University of Leicester
Browse
paper-revised-submitted.pdf (987.34 kB)

Effort and Cost of Software Engineering: A Comparison of Two Industrial Data Sets

Download (987.34 kB)
conference contribution
posted on 2018-02-02, 16:51 authored by Hennie Huijgens, Arie Van Deursen, Leandro L. Minku, Chris Lokan
Context: The research literature on software development projects usually assumes that effort is a good proxy for cost. Practice, however, suggests that there are circumstances in which costs and effort should be distinguished. Objectives: We determine similarities and differences between size, effort, cost, duration, and number of defects of software projects. Method: We compare two established repositories (ISBSG and EBSPM) comprising almost 700 projects from industry. Results: We demonstrate a (log)-linear relation between cost on the one hand, and size, duration and number of defects on the other. This justifies conducting linear regression for cost. We establish that ISBSG is substantially different from EBSPM, in terms of cost (cheaper) and duration (faster), and the relation between cost and effort. We show that while in ISBSG effort is the most important cost factor, this is not the case in other repositories, such as EBSPM in which size is the dominant factor. Conclusion: Practitioners and researchers alike should be cautious when drawing conclusions from a single repository.

History

Citation

EASE'17 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, 2017, pp. 51-60

Author affiliation

/Organisation/COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING/Department of Computer Science

Source

EASE'17, The 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Karlskrona, Sweden

Version

  • AM (Accepted Manuscript)

Published in

EASE'17 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)

isbn

978-1-4503-4804-1

Acceptance date

2017-03-14

Copyright date

2017

Available date

2018-02-02

Publisher version

https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3084226.3084249

Temporal coverage: start date

2017-06-15

Temporal coverage: end date

2017-06-16

Language

en

Usage metrics

    University of Leicester Publications

    Categories

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC