The Effect of Task and Tool Experience on Maintenance CASE Tool Usage

Computer-aided software engineering CASE tools have been advocated for improving maintainer productivity and the quality of maintained software. While there is evidence that such benefits can accrue to organizations adopting maintenance-oriented CASE tools, a key problem in achieving the desired benefits from CASE tools is low usage of these tools by programmers. The previously tested Maintenance Tool Utilization Model was a first step in investigating the factors that affect whether maintainers choose to use CASE tools during maintenance projects. We test the addition of experience with software maintenance tools and with the software maintenance task to the Maintenance Tool Utilization Model. The role of experience is important because managers can provide training to increase experience and they can ensure that project teams have some members experienced with the tools or with the task. Data for the test are collected from software maintainers working on their organization's normal maintenance project backlog. Tool experience is significant as both a main and interaction effect, but task experience adds little to the explanatory power of the Maintenance Tool Utilization Model. These results support the value of improved CASE tool training programs.

[1]  Joyce J. Elam,et al.  A Comparative Study of How Experts and Novices Use a Decision Aid to Solve Problems in Complex Knowledge Domains , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  Stanley Letovsky,et al.  Cognitive processes in program comprehension , 1986, J. Syst. Softw..

[3]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Expertise in Debugging Computer Programs: An Analysis of the Content of Verbal Protocols , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[4]  Stu Westin,et al.  Software Maintainability: Perceptions of EDP Professionals , 1988, MIS Q..

[5]  Vairam Arunachalam,et al.  Cognitive processes in program comprehension: An empirical analysis in the Context of software reengineering , 1996, J. Syst. Softw..

[6]  Lawrence R. Jauch,et al.  Short term financial success in large business organizations: The environment‐strategy connection , 1980 .

[7]  Elliot Soloway,et al.  Delocalized Plans and Program Comprehension , 1986, IEEE Software.

[8]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  Assessing software maintenance tool utilization using task-technology fit and fitness-for-use models , 1998, J. Softw. Maintenance Res. Pract..

[9]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs , 1999, Inf. Manag..

[10]  Iris Vessey,et al.  The Relevance of Application Domain Knowledge: Characterizing the Computer Program Comprehension Process , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Stephen S. Yau,et al.  Design Stability Measures for Software Maintenance , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[12]  Jane M. Howell,et al.  Influence of Experience on Personal Computer Utilization: Testing a Conceptual Model , 1994, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test† , 1996 .

[14]  Fred D. Davis.  A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems : theory and results , 1985 .

[15]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Modeling the Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use , 1994, ICIS.

[16]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  Why are CASE tools not used? , 1996, CACM.

[17]  Patricia J. Guinan,et al.  Automation of the Applications Development Life Cycle: Measuring the Value Added , 1992, ICIS.

[18]  Steve Sawyer,et al.  The Effective Use of Automated Application Development Tools , 1997, IBM Syst. J..

[19]  Mehdi Khosrow-Pour,et al.  Printed at: , 2011 .

[20]  Charles Møller,et al.  Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology , 2005 .

[21]  Cynthia Mathis Beath,et al.  Maintaining Information Systems in Organizations , 1989 .

[22]  William G. Griswold,et al.  Managing design trade-offs for a program understanding and transformation tool , 1995, J. Syst. Softw..

[23]  David E. Barbee,et al.  Interactive Multimedia: A Tool for Government Transformation , 1993 .

[24]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  Now the learning curve affects CASE tool adoption , 1992, IEEE Software.

[25]  M. Tushman.  Work Characteristics and Subunit Communication Structure: A Contingency Analysis. , 1979 .

[26]  Tor Guimaraes,et al.  Exploring the Relationship Between EUC Problems and Success , 1996 .

[27]  Fadi P. Deek,et al.  Open Source Software Development Model , 2005, Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology.

[28]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Research Report - The Relevance of Application Domain Knowledge: The Case of Computer Program Comprehension , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[29]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[30]  Norman F. Schneidewind,et al.  The State of Software Maintenance , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[31]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Understanding user evaluations of information systems , 1995 .

[32]  Anil K. Gupta,et al.  Business Unit Strategy, Managerial Characteristics, and Business Unit Effectiveness at Strategy Implementation , 1984 .

[33]  J. Prescott.  Environments as Moderators of the Relationship Between Strategy and Performance , 1986 .

[34]  Steve Sawyer,et al.  Software Development: Processes and Performance , 1998, IBM Syst. J..

[35]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance , 1995, MIS Q..

[36]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  Supporting software maintenance with software engineering tools: A Computed task-technology fit analysis , 1998, J. Syst. Softw..

[37]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  I/S attitudes: toward theoretical and definitional clarity , 2013, DATB.

[38]  John C. Henderson,et al.  Dimensions of I/S Planning and Design Aids: A Functional Model of CASE Technology , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..