The Venezuelan Organizations behavior in front of the CASE tools selection

The Venezuelan Organizations Behavior In Front Of CASE Tools SelectionLuis E. Mendoza, Teresita Rojas, María A. PérezDepartamento de Procesos y Sistemas, Universidad Simón BolívarABSTRACTThe objective of this paper is presents the results obtained of the field study that measured the behavior of organizational indicators for the selection of CASE tools in Venezuelan organizations. Starting from the organizational indicators included in the interactive process of adoption and use of CASE tools model, the investigation method that allowed to validate the organizational indicators is presented, as well as the analysis process. Finally, a series of conclusions are expound and formulated for the organizations which develop Information Systems (IS) -in matter, the Venezuelans-, based on the characteristics of the organizations and on the strategic importance of the selection of a CASE tool for the development of the IS.Keywords: Information Systems, CASE tools, organizational indicators, CASE tools selection.1. INTRODUCTIONAccording to Pressman [23], “during the first three decades of information sciences, the main challenge was the development of computer hardware, so as to reduce processing costs and data storage. Throughout the 80’s, advances in microelectronics have resulted at the same time in greater calculation power and cost reductions. Today, the problem lies elsewhere. The main challenge is to improve the quality (and to reduce the costs) of computer-based solutions - solutions implemented through software”. As demand grew for the development of large IS, the development thereof became increasingly complex and degenerated into what is known as the “software crisis”, the fundamental characteristics of which were as follows: [23] a) Hardware sophistication has left behind, in a different phase, the ability to build software that could exploit the potential of the hardware; b) The capacity to write new programs cannot meet the demands for new programs; c) The widespread use of computers has made society increasingly more dependent on the reliable operation of the software; d) The main struggle is the creation of reliable and high-capacity informatic software; and e) the capacity to maintain existing programs is threatened due to deficient designs and the use of inadequate resources.In the last years, the Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) concept has come to be a common term used in Software Engineering and a broad range of tools to provide support to the development process of Information Systems (IS) has been built [25]. In this sense, McNurlin and Sprague [17] have expressed that “whereas structured analysis and programming techniques have brought about more discipline in the development process of large, complex software applications, these techniques have also required a ‘tedious’ attention to detail, as well as a large amount of paper work. CASE tools help to automate the structured techniques and to reduce that heavy, tedious workload”.However, many experiences indicate that it lacks a lot of time to enjoy the CASE environments kindness [21], particularly due to the following reasons: [16] a) difficulty in the easy combination of the tools to cover the entire IS development life cycle; b) the overlapping of tools when these encompass similar services; c) the lack of well-defined procedures for data transfer from one tool to another; d) little visibility in the management of the progress of the tasks in a project and the intermediate phases of production of products in the tools; e) low flexibility in the adaptation of the tools to the needs of the organization; and f) maintenance and system management problems in the installation, evolution and operation of the set of tools, due to the complexity, size or level of maturity of some of the tools.On the other hand, the development of IS is a social process (it involves people with different points of view, knowledge and experience) that involves four closely related components: an organization, a process, techniques and certain automated (CASE) tools [26]. The development process defines the tasks, outputs and resources used to produce the IS (in other words: who, what and when). The techniques and methods are the how and why of the process of developing IS. CASE tools implement the use of techniques within projects, defining the notations and conventions by means of which the developers and managers shall communicate with one another. IS developing organizations without a full understanding and consideration of these elements or of the generalities of a development process cannot achieve the objective of improving the quality of IS and of the development process.A market study on CASE tools performed on Information Technology (IT) professionals in 1996 determined that 70% of persons surveyed showed a high interest in the CASE tools and that, on average, they plan to employ 24% of their budget in the acquisition of CASE tools [3]. Nevertheless, Iivari [12] has indicated that after the first year of incorporation of a CASE tool, 70% of the tools were not used, 25% were used by only