IPA/SEC Data entry form
Version 3.0
for
IPA/SEC White Paper 20xx on
software development projects in Japan
Information-Technology Promotion Agency, Japan(IPA)
Software Engineering Center(SEC)
Contents
Introduction ...1
Data entry form Version 3.0 ...2
Introduction
This document describes the data entry form for “IPA/SEC White paper 20xx on software development
projects in Japan”. The contents of this document are equivalent to Appendix B of White Paper 2008 and
later.
It is recommended that this document be read in conjunction with the other IPA/SEC publications.
Relevant IPA/SEC publications include the following:
— “IPA/SEC White paper 20xx on software development projects in Japan”
— “IPA/SEC Data item definitions Version 3.0 for IPA/SEC White paper 20xx on software development
projects in Japan”.
For information about this document, contact:
IPA/SEC
Bunkyo-Green Court Center Office,
2-28-8, Hon-Komagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-6591, JAPAN.
Web: http://sec.ipa.go.jp/
Rose : Mandatiry Beige : Mandatiry Light yellow : Important Light green : Recommended Light blue : Alternative : Automatic entry (Entry disabled)
IPA/SEC Data Entry Form Ver.3.0
Category
Item No.
(*) Choose an alternative10084 Proprietary project ID
11001 Whole/sub flag (*) The flag that identifies whether the data belongs to the whole system project or a sub-system project. 11002 Grouping ID
10085 Reliability of company-evaluated project data (*) The reliability of project data. 103 Project type (*) The type of project (development or not)
104 The stability of the existing system (*)
105 Project category (*) The category of the project. ← Name for "Other" 106 Entrusted development working site (*) Choose one to three alternatives for the working site if "entrusted development" is chosen for item 105.
Software development (*) Infrastructure-building (*) Operational environment preparation(*) System migration (*) Maintenance (*) Operation support (*) 107 Project purpose The primary purpose(s) of the project (multiple choice). Consulting (*) Project management (*) Quality assurance (*)
* Write "O" for every alternative that fits your project.
On-site environment preparation/adjustment
for a running system (*) Customer training (*) Other (description) 108 New customer or old customer (*) Did the project serve a new customer or an old customer?
109 New business or not (*) Was the project aimed at a new industry or business or an old industry or business? 118 Source of outsourced workforce (*)
119 Outsourcing country 110 New subcontractors or not (*)
111 Using new technology or not (*) Whether or not the project used new technology.
112 How clearly were the responsibility and roles of project team members defined? 113 Clearness of goals and priority (*)
114 Working space (*) The working space for the project team. 115 Project environment (acoustic noise) (*) The level of acoustic noise in the working environment. 116 Project success_Self-evaluation (*)
120 Evaluation of planning (Cost) (*) Whether or not the cost planning was valid. 121 Evaluation of planning (Quality) (*) Whether or not the objectives of delivered quality were valid. 122 Evaluation of planning (Development schedule) (*) Whether or not the development schedule planning was valid. 123 Eveluation of results (Cost) (*) Evaluation of the results of cost planning.
124 Evaluation of results (Quality) (*) Evaluation of achievement of delivered quality objectives. 125 Evaluation of results (Development schedule) (*)
126 Reason for QCD objectives failure (*) 117 Subjective evaluation of customer satisfaction (*) 201 Industry type (*)
202 Business type (*) The type of business the developed system is used for. (Choose one to three alternatives.) 203 System applications (*) The application of the system developed by the project. (Choose one to three alternatives.)
How clearly were the project objectives (delivery date, quality, technologies, etc.) and their priority defined?
How do you feel about the customer's satisfaction? Choose one alternative based on your own feeling. The type of industry the developed system is used for, or the type of industry in which the project's customer works. (Choose one to three alternatives.)
Data Item
Cleaness of responsibility and roles of project team members (*)
Whether or not the schedule planning was valid. Evaluate the schedule planning based on the state of delay in product delivery with respect to the delivery date specified by the customer.
The reason why the cost, quality, and development schedule (delivery date) objectives were not achieved. (For example, the data item 123 has the value "c", "d", or "e.") Choose one to three alternatives. (1) General
Characteristics of Development Projects
(2) Project
Evaluate whether or not the project is an overall success with respect to QCD.
* A project is a success if its planning is appropriate and if its planned goals were achieved. A project that had no planning is a success if it ends up with desirable results.
Choose one to three alternatives if the data item 118 has any value other than "e." (Keep consistency with item 118.)
The project identification assigned by the company that offered the project data. This data item is also used for sub-system identification.
Example: 1-1, 1-2, …(IDs distinguishing sub-system projects from each other) Assign the same group ID to member projects of the same group.
* Write a free text for this data item regardless of the choice made for the data item 11001.
Choose one to three alternatives if the project used outsourced workforce. * An affiliate refers to a company that has capital transactions with another. Write one or more country names if item 118 has the value of "c" or "d." Example: China, India
Free text, or alternatives
Choose an alternative for the stability of the existing system if "maintenance/service" or "enhancement" is chosen for item 103.
Category
Item No.
(*) Choose an alternative301 Type of developed system (*) The type of the software developed by the project. ← Name for "Other." 302 Use of business application package (*)
303 First-time use of business application package (*)
304 Name of business software package
305 The functional size ratio of business software package (%) 306 Customization cost ratio of business software package (%) 307 Processing Mode (*) In what processing mode the developed system is used. (Choose one to three alternatives.)
308 Architecture (*)
309 Target platform (*) The primary operating system platform of the developed system. (Choose one to three alternatives.) 310 Use of Web technology (*) What kinds of Web technology did the project use? (Choose one to three alternatives.)
311 Online transaction processing system (*) The software used for online transaction processing. ← Name for "Other." 312 Primary programming language (1) (*) ← Language for "Other." 312 Primary programming language (2) (*) ← Language for "Other." 312 Primary programming language (3) (*) ← Language for "Other." 312 Primary programming language (4) (*) ← Language for "Other." 312 Primary programming language (5) (*) ← Language for "Other." 313 Use of DBMS (*) What kind of DBMS did the project use? (Choose one to three alternatives.)
401 Development life cycle model (*) Development life cycle model ← Name for "Other." 402 Use of operation support tool (*) Did the project use an operation support tool? ← Name for "Other." 403 Examined similar projects or not (*)
404 Use of project management tool (*) Did the project use a project management tool?
405 Use of configuration management tool (*) ← Write the name of the tool(s) if you choose Yes. 406 Use of design support tool (*) Did the project use a design support tool? ← Write the name of the tool(s)
if you choose Yes. 407 Use of documentation tool (*) Did the project use a documentation tool? ← Write the name of the tool(s)
if you choose Yes. 408 Use of debug/testing support tool (*) Did the project use a debug/testing support tool? ← Write the name of the tool(s)
if you choose Yes. 409 Use of CASE tool (*) Did the project use an upstream or integrated CASE tool? ← Write the name of the tool(s)
if you choose Yes. 411 Use of code generator (*) ← Write the name of the tool(s)
if you choose Yes. 412 Application of Development Methods (*) The schematic development approach applied to the project. ← Name for "Other." 413 Re-use rate_development planning document Number of re-used pages/Number of total pages (%)
414 Re-use rate_requirements definition document Number of re-used pages/Number of total pages (%) 415 Re-use rate_basic design document Number of re-used pages/Number of total pages (%) 416 Re-use rate_detailed design document Number of re-used pages/Number of total pages (%) 417 Reuse rate of source code The ratio of reused SLOC size of the source code to the total SLOC size of source code. (%) 418 Reuse rate of software components (%) 419 Reuse rate of test cases for integration test Number of re-used test cases/Number of total test cases (%) 420 Reuse rate of test cases for system test Number of re-used test cases/Number of total test cases (%) 421 Reuse rate of test cases for acceptance test Number of re-used test cases/Number of total test cases (%)
422 Use of development frameworks (*) ← Write the name of the tool(s) if you choose Yes. The type of architecture of the developed system. (Up to three types are selectable from the largest size to
smaller ones.)
Free text, or alternatives
The name of the software package(s) used for the project. This data item is valid if data item 302 has the value “a” (Yes). Ex: SAP, Oracle Applications
Make a rough estimation of the ratio of the total functional size of the used business software package(s) to the functional size of the whole developed system. This data item is valid if data item 302 has the value “a” (Yes).
The programming language primarily used.
*1 Up to 5 languages are selectable from the most frequently used one to lesser ones.
*2 Choose "w: Other" for unlisted languages such as CGI, Java applets, and EJB and write the names of the languages.
Did the project examine one or more similar past projects in the planning phase? # Choose “b: No” if the project did not examine one or more similar projects that existed. Did the project use a configuration management tool?
# Example configuration management tools: ClearCase, CVS, Subversion, PVCS, SCCS, VSS.
The reuse ratio of reused software components such as library components in terms of functional size. The approximate ratio of functional size of the reused software components to the total functional size of the developed system.
