Total views : 890
Project Effort Estimation using COCOMO-2 Metrics with Fuzzy Logic
Objectives: Enhancement of the effort estimation by using Fuzzy Logic with COCOMO-II Effort Multiplier and comparing BRE, RE, VAF. Methods/Statistical Analysis: For the cost estimation, fuzzy logic is used with three membership functions such as Triangular, Trepezoidal and Bell. Findings: The results show that all three membership functions vary by 1-2 % in the effort estimation where as if compared; COCOMO 2 Effort varies by 5-10 % from Fuzzy output. The traditional method consumes a lot of time and a lot of methods are non mathematical due to which the predicted results may be irrelevant. Application/Improvements: The work has been tested on 5 projects. When the parameters for triangular function are executed, values for embedded 1, semidetached 2 are enhanced as compare to organic, semi detached 1, embedded 2. After the evaluation of trapezoidal function, values of semidetached 1 and embedded 1 are more as compare to others. Same as before, the values for embedded 1 and semidetached 2 are more in Bell membership function. Slight improvement has been seen in organic value. Similarly, for COCOMO II the results have been obtained.
COCOMO-II, Cost Metrics, Fuzzy Logic, Software Effort Estimation.
- Molokken K, Magen J. A review of software surveys on software effort estimation. Empirical Software Engineering. International Symposium on IEEE; 2003. p. 223. Crossref
- Mukhopadhyay T, Vicinanza SS, Prietula JM. Examining the feasibility of a case-based reasoning model for software effort estimation. MIS quarterly. 1992; 16(2):155–71. Crossref
- Schmidt R, Lyytinen K, Cule P, Keil M. Identifying software project risks: An international Delphi study. Journal of management information systems. 2001; 17(4):5–36. Crossref
- Shepperd M, Schofield C. Estimating software project effort using analogies. IEEE Transactions on software engineering. 1997; 23(11):736–43. Crossref
- Basha S, Dhavachelvan P. Analysis of empirical software effort estimation models; 2010. p. 1–10.
- Attarzadeh I, Ow SH. Improving estimation accuracy of the COCOMO II using an adaptive fuzzy logic model. Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ). IEEE International Conference on IEEE; 2011. p. 2458–64. Crossref
- Boehm BW, Madachy R, Steece B. Software cost estimation with Cocomo II with Cdrom. Prentice Hall PTR; 2000.
- Boehm BW, Valerdi R. Achievements and challenges in Cocomo-based software resource estimation. IEEE software. 2008; 25(5):1–10. Crossref
- Zadeh LA. Fuzzy logic neural networks and soft computing. Communications of the ACM. 1994; 37(3):77–85. Crossref
- Idri A, Alain A, Kjiri L. COCOMO cost model using fuzzy logic. 7th International Conference on Fuzzy Theory & Techniques; 2000. p. 1–4.
- Mittal A, Parkash K, Mittal H. Software cost estimation using fuzzy logic. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. 2010; 35(1):1–7. Crossref
- Xu Z, Khoshgoftaar TM. Identification of fuzzy models of software cost estimation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 2004; 145(1):141–63. Crossref
- Clark B, Chulani SD, Boehm B. Calibrating the COCOMO II post-architecture model. Software Engineering. Proceedings of International Conference on IEEE; 1998. p. 1–10. Crossref
- Menzies T. Selecting best practices for effort estimation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2006; 32(11):1–132. Crossref
- Huang LG, Boehm B. How much software quality investment is enough: A value-based approach? IEEE software. 2006; 23(5):88–95. Crossref
- Chen Z. Finding the right data for software cost modeling. IEEE Software. 2005; 22(6):38–46. Crossref
- Huang X. Improving the COCOMO model using a neurofuzzy approach. Applied Soft Computing. 2007; 7(1):29–40. Crossref
- Briand LC, Emam EK, Surmann D. Wieczorek I, Maxwell KD. An assessment and comparison of common software cost estimation modeling techniques. Software Engineering Proceedings of International Conference; 1999. p. 313–32. Crossref
- Boehm B. Cost estimation with COCOMO II. Edition Upper Saddle River. NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2000.
- Sharma TN. Analysis of software cost estimation using COCOMO II. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research. 2011; 2(6):1–5.
- Chulani S, Boehm B, Steece B. Bayesian analysis of empirical software engineering cost models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 1994; 25(4):573–83. Crossref
- Baik J, Boehm B, Steece BM. Disaggregating and calibrating the CASE tool variable in COCOMO II. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2002; 28(11):1009–22. Crossref
- Chulani S, Boehm B. Modeling software defect introduction and removal: COQUALMO (COnstructive QUALity MOdel). Technical Report USC-CSE-99-510, University of Southern California; Center for Software Engineering; 1999.
- Castro JL. Fuzzy logic controllers are universal approximators. IEEE transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics. 1995; 25(4):629–35. Crossref
- Zhao J, Bose BK. Evaluation of membership functions for fuzzy logic controlled induction motor drive. IEEE 2002 28th Annual Conference. 2002; 1:229–34.
- Uddin MN, Radwan TS, Rahman MA. Performances of fuzzy-logic-based indirect vector control for induction motor drive. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications. 2002; 38(5):1219–25. Crossref
- Bowles JB, Peláez CE. Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system failure mode effects and criticality analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 1995; 50(2):203–13. Crossref
- Liang Q, Mendel JM. Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems: Theory and design. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy systems. 2000; 8(5):535–50. Crossref
- Rao MVC, Prahlad V. A tunable fuzzy logic controller for vehicleactive suspension systems. Fuzzy sets and systems. 1997; 85(1):11–21. Crossref
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.