Does UML make the grade? Insights from the software development community

The Unified Modeling Language (UML) has become the de facto standard for systems development and has been promoted as a technology that will help solve some of the longstanding problems in the software industry. However, there is still little empirical evidence supporting the claim that UML is an effective approach to modeling software systems. Indeed, there is much anecdotal evidence suggesting the contrary, i.e. that UML is overly complex, inconsistent, incomplete and difficult to learn. This paper describes an investigation into the adoption and use of UML in the software development community. A web-based survey was conducted eliciting responses from users of UML worldwide. Results indicate a wide diversity of opinion regarding UML, reflecting the relative immaturity of the technology as well as the controversy over its effectiveness. This paper discusses the results of the survey and charts of the course for future research in UML usage.

[1]  Keng Siau,et al.  Unified Modeling Language: A Complexity Analysis , 2001, J. Database Manag..

[2]  William E. Lorensen,et al.  Object-Oriented Modeling and Design , 1991, TOOLS.

[3]  Terry A. Halpin,et al.  Augmenting UML with fact-orientation , 2001, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[4]  John B. Shoven,et al.  I , Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal.

[5]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  ASSESSING TASK-TECHNOLOGY FIT IN SIMULATION MODELING , 2001 .

[6]  Gerti Kappel,et al.  Developing with UML - Some Pitfalls and Workarounds , 1998, UML.

[7]  Craig Larman,et al.  Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and the Unified Process , 2001 .

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

[9]  Bill C. Hardgrave,et al.  Object-oriented methods: current practices and attitudes , 1999, J. Syst. Softw..

[10]  Uday S. Murthy,et al.  Task/technology fit and the effectiveness of group support systems: evidence in the context of tasks requiring domain specific knowledge , 2000, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[11]  Kendall Scott,et al.  UML distilled - a brief guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language (2. ed.) , 2000, notThenot Addison-Wesley object technology series.

[12]  Richard A. Johnson,et al.  The ups and downs of object-oriented systems development , 2000, CACM.

[13]  Robert W. Smyth,et al.  Challenges to Successful ERP Use , 2001, ECIS.

[14]  John C. Henderson,et al.  Technology-Process Fit: Perspectives on Achieving Prototyping Effectiveness , 1991, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[15]  Richard V. McCarthy,et al.  MEASURING THE VALIDITY OF TASK TECHNOLOGY FIT FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS , 2001 .

[16]  Richard Greenough,et al.  Evaluation of A Manufacturing Task Support System Using The Task-Technology Fit Model , 2001 .

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

[18]  Dov Dori,et al.  Object-Process Methodology Applied to Modeling Credit Card Transactions , 2001, J. Database Manag..

[19]  Edward Yourdon,et al.  Rise and Resurrection of the American Programmer , 1996 .

[20]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  The role of prior experience and task characteristics in object-oriented modeling: an empirical study , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[21]  A. Gill Waters,et al.  UML Deficiencies from the perspective of Automatic Performance Model Generation , 1999 .

[22]  Keng Siau,et al.  Mobile Commerce: Promises, Challenges and Research Agenda , 2001, J. Database Manag..

[23]  Scott W. Ambler.  The Object Primer , 1995 .

[24]  Scott W. Ambler,et al.  The object primer : the application developer's guide to object orientation and the UML , 1996 .

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

[26]  Jane Fedorowicz,et al.  Surveying object technology usage and benefits: A test of conventional wisdom , 1999, Inf. Manag..

[27]  T. Ferratt,et al.  An investigation of task-technology fit for managers in Greece and the US , 1998 .

[28]  John F. Affisco,et al.  Task and technology fit: a comparison of two technologies for synchronous and asynchronous group communication , 1999, Inf. Manag..

[29]  Shouhong Wang.  Experiences with the Unified Modeling Language (UML) , 2001 .

[30]  Gerald W. Both,et al.  Object-oriented analysis and design with applications , 1994 .

[31]  Jane M. Howell,et al.  Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization , 1991, MIS Q..

[32]  Jean Bézivin,et al.  The unified modeling language : 《UML》 '98 : beyond the notation : First International Workshop, Mulhouse, France, June 3-4, 1998 : selected papers , 1999 .

[33]  J. Nunamaker,et al.  Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , 1999 .

[34]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  Object-Oriented Software Engineering , 1991, TOOLS.

[35]  Anongnart Srivihok,et al.  An Instrument for Web Measurement: End User Evaluation of Web Application Effectiveness , 2000 .

[36]  Martin Glinz,et al.  Problems and deficiencies of UML as a requirements specification language , 2000, Tenth International Workshop on Software Specification and Design. IWSSD-10 2000.

[37]  Grady Booch,et al.  Object-oriented analysis and design with applications (2nd ed.) , 1993 .

[38]  Bill C. Hardgrave.  Adopting Object-Oriented Development: One Company's Experience , 1999 .

[39]  Saonee Sarker,et al.  Studying customer evaluations of electronic commerce applications: a review and adaptation of the task-technology fit perspective , 2003, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the.

[40]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  Object-oriented software engineering - a use case driven approach , 1993, TOOLS.

[41]  Keng Siau,et al.  Unified Modeling Language: Theoretical and Practical Complexity , 2003, AMCIS.

[42]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A test of task-technology fit theory for group support systems , 1999, DATB.

[43]  John D'Ambra.  Preliminary Investigations of User Evaluation of the WWW , 1999 .

[44]  Craig Larman,et al.  Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development (3rd Edition) , 1997 .

[45]  Ian Graham,et al.  30 Things that Go Wrong in Object Modelling with UML 1.3 , 1999, Behavioral Specifications of Businesses and Systems.

[46]  Cris Kobryn.  Will UML 2.0 be agile or awkward? , 2002, CACM.

[47]  James E. Rumbaugh,et al.  Object-Oriented Modelling and Design , 1991 .

[48]  Dale L. Goodhue,et al.  Development and Measurement Validity of a Task-Technology Fit Instrument for User Evaluations of Inf , 1998 .

[49]  Richard V. McCarthy,et al.  Task-Technology Fit in Data Warehousing Environments: Analyzing the Factors that Affect Utilization , 2005, Journal of International Technology and Information Management.

[50]  Jean Bézivin,et al.  The Unified Modeling Language. «UML»’98: Beyond the Notation , 1998, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.