Improvement. Spare Changeis a new board game designed to befun, while teaching experiences ofmeasurement and process improve-ment concepts. Folks who attendedthis workshop got to roll up theirsleeves and play!

John Pruitt (Accenture) closed the Metrics Track with MeasuringComplex Projects. Pruitt shared with the audience how Accenture separated the budget project from the delivery project on the world’slargest outsourcing engagement.This challenged the idea that complexsoftware projects must have both abudget and a schedule.

Project Management TrackThe Project Management presenta-

tion for Friday was Ray Boehm’s(Software Composition Technologies)Agile Project Management whichdetailed how to apply function pointsand measurement techniques to projects that use variants of the Agile

Birds of a feather flock together!

continued on page 12

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 61 2

Conference Reportsoftware development methodologyinstead of the more traditional water-fall. The core message being that justbecause an Agile approach is beingutilized doesn’t mean you don’t meas-ure and gather metrics.

Process Improvement TrackThe Process Improvement presenta-

tion for Friday was Sergio de QunitalBrigido’s (EDS) Analyzing ProjectsThrough the Implementation of aMetrics Repository: An Approach

for Deployment of CCMI Level 2Measurement and Analysis ProcessArea. Brigido shared with the audiencethe EDS-Rio de Janeiro experience on its journey toward CMMI Level 5 certification. The talk focused on the implementation of a framework supporting collection and analysis ofmeasures.

Peter Thomas (IBM Global Systems)piloted a non-traditional presentationstyle in his delivery of Measuring aMature Measurement Process. Thomaspresented a measurement framework to guide any organization in increasingthe overall value of its measurementprogram. No slides, no tables, justchairs and flip charts! This was a highly interactive session where theparticipants had an opportunity to shareexperiences, exchange ideas and askquestions that were relevant to theirindividual situations.

When We Meet Again…Please save the date – Sunday,

April 22 – Thursday, April 26, 2007 for our next event, the 2007 FunctionalSizing Summit and Spring Workshops.We’ll be at the Sheraton WallCentre Hotel, 1088 Burrard Street,Vancouver, Canada. Check outwww.sheratonvancouver.com for more information about the hotel. More information to follow!

We look forward to the 2007 2ndAnnual ISMA Conference and FallWorkshops, and hope to see you there. Please save the date – Sunday,September 9 – Friday, September 14,2007. The location is the Flamingo Las Vegas, 3555 Las Vegas Blvd. South,Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Check outwww.flamingolv.com for more informa-tion about the hotel. Look for moreinformation to follow! l

Attendees"flipped" forPeter Thomas'chart-basedpresentation.

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 6 1 3

Workshops Report

Fall Workshops in San DiegoBy Pam Simonovich,Chair – IFPUGEducation ServicesCommittee

Education is anavenue of IFPUG very near and dear to my heart. I’ve

come from a long line of educatorsand am thrilled to be able to Chair the Education Committee. We havecertainly come a long way in the pur-suit of broadening the scope of ourcurriculum. The 2006 Fall Workshops,held in San Diego in September, were well attended. It was certainly a pleasure seeing all the regulars, aswell as many new faces. We offered awide range of classes, from CSMS andCFPS Exam Preparation to PracticalSoftware and Systems Measurement.Some of these are the old standby

classes, but we offered many new andexciting courses on the slate as well.The new Principles of Estimating andBenchmarking Using Industry Dataclass was particularly well attended.

As many of you know, we at IFPUGare the world leaders in measuringfunctional size. This is a wonderfulclaim we have been able to foster forover 25 years. We all know that “sizedoes matter,” but there are manyother metrics, that when we combinewith FP, yield a whole wealth of infor-mation. Our goal is to provide thehighest quality of education to ourmembership including measures thatgo above and beyond functional size.We are very excited about partneringwith the Management ReportingCommittee to address the many otherneeds of our practitioners in incorpo-rating an entire body of knowledgesurrounding the many aspects of

measurement in software.Our 2007 Spring Workshops in

Vancouver will focus primarily on the intricacies of functional sizing, but the event will also offer a sam-pling of other measurement courses.We have recently heard from the New Environments Committee thatseveral new white papers are beingintroduced. We hope to add these top-ics to our spring curriculum as well.

Thanks to all of you who participatedin our 2006 Fall Workshops! I certainlylook forward to seeing many of you inVancouver! l

Measurement tools and techniques should be straightforward, easy to useand implement.

As the leading provider of software measurement solutions, Q/PManagement Group, Inc. can help you size your software using FunctionPoint Analysis. Our function point offerings include:

• Function Point Training – IFPUG CPM 4.x Certified

• Function Point Baselines counting

• Function Point Project counting and analysis

• Counting real-time systems and advance technologiesProviding a full range of services in support of improvement goals:

Benchmarking Software Development and Support • Establishing Measurement Programs andMethods • SEI CMMI Assessments and Training • Software Project Estimating Training andConsulting • Software Quality and Productivity Assessments • Establishing Quality AssurancePrograms and Methods • Continuous Process Improvements – Identification, Planning andImplementation • Quality Inspection Consulting and TrainingWe can help you design and implement the measurement solution that meets your organizational needs. For more info contact us at (781) 438-2692, visit www.qpmg.com or write to info@qpmg.com

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 61 4

Feature Story

MACRO TRENDSControlling Software Costs with Function PointsBy Ian Brown and Tom Cagley

Software is a huge part of any organization’s IT portfolio. Whetherdeveloped in-house or outsourced,custom developed or implementedthrough commercial-off-the shelf(COTS) products, software investmentsaccount for a major amount of the IT resources expended each year tosupport an organization’s business.But how often does a CIO really knowwhat is happening with these invest-ments? How often do IT managersreally get the information they need to control these projects and makesmart business decisions? How can adecision-maker get the quantifiabledata necessary to understand the realproject status? Function points are a major component of an overall performance measurement strategythat can help provide this valuableand necessary insight into softwareinvestments.