one group and the remaining 5% did not take full advantage of the capacities thereof. Besides, the author states that the research performed indicated that the use of CASE tools varies considerably from one organization to another, but does not offer a theoretical guidance or tentative explanation as to the factors affecting the adoption of this tool.2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKConceiving IS development organizations as complex systems helps to more appropriately visualize the manner in which these operate. Itis important to understand the organization as a whole, so as to properly define its information requirements and in order to develop quality IS. Therefore, when studying an organization, one must also examine the manner in which the subsystems are involved in its operation [15]. An IS-developing organization, in turn, is in itself what Chiavenato [4] has called an enterprise, i.e., “a system created by man, which maintains a dynamic interaction with its environment, whether it be with its clients, providers, competitors, unions, government bodies or many other external agents. It affects the environment and is affected by it. It is also a system composed of different interrelating parts, working in harmony with each other, for the purposes of achieving a series of company objectives, and also those of its participants”.From the organizational standpoint, the purpose of the use of CASE tools, in other words, the automated support to some aspects of IS development and maintenance, is as follows: [1] to increase productivity and reduce development costs, to improve the quality (reliability, usability and performance) of IS, to carry the documentation throughout the development stages of IS, to facilitate the maintenance of the existing IS and to make the software engineers’ tasks less tedious and more pleasant. In other words, according to Hoffer et al. [11], organizations use CASE tools to “improve the quality of the systems developed, to increase the speed with which the systems are designed and developed, to facilitate and improve test processes using automated checks, to improve the integration of development activities through common technologies, to improve the quality and completeness of the documentation, to help in the standardization of the development process, to improve project management, simplify maintenance programs, promote the reusability of modules and documentation and improve software portability among different environments”.Kavi and Nahouraii [14] have expressed that “ it is not easy to design a simple set of criteria that can be used to evaluate all tools and development environments”. This is due, in part, to the difficulty in measuring the benefits of a new tool on the productivity or quality of the resulting IS. In accordance with this statement, international researchers like Orlikowski [21], Premkumar and Potter [22], Iivari [12], Chau [3], Nelson and Rottman [20], Bruckhaus et al. [2] and Valaer and Babb [27] regarding the process of selection, acquisition and implementation of a CASE tool in an organization is a complex process.Parallel to the search for factors affecting the adoption of CASE tools carried out by international researchers, two papers on the subject have been published in Venezuela. Upon analyzing the first research carried out by Viloria and Rojas [28], the importance given to the organizational context is observed, including some of the variables that turn out to be common denominators (under other denominations) in the international research studies that have been analyzed. The second research paper presented by De Freitas [7], and following the same line as Viloria and Rojas [28], establishes an analysis of the factors affecting the adoption of CASE tools in Venezuela in a similar fashion to the previous paper. However, it can be observed that apart from the significant increase of study variables, over 76% of these refer to the organizational context and its relationship to technological innovations -in this case, CASE tools-. On the other hand, it is also worthwhile highlighting that the conclusions of the study refer more to conditions regarding the comfort and satisfaction felt by IS analysts working in the organization adopting the CASE tools, rather than to the technical aspects inherent to these tools. In this sense, based on the foregoing, it can be stated that the relationships between CASE tools and the organizational environment that shall adopt and use them are becoming increasingly important.Irrespective of the approach used in the foregoing research studies, the factors described refer to two basic aspects to be taken into account when adopting a CASE tool: the organizational aspect and the technical aspect inherent to the tool [22]. According to Bruckhaus et al. [2] “the impact of a tool is not only due to the properties it possesses, but also to the characteristics of the IS development project and the characteristics of the organization which adopts it”.Given the amount of factors that may affect the adoption of a CASE tool and their complexity due to the amount of functions they offer, the selection of CASE tools is a very important