Evaluating the Usefulness and Ease of Use of a Groupware Tool for the Software Architecture Evaluation Process

We have developed a framework for groupware tool support for the software architecture evaluation process in the context of global software development. We have empirically assessed the effectiveness of the groupware-supported software architecture evaluation process in a set of controlled experiments. While we found that groupware-supported distributed meetings can be very effective, we saw the need to investigate users' acceptance of the tool used in these empirical studies. In this paper we report on the "perceived usefulness" and "ease of use" of the groupware tool based on the adapted Davis' technology acceptance model (TAM), a widely used general-purpose instrument for measuring users' attitude towards a particular technology. Main results from analyzing the TAM data are: a majority of the participants found the tool quite useful and easy to use for supporting collaborative tasks like architecture evaluation; a majority of the respondents was also very positive about the regular use of the tool for collaborative tasks in the future. However, there was considerably less support for preferring a distributed tool-based meeting to a face-to-face meeting.

[1]  Oliver Laitenberger,et al.  Evaluating the usefulness and the ease of use of a Web-based inspection data collection tool , 1998, Proceedings Fifth International Software Metrics Symposium. Metrics (Cat. No.98TB100262).

[2]  Minder Chen,et al.  Using Group Support Systems and Joint Application Development for Requirements Specification , 1993, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[4]  J. Herbsleb,et al.  Global software development , 2001 .

[5]  Douglas R. Vogel,et al.  Using Group Support Systems for Software Inspections , 2001, IEEE Softw..

[6]  B. E. Wynne,et al.  The Implications of Group Development and History for Group Support System Theory and Practice , 1992 .

[7]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Understanding the use of Group Decision Support Systems: The Theory of Adaptive Structuration , 1990 .

[8]  Muhammad Ali Babar,et al.  Towards a distributed software architecture evaluation process: a preliminary assessment , 2006, ICSE '06.

[9]  Liming Zhu,et al.  A framework for classifying and comparing software architecture evaluation methods , 2004, 2004 Australian Software Engineering Conference. Proceedings..

[10]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Lessons from a Dozen Years of Group Support Systems Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Liming Zhu,et al.  An empirical study of groupware support for distributed software architecture evaluation process , 2004, J. Syst. Softw..

[12]  Edward G. Carmines,et al.  Reliability and Validity Assessment , 1979 .

[13]  Lorne Olfman,et al.  A research program to assess user perceptions of group work support , 1992, CHI '92.

[14]  Jan Bosch,et al.  Experiences with ALMA: Architecture-Level Modifiability Analysis , 2002, J. Syst. Softw..

[15]  Rick Kazman,et al.  Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies , 2001 .

[16]  William R. King,et al.  A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model , 2006, Inf. Manag..

[17]  Ian Gorton,et al.  Enabling software shift work with groupware: a case study , 1996, Proceedings of HICSS-29: 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[18]  Brian R. Gaines,et al.  Using Different Communication Media in Requirements Negotiation , 2000, IEEE Softw..

[19]  Connie U. Smith,et al.  PASASM: a method for the performance assessment of software architectures , 2002, WOSP '02.

[20]  Muhammad Ali Babar,et al.  Evaluating the Usefulness and Ease of Use of a Groupware Tool for the Software Architecture Evaluation Process , 2007, ESEM 2007.

[21]  Adam A. Porter,et al.  Reducing Inspection Interval in Large-Scale Software Development , 2002, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[22]  Muhammad Ali Babar,et al.  Distributed versus face-to-face meetings for architecture evalution: a controlled experiment , 2006, ISESE '06.

[23]  Paul Grünbacher Integrating groupware and CASE capabilities for improving stakeholder involvement in requirements engineering , 2000, Proceedings of the 26th Euromicro Conference. EUROMICRO 2000. Informatics: Inventing the Future.

[24]  Stefan Biffl,et al.  A groupware-supported inspection process for active inspection management , 2002, Proceedings. 28th Euromicro Conference.

[25]  Adam A. Porter,et al.  Assessing Software Review Meetings: Results of a Comparative Analysis of Two Experimental Studies , 1997, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[26]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[27]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Developing Groupware for Requirements Negotiation: Lessons Learned , 2001, IEEE Softw..