Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computer-Aided Systems Engineering Methodology Support and Its Effect on the Output of Structured Analysis

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The information systems development literature indicates that there is no conclusive, empirical evidence that CASE improves the quality of system specifications or the resulting information systems. One role of a CASE tool is to serve as a methodology companion—to assist an analyst in the creation of documentation passed to succeeding phases of the life cycle, and to guide the analyst through a particular systems development methodology. A framework for comparing the level of methodology support provided by a CASE tool is proposed and applied to 27 structured analysis methodology rules. The framework contains seven levels of rule enforcement, ranging from real-time enforcement of a rule to the absence of enforcement for a rule. The methodology enforcement framework is then applied to two popular, commercial CASE tools. Each CASE tool was used by eight project teams over a two month period to construct a functional specification for a hotel information system. The goal of the study was to examine the influence on the functional specification of the level of methodology support provided by the CASE tool for each structured analysis methodology rule. Methodology errors in the system specification were noted for each structured analysis methodology rule. An analysis of the frequency of errors indicates that internal consistency rules are easily adhered to regardless of the level of methodology support provided by the CASE tool, while hierarchical consistency rules are adhered to more frequently in the presence of rigorous methodology support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adelson, B., and Soloway, E. 1985. The role of domain experience in software design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-11: 1351–1360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alavi, M. 1993. Making CASE an organizational reality. Strategies and new capabilities needed. Information Systems Management 10(2): 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baram, G., and Steinberg, G. 1989. Selection criteria for analysis and design CASE tools. Software Engineering Notes 14(6): 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baram, G., Steinberg, G., and Nosek, J. 1990. Evaluation of ease of use of CASE tool by first time users. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Institute for Decision Sciences (Whitten, B. and Gilbert, J., eds.), Cincinnati, OH: American Institute for Decision Sciences, 934–936.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basili, V. R., Selby, R. W., and Hutchens, D. H. 1986. Experimentation in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-12: 733–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batra, D., Hoffer, J. A., and Bostrom, R. P. 1990. Comparing representations with relational and EER models. Communications of the ACM 33: 126–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B. W. 1981. Software Engineering Economics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B. W., McClearn, R., and Unfrig, D. 1975. Some experiences with automated aids to the design of large-scale reliable software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1: 125–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, F. P. 1987. No silver bullet: Essence and accidents of software engineering. Computer 20(4): 10–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard, D. L. 1989. Implementing CASE tools. Journal of Systems Management 405: 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadre Technologies. 1988. Teamwork/PCSA User's Guide. Providence, RI: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosslin, R. L., Bergin, T. J., and Stott, J. W. 1993. Critical factors influencing the future of computer-aided software engineering. Computer-Aided Software Engineering: Issues and Trends for the 1990s and Beyond (Bergin, T. J., Ed.), Harrisburg, PA: Idea Group, 616–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow, G. B. 1990. BriefCASE—The Collegiate Systems Development Tool. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. B. 1982. Strategies for information requirements determination. IBM Systems Journal 211: 4–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, D. 1995. User responses to constraints in computerized design tools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.

  • DBMS. July 1991. CASE tool roundup. DBMS: 62–69.

  • Dennis, A. R., George, J. F., Jessup, L. M., Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., and Vogel, D. R. 1988. Information technology to support electronic meetings. MIS Quarterly 12: 591–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everest, G. C., and Alanis, M. 1992. Assessing user experience with CASE tools: An exploratory analysis. Proceedings of the 25th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Nunamaker, J. F. Jr., Ed.), Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 343–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frolick, M. N., Wilkes, R. B., and Rainer, R. K. 1993. Is CASE living up to its promises? Laboratory experiments comparing manual and automated design approaches. Journal of Computer Information Systems 334: 72–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden, J. R., Mueller, J. R., and Anselm, B. 1981. Software cost estimating: Craft or witchcraft. Data Base 123: 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haase, V., and Koch, G. 1982. Developing the connection between user and code. Computer 155: 10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J. 1984. Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development 73: 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiat, A., and Heiat, N. 1992. The effect on student learning of integrating CASE tools in MIS curricula. Interface: The Computer Education Quarterly 141: 43–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. C., and Cooprider, J. G. 1990. Dimensions of I/S planning and design aids: A functional model of CASE technology. Information Systems Research 1: 227–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. L., Hollan, J. D., and Norman, D. A. 1986. Direct manipulation interfaces. User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction (Norman, D. A., and Draper, S. W., Eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intersolv. 1989. Excelerator Version 1.9 Application Guide. Rockville, MD: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jankowski, D. J. 1994a. Computer-aided systems engineering methodology support and its effect on the output of structured analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.