What the Heck Are FunctionPoints?

Put simply, function points are amethod for measuring software size.Why is size so important? Size is theprimary cost driver of any softwareinvestment, whether the project iscustom developed or implementedthrough COTS. Size can also be usedas a tool to help “normalize” dataacross various projects to enablemore accurate and appropriate com-parisons. In short, size can have amajor role in helping IT managers and CIOs make smart decisions aboutsoftware investments, so a robust,structured, repeatable approach tomeasuring software size is critical.Unfortunately many metrics for measuring size, such as lines of code,have proven inadequate—and manyorganizations in industry do not even utilize a standard sizing metric.Function points answer the mail on all counts, and are quickly becomingrecognized as the premier standardfor measuring software size.

Information for DecisionsFunction points can provide IT

managers and the CIO with the clean,measurable data that is often criticallymissing from software investmentprojects. How often do projects claimto be “doing fine”—only later toreport that they are significantly over budget and behind schedule?Function points offer a structure to“commoditize” software by breakingthings down into a standard measura-ble unit. Function points can serve awide variety of roles.• Cost and Schedule Estimation:

Size is the primary cost and scheduledriver of any software investment.Function points can play an integralrole in an organization’s robust,repeatable estimation methodology.Estimates can be more thoroughlydocumented, cross-checked,explained, and defended. The easeof application makes function pointsa method to standardize velocitymetrics in eXtreme programmingprojects.

• Earned Value: Function points provide the ability to understandjust how much has actually beencompleted on any given project,which is an important aspect to anyearned value management approach.

• Quality: Inferior software qualitycan be a real drain on an organiza-tion’s time, effort, and money, not to mention market reputation (bothinternal and external reputationscan be damaged through inferiorquality). Function points are essen-tial in normalizing software qualitymeasures (defects per functionpoint) and identifying major troublespots.

• Productivity: Function points alsonormalize effort and cost across anorganization (effort per functionpoint, dollars per function point).This allows organizations to meas-ure the impact of process improve-ments, new development standards,new development technologies in

terms of real savings and bottom-line impact.

• Software Portfolio Management:Function points applied to all soft-ware across an organization allowscomparative information to bedrawn from sources not previouslyavailable. It enables software to betreated and managed like a true ITasset (quantitatively rather thanemotionally).

• Benchmarking: As an internationalstandard, function points allowmore consistent comparison of organizational performance (interms of productivity or quality) toother organizations—or to previousorganizational performance.

• Return on Investment: ROI is key metric to demonstrate on anyinvestment, and function points can help do this in many ways. For example, when making a buildversus buy decision, function pointsprovide a basis for comparisonacross the alternatives. When decid-ing whether to outsource or developin-house, function point analysisprovides a common denominator bywhich options can be quantitativelydiscussed. When implementingprocess improvement initiatives,function points can help quantify theimpact in terms of cost and qualityand bottom line dollars that will illu-minate the success of the program.

• Outsourcing: Function points canplay a key role in organizations thatoutsource software development by keeping information and controlwithin the organization. Outsourcingcontracts can be structured aroundfunction points in terms of deliveryrates or total contract value.Service level agreements can bebased on normalized quality levelsor percentage quality improvements.Because function points are aninternational standard, independentthird parties can review or auditsoftware projects and can help settle disputes when they arise.

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 6 1 5

Feature Story

Bang for the BuckOne of the criticisms frequently

voiced about function points is thatcounting them is a largely manualprocess. “I can’t afford to do it,” proj-ect managers often complain. Giventhe insight and control function pointsaffords, how can projects afford notto do it? Insights are not limited todetermining size. The practice ofcounting function points enhancesanaylis and design by focusing ondelivered functionality. Also the ‘act’of counting allows a careful observa-tion of how work is done which canbe leveraged to provide an importantinput into process improvement programs. Any of these benefits faroutweigh the costs. On a large devel-opment project, one or two functionpoint analysts might spend two weeksto a month conducting the initial size

analysis and generating the baselinecost and schedule estimates. Whenrequirements change later in thedevelopment life cycle, a functionpoint expert should update the size,cost, and schedule estimates as partof the change control process and to ensure the project plan is currentand up to date. This cyclical processis scalable and would also apply tosmaller projects but would requireless effort.

In between these “function pointintensive” cycles, function point ana-lysts can perform other measurementduties on the project, conduct func-tion point counts for other develop-ment projects or become involved inanalysis and change management.

In short, function points can havebroad applicability and impact onsoftware investments. They can

Figure 1. Function Points as a Component of Estimation – in Practice

enabling IFPUG to move forward. The multiple media issue cannot beallowed to remain unresolved. To doso will continue to negatively impactIFPUG FPA. If you, as an IFPUG member, want the IFPUG FPA methodto continue to be recognized by theworld as a stable, ISO compliant standard, the CPC asks you urgentlyto vote NO. l

provide the insight and quantifiableinformation that is too often absent.They have been around for over twenty-five years and are becomingmore widely used to estimate, control,govern, and measure software invest-ments.

