Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 277

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

An assessment and comparison of common software cost estimation modeling techniques

Open access
Briand, Lionel C., El Emam, Khaled, Surmann, Dagmar, Wieczorek, Isabella, Maxwell, Katrina D.·1999·Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering

Abstract

This paper investigates two essential data-driven, software cost modeling: questions related to (1) What modeling _ _ techniques are likely to yield more accurate results when using typical software development cost data?and (2) What are the benefits and drawbacks of using organizationspecific data as compared to multi-organization databases?The former question is important in guiding software cost analysts in their choice of the right type of modeling technique, if at all possible.In order to address this issue, we assess and compare a selection of common cost modeling techniques fulfilling a number of important criteria using a large multi-organizational database in the business application domain.Namely, these are: ordinary least squares regression, stepwise ANOVA, CART, and analogy.The latter question is important in order to assess the feasibility of using multi-organization cost databases to build cost models and the benefits gained from local, company-specific data collection and modeling.As a large subset of the data in the multi-company database came from one organization, we were able to investigate this issue by comparing organization-specific models with models based on multi-organization data.Results show that the performances of the modeling techniques considered were not significantly different, with the exception of the analogy-based models which appear to be less accurate.Surprisingly, when using standard cost factors (e.g., COCOMO-like factors, Function Points), organization specific models did not yield better results than generic, multi-organization models.Permission to make digital or hard topics c~fall or part of this work fbl personal or classroom USC is granted without fee provided that topics are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advnntage and that copies hear this notice and the full citation cm the tkt page.To CojJy othcrwiso, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists.requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/302405.302647

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 277

Metadata

Authors
Briand, L. C., El Emam, K., Surmann, D., Wieczorek, I., & Maxwell, K. D.
Venue
Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering
Publisher
ACM
Published
1999-05-16
Pages
313-322
ISSN
0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2092528416
Cited by
277
References
0
FWCI
8.73
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An assessment and comparison of common software cost estimation modeling techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/302405.302647
The paper
Briand, L. C., El Emam, K., Surmann, D., Wieczorek, I., & Maxwell, K. D. (1999). An assessment and comparison of common software cost estimation modeling techniques. Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering. https://doi.org/10.1145/302405.302647

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.