  • Jankowski, D. J. 1994b. The feasibility of CASE structured analysis methodology support. Software Engineering Notes 192: 72–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jankowski, D. J., and Norman, R. J. 1992. Computer-aided software engineering CASE technology in the information systems curriculum: Current practice. The Journal of Computer Information Systems 323: 6–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. 1986. Programming Productivity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, G. 1986, December 1. Productivity tools betray promises of MIS nirvana. Computerworld 20: 61–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemerer, C. F. 1989. An agenda for research in the managerial evaluation of computer-aided software engineering CASE tool impacts. Proceedings of the 22nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Shriver, B., Ed.), Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 219–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemerer, C. F. 1992. How the learning curve affects CASE tool adoption. IEEE Software 93: 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khailany, A., Sanchez, P., and Lee, L. 1985. On software maintenance costs. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Institute for Decision Sciences (Hartman, B. and Ringuest, J., Eds.), Cincinnati, OH: American Institute for Decision Sciences, 321–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loy. P. 1993. The method won't save you but it can help. Software Engineering Notes 181: 30–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. 1995. The case against CASE. Journal of Systems Management 461: 54–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClure, C. 1989. CASE is Software Automation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermid, D. C. 1990. Software Engineering for Information Systems. Oxford, UK: Blankwell Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeen, J. D. 1983. Successful development strategies for business information systems. MIS Quarterly 73: 47–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, L. 1974. Programming by non-programmers. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 6: 237–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moher, T., and Schneider, G. M. 1982. Methodology and experimental research in software engineering. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 16: 65–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., and George, J. F. 1993. Group support systems research: Experience from the lab and field. Group Support Systems (Jessup, L. M., and Valacich, J. S., Eds.), New York, MacMillan, 125–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page-Jones, M. 1992. The CASE manifesto. CASE Outlook 61: 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purvis, R. L., and Sambamurthy, V. 1992. A comparative investigation of system design methodologies [Summary]. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Institute for Decision Sciences (Sumichrast, R. T., Ed.), Cincinnati, OH, American Institute for Decision Sciences, 864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. H. 1978. A general empirical solution to the macro software sizing and estimating problem. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-4: 345–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, T. L. 1980. Evaluation of Computer Text Editors Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University. Dissertation Abstracts International 40: 5338B.

  • Robillard, P. 1989. A project-based software course: The myth of the “real world”. Proceedings of the 1989 SEI Conference on Software Engineering Education (Gibbs, N. E., Ed.), New York, Springer-Verlag, 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozman, I., Györkös, J., and Rizman, K. 1992. Understandability of the software engineering method as an important factor for selecting a CASE tool. Software Engineering Notes 173: 43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, H. A. 1983. Macro-estimation of software development parameters: The ESTIMACS system. SOFTFAIR—Software Development: Tools, Techniques, and Alternatives. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 109–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, L. I., and Shafer, D. F. 1993 Establishing a CASE toolbox. 15 steps to selecting CASE tools. Information Systems Management 101: 15–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shultz, S. 1989. Du Pont's I/S team builds a good case for CASE tools. Chief Information Officer Journal 14: 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, M. S. 1990. Decision support systems: directed and nondirected change. Information Systems Research 1: 47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sime, M. E., Green, T. R. G., and Guest, D. J. 1977. Scope making in computer conditionals—A psychological evaluation. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 9: 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian, G. H., and Gershon, M. 1991. The selection of computer-aided software engineering tools: A multi-criteria decision making approach. Decision Sciences 22: 1109–1123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troy, D. A., and Zweben, S. H. 1981. Measuring the quality of structured designs. The Journal of Systems and Software 2: 113–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vessey, I., Jarvenpaa, S. L., and Tractinsky, N. 1992. Evaluation of vendor products: CASE tools as methodology companions. Communications of the ACM 354: 90–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visible Systems. 1989. The CASE Primer. Waltham, MA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walston, C. E., and Felix, C. P. 1977. A method of programming measurement and estimation. IBM Systems Journal 161: 54–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrigley, C. D., and Dexter, A. S. 1987. Software development estimation models: A review and critique. Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada: MIS Division (Barki, H., Ed.), Toronto, Ontario, Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, 125–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrigley, C. D., and Dexter, A. S. 1988. A model for estimating information system requirements size: Preliminary findings. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Systems (DeGross, J. and Olson, M., Eds.), Baltimore, MD, Association for Computing Machinery, 245–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynekoop, J. L., and Conger, S. A. 1991. A review of computer aided software engineering research methods. Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches & Emergent Traditions (Nissen, H., Klein, H., and Hirscheim, R., Eds.), Amsterdam, North-Holland, 301–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yellen, R. E. 1990. Systems analysts performance using CASE versus manual methods. In (J. F. Nunamaker, Jr. Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 497–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yourdon, E. 1992. Decline & Full of the American Programmer. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Yourdon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yourdon, E., and Constantine, L. L. 1979 Structured Design: Fundamentals of a Discipline of Computer Program and Systems Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Yourdon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagorsky, C. 1990. Case study: Managing the change to CASE. Journal of Information Systems Management 7(3): 24–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucconi, L. 1989. Selecting a CASE tool. Software Engineering Notes 142: 42–44.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for High Technology Management, California State University, San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, 92096-0001

    David Jankowski

Authors
  1. David Jankowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jankowski, D. Computer-Aided Systems Engineering Methodology Support and Its Effect on the Output of Structured Analysis. Empirical Software Engineering 2, 11–38 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009790131937

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009790131937

Search

Navigation