The function point standard is maintained by the InternationalFunction Point Users Group (IFPUG),a non-profit organization which alsomaintains the Certified Function Point Specialist (CFPS) program to recognize trained experts in themethodology. For more informationsee www.ifpug.org. l

Copyright 2006 by Zeus DevelopmentCorp. Reprinted with permissionfrom the July 2006 issue of UpstreamCIO (www.upstreamcio.com)

Let’s move forward,keep IFPUG FPA an ISO standard:

Vote NO to the motion

IFPUG Counting Practices CommitteeAdri Timp, Chair

Point/Counterpoint – Part Two, continued from page 5

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 61 6

Committee UpdatesCommunications andMarketing CommitteeBy Ian Brown, Chair

The Communications and MarketingCommittee (CMC) is responsible formany aspects of outreach for IFPUG.MetricViews and the bimonthlyNewsletter are two key components of that outreach, and as the editormentioned in the opening letter to this issue, those two publicationshave gone through some renovationsresulting in significant improvements.Another way the CMC spreads theword about IFPUG is by attendingvarious industry conferences as anexhibitor. The past couple of years,IFPUG had a presence at both thespring SEPG conference, and theBetter Software Conference in thesummer. At both events, IFPUG saw a marked increase in interest in func-tion points. People seem to be lookingfor a better way to size software, andfunction points certainly is one of thebest options available.

Several years ago at the SEPGConference in Seattle, we noticedthat the IFPUG booth seemed… well,kind of outdated. People would walkby the booth and wonder what theheck IFPUG was and what it was wewere selling. (Can you actually buyfunction points? Good question foranother forum, for sure). Judge foryourself—here’s the display from thatconference. Not so hot right? The sav-ing grace was the two event posterswe had created right before the show.

So, we did a little research andsome work with designers to craft a more modern, relevant booth dis-play that communicates IFPUG’s keymessages and benefits more clearly.

We unveiled the new design at SEPG2006 in Nashville, Tennessee. Check it out above…

Just a little better, right? We’ve got-ten a lot of positive comments.

One of the other things on theCMC’s plate is to begin redesigningthe IFPUG website. It, too, is a bitoutdated and in need of attention.We’re looking for ideas, so if you have thoughts on features, content or organization you’d like to see on the website, let us know atCMC@ifpug.org.

IFPUG ISO Standards TaskGroup ReportBy Carol Dekkers, Group Lead

Since 1994, IFPUG has participatedin ISO standardization of FunctionalSize Measurement as both a category“C” liaison organization to ISO/IECJTC1 SC7 WG12 and as a member of the U.S. software and systems engineering (SC7) delegation. It iswith pleasure that I report to you that the work of the Functional SizeMeasurement working group, WG12 is nearly complete. Over the past 12 years, IFPUG has contributedexpertise and participation with the following successful results:• International recognition and

endorsement of function pointanalysis by ISO.

• Publication of the ISO/IEC 14143suite of framework standards. Thesestandards cover the definitions,usage, and the practical applicationof Functional Size Measurement(function points). The final ISO standard in this series, ISO/IEC14143-6 Guide to Functional SizeMeasurement standards, was published in May 2006.

• Publication of the IFPUG unadjusted4.1 Function Point CountingPractices Manual as ISO/IEC standard 20926. (Because ISOdefines “functional size” in terms of the unadjusted FP count, we submitted the IFPUG unadjustedmethod to ISO.) South Korea hasendorsed IFPUG function pointsthrough ISO/IEC 20926 as their chosen functional size measurementmethod for government softwaredevelopment projects.

• Publication of three other ISO conformant function point methodsas ISO/IEC standards: Mark II, COSMIC, and NESMA.

• Recognition of IFPUG as one of the leading software measurementorganizations in the world.Besides the work we have done in

the area of functional size measurement,Old IFPUG exhibition booth.

Redesigned IFPUG exhibition booth.

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 6 1 7

Committee Updatesyour IFPUG representatives to ISOhave fostered goodwill and interna-tional relationships in other areas of software engineering. We have contributed positively to the revisionof ISO/IEC 15939 SoftwareMeasurement Framework (based on the Practical Software & SystemsMeasurement model), and providedinput and review of QualityMeasurement standards includingISO/IEC 9126 Software QualityCharacteristics. Currently, I am chairing a study group to determinethe need and usage of SoftwareFunctional Domains (software types)which will be finished in time for the final meeting of WG12 in St.Petersburg, Russia in May 2007.

At this point in time, it is unknownwhether IFPUG will benefit from participation in future ISO standardswork, but it is under considerationwhether it might be feasible to partici-pate in the development of SoftwareRequirements standards and/orSoftware Benchmarking standards.

Both of these areas will be evaluatedand a recommendation made to theIFPUG Board of Directors about our Task Force during the next year.

In the meantime, IFPUG membersmay gain access to software engineer-ing standards in development by: a) Reviewing draft copies of emerging

software engineering standardsincluding the report of theRequirements study group (published May 2006);

b) Participating by submitting com-ments and joining in email reviewsof the study group report regardingfunctional domains and their classification. Please send an email to Carol Dekkers atdekkers@qualityplustech.com if you are interested in participatingon this study group;

c) Participating by submitting comments and joining in emailreviews of the study group reportregarding software benchmarkingstandards. Please send me an email

at dekkers@qualityplustech.com ifyou are interested in participatingon this study group.

At the ISO/IEC JTC SC7 meetingslast month in Bangkok, Thailand,IFPUG also gained positive publicitybecause I organized both the annualSC7 wine tasting event (because theUSA won in 2005), as well as the firstever International Beverage Showcasesocial event. It is an honor and a privilege to represent IFPUG at ISOstandardization meetings along withour other task force members, FrankMazzucco and Mary Bradley. Thankyou for your support of our efforts.Our success in bringing IFPUG func-tion points to the level of global ISOstandards acceptance is due to yoursupport and participation.

For further information about ISOsoftware and systems engineeringstandards development or existing ISO standards on Functional SizeMeasurement, please send an email to dekkers@qualityplustech.com. l

Effective Internet Based Training-Instructor Led -Highly Interactive -Cost Effective -Highly Secure

We have taken bold steps to provide our training to a wider audience using the latest Internet technologiesavailable. We are the only company that provides instructor-led we based training. On-line or On-site Q/P Management Group is the Industry leader in software measurement training. Our instructors are practitioner's delivering practical, experience based training.