Did the project use a development framework? Examples: Struts, Net framework, JBOSS, J2EE.
Description
Did the project use a code generator?
* If the name of the code generator used is an in-house tool and making its name open is not allowed, write “In-house tool.”
Did the project use one or more business software packages? # Except for in-house business software packages.
The ratio of customization cost of the used business software package(s) to the total cost of the package(s). This data item is valid if data item 302 has the value “a” (Yes).
Data Item
(3) System Characteristics
Whether or not the company of the project used the business software package(s) for the first time. This data item is valid if data item 302 has the value “a” (Yes).
(4) Development Techniques
Category
Item No.
(*) Choose an alternative501 Clearness of user requirements specifications (*) The degree of clearness the requirements specifications had at the beginning of the basic design phase. 502 User participation in user requirement specifications (*) The degree of user participation in the requirement specifications.
503 User expertise in computing (*) The level of user expertise in computer systems and system development. 504 User expertise in applied business (*) The level of user expertise in the applied business.
505 Clearness of user role and responsibility (*) How clearly were the role and responsibility of the user and those of the vender defined? 506 User acknowledgment of requirements specifications (*) Did the user acknowledge the requirements specifications?
507 User comprehension of system design (*) The degree of user understanding of the system design 508 User acknowledgment of system design (*) Did the user acknowledge the system design? 509 User participation in acceptance test (*) The degree of user participation in the acceptance test.
511 Number of members participated in requirements definition The number of key persons who defined the requirements. (persons) 512 Level of requirements (Reliability) (*)
513 Level of requirements (Usability) (*)
514 Level of requirements (Performance and efficiency) (*) 515 Level of requirements (Maintainability) (*) 516 Level of requirements (Portability) (*)
517 Level of requirements (Running cost) (*) The level of requirements in terms of the system running cost. 518 Level of requirements (Security) (*) The level of system security requirements.
519 Legal restrictions (*) Legal restrictions placed on the developed system. 601 PM skill (*)
Staff skills 602 Staff skill_application domain experience (*)
603 Staff skill_analysis and design experience (*) The skill level of staff with respect to the system analysis and design. 604 Staff skill_programming language and software tool experience(*) The skill level of staff with respect to programming languages and software tools. 605 Staff skill_development platform experience(*) The skill level of staff with respect to the use of development platform.
General comment 1012
Data Item
Description
Free text, or alternatives
The level of reliability requirements in terms of the failure rate, recovery time, data recovery, and other factors.
The level of portability requirements in terms of the ease of adjustment to a new environment, ease of installation in the environment, ease of concurrent operation with other software components, ease of porting from other software, and other factors.
The skill level of project managers. Score the PM skill in accordance with the job "Project Management" of the IT Skill Standard Version 1.1.
The skill level of staff with respect to the application to which the developed system is aimed at. ①Contract of this project (primary subcontract, secondary subcontract, in-house contract).
②If the system size is measured in SLOCs, clarify in what kind of quantity the size was measured (number of lines, number of steps, number of physical lines, or number of logical lines). ③Write remarks such as the outsourced effort (converted from the amount of money ordered with actual effort).
The level of usability requirements in terms of the ease of software learning, ease of operation learning, ease of operation management, the sophistication of graphical interface design, and other factors. The level of performance and efficiency requirements in terms of the response time, processing time, processing power, the utilization of system resources such as hard disks and memory, and other factors. The level of maintainability requirements in terms of the ease of software correction, ease of fault locating, ease of fault identification, ease of software change, protection against possible troubles in software change, the ease of software correction validity verification, and other factors.
(5) User Requirement Management
■ Size
(1) FP (2) FP size of upgraded part * Enter the FP size of the existing system and the FP sizes of added, changed, and/or deleted parts if "upgrade" is chosen for item 103. Phase FP size Measurement
method (*)
Name for "Other"
method Part Actual FP size Planned FP size After system planning Existing FPs Planned FP size (unadjusted) After requirements definition Added FPs After basic design Changed FPs
After detailed
design Deleted FPs Unadjusted
Actual FP size Adjusted Adjustment factor
Purity of measurement method for actual FP size (*) ← Write the name of the method if it is a customized version. FP measurement support technology(*)
(3) SLOC Write SLOC sizes in SLOCs (not in KSLOCs).
Planned SLOC size Actual SLOC size After system
planning After requirements
definition
After basic design After detailed
design Actual size
Comment line inclusion (*)
Comment line ratio(*)
Blank line
inclusion (*) Blank line ratio (*)
Part-based SLOC size Per-programming-language actual SLOC size (top 5 languages)
(Part) Planned Actual Language Actual Comment line inclusion (*)
Comment line ratio(*)
Blank line
inclusion (*) Blank line ratio (*) ← Enter the actual SLOC sizes of the top five programming languages.
Existing Independent of the Part-based SLOC size table.
Added/new Changed Deleted
Inclusiveness of existing SLOC size Inclusiveness of existing FP size
(4) Detailed FP size (for IFPUG)）
* If "IFPUG" is chosen for item 701, enter the number of and the FP size of each basic FP element (EI, EO, EQ, ILF, and EIF) on a per-degree-of-complexity. Number of Functions
Large Medium Small
Planned * FP = Large × 6 + Medium × 4 + Small × 3 Actual
Planned * FP = Large × 7 + Medium × 5 + Small × 4 Actual
Planned * FP = Large × 6 + Medium × 4 + Small × 3 Actual
Planned * FP = Large × 15 + Medium × 10 + Small × 7 Actual
Planned * FP = Large × 10 + Medium × 7 + Small × 5 Actual
(5) Detailed FP size (for methods other than IFPUG (6) Detailed FP size (COSMIC-FFP)
* If the used FP measurement method is the type "Other" that is created based on the NESMA indicative, NESMA estimated, or IFPUG method, * If the used FP measurement method is COSMIC-FFP, enter its detailed data. enter the total number of transactional functions, that of data functions, and their total FP sizes.
Number of
functions FP Value Transactional functions Planned Number of triggering events
Actual Number of functional processes Data functions Planned Number of data groups
Actual Entry
Subprocesses Exit Read Write Cfsu
(7) Other indices related to the size
Value Simple Typical Complex Development planning Use-case Number of use-cases Design document volume Requirements
definition Number of actors Basic design Detailed design DFD Number of data sets Number of processes Number of database tables Number of GUI screen types Number of report formats Number of batch processes
EQ ILF EIF Item Item EI EO Data functions Transactional functions FP Function Item Item
■ Effort, development schedule, number of staff
← If the effort in the project data is measured in person-months, enter the number of hours one person works per month at the working rate of 100%. Otherwise, enter "1" here. At the beginning
of basic design [Person hours] At the beginning
of detailed design [Person hours]
Item Development Planning
Requirements
Definition Basic Design Detailed Design Implementation Integration Test System Test Acceptance
Test Out-Of-Category Whole Project Origination of actual tasks (*)
Origination of requirements specifications changes(*) Beginning date
Planned Completion date Offered data (reference) ↓ Months
Beginning date Idling duration↓ (*2)
Actual Completion date Months
In-house Development 0.0 Offered data (reference) ↑
Management (*3) 0.0
Other (*4) 0.0
Out-of-category (*5) 0.0
< Subtotal > In-house 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [Person hours]
Hours 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h
Actual effort Review effort (in-house) 0.0 [Person hours]
Number of times 0
Number of issues 0
Outsourced Origination of tasks
Development 0.0
Expenditure ratio (%)
< Total > In-house + Outsourced 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [Person hours]
Hours 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h
In-house Average Number of staff Peak
Outsourced Average Peak
(*1) Enter the beginning date and the completion date or the number of months (to one decimal place) in the development schedule cells. You can enther both of them in the cells.
(*2) The duration in which the project remained idling. (For example, waiting for a signature of the customer or for the arrival of test data.) The active duration of the project is obtained by subtracting the idling duration from the whole project development schedule. (*3) If the project management effort was collected separately, enter its amount.
(*4) If the project has some actual effort does not fall into the development effort or management effort, enter the actual effort. (For example, effort of infrastructure-building, operation environment preparation, system migration, operation support, consulting.) (*5) Enter the effort that does not fall into any defined category.
■ Quality and reliability
← If you choose Yes, write a description. 1 month 3 months 6 months 12 months Number of test cases
Failures Faults Very critical Failures Critical Insignificant Total (*1) Very critical Faults Critical Insignificant Total (*1) Grades of criticalness
Very critical The defect causes a damage to the customer and quick countermeasures have to be taken. Planned
development effort
Conversion ratio from person-month to person-hour
Definition of test case count Definition of software bug count Unit of effort (*)
Follow-Up (operation) Integration Test System Test
Number of identified defects Development schedule (*1) Identified defects
Existence of quantitative delivery quality standard (*) Personnel assignment to quality assurance tasks (*)
Existence of third-party reviews (*) Personnel assignment to test tasks (*)