18.12.2012 Views

Proceedings

Proceedings

Proceedings

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

very far away from the predicted value. In this regard, a large amount of error in the<br />

NL-CD model is caused by a single case (n. 81). Size and effort for this case are 1127<br />

and 23940, respectively. These values are approximately 3×Percentile 75 and<br />

4×Percentile 75, respectively, so on a univariate basis we can consider case n. 81 as<br />

an outlier with regard to both variables. Then, we removed this observation from the<br />

sample and proceeded to the reestimation of the models. The results are detailed in<br />

table 3.<br />

Parameter estimates<br />

A coefficient<br />

(standard error)<br />

t-statistic<br />

A coefficient<br />

(standard error)<br />

t-statistic<br />

A coefficient<br />

(standard error)<br />

t-statistic<br />

Table 3. Estimation results after the deletion of case n. 81.<br />

NL-CD LL-CD Linear<br />

59.183<br />

(48.720)<br />

1.21<br />

0.104<br />

(0.094)<br />

1.11<br />

0.761<br />

(0.141)<br />

5.40<br />

~ 689 ~<br />

3.073<br />

(0.739)<br />

4.15<br />

0.231<br />

(0.155)<br />

1.49<br />

0.872<br />

(0.136)<br />

6.39<br />

357.891<br />

(752.083)<br />

0.48<br />

190.053<br />

(245.508)<br />

0.77<br />

13.141<br />

(3.457)<br />

3.80<br />

R 2 0.763 0.402 0.353<br />

Accuracy measures (in-sample)<br />

MMRE 0.676 0.600 0.710<br />

MdMRE 0.314 0.341 0.318<br />

Pred(25) 40.789% 38.157% 42.105%<br />

ASREI 0.751 3.112 0.994<br />

Accuracy measures (jackknife)<br />

MMRE 6.159×10 10 1.799 2.139<br />

MdMRE 0.980 0.527 0.322<br />

Pred(25) 26.315% 30.263% 44.736%<br />

ASREI 3532516.8 11.135 4.321<br />

It is noticeable that the deletion of the outlier is more beneficial for the Cobb-Douglas<br />

models than for the linear approach. This is especially true for the NL-CD model.<br />

This result is not in accordance with findings of prior researchers, which suggest that<br />

the Cobb-Douglas model is very stable with regard to outliers (see, e.g., Pickard et al.,<br />

1999). However, even after dropping observation n. 81 the linear model still<br />

outperforms the other two in terms of the most robust accuracy indicators. So, we can<br />

conclude that the additive model with constant returns is superior.<br />

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE<br />

RESEARCH<br />

The estimation of software development costs is an important task in the management<br />

of software projects. In most cases the major cost factor is labor. For this reason<br />

estimating development effort is central to the management and control of a software<br />

project. However, these costs are not easy to anticipate. So, a series of models have<br />

been proposed. Some of them are heuristic methods that solely rely on the use of<br />

statistical / machine learning techniques.<br />

However, these models can be complemented with others that incorporate theoretical<br />

assumptions. Some of these systems are based on exponential functions which assume<br />

the existence of decreasing returns to scale while others state that significant scale<br />

economies do exist. Other models are linear systems which postulate that returns to

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!