Online Training Offerings Schedule Dates(4 hours each day)

Effective Software Estimating 11/8 – 11/10Certified Function Point Specialist Exam Preparatory Training 11/14 – 11/15Software Metrics Definition, analysis and Reporting 12/5 – 12/6Introduction to Function Point Analysis 1/22 – 1/25Counting for Application Enhancements 2/5 – 2/6Certified Function Point Specialist Exam Preparatory Training 3/6 – 3/7

For more information about our training offerings and for up-to-date training schedulescall us at (781) 438-2692, visit us on the web at www.qpmg.com or contact us at info@qpmg.com.

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 61 8

Vendors' World

Q/P Management Group, Inc.Massachusetts, USA

Q/P Management Group is a wellestablished, innovative consultingfirm specializing in quality and pro-ductivity solutions for high technologyand information service organizations.We provide our clients with the methods and techniques to assessquality and productivity needs, toimplement continuous processimprovements and measure theresults. Our consultants work withmajor corporations and governmentorganizations throughout the worldand with our guidance, these corpora-tions have realized significant softwaredevelopment cost savings as well asongoing savings through outsourcingengagements.

We have experience in numerousindustries including financial services,telecommunications, commercial soft-ware, insurance, manufacturing anddefense. Our consultants are talented,experienced professionals who arecommitted to satisfying client needs.We believe that in order to provide the best consulting services we mustprovide the best people in the industry.Q/P Management’s benchmark data-base continues to be the largest, most accurate, function point basedmeasurement database in the industry.When the database is combined withPQMPlus™ users can establish accu-rate project estimates and successfullymanage projects. PQMPlus is aWindows-based tool, featuring an intuitive design with a robust functionpoint repository, unique project esti-mating, scheduling, risk assessment,and productivity analysis capabilitiesusing function point analysis. PQMPlus™

is the only tool to receive IFPUG Type1 & Type 2 Software Certification.Details at www.qpmg.com. For moreinformation call 781/438-2692 or emailinfo@qpmg.com.

The David Consulting Group New Jersey, USA

The David Consulting Group (DCG)is a SEI CMMI® Approved TransitionPartner and a PSM TransitionOrganization, supporting softwaredevelopment organizations in achiev-ing software excellence with a metric-centered approach. Foundedon the principles of strong customersupport, quality deliverables and professional work ethics, The DavidConsulting Group recognizes thatinvesting in the excellence of softwaretoday is critical to the competitivesuccess of tomorrow’s business.

DCG supports a diverse mix ofclients by providing consulting services and training that satisfy organizational business objectives.Insights into successful software practices are enabled through theirdatabase of over 8,800 recently com-pleted (2003-2006) projects and 6,500maintenance support applications.

Total MetricsVictoria, Australia

Total Metrics provides consultingand training services to the IT indus-try worldwide. We assist organizationsto improve their software processesand to be industry competitive. Weuse measurement techniques to assessthe productivity and quality of anorganization’s software processes andproducts, to identify opportunities forimprovements and compare againstindustry values.

Total Metrics has developed and distributes the premier function pointcounting tool - SCOPE Project SizingSoftware™. This is the first product tobring software functional sizing intothe domain of project governance andsoftware portfolio asset management.

IFPUG Board of Directors

Front (left to right):Tom Cagley, Vice President, The David Consulting Group

Mary Dale, Treasurer,Q/P Management Group

Loredana Frallicciardi, Director of Applied Programs, CSC Italia

Rear (left to right):Márcio Silveira, Director ofInternational and OrganizationalAffairs, EDS

Chris Kohnz, Director of Educationand Conferences, Nestle PurinaPetcare

Bruce Rogora, Director of CountingStandards, Pershing, Inc.

Mauricio Aguiar, President, TI Metricas

Ian Brown, Secretary and Director of Communications and Marketing,Booz Allen Hamilton

Not pictured:Mary Bradley, Immediate PastPresident, MSB2

Vendors’ World! Vendors’ World!

If you or your company are interested in advertising in the next issue of MetricViews, and being included in Vendors’ World! Vendors’ World!,please contact Barbara Swanda at IFPUG headquarters at: 609/799-4900

or email bswanda@cmasolutions.com.

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 6 1 9

CommitteesCertification Committee• Mahesh Ananthakrishnan, EDS• Loredana Frallicciardi, CSC• Bill Law, The Bank of Nova Scotia –

Training Material Sub-Chair• Kriste Lawrence, EDS – Chair • Nicoletta Lucchetti, Sogei –

Software Sub-Chair• Jim McCauley, BWXT Y-12 L.L.C. –

Vice-Chair, Web Content Sub-Chair,Certification Extension ProgramSub-Chair

• Stephanie Orr, IBM• Kelly Qvern, Nielsen Media

Research – Exam Sub-Chair • Bruce Rogora, Pershing• Melinda Ayers, Geico

Communications and Marketing Committee• Frank Molinari, Computer Sciences

Corporation – Chair• Linda Hughes, Accenture – Vice

Chair

Conference Committee• Deborah Harris, QP Management

Group – Chair• Leah Upshaw, MCR – Vice Chair• Dan French, Geico• Loami Barros, EDS• John Pruitt, Accenture

Counting Practices Committee• Adri Timp, Interpay Nederland –

Chair • Bonnie Brown, EDS – Vice Chair• Valerie Marthaler, The David

Consulting Group• Martin D’Souza, Softmet.com• Jay Fischer, JRF Consulting, Inc.• David Garmus, The David

Consulting Group• Eddy van Vliet, York International,

Ltd.

Education Committee• Pam Simonovich, Q/P Management

Group – Chair• TBD – Vice Chair• John DeDeyn, A Consulting

Enterprise, Inc.• Dennis O’Mailey, Strategic

Enterprise Solutions• Jim Price, EDS• Prem Ranganath, Marquette

University• Tony Rollo, Software Measurement

Services, Pty. Ltd• Peter Thomas, IBM• Kay Wilson, Illinois State University

IT Performance Committee• Dan Bradley, MSB2 – Chair• RaeAnn Burns, TDS Telecom• Charles L. Gold• David Herron, The David

Consulting Group, Inc.• George Mitwasi, Software

Management Solutions, Inc.

Management ReportingCommittee• Joe Schofield, Sandia National

Labs – Chair• Barbara Beech, AT&T• Heidi Belkofer, Accenture –

Vice Chair • Betsy Clark, Software Metrics, Inc.• Dawn Coley, EDS• Bill Hufschmidt, Development

Support Center, Inc.• Al Hoefer, CSC• John Sautter, Northrop Grumman• Greg Allen, EDS

New Environments Committee• Roger Heller, Q/P Management

Group, Inc. – Chair• Steve Woodward, Q/P Management

Group, Inc. – Vice Chair• Dawn Coley, EDS – Vice Chair• Debbie Maschino, EDS• Tammy Preuss, Cingular• Dan French, Geico

describe information movements intoand out of applications – screen dis-play, printer, file, email, etc. The mediarequested by the Client/User for aninput/output represents distinct busi-ness requirements and is completelywithin the User’s knowledge domain.

The ISO/IEC 14143-1:1998 definitionof a Technical Requirement is:

“Requirements relating to the technology and environment, for thedevelopment, maintenance, supportand execution of software.

NOTE – Examples of Technical Requirementsinclude programming languages, testing tools,operating systems, database technology and userinterface technologies.”

By this definition, “media” is not atechnical requirement and there isnowhere in the existing ISO/IEC 14143suite of standards, or anywhere inISO/IEC or IEEE software engineeringstandards that would substantiate theCPC viewpoint that media is not afunctional requirement.

The Way Forward A YES to this motion allows IFPUG

to develop a reasonable set of guide-lines on how and when to count multiple media based on memberinput and common practices.

It is imprudent to impose a poten-tially significant change to the standardwithout appropriate research andanalysis. Any significant changeshould make the method better for its intended role in estimation and productivity measurement and notmore confusing.

This motion recommends that common practices be reviewed anddirects how best to standardize multi-ple media rules. It is our hope that anindependent party working with themembership, CPC, other IFPUG com-mittees and industry practitioners willdevelop a solution for the good of theFunction Point counting community. l

Point/Counterpoint – Part One, continued from page 4

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 62 0

Conference Report

CertificationExtension Program

Daniel FrenchGEICO

William LawBank of Nova Scotia

Bill RavensbergLondon Life InsuranceCompany

Benjamin HibbelerGEICO

Mahesh AnanthakrishnanEDS

Rome, ItalyMay 9, 2006

Alessandro BettiniAccenture

Alessandro GazzettaIBM Global Services

Andrea BerettaSiemens Informatica

Andrea ZanardiRetItalia Internazionale

Anna SerroniSiemens Informatica

Arcangelo TatarannoSOGEI

Biagio LemboSOGEI

Christian PetrolliniSiemens Informatica

Claudia CorreaniCM Sistemi

Corrado Del VescovoSiemens Informatica

Danilo De MarcoSOGEI

Elisa PietropaoliSOGEI

Enrico SassiCM Sistemi

Fabio PalattaCM Sistemi

Fabio ScaranoAccenture

Filippo MilanoRetItalia Internazionale

Francesca QuaiSOGEI

Giancarlo FuriaAuselda AED Group

Giovanni MarchittoAccenture

Guido MorettoInfoCamera

Muhammet OeztueruDASMA E.V.DeutschprachigeAnwendergruppe Fuer

Rafael AnielloAuselda AED Group

Rita D’AndreaSOGEI

Sandra PaolettiInfoCamera

Serena Di GiacomoSiemens Informatica

Simonetta OrtonaSOGEI

Vincenzo BocciaAccenture

Vitoria, BrazilJune 10, 2006

Renato Machado AlbertFATTO Consultoria ESistemas

Maria De Lourdes MazzoniDatamec

Laudecy Fabiani AlvesDatamec

Gustavo Siqueira SimoesFATTO Consultoria ESistemas

Vinicius Vilaca ReisDatamec

Brasilia, BrazilJune 10, 2006

Sheyla Castro Nunes De Souza

João Afonso De SouzaOliveiraPolitec

Sergio FialhoCast Informatica

Patricia Correa FonsecaDatamec

Euclides Lago JuniorCast Informatica

Claudio HenriquePereira De Castro

Fatima SaldanhaCesarinoPolitec

Cinthya Hiromi SekoSerpro Sunat

Livio YwamotoPolitec

Rio de Janeiro,BrazilJune 10, 2006

Roberta PereiraBuenagaSerpro Sunat

Sheila Maria CardosoDBA Engenharia DeSistemas

Maria Luiza De CarvalhoBragaUniversidade Federal DaBahia

Leila Karita Dos AnjosDo Espirito SantoZCR Informatica

Rosana Paulino

Carlos Roberto PinheiroBRQ Solucoes EmInformatica Ltda.

Adriano Sperandio De SaUnitech Tecnologia DeInformcao

Viviane Martins DaCosta TavaresMSA-INFOR Sistemas EAutomatpo

Sao Paulo, BrazilJune 10, 2006

Thais Aib Nunes7Comm Informatica S/cLtda.

