Case Use: Mixed Signals from the Marketplace

ABSTRACT Continuing system development problems are causing organizations to seek methods and tools that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of system development projects. One set of tools that have long promised to alleviate many system development problems has been computer-aided system engineering (CASE) tools. While these tools have been around for nearly two decades, previous research had indicated that organizations were being slow to jump on the CASE tools bandwagon. This study reports on a survey of IS professionals in the United States to compare CASE tool adopters to non-adopters today with CASE tool adopters and non-adopters of a decade ago. The results indicate that while the number of CASE tool adopters has remained relatively stable, the characteristics of those adopters has changed in some important aspects such as the size of the organization and the seniority of the CASE tool users. INTRODUCTION Information systems (IS) may be the real "field of dreams." IS professionals live at the intersection of "what-is" and "what could be." IS is an agent of change--a place where possibility meets reality. With the possible exception of the research and development function, no other unit within an organization spends so much of its time and resources working from a blank slate. This culture of "creativity" naturally yields both "hits" and "misses." The curtain is drawing on the era of run-away IS budgets fueled primarily by market euphoria and competitive fear. As more technologically savvy functional area managers come to the planning table, the shine is dimming on the mystique of the "black box." The maturing of the IS function must include the means for effectively sorting through the promises without fatally puncturing the idealism inherent in its culture (Persse, 2001). Is Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE) a "hit" or a "miss?" Is it just another in a long string of exaggerated broken promises or is it an evolving tool swimming upstream against unrealistic expectations? The verdict is not clear but the evidence suggests a split house, with long-term CASE users fairly entrenched despite a dim future for the prospect of new adoptions (Finlay & Mitchell, 1994). A look at CASE use over time will shed insight on this controversial tool and, hopefully, help IS professionals develop skills in making the distinction between solutions and promises. The underlying concept of CASE is too appealing to let die. The idea of systems that help produce systems is both sensational and sensible. Most companies struggle to bring information systems development projects to fruition on schedule and within budget while still providing all the requested functionality (Jalote, 2000). Unfortunately, while CASE rolled out to great accolades, it has faced criticism early and often. Headlines such as "CASE Bandwagon Loses a Wheel" (Lauchlan, 1992) and "CASE Fights All Talk and No Action Image" (Margolis, 1988) announced its demise with dramatic fanfare almost before it got off the ground. For many, CASE has been just another unfulfilled promise (Glass, 1999). In spite of being nearly stillborn and struggling both technically and financially through its adolescence, CASE is not dead. In fact, some reports suggest that new emphases like ERP and Object Oriented Programming have led to a resurgence of interest in CASE over the last few years (Hayes, 1997; Post & Kagan, 2001). CASE promises to help organizations develop and maintain system solutions much faster and at far less cost than more traditional analysis and design methodologies (Nelson & Rottman, 1996). CASE tools assist IS professionals in the development of information systems by facilitating methodology activities and enforcing methodology rules and requirements. The potential benefits of CASE tool usage are apparent and have been documented (Post, Sambamurthy, & Zmud, 2000). …