strategic process for any organization developing IS, inasmuch as the timely, opportune selection of the tools is of great competitive value. In this sense, Kavi and Nahouraii [14] indicate that “the quality of the software can be improved by the proper selection of the tool which supports each stage in the development process, from the analysis of requirements to the final tests and integration. The selection of an inadequate tool, on the contrary, can hinder the proper development of the software”. Bearing in mind the foregoing statement, and based on the model proposed by Premkumar and Potter [22] -the factors which intervene in the adoption of a CASE tool being divided into technological and organizational factors-, Díaz et al. [8] have proposed indicators for the evaluation of the technological factors which affect the adoption and use of a CASE tool, for the purposes of providing organizations with a reference framework for facilitating and making more efficient and effective the process of selecting CASE tools for the development of IS.Now therefore, what happens with the organization indicators? Which are the organization indicators that are present in the evaluation of a CASE tool? How can they be measured?.Inasmuch as the implementation of all the concepts that have thus been exposed varies from country to country in general, and from one organization to the other in particular, an awareness of the evolution of this process in Venezuela is of great importance for the purposes of this paper. Venezuelan managers who direct IS-developing organizations face certain dilemmas when they have to decide on the acquisition and handling of modern information technology tools [13], particularly because of the absence of a proper Technology Management (TM). In spite of the mistakes committed in the development of IS and the acquisition of IT in Venezuela, Venezuelan organizations are in a relatively advantageous position to make use of modern IT, insofar as the country has the basic resources for this - professional human resources, installed capacity in the equipment and the experience accumulated during almost three decades of relatively generalized use of computers [13]. Nevertheless, this is not enough. The leaders of Venezuelan organizations must also begin to think about taking advantage of these technologies from broader, more ambitious perspectives than those that have prevailed to date [13]. In this regard, upon acquiring new IT, Venezuelan IS-developing organizations should implement strategies allowing them to know if full use shall be made of them (their technological capabilities), considering primarily the characteristics of the company’s organization structure, the personnel’s capabilities and skills, the production process and the quality and acceptance of the products which are developed, without ever losing sight of the environment and technological trends.3. THE CONTEXT OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL INDICATORSFigure 1 presents a visual description of the Adoption and use of a CASE tool interactive process; in the next paragraphs, a briefThe main task of an IS-developing unit is the execution of IS development projects under a sociotechnical system approach [4] [9]. In this context, it is not difficult to establish two fundamental organization factors present in the adoption and use of CASE tools, that originate and perform their tasks within the IS-developing unit: one refers to the managerial aspects (submerged in the social subsystem) and the other refers to the operational aspects (within the framework of a technological subsystem) [4]. In this regard, Premkumar and Potter [22] concluded in their research paper that the features inherent to a CASE tool are as important as the characteristics that enable the organization to adopt the CASE tool itself. This means to say that the adoption of a CASE tool also directly depends on the conditions present in the organizational environment where it is to be used [21].The interaction which occurs among the users, the upper management and the IS-developing unit give rise to two other fundamental organization factors for the adoption and use of CASE tools, but which are external because the origin and control thereof is not exclusive to the IS-developing unit. In other words, they are in the environment or out of limits: the factor refers to the image aspects in the IS-developing unit (directly determined by the perception of the users and the organization’s upper management with respect to the IS-developing unit and the IS themselves) and that referred to the corporate aspects of the organization where the developing unit performs its tasks, with respect to the development of the IS. In concordance with this idea, already De Freitas [7] takes these aspects into account, calling them in her paper the “attributes that arise from the interaction between innovations and their organizational context”.Apart from the internal and external relationships and interactions affecting the adoption and use of CASE tools, in the area of human resources as well as the organizational area, one must not forget that technological innovation is in the environment