1
6COM1042: Software Quality Assignment1 – 2020/2021
This is the seen test that you need to do in order to be able to attempt the in-class
test in W33 on 12th March 2021.
An empirical evaluation of an effort estimation technique

Overview (The following is a hypothetical Case Study)

As part of your Software Quality assignment, you have been asked to build a stock control
system. The following is the specification for the proposed system:



Requirements:

Question 1) Derive sub-functions from the above specification, describing the number that
fall under the following categories:

• External inputs
• External outputs
• External enquiries
• External files
and
• Internal files
[0 Marks]



Specification A
Specification for a stock control system:
The Baseline: Our stock control system will contain a relational database that stores
information on Stock, Suppliers, Orders, Customers and Invoices. Occasionally, it will
interact with our Supplier database, run in a separate section of our organisation, in
order to update Supplier details. Our system will also frequently interact with a
Payments system in the Payments section that processes customer payment of
invoices.
Key Functions: Our stock control system will update or create customer records. It will
also check customer credit rating and create customer orders. When a customer places
an order, the system will first check the customer credit rating, then check the
availability of the product being ordered, create an order, then update the stock levels
to reflect the product that has been ordered. For every Customer Order an Invoice is
created. At the end of every day’s transaction a Dispatch list, made up of all customer
orders with their delivery addresses is generated and printed off. Overnight, our
system interacts with the Payments systems by sending it an update of Customer
Invoices. The Payments system, in turn, sends our stock control system an update of
each customer’s credit rating based on their outstanding payments.
There are no other functions of this system.

2
Question 2) Assuming the following weightings for all the sub-functions in Question 1):

External inputs: Average
External outputs: Simple
External enquiries: Simple
External files: Complex
Internal files: Average

Calculate the Unadjusted Function Point count for the specification above. Remember to
detail the stages of your calculation by showing the formulae and standards used to derive
your solution. You must explain the Unadjusted Function Point count and how it fits into the
overall formula for Function Point calculations and also explain the constituents of any
formula that you use for your calculation.

[10 Marks]




Question 3) Calculate the adjusted Function Point count of the above specification by
factoring in the Technical Complexity Factor. For this calculation, assume the following
Technical Complexity Factors profile:

i. The following contributing factors are irrelevant:
• F1: Reliable back-up and recovery
• F3: Distributed functions
• F4: Performance
• F5: Heavily used configuration
• F7: Operational ease
• F9: Complex interface
• F10: Complex processing
• F11: Reusability
• F12: Installation ease
• F13: Multiple sites
• F14: Facilitate change

ii. There are NO contributing factors that are average:

iii. The following contributing factors are essential:
• F2: Data communication
• F6: Online data entry
• F8: Online update


[5 Marks]

Question 4) If it took you exactly 25.2 Person Hours to implement the Stock Control system
above, calculate your rate of productivity in Person Days, assuming that each Person Day is
equal to exactly 8 Person Hours.
[5 Marks]

3
Question 5) Using the productivity rate calculated in Question 4), predict how long it should
take you to implement the system described below.
[10 Marks]

The following are the identified sub-functions of the system specified by Specification B.
• External inputs (1)
o Enter marks
• External outputs (2)
o Student record, printed student marks
• External inquiries (3)
o Compute averages, Convert marks to grades, Student inquiring marks
• External files (1)
o Database of student records
• Internal files (1)
o Internal database of marks recording scheme

You should follow the steps given below to predict how long it should take you to implement
the system above:
i. Calculate UFC, assuming that all the weightings for the above sub functions are
simple.
ii. Assume the following Technical Complexity Factor (TCF) profile:
The following contributing factors are irrelevant:
• F1: Reliable back-up and recovery
• F3: Distributed functions
• F5: Heavily used configuration
• F9: Complex interface
• F10: Complex processing
• F11: Reusability
• F12: Installation ease
• F14: Facilitate change
The following contributing factors are average:
• F4: Performance
• F6: Online data entry
• F7: Operational ease
• F8: Online update
• F13: Multiple sites
F2: Data communication is essential

Specification B
Specification for a simple marks recording system:
Student records are uploaded electronically from another database onto the marks
recoding system. These records will contain no marks at this stage. After the examination
period, an administrator will enter the marks of students onto the database on the
system. The administrator will compute a set of averages for the marks obtained. She
would also convert the marks from numbers to letter grades. When a student rings up to
enquire about her marks, the administrator will enter the student’s number, which will in
turn invoke the student’s record. At the end of the exam period, students’ marks are
printed and sent off to another department for processing.





