The contribution of CASE tools to improved project management

13.4 The contribution of CASE tools to improved project management

Let us compare two projects of similar nature and magnitude: Project A is carried out by conventional methods, Project B by advanced CASE tools. The following results were obtained after comparison of the planning and implementation phases:

Project A

Project B

Method of development Conventional tools CASE tools Planned resources (man-months)

35 20 Actual resources invested

42 27 Planned completion time (months)

15 9 Actual completion time

Two items quickly attract our attention: 305 (1) The advanced CASE method was much more economical than the con-

Summ

ventional method. (2) The quality of management in both projects was similar, with resources

ar

and schedule estimated at below the required levels.

In general, application of CASE tools is expected to reduce project budgets and development time (“shorter time to market”). However, the contribu- tion made by CASE tools to the quality aspects of project management, namely budget control and timetables, is the focus of our interest. At the moment, it appears that use of real CASE tools does substantially reduce deviations from the implementation budget and planned schedule from the plan, especially because they prevent high error rates and provide for easier and shorter error correction when required.

For project management to be improved still further, project control tools (considered here under the category of classic CASE tools) and improved budget and time estimation methodologies must be developed.

Summary

(1) Explain the contribution of CASE tools to software development.

A major contribution of CASE tools to software development is improvement of the developer’s productivity and shortening of the development period. Even more impressive is the contribution to productivity and quality of software maintenance. Another highly relevant contribution is software reuse, supported by the complete, updated documentation and maximum standardization. Last, but not least impor- tant is the contribution to software quality attained through substantial reduction of errors.

(2) Explain the difference between classic and real CASE tools and provide some examples.

Classic CASE tools are long-established computerized tools that support developers (and maintenance teams) in one of several development phases. Compilers, graph- ical editors and automated testing tools are examples of these tools. Real CASE tools are “new” tools that apply repositories for storage of software development information that can be applied for several development phases. Cross-referencing tools based on repository data, integrated CASE tools and reverse engineering tools are examples of real CASE tools.

(3) List the main contributions of real CASE tools to product quality.

■ Identification of deviations from design requirements. ■

Identification of design inconsistencies. ■

Automated generation of code based on the repository design records, with no

■ Full compliance with design and coding documentation instructions achieved by the automated coding and the repository-based documentation.

13 ■ High quality corrections and changes made during development due to the CAS

repository tools support. ■

Automated generation of a repository of legacy systems by CASE reverse engi-

E neering tools enables efficient development of new generations of the software tool

system with maximal assurance of software quality.

s and their effect

(4) Explain the contribution of CASE tools to the quality of software maintenance.

Application of CASE tools affects quality issues for all maintenance service components: ■

The full and updated documentation provided by CASE repositories assures the consistency of repairs, changes and additions within the existing system and enables thorough examination of applications of the existing system.

on softw ■ The cross-referencing repository tool facilitates planning and prevents a signifi-

cant proportion of design errors. ■

The automated coding carried out by CASE tools eliminates coding errors.

are quality Selected bibliography

1. IEEE (1998) “IEEE Std 1462-1998 – Information Technology – Guidelines for the Evaluation of CASE Tools”, in IEEE Software Engineering Standards Collection, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York. 2. Kendall, K. E. and Kendall, J. E. (1999) Systems Analysis and Design, 4th edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 3. McManus, J. I. (1999) “Software Quality Assurance CASE Tools”, in G. G. Schulmeyer and J. I. McManus (eds), Handbook of Software Quality Assurance, 3rd edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 381–402. 4. Pressman R. S. (2000) Software Engineering – A Practitioner’s Approach, European adaptation by D. Ince, 5th edn, McGraw-Hill International, London. 5. Sommerville, I. (2001) Software Engineering, 6th edn, Addison-Wesley, Harlow, Essex, UK.

Review questions

13.1 Explain in your own words the expected benefits of using CASE tools for software system developers and software maintenance teams.

13.2 “The main component of real CASE tools is the repository.” (1) Define “repository” in your own words.

(2) List the functions a repository fulfills and explain their impact on software development productivity. (3) List the functions a repository serves and explain their impact on software quality.

13.3 Software development and functional improvement maintenance are said to

have much in common. (1) Discuss their similarities regarding quality assurance and application of CASE

Topic

tools. List and explain which CASE tools, if any, can be applied in common.

(2) Discuss the special quality assurance problems typical of functional improve-

for di

ment maintenance and how CASE tools can be applied in their correction. 13.4 The contribution of real CASE tools to the quality of project management is

sc

u ss

debatable.

ion

(1) Describe the quality aspects of project management.

(2) Discuss what contributions real CASE tools can make to the quality of proj- ect management and why.

Topics for discussion

13.1 It has been claimed that “the availability of full and updated documentation pro- vided by an Integrated CASE (I-CASE) system is of higher value for a maintenance team than for a development team.”

(1) Discuss the above statement as it relates to the team’s productivity. (2) Discuss the above statement as it relates to the quality of the work per-

formed by the teams. 13.2 The Shureshure/Ashure Insurance Company has just marked completion of a re-

engineering project that generated a new version of its main legacy software system. The budget for the re-engineered alternative was 30% below the budget estimated for development of a similar but new software system. The re-engi- neered version, which includes a list of additions and changes, was developed by applying a fourth generation lower CASE tool that replaced the third genera- tion language of the legacy system. The project, planned to take six months, was completed one week earlier than scheduled.

The company’s monthly magazine dedicated two pages to a report of the event. In its description of the satisfaction felt from the project, the following statements were made:

“. . . The management expressed their full satisfaction from the project’s budget and their admiration of the team’s punctuality.”

“. . . The leaders of the quality assurance and software maintenance teams declared that the new software version is a real success. It can be main- tained more easily and with fewer failures when compared to the former legacy system.”

“. . . The only staff disappointed with the system were the managers of the Operations and Local Branches Departments. They claimed that the users they represent are highly dissatisfied with the new version.”

(1) Why was the software maintenance team leader satisfied with the system? Try to list his arguments.

(2) Why was the software quality assurance team leader satisfied with the sys-

CAS

tem? Try to list her arguments.