Function Point Analysis (FPA) is a sizing measure of clear business significance. First made public by Allan Albrecht of IBM in 1979, the FPA technique quantifies the functions contained within software in terms that are meaningful to the software users. The measure relates directly to the business requirements that the software is intended to address. It can therefore be readily applied across a wide range of development environments and throughout the life of a development project, from early requirements definition to full operational use.^{1}

**Function Point Analysis Methods**

Nesma recognizes three function point analysis methods:

1.**Detailed function point analysis** - This is the usual function point analysis method and is performed as follows:

2.**High Level (a.k.a.Estimated) function point analysis** - The high-level function point analysis method is performed as follows:

So, the only difference of this approximation with the detailed function point analysis method is that the complexity is not determined per individual function, but by default.

3.**Indicative function point analysis** - The indicative function point analysis method is performed as follows:

So this approximation is based solely on the logical files (ILFs and EIFs).

The indicative function point analysis is based on the assumption that there will be about three EIs (to add, change, and delete information in the ILF), two EOs, and one EQ on average for every ILF, and about one EO and one EQ for every EIF.

All these three methods are a self-contained Functional Sizing Measurement (FSM) method on their own. The high level FPA method and the indicative FPA method do not require detailed user requirements, while the functional size determined using these methods is very close to the functional size determined using the detailed FPA method. That’s why these two methods are very suited to be applied early in the software development life cycle or in case the functional size needs to be determined fast.^{2}

**Function Point Analysis Template**

Progressive Function Point Analysis Template 3.1.xlsx

source: Sourceforge

**Function Point Analysis Worksheet**

**Step 1. Count Number of Functions in Each Category**

**Step 2. Apply Complexity Weighting Factors**

Simple Average Complex

Number of Outputs__ x 4 __ x 5 __ x 7 __

Number of Inputs x 3 __ x 4 __ x 6

Number of Inquiry Outputs__ x 4 __ x 5 __ x 7 __

Number of Inquiry Inputs x 3 __ x 4 __ x 6

Number of Files__ x 7 __ x 10 __ x 15 __

Number of Interfaces x 5 __ x 7 __ x 10

Total (FP):

**Step 3. Apply Environmental Factors**

Environmental Factor Rating (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Data Communications

Distributed Computing

Performance Requirements

Constrained Configuration

Transaction Rate

Online Inquiry and/or Entry

End-User Efficiency

Online Update

Complex Processing

Reusability

Ease of Conversion/Install

Ease of Operation

Used at Multiple Sites

Potential for Function Change

Total (N):

**Step 4. Calculate Complexity Adjustment Factor (CAF)**

CAF = 0.65 + (0.01 x N) =

**Step 5. Compute Adjusted Function Points (AFP)**

AFP = FP (Raw) x CAF =

**Step 6. Convert to LOC (Optional)**

LOC = AFP x LOC/AFP =

Based on the above worksheet below is a figure representing the** basic steps in Function Point Analysis**

source: Güzel Blog

**Function Point Analysis Examples**^{3}

The following examples are based on actual known quantifiable benefits achieved by organizations involved in utilizing function point measurements for performance management.

**Benefits of Function Point Analysis**

There are several benefits on applying function point analysis in organizations:

**Function Point Analysis Certification**

The International Funtion Point users group offers the following certification in Function Points:

## References»

## Further Reading»

## CIO Desk Reference»

(Relevant content on this topic in the CIO Toolkit on CIO Index)

Nesma recognizes three function point analysis methods:

1.

- Determine all functions of all function types (ILF, EIF, EI, EO, EQ)
- Rate the complexity of every function (Low, Average, High)
- Calculate the total unadjusted function point count

2.

- Determine all functions of all function types (ILF, EIF, EI, EO, EQ)
- Rate the complexity of every data function (ILF, EIF) as Low and of every transactional function (EI, EO, EQ) as Average
- calculate the total unadjusted function point count

So, the only difference of this approximation with the detailed function point analysis method is that the complexity is not determined per individual function, but by default.

3.

- Determine the number of data functions (ILFs and EIFs);
- Calculate the total unadjusted function point count of the application as follows: indicative size (fp) = 35 x number of ILFs + 15 x number of EIFs

So this approximation is based solely on the logical files (ILFs and EIFs).

The indicative function point analysis is based on the assumption that there will be about three EIs (to add, change, and delete information in the ILF), two EOs, and one EQ on average for every ILF, and about one EO and one EQ for every EIF.

All these three methods are a self-contained Functional Sizing Measurement (FSM) method on their own. The high level FPA method and the indicative FPA method do not require detailed user requirements, while the functional size determined using these methods is very close to the functional size determined using the detailed FPA method. That’s why these two methods are very suited to be applied early in the software development life cycle or in case the functional size needs to be determined fast.

Progressive Function Point Analysis Template 3.1.xlsx

source: Sourceforge

Simple Average Complex

Number of Outputs

Number of Inputs

Number of Inquiry Outputs

Number of Inquiry Inputs

Number of Files

Number of Interfaces

Total (FP):

Environmental Factor Rating (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Data Communications

Distributed Computing

Performance Requirements

Constrained Configuration

Transaction Rate

Online Inquiry and/or Entry

End-User Efficiency

Online Update

Complex Processing

Reusability

Ease of Conversion/Install

Ease of Operation

Used at Multiple Sites

Potential for Function Change

Total (N):

CAF = 0.65 + (0.01 x N) =

AFP = FP (Raw) x CAF =

LOC = AFP x LOC/AFP =

Based on the above worksheet below is a figure representing the

source: Güzel Blog

The following examples are based on actual known quantifiable benefits achieved by organizations involved in utilizing function point measurements for performance management.

- A large financial services company implemented a Function Point Analysis based metrics program in order to identify process improvements and increase productivity. The process identified 12 major process improvement initiatives that were funded based on an analysis of current productivity and forecasted improvements. The company was able to measure a productivity improvement of over 45% for the 2 year period following the implementation of the improvement opportunities.
- An insurance company piloted Function Points on a number of selected projects. Estimates were revised based on benchmark data that identified unrealistic schedules and budgets. One project also identified a 50% scope creep based on Function Point Analysis. The user customer agreed to additional funding and a 6 month extension to the schedule after being presented with the Function Point details.
- DoD planned to use a COTS solution to replace a major human resources application projected to cost over $100 million. A Function Fit Analysis was performed using Function Point Analysis to determine how well the COTS matched the requirements. It was discovered that only 2% of the COTS functionality was useable. 98% of the solution would have to be delivered as new

development and enhancements to the COTS package. Fortunately, in this situation, the problem was identified early in the process and the proposed COTS solution was rejected - A leading software contractor was having major project and relationship management problems with a key customer. Disputes included claims of poorly defined user requirements, significant unpaid scope creep, and unrealistic due dates. The project was Function Point counted 3 times during the initial design phases. The resulting analysis calculated a 300% scope increase. The data was used to gain user involvement, clarify requirements and increase the contract budget and schedule.
- Based on ongoing function point measurement and productivity analysis, an organization improved productivity by over 40% by reducing over-staffing and non-productive time associated with projects.
- A customer negotiated a 30% improvement in productivity and a 50% cost reduction (cost per function point) as the result of a baseline study and supplier agreement to outsourcing terms.

There are several benefits on applying function point analysis in organizations:

- A tool for determining the size of a purchased package by counting all the functions included.
- Provides assistance to users in determination of benefits of a package for their organization, by counting the functions that specifically match their requirements. When assessing the cost of the package, the size of the functions that will be effectively used, the productivity and cost of the staff is possible to perform a “make or buy” analysis.
- Supports the analysis of productivity and quality, either directly or in conjunction with other metrics such as effort, cost and defects. But if the development method of the organization is chaotic (each project is developed in a different way), even if the function points counting of the project and the effort record have been made correctly, the analysis of productivity among the projects would have been impaired.
- Supports the project scope management. A challenge of any project manager is to control “scope creep”, or the increase of the scope. To make estimates and measurements of function points of the project at every stage of its life cycle is possible to determine whether the functional requirements increased or decreased, and whether this variation corresponds to new requirements or requirements that already exist and were just more detailed.
- Complements requirements management to assist in verifying the soundness and completeness of the specified requirements. The process of counting function points favors a structured and systematic analysis of the requirements specification and brings similar benefits to a peer review process.
- A tool for estimating costs and resources for software development and maintanance. By carrying out a count or estimate function points early in the lifecycle of a software project, it’s possible to determine its functional size. This measurement can be used as input for many models of effort, time and cost estimation.
- A tool to support contract negotiation. Function points can be used to generate several service level indicators (SLA – Service Level Agreement) in software development and maintenance contracts. Besides that, it allows contract establishments by using unit price – function points – where a unit represents a tangible asset to the client. This modality allows for a better risk distribution between the client and provider.
- A normalization factor for software comparison or for comparison of productivity in the use of differents methods. Several organizations, such as ISBSG, provide a data repository of software projects that enable the implementation of benchmarking with similar projects in the market.

The International Funtion Point users group offers the following certification in Function Points:

- The CFPS Fellow - The CFPS designation indicates that the accredited individual, by passing a rigorous exam and achieving a score of 90% or better, has mastered the fundamentals of Function Point Analysis at a significant depth and breadth in applying the Function Point Analysis rules.
- The Certified Function Point Practitioner (CFPP) - The Certified Function Point Practitioner (CFPP) designation recognizes the knowledge and skill at applying the FPA rules that are high but not up to the Certified Function Point Specialist (CFPS) standards. The CFPP requires that the candidate has a minimum of 80% overall on the exam and a minimum of 70% in each of the three sections: Definition, Implementation and Case Study.

^{1} | What is Function Point Analysis? International Function Point Users Group |

^{2} | Early Function Point Analysis nesma.org |

^{3} | Examples of Function Point Analysis ifpug.org |

- The Zero Function Point Problem ifpug.org
- About Function Point Analysis ifpug.org
- Introduction To Function Point Analysis software metrics
- Fundamentals and Introduction of Function Point Analysis engr-sjsu.edu
- To Evaluate the Function Point Analysis: A Case Study ijcim
- A Case Study Approach to Measure the Function Points from the Points of Relationships of UML ijcaonline.org

We are building a glossary of IT management terms, and topics. We invite you to participate. Learn. Share. Network. CIO Portal