A structured approach to the evaluation and selection of CASE tools

This paper illustrates an evaluation and selection methodology for CASE software or CASE tools. The methodology’ incorporates three stages 1) CASE software acreenin~ 2) CASE tool evaluation; and, 3) assurance of final CASE software selection. Initially, developing a short list through screening of commercial CASE ptuducta determines whether appropriate tools exist and narrows the field of available CASE software products for detailed conaideralion. The second stage determines which of the remaining products (the finalists) beat meets the needs of the organization, from both functional and technical perspectives. Tle final stage compares user requitvmenta with the features of the selecied CASE software by defining how these requirements will be satisfied by building system application with the selected prrxluct. The methodology also conaidera the pmsaibility that, at any stage of the process, no single CASE product is suitable and that a combination of products must be utilized. Introduction Overview of CASE Computer Aided SYslems Engineering (CASE) has oecupicd a position of prominence and has generated much debate over the past several years. In the midst of all of the “hype” and attention, CASE seems 10 be one of those ill-defined and often misunderstood information system acronyms. Case !echnology, with its wide variety of tools and techniques produced by so many different vendors, seems to have obscured the underlying concepts concomitant with the adoplion of any form of CASE soflware. The primary reason(s) for the adoption of CASE should be built around the need fo~ 1) increased integration of cross-functional syatem~ 2) the improved quality of systems that are developed; and, 3) the integration of business goal$ objective% and functions with the systems developed. The adoption of CASE technology not oniy intrcxiuces technological change, but more importantly introduces a change in the basic philosophy of systems development. In some instances the organization wiii experience a “culture shwk’ when embarking upon the implementation of the G4SE environment. The adoption of CASE technology usually demands an indepth evaluation of the organization’s current systems development methodology. Methodologies, such as METHOD/1, NAVIGATOR STWIS, IEF, and IEM, are all characterized by the intnxtuction Permission to copy without fee all or part of this materiel is granted provided that the copiaa ara not made or distributed for diract commercial advantage, the ACM copyright notice and the titla of the publication and ita date appear, and notice ia given that copying ia by permission of the Association for Computing Maohinary. To copy otherwise, or to republish, requirea a fee and/or specific permiaaion. O 1992 ACM 0.89791 -502. x/92/~ 2/1064 ...$l .50 of “rigor” into ihe systems development prcxeaa. Ail of the aforementioned methodologies have very detailed, specific prwedurcs for systems development. Theac methodologies may be integrated very closely with a specific CASE prcduct, or they may be supported by a variety of products. In either instance, there should be an accepted, specifiq rigorous systems development methodology for the CASE tool to support. AU of the toots and techniques that support the syatemadevelopment methodology (often termed Systems Development Ufe Qcle) and all of ita phases are considered within the realm of CASE software. Moat all methodologies will have the followingmajor phases 1) analysi$ 2) design; 3) construction; 4) implementation; and 5) maintenance.