Tool support for information systems (IS) development can be considered from many perspectives, and it is not surprising that different stakeholders perceive such tools very differently. This can contribute on one side to poor selection processes and ineffective deployment of CASE, and on another to inappropriate tool development. In this paper, the relationship between CASE-tools and IS development methods is considered from three stakeholder perspectives: concept developer, IS developer and product developer. These perspectives, and the tensions between them, are characterised within a ‘stakeholder triangle’. Some of the major issues related to each tension are highlighted, and the triangle is then used to consider the importance, and implications for all stakeholders, of considering all tensions together. In particular, we suggest that the concept of ‘method in action’ be complemented by that of ‘method in tool’. We believe that these insights will contribute to the continuing debate on how to reduce adoption failures.
AvisonD.E., and FitzgeraldG. (1999). Information Systems Development, in GalliersR.D., and CurrieW.L. (eds.) Rethinking Management Information Systems: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 250–278.
2.
BanslerJ.P., and BødkarK. (1993). A Reappraisal of Structured Analysis: Design in an Organizational Context, ACM Transactions on Information Systems11(2): 165–193.
3.
BaskervilleR., TravisJ., and TruexD. (1992). Systems Without Method: The Impact of New Technologies on Information Systems Development Projects, in KendallK.E., LyytinenK., and DeGrossJ.I. (eds.) The Impact of Computer Supported Technologies on Information Systems Development, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 241–269.
4.
BeckerK., and VenturiniD. (1997). Supporting the evaluation and selection of CASE tools, in Proceedings of the XXIII Conferencia Latino Americana de Informática, Vol. 1 Valparaiso, Chile, 10–15 November, pp. 397–409.
5.
BrownA.W., and WallnauK.C. (1996). Framework for evaluating software technology, IEEE Software13(5): 39–49.
6.
BubenkoJ.A.Jr., and WanglerB. (1992). Research Directions in Conceptual Specification Development, in LoucopoulosP., and ZicariR. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling, Databases, and CASE: an Integrated View of Information Systems Development, New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 389–412.
7.
ChmuraA., and CrockettH.D. (1995). What's the Proper Role for CASE tools, IEEE Software12(2): 18–19.
8.
CronholmS. (1997). A Navigation Framework - An Aspect when Designing CASE Tools, in Proceedings of the 20th Information Systems Research In Scandinavia (IRIS 20), Conference Proceeding No. 2, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway, pp. 521–536.
9.
EatonJ. (1999). The Case for CASE, Work Study48(4): 130–133.
10.
FitzgeraldB. (1997a). The Use of Systems Development Methodologies in Practice: A field study, Information Systems Journal7(3): 201–212.
11.
FitzgeraldB. (1997b). Multiple Roles of Methodologies, BCS Review1997: 161–162.
12.
FitzgeraldB. (1998). An Empirical Investigation into the Adoption of Systems Development Methodologies, Information & Management34(6): 317–328.
13.
FitzgeraldB., RussoN.L., and StoltermanE. (2002). Information Systems Development: Methods in Action, London: McGraw-Hill.
14.
FitzgeraldB., RussoN.L., and O'KaneT. (2003). Software Development Method Tailoring at Motorola, Communications of the ACM46(4): 65–70.
15.
GlassR.L. (1999). The Loyal Opposition: Of open source, Linux, and Hype, IEEE Software16(1): 126–128.
16.
GoldkuhlG., CronholmS., and KrysanderC. (1992). Adaption of Case Tools to Different Systems Development Methods, in Proceedings of the 15th IRIS - Part I: Information systems research seminar in Scandinavia, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, pp. 142–156.
17.
GrantD., and NgwenyamaO. (2003). A Report on the Use of Action Research to Evaluate a Manufacturing Information Systems Development Methodology in a Company, Information Systems Journal13(1): 21–35.
18.
GrayJ.P. (1997). CASE Tool Construction for a Parallel Software Development Methodology, Information and Software Technology39(4): 235–252.
19.
GrayJ.P., LiuA., and ScottL. (2000). Issues in Software Engineering Tool Construction, Information and Software Technology42(2): 73–77.
20.
HartH., BoehmB., TaftS.T., and WassermanT. (1999). PANEL: What happened to integrated environments?, in Proceedings of the ACM SIGAda Annual International Conference on Ada (Redondo Beach, USA 1999) New York: ACM Press. 225–226.
21.
HendersonJ.C., and CoopriderJ.G. (1990). Dimensions of I/S Planning and Design Aids: A functional model of CASE technology, Information Systems Research1(3): 227–254.
22.
HuffC.C. (1992). Elements of a Realistic CASE Tool Adoption, Communication of the ACM35(4): 45–54.
23.
IivariJ. (1996). Why are CASE Tools not Used?, Communications of the ACM39(10): 94–103.
24.
IivariJ., and LyytinenK. (1999). Research on Information Systems Development in Scandinavia: Unity in plurality, in GalliersR.D., and CurrieW.L. (eds.) Rethinking Management Information Systems: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–102.
25.
IntronaL.D., and WhitleyE.A. (1997). Against Method-ism: Exploring the limits of method, Information Technology & People10(1): 31–45.
26.
ISO (1995). Information Technology - Guideline for the evaluation and selection of CASE tools, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7/WG4, ISO/IEC 14102:1995(E).
27.
IVF (1997). Europadag om SPI på IVF, Institutet för Verkstadsteknisk forskning, Göteborg, Sweden, 2nd June 1997 (Seminar, in Swedish).
28.
JankowskiD.J. (1995). CASE tool Selection: Using methodology support to choose the right tool for the job, Journal of Systems Management46(4): 20–27.
29.
JankowskiD. (1997). Computer-Aided Systems Engineering Methodology Support and its Effect on the Output of Structured Analysis, Empirical Software Engineering2(1): 11–38.
30.
JarzabekS., and HuangR. (1998). The Case for User-Centred CASE Tools, Communications of the ACM41(8): 93–99.
31.
JayaratnaN., HoltP., and Wood-HarperT. (1999). Criteria for Methodology Choice in Information Systems Development, The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government5(2): 30–34.
32.
KemererC.F. (1992). How the Learning-Curve Affects CASE tool Adoption, IEEE Software9(3): 23–28.
33.
KingS. (1997). Tool Support for Systems Emergence: A multimedia CASE tool, Information and Software Technology39(5): 323–330.
34.
KitchenhamB., LinkmanS., and LawD. (1997). DESMET: A methodology for evaluating software engineering methods and tools, Computing & Control Engineering Journal8(3): 120–126.
35.
KollmannR., SelonenP., StrouliaE., SystäT., and ZündorfA. (2002). Study on the Current State of the Art in Tool-Supported UML-Based Static Reverse Engineering, in Proceedings of the Ninth Working Conference on Reverse Engineering WCRE 2002 (Richmond, USA, 2002) Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society. 22–32.
36.
LendingD., and ChervanyN.L. (1998). The Use of CASE Tools, in Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGCPR Conference (Boston, USA, 1998); New York: ACM Press. 49–58.
37.
LowG., and LeenanuraksaV. (1999). Software Quality and CASE Tools, in STEP'99: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop Software Technology and Engineering Practice (Pittsburgh, USA, 1999); Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society. 142–150.
38.
LundellB., and LingsB. (2002). Comments on ISO 14102: the Standard for CASE-tool Evaluation, Computer Standards & Interfaces24(5): 381–388.
39.
LundellB., and LingsB. (2003). The 2G Method for Doubly Grounding Evaluation Frameworks, Information Systems Journal13(4): 375–398.
40.
LundellB., and LingsB. (2004). Changing Perceptions of CASE Technology, Journal of Systems and Software72(2): 271–280.
41.
MaccariA., and RivaC. (2000). Empirical Evaluation of CASE Tools Usage at Nokia, Empirical Software Engineering5(3): 287–299.
42.
MartinM.P. (1995). The Case against CASE, Journal of Systems Management46(1): 54–57.
43.
MathiassenL., and PuraoS. (2002). Educating Reflective Systems Developers, Information Systems Journal12(2): 81–102.
44.
MathiassenL., and SørensenC. (1997). A Guide to Manage Software Engineering Technologies, in McMasterT., MumfordE., SwansonE.B., WarboysB., and WastellD. (eds.) Facilitating Technology Transfer through Partner ship: Learning from practice and research, IFIP TC8 WG8.6 International Working Conference on Diffusion, Transfer, and Implementation of Information Technology, London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 257–272.