as an aspect which bears a direct influence on the adoption and use of CASE tools; inasmuch as this innovation is what provides for the availability of more and better tools for the development of IS. Although this paper does not broach on all the technological aspects affecting the acquisition and use of CASE tools, it is important to bear in mind the process of acquisition and management of technological innovations, within the IS developing units as well as throughout the entire organization.Under the reference framework provided by Figure 1, Rojas et al. [24] proposed organizational factors as well as their indicators and the amount of variables that will allow measuring each one of the indicators, at the time of evaluating CASE tool. For a detailed explanation about what each indicator includes, consult the [18] and [24] researches.4. RESEARCH METHODThe gathering of information of the field study was carried out through the application of questionnaires directed to heads of department and/or project leaders, IS analysts or developers and the users of the IS developed with CASE tools, being designed a measurement instrument for participant’s type. A set of sixty-four (64) variables was used in drafting the measurement instruments, based on the operational definition of the indicators. These variables are inspired by an extensive review of MIS, technology management, and innovation and diffusion literature.The operational definition of the indicators helped to establish four fundamental aspects for the design of the field study and the drafting of the measurement instruments: the type of subject that participated in the field study; the amount of variables measured by each indicator; the measurement scales used for the variables, and the questions used to obtain the information for each variable. Two types of scales were used for measuring the variables: a five-point Likert-type scale (1 to 5) based on the extent of agreement (5) or disagreement (1) with the item, and a continuous scale for these research variables based on the calculus of percentage ratios (0% to 100%) and absolute ratios (0 to1).Before carrying out the test pilot to three heads of department and/or project leaders, three IS analysts or developers, and three users of the IS developed with CASE tools of two organizational that use CASE tools, with the purpose of obtaining detailed feedback on the clarity of the questions and the overall comprehensibility of the instrument, was carried out the construct validation of the questionnaires, through the content validation and the calculation of the Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient for the reliability analysis. The analysis showed that the reliability of variables was significantly higher than the value of 0.86 suggested by Hernández et al. [10] for the early stages of basic research.Later on, the revised questionnaires, along with a cover letter explaining the natures of the study, was administered to 169 peoples. To encourage participation, all participants were assured of confidentiality throughout the study. At the end, 155 persons completed and returned the survey, which represents a response rate of 91.72%. The distribution of the amount of participants in the field study per type and per sector is shown in Table 1.5. DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDUREThe steps followed to carry out the analysis of the information gathered through the questionnaires were the following:1) Distribution by sectors of companies participating in the field study. It became necessary to group and classify the participatingcompanies, as it was observed that certain subsets thereof carry out the same economic activity, in other words, attend to and meet similar needs in the Venezuelan population [5]. In this regard, the 19 participating companies were finally grouped as follows:• Banking Sector: Companies and institutions undertaking financial activities in Venezuela and, in some cases, in foreign markets. • Consultancy Sector: Companies dedicated to providing consultancy and advisory activities to other companies in the fields of engineering and management.• IS Development Sector: Companies carrying out IS-development and maintenance activities.• Government Sector: Entities dedicated to activities inherent to the Venezuelan State. The owner of these entities is the State itself. • Services Sector: Companies and institutions performing service-related activities, in other words “Supply of immaterial goods to persons, communities or companies”. [19] 2) Preparation of frequency distributions, central trend measurements and variability measurements. These statistics were preparedfrom the responses given by each type of subject (established in the sample stratification) to the questions measuring the variables of the indicators for each sector defined in the first step.3) Analysis of the results obtained. The measurements obtained from each indicator-measuring variable were analyzed for each type ofperson interviewed and were grouped per similar organizations. In this manner the behavior of the variables defining each indicator for each type of participant was discussed for each sector, in order