8.45 Registration
9.15 Workshop Functional Size Measurement: IFPUG & COSMIC
11.15 Coffee
11.45 Workshop Case study
12.30 Presentation Market Price of Function Point
*Presentation is in Italian with translation into English, while materials of the session are in Italian only.
13.00 Lunch
13.50 Registration Main Conference (for those not attending the workshop)
14.00 Software Measurement and Estimation as leverages for achieving ICT cost savings
Keynote speaker Roberto Meli
14.35 A Framework for Measuring the value of software development
David Herron, Thomas M. Cagley Jr (David Consulting Group, Stati Uniti)
“Value” will always involve a mix of objective measurements and subjective judgements so how can we tell if our software development is providing value to the people using it and /or paying for it? This paper suggests a systems view that can be used as a framework for combining a set of value indicators for software development. The systems approach described separates inputs, the transformation process and outputs in an attempt to allow software developers to get credit for transforming poor inputs (e.g. legacy software). The paper considers how to balance a software development portfolio between projects that are value neutral, those that add value and those that are value multipliers. Finally, a single value metric is proposed that can pull together the whole framework into a single number.
15.10 Smart Metrics program to achieve productivity improvement and control
Eric van der Vliet (Logica,Netherland)
Especially in times of a bad economic situation there is more attention on reduction and the control of costs. This is also recognizable in IT organizations where the focus is on improvement of the predictability of projects. A commonly used approach is measuring the effort related to a project size. Examples of project size are function points or cosmic function points. The benefit is that it gives insight in the productivity of the organization. A disadvantage is that if improvement is required it’s difficult to get insight in the real problem. Insight in the real problem requires a more detailed analysis of your process and that is where Lean Six Sigma (LSS) can help. LSS is focusing on the waste in processes and often used in production environments. By defining smart metrics, the same type of metrics can be used for both estimating and improving the process and get a better cost control within your IT organization.
15.45 Coffee
16.15 Be a Know-it-all: Avoid Risk Blind Spots with Measurent
Peter Baxter (Distributive Management, UK)
All projects are subject to risk; it is inescapable. Projects that fail to manage risk, or that manage it in an ad-hoc way, find themselves in perpetual crisis. They never see it coming. This presentation focuses measurement on four risk management know-it-all opportunities so that projects are able to pro-actively plan for and quantitatively deal with risk factors rather than wait for problems to occur and then try to react.
1. Understand measures and indicators that allow the risk management process to be monitored and controlled
2. Use the measurement process to improve risk detection as well as to quantify mitigation activities
3. Capitalize on measurement data during project close-out to perform causal analysis of risks and issue causes
16,50 System Engineering Leading Indicators Guide
Patrick Hamon (Spirula, France)
This Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide was created by a collaborative team comprised of representatives from Lockheed Martin, Lean Aerospace Initiative (LAI), the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), the Department of Defense (DoD) and industry. It has been approved for release by the Systems Engineering Subcouncil and the Director, EPI Program for use throughout the Lockheed Martin Corporation.
Several policies calling for improved systems engineering on programs were released by DoD and the services during 2004. During this period, the Lean Aerospace Initiative (LAI) Consortium (now the Lean Advancement Initiative) was tasked with assisting with the systems engineering revitalization activity. In June 2004, an Air Force/LAI Workshop on Systems Engineering for Robustness was held to establish th groundwork for several initiatives in support of systems engineering revitalization. One of these initiatives focused on leading indicators for evaluating the goodness of systems engineering on a program. This initiative was jointly supported by LAI, INCOSE, PSM, and others in an industry collaborative effort to address this need. In December 2005, the beta version of this document was released, describing the initial set of SE Leading Indicators. This initial set reflected the subset of possible candidate indicators that were considered to be the highest priority by the team, recognizing that the set was not exhaustive. In June 2007, Version 1.0 of this document was released following the completion of a validation phase which included pilot applications of the leading indicators, a research study, various workshops, and an industry survey. In this 2010 revision, additional indicators were added, and further implementation recommendations and guidance on interpretation has been provided. Additional SE Leading Indicators will be added in future updates as these are identified, defined, and evolved.
17,25 Closing | 
TOP
Go!