45.
McCombM.E. (1994). CASE Tools Implementation at Amtrak - Lessons almost learned, Journal of Systems Management45(3): 16–20.
46.
MoriartyT. (1995). Pure Gold Found in Silverrun, Database Programming & Design8(3): 76–79.
47.
MoriartyT. (1998). Searching for the Right Data Modelling Tool, DM Review8(6): 74–76.
48.
NandhakumarJ., and AvisonD.E. (1999). The Fiction of Methodological Development: A field study of information systems development, Information Technology & People12(2): 176–191.
49.
NelsonA.C., and RottmanJ. (1996). Before and after CASE Adoption, Information & Management31(4): 193–202.
50.
Ovum (1993). Ovum Evaluated: Case Products, Ovum, London, England, January.
51.
PfleggerS.L. (1999). Understanding and Improving Technology Transfer in Software Engineering, Journal of Systems and Software47(2–3): 111–124.
52.
PostG., and KaganA. (2000). OO-CASE Tools: An evaluation of Rose, Information and Software Technology42(6): 383–388.
53.
PostG., KaganA., and KeimR.T. (1998). A Comparative Evaluation of CASE Tools, Journal of Systems and Software44(2): 87–95.
54.
PostG.V., KaganA., and KeimR.T. (1999). A Structural Equation Evaluation of CASE Tools Attributes, Journal of Management Information Systems15(4): 215–234.
55.
PratherB. (1993). Critical Failure Points of CASE Tool Evaluation and Selection, in LeeH.-Y., ReidT.F., and JarzabekS. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computer-Aided Software Engineering: CASE ‘93 (Singapore, 1993); Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 60–63.
56.
ReingruberM., and GregoryW.W. (1994). The Data Modeling Handbook: A best-practice approach to building quality data models, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
57.
RussoN.L., WynekoopJ.L., and WalzD.B. (1995). The Use and Adaptation of System Development Methodologies, in KhosrowpourM. (ed.) Managing Information and Communications in a Changing Global Environment, (Atlanta USA, 1995); Hershey: IDEA Group. 162.
58.
SEI (1995). CASE Environment Project Description, Slide presentation January 1995, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, [www document] http://www.sei.cmu.edu/~case/case_desc.html (accessed 26th October 1998).
59.
SelamatM.H., and RahimM.M. (1996). Evaluation of Computer-aided Software Engineering Tools: Experience from Malaysian organisations, International Journal of Information Management16(4): 299–313.
60.
SennJ.A., and WynekoopJ.L. (1995). The Other Side of CASE Implementation: Best Practices for Success, Information Systems Management12(4): 7–14.
61.
SharmaS., and RaiA. (2000). CASE Deployment in IS Organizations, Communications of the ACM43(1): 80–88.
62.
TaylorH. (2000). Information Systems Development Practice in New Zealand, in S. Mann (ed.) Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications: NACCQ 2000 (Wellington, New Zealand, 2000); Hillcrest: NACCQ. 367–372 [www document] http://www.in-site.co.nz/misc_links/papers/taylor367.pdf (accessed 20th April 2004).
63.
TruexD., BaskervilleR., and TravisJ. (2000). Amethodical Systems Development: The deferred meaning of systems development methods, Accounting, Management & Information Technology10(1): 53–79.
64.
UrwilerR., RamarapuN.K., WilkesR.B., and FrolickM.N. (1995). Computer-aided Software Engineering: The determinants of an effective implementation strategy, Information & Management29(4): 215–225.
65.
WastellD.G. (1996). The Fetish of Technique: Methodology as a social defence, Information Systems Journal6(1): 25–49.
66.
WebsterJ., and WatsonR.T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a literature review, MIS Quarterly26(2), xiii–xxiii.
67.
WieringaR. (1998). A Survey of Structured and Object-oriented Software Specification Methods and Techniques, ACM Computing Surveys30(4): 459–527.
68.
WynekoopJ.L., and RussoN.L. (1995). Systems Development Methodologies: Unanswered Questions, Journal of Information Technology10(2): 65–73.
69.
YourdonE. (1989). Modern Structured Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