to determine the representative values for the indicators by sector, as a whole.6. RESULTS PRESENTATIONThe field study resulted in the verification that not all the organizations have the same characteristics and cannot be treated equally. It is convenient to group organizations into sectors, based on one (or several) aspect(s) that differentiate one type of organization from another; it would be suitable to take into account one special trait such as the mission, the task fulfilled, the market segment it attends or any other relevant characteristic in order to classify them. This is very convenient because it helps in establishing more adequate, accurate conclusions. In this sense, the field study corroborated that the behavior of organizational indicators depends on the sector to which they are applied. Through the analysis of the results obtained, it was verified that one same indicator behaves differently for different production sectors; whereas some indicators exhibit a similar behavior when compared among sectors having various common traits.SectorHeads of department and/or project leaders IS Analysts or developers User of the developed ISTotalparticipantsper sectorBanking 12 21 15 48Consultancy 3 5 3 11IS Development 12 15 6 33Government 7 12 3 25Services 6 18 16 40Total participants per type 40 71 46 155Table 1. Participants distribution per type and per sector Sector IMA 1 IMA 2 IMA 3 COR 1 COR 2 COR 3 COR 4Banking High High Medium High High High HighThe Tables 2 and 3 present the behavior of the indicators, divided in external and internal, for each productive sector.In a first review of the Tables 2 and 3, it is possible to observe that the participant organizations, in general, are very located in a good position in front of the organizational indicators, since most of these exhibits a behavior medium to high. The Government Sector is only the one that presents the biggest number of indicators with a low behavior, while the Services Sector shows a bigger number of indicators in the category high.Based on the information summarized in the Tables 2 and 3, the Figure 2 is presented a graph that shows the quantity of indicators that obtained the categories high, low, medium, inside each sector. Later on, a brief comment will be made, based on the differences and the similarities among the different participant sectors in the field study.1)On the basis of the analysis performed on the indicators for the Banking Sector, the graph of Figure 2 evidences that this sector exhibits a medium-to-high behavior for the indicators, as 50.0% (8 indicators) thereof are in the high range, although 31.25% (5 indicators) of the indicators is in the medium range and the remaining 18.75% (3 indicators) in the low range.2) Consultancy SectorOn the analysis performed on the indicators for the Consultancy Sector, the graph in Figure 2 shows evidence that this sector exhibits a high behavior for the indicators, as 68.8% (11 indicators) of these are found in the high range, whereas only 31.3% (5 indicators) are in the medium range.3) IS Development SectorBased on the analysis of indicators in the IS Developing Sector, the graph of Figure 2 shows that this sector exhibits a high behavior for the indicators, as 68.8% (11 indicators) are in the high range, whereas 18.8% (3 indicators) of the indicators are in the medium range and 12.5% (2 indicators) are in the low range.4) Government SectorOn the analysis carried out for the Government Sector indicators, the graph of Figure 2 shows that this sector exhibits a medium behavior for the indicators, 62.5% (10 indicators) of these being found in the medium range, while 12.5% (6 indicators) of the remaining indicators is in the low range.5) Services SectorBased on the analysis undertaken on the indicators in the Services sector, the graph of Figure 2 shows that this sector exhibits a high behavior for the indicators, as 81.3% (13 indicators) are in the high range and only 18.8% (3 indicators) of the indicators are in the medium range.A fair comparison among the sectors studied is not an easy task, as uneven characteristics are present; however, the sector with the highest behavior in the indicators presents a series of conditions enabling the organizations within that sector to better adopt and use the strong points and benefits offered by CASE tools. On the contrary, sectors’ obtaining the lowest behavior for the indicators present a series of Sector MAN 1 MAN 2 MAN 3 MAN 4 MAN 5 MAN 6 OPE 1 OPE 2 OPE 3Banking High High Medium Medium Medium Low Low Medium LowConsultancy High High High Medium Medium High Medium Medium MediumIS Development High Low Low Medium Medium High High High MediumGovernment Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium LowServices High High High Medium Medium High High Medium HighTable 3. Internal organizational indicators behaviordeficiencies hindering the organizations from adequately adopting and using the CASE tools. In summary, the descending order for the behavior obtained by the previously analyzed sectors is shown in Table 4.Position Sector1 ServicesDevelopment2 IS3 Consultancy4 Banking5 GovernmentTable 4. Position obtained by the participating