Counting Function Points for

Function points (FPs) are proven to be effective and efficient units of measure for both agile/iterative and waterfall software deliveries. However, inconsistencies come to light when comparing FPs counted in agile/iterative development with those counted in waterfall or combination development – and those inconsistencies can create confusion for cost, productivity, and schedule evaluations that span multiple software delivery methods. IFPUG’s definitions for such terms as “project,” “elementary process,” “consistent state,” and “enhancement” do not directly translate to agile/iterative delivery methods in which the term “project” is often interchanged with such terms as “sprint,” “iteration,” “release,” or “story map.” This paper seeks to marry IFPUG definitions with equivalent concepts in agile/iterative processes so as to create a basis for consistent comparison.