»Unique competencies in all relevant methods for sizing of requirements (function and quality)«

 
The reliability of expert judgment depends very much on knowledge, capabilities, and experience and decreases with increasing project size, agility, complexity, and automation degree.
Expert judgments are person-dependent and therefore not objective, hardly reasonable, unprecise, usually not reproducible, and thus not reliable.
Studies prove, that 80 % of all expert judgments have a deviation by a factor 2 - 9 between estimates and actuals.
Facts about success of software and IT projects: Numbers remain »constant« for 20 years

effution_chaos_report_objectives_us

Source: Chaos Report-Studie, Standish Group 2012-2015
Introduction

Heuristic (top-down, bottom-up) and parametric sizing methods are used to objectively determine the size of a project. Sizing methods are also called FS methods (Functional Sizing), "Hard Facts" or according to ISO standard FSM (Functional Size Measurement).

Effect

FS methods were developed to cover a specific domain (e.g. SW development) or phase (e.g. coding). Hence, they have all a different number of specific metrics. With these metrics functional & quality requirements are transferred into unitless numbers (size), called points. All FS methods deliver a size as a result, but not effort, duration or cost.

Examples

Typical examples of FSM methods are, e.g. Use Case Points, Story Points, Feature Points, Function Points, COSMIC Points, SNAP Points, MKII Points, etc. Further, there are specific FS methods / fuction catalogs, e.g. WRICEF Points (ERP applications), Mainframe Points, BPM Points, BI Points, Service Points, etc.

 
For 2 decades, we have been the leading experts for development, enhancement, and calibration of heuristic methods, e.g. Bottom-up and parametric FS methods & metrics.
We have already implemented 91 sizing methods in our Cost-Value Calculation Tool (AI) »sucCXess«.