Towards Risk Based Effort Estimation: A Framework to Identify, Analyze, and Classify Risk for Early Identification at Requirement Engineering Phase

Towards Risk Based Effort Estimation: A Framework to Identify, Analyze, and Classify Risk for Early Identification at Requirement Engineering Phase

Priyanka Chandani, Chetna Gupta
Copyright: © 2018 |Pages: 18
DOI: 10.4018/IJISMD.2018100104
OnDemand:
(Individual Articles)
Available
$37.50
No Current Special Offers
TOTAL SAVINGS: $37.50

Abstract

Power consumption mainly takes place in three stages: processing the data, receiving the data, and transmitting the data. Power consumption in data transmitting is one of the most important phenomena in wireless sensor networks (WSNs). In this article, authors analyze the power transmission in three scenarios with 100 and 500 nodes for 100 and 1000 sq. meters of area respectively and design a network which should be more efficient in power saving. Results analysis section presents different data aggregation techniques and their impact on the power transmission in WSNs. Three different scenarios have been used during simulation of network in Matlab. After that, the authors find that the proposed approach has outperformed in the first two scenarios. However, in the third scenario, results are partially better as compared to the existing approaches (tree-based, cluster-based, chain-based, and grid-based). The proposed approach, PLBDA, is 10.30%, 18.55%, 37.11%, and 55.67% better for transmission power save in comparison to tree-based, cluster-based, grid-based, and chain-based approaches respectively.
Article Preview
Top

1. Introduction

Requirement Engineering (RE) is “a systematic approach to understand, formally describe, evaluate/validate and attain an agreement on the nature of the problem” (Lamsweerde, 2000). Any failures during RE phase have an adverse impact on the overall development process (Hall et al., 2002) as it acts as a roadmap for calculating schedule and cost of the project. Studies have shown that inappropriate and misleading requirement gathering is the most expensive and are one of the fundamental drivers of project failures (Glass, 1998). As reported by (Pohl and Rupp, 2010), 60% of project venture disappointments fall into requirements engineering phase and generally aren't found until late in development life cycle or when the project has gone live (Boehm, 1981). The same facts are supported by (Lindquist, 2005) which conclude that “poor requirements management can be attributed to 71% of software projects that fail; greater than bad technology missed deadlines, and change management issues”. Therefore, one of the significant challenges in requirements engineering is to have legible requirements, which are free from unknowns and failures.

A study on software risk management (Dedolph, 2003) showed that only 16.2% of software projects are on time and budget. From the remaining, 52.7% are delivered with reduced functionality, and 31.1% are canceled before completion. A significant reason for failure is lack of software risk management practices in projects. Therefore, it is recommended to do risk management for requirements during requirement elicitation (Maciaszek, 2001; Weigers, 2003). If the risks are not controlled at the early stages of the project, it will result in an exponential increase in the cost of the project (Mangione, 2008) and its identification and mitigation would also be extremely difficult.

As per guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), “project risk is an uncertain event or condition, that, if occurs, has a positive or a negative effect on a project objective” (Project Management Institute, 2000). The risk which is considered good for the ecosystem of a software project and has a positive effect regarding opportunities helping software project is termed as a positive risk. Whereas risk which is a threat to software project such as failure of functionality, schedule slip, cost overruns, etc. is termed as a negative risk. The overall goal of project risk management is to minimize potential negative risk while maximizing potential positive risk (Hillson, 2002). However, as practiced by the majority of project managers they tend to concentrate on potential negative risk by spending considerable effort on identifying and managing threats, ignoring positive side of risk (Hillson, 2002).

On the other hand, effort estimation is carried out with the aim of estimating the realistic amount of effort required to develop a software system. Since 1960's effort estimation has remained a challenging task for software developers and practitioners. Significant research in various quadrants has been focused on the construction of formal software effort estimation models. Decades of research concludes that there is no “best approach” when one estimation model or approach is compared with another because relative accuracy depends on the context (Shepperd and Kadoda, 2001). Most of effort estimation techniques takes KLOC, scale factors, cost drivers (REVIC, 1991); function points, use cases, bottoms-up, object, feature (SEER); size (SLOC, function points, use cases, etc.), constraints (size, duration, effort, staff), scale factors, historical projects, historical trends (SLIM); components, structures, activities, cost drivers, processes, functional software size (SLOC, function points, use case conversion points (UCCP), predictive object points (POPs), etc.) (True Planning) as input to estimate effort of software development.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 15: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 14: 1 Issue (2023)
Volume 13: 8 Issues (2022): 7 Released, 1 Forthcoming
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2010)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing