Systems analysts performance using CASE versus manual methods

Abstract

A laboratory experiment was conducted to determine if systems analysts who use computer-aided software engineering (CASE) tools perform work of higher quality than those who do not use CASE. A group of subjects used a CASE tool to prepare data-flow diagrams and data dictionary entries to represent a system. A second group used traditional pencil-and-paper methods. The outputs of the two groups were compared using three attributes of quality, namely correctness, completeness, and communicability. Correctness is the only attribute of quality in which a significant difference between the two groups of subjects was detected, the CASE tool users being more correct. This result is attributed to the nature of CASE tools. The lack of association between the use of a CASE tool and completeness and communicability has led to the conclusion that the CASE tool does not lead the user to represent the problem more accurately nor does it help the user to understand the problem better. Developing complete and easily understood data flow diagrams and data dictionaries are perhaps quality attributes of the systems analysts themselves, not of the tool they use.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>