sectors7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThis paper presents an investigation method that specifies the way like a field study is approached referred to organizational indicators for the evaluation of CASE tools. Also, it exposes the obtained results, the conclusions and the recommendations for the participant sectors. The formulation of the proposed indicators combined aspects handled at a theoretical level through the hypotheses proposed, which were confirmed at the experimental level. The organizational indicators tested and verified in this research received academic backing that, from the beginning, guaranteed their adaptation to the real-life conditions of various organizations, especially Venezuelan organizations, insofar as the findings of national as well as international research in this field were very much taken into account.Organizations using CASE tools for the development of IS exhibit certain conditions that facilitate the adoption and use thereof; the result of changes they have had to undertake and carry out through the incorporation of IS and IT to their organizational environment and particularly due to the experience the organizations have had with CASE tools. The Venezuelan organizations which have had success in adopting and using CASE tools have a clear awareness as to the need for counting on quality IS to improve productivity and to support decision-making processes, they are convinced of the importance of IS and IT to develop a competitive edge and their workers have a favorable attitude towards technological innovations. Also, these organization take into account the compatibility with the installed technological infrastructure and with existing work processes (methods and/or methodologies) when organizations decide to adopt a technological innovation and particularly a CASE tool; additionally all processes related to technological innovations, especially those referring to the implementation of technological innovations and those related to updating HW and SW, are supported by the upper management levels in the organizations and the management of IS developing units. Finally, IS developing units count on a solid project management, where the active participation of IS developers in making decisions is standard and training plans support the development of the analysts’ capabilities and skills.8. REFERENCES[1] A. Brown, D. Carney, E. Morris, D. Smith and P. Zarrella, Principles of CASE Tool Integration, Oxford, England, 1994.[2] T. Bruckhaus, N. Madhavji, I. Janssen, and J. Henshaw, “The Impact of Tools on Software Productivity”, IEEE Software, September,1996, pp. 29-38.[3] P. Chau, “An empirical investigation on factors affecting the acceptance of CASE by systems developers”, Information andManagement 30, 1996, pp. 269-280.[4] I. Chiavenato, Introducción a la teoría general de la administración, Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia, 1997.[5] L. Dávalos, M. Martínez, F. Jiménez, M. Calecca, R. Peñaranda, M. González, M. Boza, S. Freije, K. Betancourt and J. Alcácer,“Situación presente del Estado Zulia”, In Proyecto Zulia: Competitividad para el desarrollo (Ediciones IESA, C.A.), Caracas, Venezuela, 1999, pp. 1-47.[7] V. De Freitas, Factores que inciden en la adopción de las herramientas CASE en las organizaciones venezolanas, MSc. Thesis,Department of Processes & Systems, Simón Bolívar University, 1997.[8] M. Díaz, M. Pérez and T. Rojas, “A proposal of indicator for the evaluation of CASE tools”, In Proceedings of the InternationalConference on Information Systems Analysis and Synthesis ISAS’98 (CALLAOS J, Ed), IIIS Publications, Orlando, Florida, 1998, p. 999.[9] W. French and C. Bell, Organization Development Behavioural Science Interventions for Organization Improvement, EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey, 1996.[10] R. Hernández, C. Fernández and P. Baptista, Metodología de la Investigación, Mexico DF, Mexico, 1998.[11] J. Hoffer, J. George and J. Valacich, Modern Systems Analysis and Design, Menlo Park, Califormia, 1996.[12] J. Iivari, “Why Are CASE Tools Not Used?”, Communications of the ACM October/Vol. 39, No. 10, 1996, pp. 94-103.[13] G. Kastner and T. Mejías, “El manejo de la información: Qué pasa cuando se tiene una computadora antes de tener unaorganización”, In Las Empresas Venezolanas: SU GERENCIA (Ediciones IESA, C.A.), Caracas, Venezuela, 1989, pp. 289-316.[14] K. Kavi, and E. Nahouraii, “Software Tools Assessment”, IEEE Software, September, 1996, pp. 23-26.[15] K. Kendall and J. Kendall, Systems Analysis and design, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1998.[16] F. Losavio, A. Matteo and M. Pérez, “CASE Integration Approaches and a Proposal for Object Oriented CASE Environ-ment”,Centro de Ingeniería de Software y Sistemas (ISYS), Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Central de Venezuela, 1996[17] B. McNurlin and R.J. Sprague, Information systems management in practice, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1998.[18] L. Mendoza, Indicadores organizacionales para evaluar herramientas CASE en las organizaciones venezolanas, MSc. Thesis,Department of Processes & Systems, Simón Bolívar University, 1999.。