Towards an ideal CASE tool

Proceedings - International Conference on Software Methods and Tools, SMT 2000

Volumn , Issue , 2000, Pages 189-197

  Finnigan, D ^a   Kemp, E A ^a   Mehandjiska, D ^b  

^a MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

^b BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SURVEYS;

HIGH COSTS; NEW ZEALAND;

COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 84961644503     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/SWMT.2000.890434     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. th Ed., McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1997.
2. Lending, D. and Chervany, N. L., CASE Tools: Understanding the Reasons for Non-Use, Computer Personnel, 1998, pp. 13-24.
3. Chmura A. and Crocket D., What's the proper role for CASE tools? IEEE Software, 1995, pp. 18-19.
4. Iivari, J., Why are CASE tools not used? Communications of the ACM, 39, 10, 1996, pp. 94-103.
5. Sharma S. and Rei A., CASE deployment in IS organisations, Communications of the ACM, 43, 1, 2000, pp. 80-88.
6. Jarzabek, S. and Huang, R., The CASE for user-centered CASE tools, Communications of the ACM, 41, 8, 1998, pp. 93-99.
7. Gillies, A. C., Humanization of the software factory, Information & Software Technology, 33, 9, 1991, pp. 641-646.
8. McChesney, I. R. and Glass, D., Post-Implementation management of CASE methodology, European Journal of Information Systems, 2, 3, 1993, pp. 201-209.
9. Finlay, P. and Mitchell, A. C., Perceptions of the Benefits from the Introduction of CASE: An empirical study. MIS Quarterly, 1994, pp. 353-366.
10. Holt, J., Current Practice in software engineering: a survey. Computing and Control Engineering Journal, 1997, pp. 167-172.
11. Sorenson, P. G., First Generation CASE Tools: All Form but Little Substance?, Proc. of Edmonton CIPS 88 Conference, 1988, pp. 264-271.
12. Misra, S. K., Analyzing CASE system characteristics: evaluative framework, Information & Software Technology, 32, 6, 1990, pp. 415-422.
13. Aaen I., Problems in CASE introduction: experiences from user organisations. Information and Software Technology, 36, 11, 1994, pp. 634-654.
14. Huff, C. C., Elements of a realistic CASE Tool Adoption Budget, Communications of the ACM, 35 (4), 1992, pp. 45-54.
15. Gray, J. P., Liu, A. and Scott L., Issues in software engineering tool construction, Information and Software Technology, 42, 2000, pp. 73-77.
16. Phillips C., Mehandjiska D., Griffin D., Choi M. D. and Page D., The Usability Component of a Framework for the Evaluation of OO CASE Tools, Proceedings of Software Engineering: Education and Practice Conference, ed M. Purvis, Dunedin, 1998, pp. 134-139.
17. Anderson P., Personal communication, 2000.
18. Sekaran, U., Research Methods For Managers - A Skill-building Approach, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1984.
19. th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 1999, pp. 279-285.
20. Scott, C. A., Clayton J. E., and Gibson, E. L., A Practical Guide to Knowledge Acquisition, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass, 1991.