Methodology support in CASE tools and its impact on individual acceptance and use: A controlled experiment

Empirical Software Engineering

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 367-394

  Zettel, Jörg ^a  

^a Hessische Zentrale für Datenverarbeitung ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

Computer aided software engineering; Consistency assurance; Methodology support; Process modelling; Technology acceptance

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; QUALITY CONTROL;

COMPUTER-AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; METHODOLOGY SUPPORT CONSISTENCY ASSURANCE; PROCESS MODELING; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE;

EID: 21644436165     PISSN: 13823256     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10664-005-1287-5     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., and Todd, P. A. 1992. Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly 16(2): 227-247.
2. Becker-Kornstaedt, U., Hamann, D., Kempkens, R., Rösch, P., Verlage, M., Webby, R., and Zettel, J. 1999. Support for the process engineer: The spearmint approach to software process definition and process guidance. In: M. Jarke and A. Oberweis (eds.), Proceedings: Advanced Information Systems Engineering: 11th International Conference, CAiSE'99, Heidelberg, Germany, June 14-18, 1999, Springer, pp. 119-133.
3. Brooks, A., and Sobczak, A. 1999. CASE tool support for high-level refactorings: Keystroke-level model comparisons. In 5th Conference on Smalltalk and Java in Industry and Education (STJA 99), 28-30 September 1999, Erfurt, Germany.
4. Brooks, A., Takada, S., and Scott, L. 1999. Strongly formative pilot studies on constraints in early life-cycle work. In Proceedings of the Sixth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference '99 (APSEC'99), 7-10 December, 1999, IEEE Computer Society, Takamatsu, Japan, pp. 614-621.
5. Brooks, A., Campbell, B., and Scott, L. 2000a. The human-computer interface explanation: A correspondence on Jankowski's paper on methodological support for structured analysis. Empirical Software Engineering 5(1): 69-71.
6. Brooks, A., Utbult, F., Mulligan, C., and Jeffery, R. 2000b. Early lifecycle work: Influence of individual characteristics, methodological constraints, and interface constraints. Empirical Software Engineering 5(3): 269-285.
7. Brooks, A., and Scott, L. 2001. Constraints in CASE tools: Results from curiosity driven research. In Proceedings of the 2001 Australian Software Engineering Conference, 27-28 August 2001, IEEE Computer Society, Canberra, Australia. pp. 285-293. Also published as CAESAR Report No.98/7.
8. Card, D. N., McGarry, F. E., and Page, G. T. 1987. Evaluating software engineering technologies. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-13(7): 845-851.
9. Chau, P. Y. K. 1996. An empirical investigation on factors affecting the acceptance of CASE by systems developers. Information & Management 30(6): 269-280.
10. Davis, F. D. 1986. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, Cambridge.
11. Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3): 318-340.
12. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35(8): 982-1003.
13. Davis, F. D. 1993. User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 38: 475-487.
14. Davis, F. D., and Venkatesh, V. 1996. A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experiments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45: 19-45.
15. Day, D. L. 1996. User responses to constraints in computerized design tools: An extended abstract. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 21(5): 47-50.
16. Day, D., Ahuja, M., and Scott, L. 1997. Constraints in design engineering: A report on research in progress. Technical Report 97/5, The University of New South Wales, Centre for Advanced Empirical Software Research. Published in: Proceedings of the 8th Australian Conference on Information Systems, pp. 509-516.
17. DeLone, W. H., and McLean, E. R. 1992. Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research 3(1): 60-95.
18. Fichman, R. G., and Kemerer, C. F. 1999. The illusory diffusion of innovation: An examination of assimilation gaps. Information Systems Research 10(3): 255-275.
19. Fischer, G., Lemke, A. C., Mastaglio, T., and Morch, A. I. 1991. Critics: An emerging approach to knowledge-based human-computer interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35(5): 695-721.
20. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research Addison-Wesley Series in Social Psychology. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
21. Fuggetta, A. 1993. A classification of CASE technology. IEEE Computer 26(12): 25-38.
22. Glass, R. L. 1999. The realities of software technology - Payoffs. Communications of the ACM 42(2): 74-79.
23. Goodhue, D. L. 1995. Understanding user evaluations of information systems. Management Science 41(12): 1827-1844.
24. Goodhue, D. L., and Thompson, R. L. 1995. Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly 19(2): 213-236.
25. 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(3): 227-254.
26. Henderson, R., Rickwood, D., and Roberts, P. 1998. The beta test of an electronic supermarket. Interacting with Computers 10(4): 385-399.
27. Iivari, J. 1996. Why are CASE tools not used? Communications of the ACM 39(10): 94-103.
28. ISO 12207. 1995. Information technology - Software life cycle processes. International Standard ISO/IEC 12207.
29. Jankowski, D. 1997. Computer-aided systems engineering methodology support and its effect on the output of structured analysis. Empirical Software Engineering 2(1): 11-38.
30. Jarzabek, S., and Huang, R. 1998. The case for user-centered CASE tools. Communications of the ACM 41(8): 93-99.
31. Jeffery, D. R., and Offen, R. J. (eds.). 1999. CADPRO - Experiments in CASE tool use and constraint conditions: In Proceedings of the 1999 CADPRO Workshop, 25th September 1999, The University of New South Wales, Centre for Advanced Empirical Software Research.
32. Kerlinger, F. N. 1986. Foundations of Behavioral Research. 3rd edition. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
33. Laitenberger, O., and Dreyer, H. M. 1998. Evaluating the usefulness and the ease of use of a web-based inspection data collection tool. Technical Report ISERN-98-13, Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering, Germany. Also published as IESE-Report No. 027.98/E.
34. Mathieson, K. 1991. Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research 2(3): 173-191.
35. Morris, M. G., and Dillon, A. 1997. How user perceptions influence software use. IEEE Software 14(4): 58-65.
36. Riemenschneider, C. K., Hardgrave, B. C., and Davis, F. D. 2002. Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: A comparison of five theoretical models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(12): 1135-1145.
37. Robbins, J. E., and Redmiles, D. F. 1999. Cognitive support, UML adherence, and XMI interchange in Argo/UML. In: J. Gray, J. Harvey, A. Liu, and L. Scott, (eds.). Proceedings of The First International Symposium on Constructing Software Engineering Tools (CoSET'99), 17-18 May, 1999, Los Angeles, USA. Mawson
38. Lakes, SA 5095, Australia, School of Computer and Information Science, University of South Australia, pp. 61-70.
39. Roberts, P., and Henderson, R. 2000. Information technology acceptance in a sample of government employees: A test of the technology acceptance model. Interacting with Computers 12(5): 427-443.
40. Segars, A. H., and Grover, V. 1993. Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly 17(4): 517-525.
41. Silverman, B. G., and Mehzer, T. 1997. A study of strategies for computerized critiquing of programmers. Empirical Software Engineering 2(3): 339-359.
42. Szajna, B. 1994. Software evaluation and choice: Predictive validation of the technology acceptance instrument. MIS Quarterly 18: 319-324.
43. Taylor, S., and Todd, P. A. 1995. Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research 6(2): 144-176.
44. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. 1996. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences 27(3): 451-481.
45. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46(2): 186-204.
46. Vessey, I., Jarvenpaa, S. L., and Tractinsky, N. 1992. Evaluation of vendor products: CASE tools as methodological companions. Communications of the ACM 35(4): 90-105.
47. Zettel, J. 2001. Methodological support for descriptive software process modeling: Consistency rules in SPEARMINT 5. Technical Report IESE-Report 014.01/E, Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering.
48. Zettel, J. 2003. Anpassbare Methodenassistenz in CASE-Werkzeugen, Vol. 13 of PhD Theses in Experimental Software Engineering. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag. PhD Thesis, University of Kaiserslautern, Department of Computer Science; ISBN 3-8167-6284-0.