4
iii. Then use the productivity rate from Question 4) to predict how long it will take you
to implement this simple marks recording system.
iv. State any assumptions you make in the calculation.


Question 6) Discuss why the predicted effort calculated above may be different to the actual
effort involved in implementing the above system. Give two reasons why the two efforts
may be different.

[10 Marks]
Question 7) Critically analyse Albrecht’s Effort Estimation Technique by:

i. highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of this technique
ii. comparing and contrasting the technique with at least one other effort estimation
technique.


[10 Marks]
5
Your solution will be assessed on the following Assessment criteria in Table 1 in reference
to a subset of the generic grading criteria for undergraduate assessment in Table 2:

Table 1: Assessment criteria
Requirements Marks
available
Marks
obtained
Q1) Derive sub-functions of the above specification, detailing the number
of the following sub-functions in the above System:
• External inputs
• External outputs
• External enquiries
• External files
and
• Internal files




0

Q2) Assume a suggested complexity weighting for all the sub-functions in
Q1) and calculate the unadjusted function point count for the
specification in Q1).

10


Q3) Calculate the adjusted Function Point count of the system in Q1) by
factoring in the Technical Complexity Factor. For this calculation, assume
the following Technical Complexity Factors profile:
i. The following contributing factors are irrelevant:
• F1: Reliable back-up and recovery
• F3: Distributed functions
• F4: Performance
• F5: Heavily used configuration
• F7: Operational ease
• F9: Complex interface
• F10: Complex processing
• F11: Reusability
• F12: Installation ease
• F13: Multiple sites
• F14: Facilitate change
ii.There are NO contributing factors that are average:
iii. The following contributing factors are essential:
• F2: Data communication
• F6: Online data entry
• F8: Online update





5

Q4) If it took you exactly 25.2 Person Hours to implement the stock
control system above, calculate your rate of productivity in Person Days,
assuming that each Person Day is equal to exactly 8 Person Hours.

5

Q5) Using the productivity rate calculated in Question 4), predict how
long it should take you to implement the simple marks recording system.

10

Q6) Discuss why the predicted effort calculated above may be different
from the actual effort involved in implementing the above system. Give
two reasons why the two efforts may be different.


10

Q7) Critically appraise Albrecht’s Effort Estimation Technique by:
i. highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of this technique
ii. comparing and contrasting with, at least, one other effort
estimation technique.


10


TOTAL


50



6
Table 2: A subset of the generic grading criteria for undergraduate assessment
N
u
m
e
ri
c
G
ra
d
e
D
e
sc
ri
p
to
r
(c
la
ss
. b
an
d
) Communication:
Presenting work, use of appropriate
structures, methods, language, grammar
and source materials
Demonstration of Knowledge:
Integration of theory into work and/or
breadth/depth in applying theory and/or
knowledge.

Analysis, Critical Evaluation and/or
Reflection (with derivation of solution):
Demonstration of evaluation, testing and
reflection.
8
0
-1
00


O
u
ts
ta
n
d
in
g
(1
st
c
la
ss
)
Outstanding presentation and clarity. No
significant grammatical / spelling or structural
errors. Ideas presented with exceptional
clarity. Outstanding standard of referencing in
text and highly accurate
Outstanding breadth and depth demonstrated.
Outstanding integration of literature and/or
theory into work.
Outstanding exploration and demonstration of
topic showing in depth knowledge and
understanding
Outstanding level of analysis, critical evaluation
and/or reflection with outstanding application
to derived solutions (where required).
Highly developed / focused work. Original and
well informed personal response
7
0
-7
9

Ex
ce
lle
n
t
(1
st
c
la
ss
)
Excellent structure. Fluent writing style with
very few errors. Very minor grammatical /
spelling or structural errors. Ideas presented
with excellent clarity. Excellent standard of
referencing in text, and highly accurate
Excellent breadth & depth demonstrated.
Excellent integration of literature and/or theory
into work.
Excellent level of knowledge and understanding
demonstrated. Covers all relevant points and
issues.
Excellent level of analysis, critical evaluation
and/or reflection of issues with excellent
application to derived solutions (where
required). Well-developed personal response
6
0
-6
9

V
e
ry
g
o
o
d

(U
p
p
er
2
n
d

cl
as
s)

Very good clear structure. Articulate, fluent
writing style and structure. Very few
grammatical errors, spelling mistakes or
structural issues. Ideas presented with clarity.
Very good standard referencing in text, with
very accurate use with minor errors

Very good breadth & depth demonstrated
appropriate to topic.
Literature and/or theory integrated very well.
Very good level of knowledge and
understanding demonstrated.
Very good level of, analysis, critical evaluation
and/or reflection but not consistently taken to
full extent with very good application to derived
solutions (where required). Partial personal
response tends towards descriptive
5
0
-5
9
G
o
o
d

(L
o
w
er
2
n
d

cl
as
s)

Good structure. Writing is mainly clear but
some spelling and / or grammatical errors
with some structural issues. Ideas presented
with some issues in clarity Very good
standard referencing in text, with very
accurate use with some errors
Good use of literature/theory. Depth
appropriate to topic BUT moderate breadth or
vice versa. Literature and/or theory integrated
into work.
Good grasp of the topic and some of its
implications. Knowledge and understanding is
demonstrated. Minor errors / omissions.
Good level of analysis and/or reflection but
critical evaluation could be expanded on
further. Good application to derived solutions
(where required). Primarily descriptive
personal response, sometimes restricted to
immediate concerns
4
0
-4
9
Sa
ti
sf
ac
to
ry

(3
rd
c
la
ss
)
Satisfactory structure. Not always written
clearly and has grammatical and / or spelling
errors. Ideas not always clearly presented.
Satisfactory standard referencing in text,
relatively accurate but showing errors

Satisfactory use of literature and/or theory
demonstrated but limited in breadth OR depth.
Uncritical and quoted without comment.
Satisfactory content / level of knowledge of the
topic. Addresses part of the question. Some
errors / omissions.
Satisfactory level of analysis and/or reflection
but limited evidence of critical evaluation.
Satisfactory application to derived solutions
(where required). Descriptive personal
response mainly restricted to immediate
concerns
3
0
-3
9
M
ar
gi
n
al
f
ai
l
(F
ai
l)

Poor structure. Has many spelling and /or
grammatical errors. Poor presentation of
ideas. Limited referencing in text, reference
use shows inaccuracy and/or many errors
Limited in breadth and depth demonstrated.
Literature and/or used/quoted without
comment. Limited content / knowledge.
Limited or muddled understanding of the
topic/question.

Limited evidence of analysis, critical evaluation
and/or reflection. Limited application to derived
solutions (where required).Too descriptive in
parts. Limited personal response.
2
0
-2
9
C
le
ar
f
ai
l
(F
ai
l)

Lacking Structure –argument difficult to
follow. Poorly written and/or poor spelling
and grammar. Few clear ideas presented.
Lacking referencing within text with a high
level of inaccuracy.
Lacking in breadth and depth. Some literature
and/or theory irrelevant to topic area. Lacking
knowledge Content irrelevant / inaccurate.
Does not address the question and therefore
does not meet the learning outcomes.
Lacking in its level of analysis / critical
evaluation and/or reflection. Minimal
application to derived solutions (where
required)
Mainly descriptive, lacking in personal
response.
0
-1
9
N
o
th
in
g
o
f
m
e
ri
t
(F
ai
l)

No discernible structure. Very difficult to
follow. Many grammatical errors. Many
spelling mistakes. No presentation of ideas.
Unsatisfactory referencing within text.
Reference list does not match references in
text.
References list has incorrect citations and/or
is not the recommended format. No
reference list included.
No / unsatisfactory evidence of literature and/or
theory being referred to. Much of the literature
and/or theory used irrelevant to topic area
No / unsatisfactory level of knowledge
demonstrated.
Content not appropriate to the topic.

Unsatisfactory level of analysis / critical
evaluation and or reflection. No application to
derived solutions (where required)
Wholly descriptive. No personal response.









































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































学霸联盟