Jose Carlos AssuncaoKononczukBanco Bradesco S/A

Jose Benedito Gradini

James Jose BerzinPrime Comercio EConsultoria DeInformatica Ltda.

Americo ViniciusBonachBanco Bradesco S/A

Rafael FernandesBanco Bradesco S/A

Roberta Paula FreitasCabralExpertise TecnologiaEm Desenvolvimento DeSistemas Ltda.

Carla Elias GugelminRamosExpertise TecnologiaEm Desenvolvimento DeSistemas Ltda.

Marcio Alexandre HufFloresMeta Servicos EmInformatica Ltda.

Denise Maria JacobPerina

Cesar Augusto MaximoDe LuccaPorto Seguro Cia. DeSegs Gerais

Solange RamosMonteiroBanco Bradesco S/A

Ademir Moreno AguilarBanco Bradesco S/A

Irene NagaseTata ConsultancyService Do Brasil S/A

Marcos De JesusPastrelloDiebold Procomp

Ronaldo PedrosoMontano

Cinthia Penetta NunesSofttek Consultoria

Eduardo Pereira Borges

Rosangela CristinaPerozzi DiasBanco Bradesco S/A

Osvaldo Pinto Da Silva JrBanco Bradesco S/A

Meire Augusta AlvesPivatto Banco Bradesco S/A

Kelsei Luis Portes BiralEMINIT

Alessandro HenriqueSantosPrime Comercio EConsultoria DeInformatica Ltda.

Norberto Savino Bertoni

Alexandre SchiaviVasconcelosExpertise TecnologiaEm Desenvolvimento DeSistemas Ltda.

Ana Lucia SousaBanco Bradesco S/A

Maria Cecilia Techy Prowork Technologies

Gustavo ValencaBertacini

Regina Lucia VassalloBordoniBanco Bradesco S/A

Chennai, IndiaJune 17, 2006

Vijay AnandIBM Global Services

Rajan BansalEDS

Avanti BoinepalliSatyam ComputerServices Ltd

Anand GopalanEDS

Aman GuptaEDS

MelchisadecGurubathamEDS

Aparna RajeshEDS

Vaijayanthi RamaswamyAccenture

Ambal SaravananPolaris Software LabLimited

Elumallai SREDS

Bangalore, IndiaJune 28, 2006

Puneet AnejaIBM Global Services

Congratulations to these New and Extended Certified Function Point Specialists!

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 6 2 1

Conference ReportKumaresh BagchiIBM Global Services

Anand DafariaIBM Global Services

Laxmikant OmprakashDagdiyaIBM Global Services

Sridevi DevathiHCL Technologies

Manish Kumar DubeIBM Global Services

Satish Digambar GhadiIBM Global Services

Anand Reddy Jaggala IBM Global Services

Anitha JayaramIBM Global Services

Smitha JohnIBM Global Services

Jayathirtha R. KattiIBM Global Services

Vaishnavi KesavanIBM Global Services

KrishnarajanArunachalamIBM Global Services

BhagyalakshmiKrishnawarrierIBM Global Services

S.S. Kiran KumarIBM Global Services

Manoj MadhavanIBM Global Services

Prasun MahapatraIBM Global Services

Emon MisraIBM Global Services

Jaisankar MuthukrishnanAccenture

Debasish Tapan NagIBM Global Services

Amuthavalli PeriasamyIBM Global Services

Medha Phatak Accenture

Anusha PichumaniIBM Global Services

Srinivasan RangaswamyIBM Global Services

Deepika RaoIBM Global Services

Shivaprasad P. ReddyIBM Global Services

Debashish RoychowdhuryIBM Global Services

Anand SankaranarayananIBM Global Services

Parthasarathy Murali IBM Global Services

Chokkalingam SelvarajanIBM Global Services

Pranay SrivastavaAccenture

Indu ThiruvalancheryIBM Global Services

Ram Kumar VRamco Systems Limited

Kannan C. VijayaIBM Global Services

Vimal Jebaraj G.N. IBM Global Services

Nagaraj K.V.IBM Global Services

Seoul, KoreaJuly 8, 2006

Chun Sock Bae LG CNS

Young Kyu Beak Daewoo InformationSystem Co., Ltd.

Sang Woo Byun Dongbu InformationTechnology

InSu ChangDongbu InformationTechnology

Song Bon ChangSamsung SDS Co Ltd

Hyun Sang ChoHanJin InformationSystems &Communications

Jeong Soon ChoKorea Telecom IT Group

Seong Cheol ChoKookmin Bank

Sug Moon ChoLG CNS

Chan Mo ChoiPublic ProcurementService

Doo Won ChoiHanwha

Hong Keun ChoiDaewoo InformationSystem Co., Ltd.

Ji Ho ChoiDongbu InformationTechnology

Seon Hye ChoiHanwha

So Yun ChoiLG CNS

Young Seon HaHanJin InformationSystems &Communications

Sang Kyun Han

Jeong Hun HeoTong Yang Systems

Sung Hyo HongDongbu InformationTechnology

Chul Wan JangSamsung SDS Co Ltd

Young Min JangHanJin InformationSystems &Communications

Gwang Gi JeongKookmin Bank

Hye Young JeongDaewoo InformationSystem Co., Ltd.

Sang Woon JeongLG CNS

Mi Jeong JinDongbu InformationTechnology

Seung Bum JoSK C&C

Hyun Ho JungDongbu InformationTechnology

Jong Min JungSamsung SDS Co Ltd

Kwang Sun JungDaewoo InformationSystem Co., Ltd.

Mi Ra JungSamsung SDS Co Ltd

Woo Seok JungDongbu InformationTechnology

Yong Seung JungDaewoo InformationSystem Co., Ltd.

JiEun KangKoonMin Bank

Dai Sok KimKoonMin Bank

Eun Hee KimHanJin InformationSystems &Communications

Hyo Kyeom KimSamsung SDS Co Ltd

Ji Soon KimDongbu InformationTechnology

Jong Wook KimKorea Hydro NuclearPower

Jun Kyung KimHanwha

Ki Dong KimMIC

Tae Kwang KimHanJin InformationSystems &Communications

Tae Wan KimDaewoo InformationSystem Co., Ltd.

Yong Sup KimSamsung SDS Co Ltd

Yong Won KimIBM Global Services

Yoon Chung KimSamsung SDS Co Ltd

Young Min KimHanJin InformationSystems &Communications

DongHee KoKookmin Bank

Shim Mi KohLG CNS

Nam Il KwonDongbu InformationTechnology

Tae Keun KwonLG CNS

Chang Yong LeeDongbu InformationTechnology

Choong Man LeeSamsung SDS Co Ltd

Chung Han LeeDongbu InformationTechnology

Hye Sun LeeLG CNS

Hye Young LeeLG CNS

Hyun Jin LeeHanJin InformationSystems &Communications

Hyun Soon LeeKorea Telecom

Il Ho LeeSamsung SDS Co Ltd

Ki Hyun LeeDaewoo InformationSystem Co., Ltd.

Mi Ae LeeKorea Telecom

Noo Ree LeeSamsung SDS Co Ltd

Tae Hun LeeKonkuk University

You Me LeeWinoble

Yun Sang LeeSamsung SDS Co Ltd

Ji Souk LimKorea Telecom

Nam Youl MaHanJin InformationSystems &Communications

Moon Jin HoDaewoo InformationSystem Co., Ltd.

Jeong Su MunKookmin Bank

Jin Hwan NohDaewoo InformationSystem Co., Ltd.

Myoung Jun OhDongbu InformationTechnology

Dong Hee ParkKorea Telecom

Doo Seong ParkKookmin Bank

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 62 2

Conference ReportHyun Jeong ParkDongbu InformationTechnology

Hyun Sook ParkSamsung SDS Co Ltd

Hyung Geun ParkLG CNS

Park Il HwanDaewoo InformationSystem Co., Ltd.

Park Jin SookKorea Telecom

Park Joon TaeLG CNS

Ki Joo ParkLG CNS

Sang Il ParkDongbu InformationTechnology

Shang Hoon ParkDongbu InformationTechnology

Tae Young ParkHanwha

Zio RyuKorea National OpenUniversity

Dong Hyun Seo

Jae Bum ShimDaewoo InformationSystem Co., Ltd.

Jin Soo ShimHanJin InformationSystems &Communications

Jung Hoon ShimDongbu InformationTechnology

Sung Sik ShinSK C&C

Won Ho ShinDaewoo InformationSystem Co., Ltd.

Seong Hyeon SimHanJin InformationSystems &Communications

Jeong Won SonLG CNS

Kyong Jin SuhDaewoo InformationSystem Co., Ltd.

Nak Kyung SungLG CNS

Youn Hee TaeDongbu InformationTechnology

Ju Ah WiKookmin Bank

Ji Ho WonLG CNS

Kum Hee WonDongbu InformationTechnology

Sang Hee WooDongbu InformationTechnology

Soo Yeol YangInpion Consulting

Dai Sung YuSamsung SDS Co Ltd

Hong Ju YunDongbu InformationTechnology

Sterling, VirginiaJuly 29, 2006

Ian BrownBooz Allen Hamilton

Agnes NanuBooz Allen Hamilton

Terry VogtBooz Allen Hamilton

San Diego,CaliforniaSeptember 11, 2006

Gregory AllenPershing LLC

Thomas M. CagleyThe David ConsultingGroup

Albert HoeferComputer SciencesCorporation

Sharon L. CartwrightBank of America

E. Jay FischerJRF Consulting

Bill HuffschmidtDecision SupportCenter, Inc.

Peter KunitSiemens AG Osterreich

Joel LeBlancMedavie Blue CrossCare

David LiptonQ/P Management Group,Inc.

Charles LynchEDS

Pam MorrisTotal Metrics

Karen RayUSAA

Robert RoseIBM Global Services

Madhu SeenisamyAjilon Consulting

James ShaverMcKesson Corporation

Kathern S. SheffieldAccenture

Connie SmithComputer SciencesCorporation

Peter ThomasIBM Global Services

Adri TimpInterplay Nederland

Carlos TorresSolucionesEmpresariales DeInformatica InteligenteSA De CV

Nancy WelshState Farm Insurance

Congratulations to these new Certified Software Measurement Specialists!Don BeckettQuantitative SoftwareMeasurement

Barbara BeechAT&T Consumer Services

Heidi BelkoferAccenture

Sergio BrigidoEDS

Luigi BuglioneAtos Origin

Sharon L. CartwrightBank of America

Dawn ColeyEDS

Loredana FralliciardiComputer SciencesCorporation Italia

David GarmusThe David Consulting Group,Inc.

Bill HufschmidtDecision Support Center, Inc.

Nicoletta LucchettiSOGEI

Pam MorrisTotal Metrics

Janet RussacThe David Consulting Group,Inc.

Joe SchofieldSandia National Labs

I F P U G M e t r i c V i e w s F a l l 2 0 0 6 2 3

Feature Story

Beyond Budget Reprinted with permission fromPM Network, September 2006.

For a true read on project success,organizations must track both quali-tative and quantitative benefits.Project managers typically consider a project successful if it meets quanti-tative goals—on budget, on time and within scope—set forth duringthe planning phase. Qualitative bene-fits, such as stakeholder satisfactionor product aesthetics, often arepassed off as secondary. That’s a big mistake, according to CarlyleMaranhao, PMP, Hewlett-Packard Co., Chester Springs, Pa., USA, andChristine Green, PMP, EDS Denmark,Copenhagen, Denmark. The two dis-cuss why qualitative benefits are justas important as the quantitative ones.

Should organizations build metrics into their project man-agement process? Why do someproject offices fail to measureproject results?

Ms. Green: Organizational metricsprograms take a bit of time to imple-ment. It’s not done overnight, sothat’s one of the issues. The other is a lack of management sponsorship.They don’t see the benefit.

Mr. Maranhao: Any organizationthat has gone through the effort ofestablishing a project managementoffice (PMO) typically has definedmetrics for all the projects it man-ages. If we were talking years agowhen PMOs were kind of new—when everybody wasn’t sure howthey should measure—the answermight be different. But PMOs havematured in terms of measuring projects results.

Ms. Green: If they don’t, theydon’t succeed.

Mr. Maranhao: They’ll be fired!

How can companies measurequantitative and qualitative benefits?

Mr. Maranhao: Both benefitsare empirically measurable, it’sjust a matter of which techniquesyou choose to use. There are two

sides of the equation. One measuresdirect return on investment (ROI)—typically there’s a lot of focus onwhat the project is going to save thecompany when it’s delivered. But theother side of the equation that’s oftennot directly quantified deals with theoptional benefits that may not beimmediately apparent. Real optionsanalysis is a technique that can beused to measure the qualitative benefits of a project in its beginningstages. It’s based on Black-Scholesoptions techniques, which are usedeveryday in the stock market to quantify the value of stock options.This technique is an empirical methodthat gives you a way of quantifyingthe potential future value of a projectwhen that value is not immediatelyapparent. Many projects that mightfail the test from a straight ROI perspective are actually good invest-ments because of the “optional value”side of the equation you need tomeasure.

Ms. Green: Traffic light reportsalso are a very effective way becausethat’s something the executives intu-itively understand—if it’s red, theyneed to have somebody look at it. Idon’t necessarily have to do it as anexecutive, but I know that if it’s red,somebody needs to.

Mr. Maranhao: One of the interest-ing things I’ve found about traffic lightreports is there’s a natural reluctancefor project managers to show anythingas red. So if you see a green project itwill be green, green, green and thenall of a sudden, it will completely fallinto red because green is good, red isbad. You have to get more empiricalabout how you measure what consti-tutes yellow and red and green.

What are the strengths and weak-nesses of tracking qualitativebenefits versus quantitative ones?

Ms. Green: Both qualitative andquantitative have strengths and weak-nesses. The power is in using of bothof them at the same time. You can’tsay “use one over the other”—theyboth provide important feedback. Ifwe were building a bridge, for exam-ple, the qualitative benefits relate towhether the bridge works, but thequantitative might measure how much concrete was used or how many people were working on it. All of this information is important.

Mr. Maranhao: A strong businesscase is made up of both the qualitativeside and the quantitative side. To usethe bridge example, if it was built ontime, on budget, and met specs butwasn’t beautiful to look at, it may not

have enhanced the city it was in. It’simportant to consider the quantita-tive sides of the bridge—Can itaccommodate the necessary num-ber of people? Does it connect thetwo land masses it’s supposed toconnect?—as well as the qualitativeside—Does it enhance the land-scape?

Should qualitative benefitscount toward ROI?

Mr. Maranhao: Absolutely. Thereare two areas of benefit you need toconsider when you’re looking atany particular project. There areimmediate returns as well as theareas of optional benefit. A lot oftimes those areas of optional bene-fit can represent a significant areaof value to the business. Even

continued on page 24

IFPUG Headquarters191 Clarksville RoadPrinceton Juntion, NJ 08550USA

more importantly, the process bywhich you quantify those optionalbenefits demands the project teamseeks out the key stakeholders andgets input from those stakeholders.By doing that, you’re making sureyou’re solidly linking the project tothe specific business goals and theareas of focus.

Ms. Green: The one big thing I seewhen we mention ROI is people arethinking about money. They’re think-ing about what it gives the company if we implement the project from an earning perspective. They’re notthinking about what it will bring themfrom a qualitative perspective, whichcould be a performance improvementdue to process improvement, a quick-er learning curve for their staff mem-bers or faster turnaround when infor-mation is exchanged.

Are quantitative benefits giventoo much importance over qualitative ones?

Mr. Maranhao: That’s an interestingquestion. I would say many times yes.Often the value of what the project isdelivering is understood better by thebusiness itself than by the projectteam. However, if you take a look atmany project monthly status reports,you’ll often see that the project teamfocuses on how well the project isdelivering. Is it on time? Is it on budg-et? But often there isn’t any inclusionof how well the project is actually sat-isfying the key stakeholder needs.

Ms. Green: Stakeholder satisfactionis a task that we need to perform, butit also is a task that unfortunately hassome difficulties in being consistentlyused by project teams. It might beused on an organizational level but alot of projects reject or forget to asktheir clients or their users if they’resatisfied and the project met theirneeds. l

CARLYLE MARANHAO, PMP, is a client principal with Hewlett-Packard Co., Chester Springs, Pa.,USA. His 17 years of experience inthe IT industry includes consultingfor several Fortune 500 companies,program management and sales.

CHRISTINE GREEN, PMP, is a metrics and estimating specialist at EDS Denmark, Copenhagen,Denmark. She is a certified functionpoint specialist and software meas-urement specialist and is on the IT Performance Committee of theInternational Function Point UsersGroup (IFPUG).

Project Management Institute, PM Network, Project ManagementInstitute, Inc., 2006. Copyright andall rights reserved. Material fromthis publication has been reproducedwith the permission of PMI.

US PostagePAID

Permit No 288Princeton, NJ