Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Incorrect effort base factor used in COCOMO calculations #191

Closed
adfinlay opened this issue Aug 26, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

Incorrect effort base factor used in COCOMO calculations #191

adfinlay opened this issue Aug 26, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@adfinlay
Copy link

adfinlay commented Aug 26, 2020

Describe the bug
I believe there is a mistake in the effort base factor value used in COCOMO calculations. I believe you use the default values from sloccount's "organic" mode, which sets this as 2.4, but scc's calculations use 3.2. Is this intentional or should it be 2.4?

It also looks like you used 1.8 as the "overhead" value when determining cost, as opposed to sloccount's default of 2.4.

See:
https://dwheeler.com/sloccount/sloccount.html#cocomo
https://github.com/boyter/scc/blob/master/processor/cocomo.go#L18

@boyter boyter added the bug Something isn't working label Aug 26, 2020
boyter added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 26, 2020
@boyter
Copy link
Owner

boyter commented Aug 26, 2020

Hah seems like I did make a mistake there. From memory I compared against sloccount's cost value and not anything else, but with the new values put in...

Original

Estimated Cost to Develop $6,300,654
Estimated Schedule Effort 30.878580 months
Estimated People Required 24.170352

Revised

Estimated Cost to Develop $6,300,654
Estimated Schedule Effort 27.680925 months
Estimated People Required 20.221854

Anyway going to put in the correct values.

@boyter
Copy link
Owner

boyter commented Aug 26, 2020

Done. You can see it here now https://github.com/boyter/scc/blob/master/processor/cocomo.go

Thanks for reporting.

I should make it so you can modify these values as you see fit though.

@boyter boyter closed this as completed Aug 26, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants