\documentclass[12pt,a4paper,twoside]{article}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
\normalsize
\setlength{\textwidth}{150mm}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{4.6mm}
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{4.6mm}
\setlength{\textheight}{38\baselineskip}
\setlength{\topmargin}{4.6mm}
\setlength{\headheight}{0cm}
\setlength{\headsep}{0cm}
\begin{document}
\pagestyle{plain}
\begin{center}
\vspace*{2.5cm}
{\Large Software Development, CASE Tools and 4GLs --}
\vspace{0.1cm}
{\Large A Survey of New Zealand Usage.}
\vspace{0.5cm}
{\large Part 1: 750 New Zealand Organisations}
\vspace{1.2cm}
Dr Stephen G. MacDonell\footnote{{\scriptsize Address correspondence
to: Dr S.G. MacDonell, Research Fellow, Department of Information
Science, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Fax: +64 3 479 8311 Email: stevemac@commerce.otago.ac.nz}}
\vspace{0.05cm}
Department of Information Science
\vspace{0.05cm}
University of Otago
\vspace{0.6cm}
November 1993
\vspace{2cm}
Abstract
\vspace{0.3cm}
\end{center}
\begin{quote}
This paper reports the results of a recent national survey which
considered the use of CASE tools and 4GLs in commercial software
development. Responses from just over 750 organisations show a high
degree of product penetration, along with extensive use of package
solutions. Use of 3GLs in general, and of COBOL in particular, is
still relatively widespread, however. In terms of systems analysis
and design techniques under a CASE/4GL environment, screen and
report definition is the most preferred technique, although both
data flow analysis and data modelling also feature strongly.
\end{quote}
\vspace*{2cm}
\newpage
\subsubsection*{1 Introduction}
In general terms fourth generation languages (4GLs) and computer
aided software engineering (CASE) tools have been in existence for a
decade or more. During this period they have received extensive
attention from academia and industry as well-publicised solutions to
the `software crisis', that is, the increasing backlog of new system
requirements coupled with rising demands for maintenance. Early
local industry perceptions of the benefits of 4GLs were typical of
those reported worldwide---``Application development with fourth
generation languages (4GL) has been shown to be at least 10 times
faster than BASIC or COBOL.'' (as reported in {\em NZ Computer
Interface\/}, April 1984).
The extent to which these products have since been adopted for use
in development, however, is unclear. As recently as 1987 McClure
suggested that just 2\% of potential users were employing CASE
tools. Furthermore, Pressman (1992) has remarked that even though
CASE tools are more important than hardware for attaining greater
levels of quality and productivity, they are still not widely used
within software development. Locally, a 1987 survey found that less
than 15\% of total users were employing a 4GL (Botica, 1987).
A number of reasons may have contributed to this apparently slow
acceptance: one possibility would appear to have been the absence of
clear definitions for the terms `4GL' and `CASE'. These and other
related terms have been used very widely as marketing tools while
the direct meaning of the words, in terms of product functionality,
has remained vague (CIS, 1989). This is clearly reflected in the
findings of a 1987 Australian survey: of 507 respondents, 19.6\%
{\em weren't sure} whether they were using a 4GL or not, due to
problems of definition (Pacific Reporter, 1987).
Another possible cause may have been the expense associated with the
adoption of CASE/4GL tools---Huff (1992) has suggested that many
organisations simply found the move to CASE too costly, resulting in
the cancellation of many CASE-based projects. Maria (1991) has
stated that CASE tools have been slow to gain acceptance because, in
general, the tools have failed to address the requirements for
maintenance of existing systems, in spite of the fact that
maintenance has continually consumed significant amounts of
developer effort, and consequently, development budgets. Conversely,
other reports have suggested that the acceptance of development
tools has been steadily increasing (e.g. see Chen and Norman (1992)
\linebreak or CIS (1989)). In general, however, no empirical data has been
provided to confirm or refute these suggestions.
The main objective of the survey described here, then, was to
ascertain whether this situation of low product adoption has changed
over the past five years. One of its principle aims was therefore to
determine the current levels of 4GL and CASE tool usage in this
country. In a similar vein, the survey was also concerned with
related changes in software development practices. A 1987 survey of
280 organisations (resulting in 120 replies) has provided a baseline
for comparison (McAulay, 1987).
\subsubsection*{2 The Survey}
Development and distribution of the survey was carried out in April
and May of this year. A further four months were then allocated to
the data collection phase of the project. The procedures used during
this period are described in the next subsection, followed by the
presentation and discussion of the survey results. \\
\noindent 2.1 Methodology \\
\noindent The survey instrument was developed with two conflicting
objectives in mind. First, it needed to be comprehensive enough to
ensure that the required data would be provided. Second, it needed
to be relatively short so that potential respondents would not be
discouraged from completing it. A set of (at most) eight sections
were therefore included, considering issues relating to product use,
development approaches, analysis and design methods and system types.
The survey was distributed to two different samples. The main sample
of more than 1000 sites was made up of a cross-section of New
Zealand companies and organisations, details of which were obtained
from a number of sources, including the New Zealand Business Who's
Who, the NZ Post Business Directory and conference attendance lists.
Site selection was performed in an attempt to ensure that
organisations of varying size and function were surveyed. (The
second sample was a much smaller set of software houses. The
responses obtained from this sample will be reported at a later
date.) The distribution of sites in the main sample included
organisations from nineteen different functional classes. For
comparative purposes, Table~\ref{propn} shows the percentage values
for the number of sites in each class against the number of
employees in the same class, as taken from the 1993 New Zealand
Yearbook. Clearly this is only one classification method, and
others, such as those based on contribution to GDP or on annual
turnover, may in fact be more relevant. Accurately obtaining
financial data of this kind over nineteen aggregated classes,
however, is extremely difficult. Therefore the employee-based
approach was adopted as a relatively crude but basically informative
classification method, at least for the purposes of the survey.
\setlength{\textfloatsep}{16pt plus 2pt minus 4pt}
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\small
\begin{tabular}{||l|r|r|r||} \hline
\multicolumn{4}{||c||}{Site Type Classification (Percentages)} \\ \hline
Site type & Employees & Survey sites & Difference \\ \hline \hline
01 Primary Production & 2.5 & 2.3 & -- 0.2 \\ \hline
02 Oil, Gas, Minerals, Electricity & 2.4 & 9.1 & + 6.7 \\ \hline
03 Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals & 1.0 & 2.6 & + 1.6 \\ \hline
04 Manufacturing (Non-food) & 12.0 & 18.9 & + 6.9 \\ \hline
05 Agricultural/Horticultural Products & 3.4 & 3.7 & + 0.3 \\ \hline
06 Retail, Wholesale, Distribution & 21.5 & 12.2 & -- 9.3 \\ \hline
07 Food and Beverage Manufacturing & 2.6 & 4.6 & + 2.0 \\ \hline
08 Hospitality, Tourism & 5.7 & 2.6 & -- 3.1 \\ \hline
09 Transportation, Storage & 5.6 & 6.1 & + 0.5 \\ \hline
10/11 Central and Local Government & 7.8 & 8.2 & + 0.4 \\ \hline
12 Health Care & 8.5 & 1.3 & -- 7.2 \\ \hline
13 Construction, Engineering & 7.6 & 3.5 & -- 4.1 \\ \hline
14/20 Legal and Business Services & 9.2 & 5.1 & -- 4.1 \\ \hline
16 Banking, Finance & 3.7 & 4.3 & + 0.6 \\ \hline
17 Insurance & 1.3 & 5.1 & + 3.8 \\ \hline
18 Communications, Media, Publishing & 4.2 & 4.8 & + 0.6 \\ \hline
19 Automotive Assembly and Sales & 1.3 & 1.4 & + 0.1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Distribution of survey sites across industry classes}
\label{propn}
\end{table}
Some marked differences appear in Table~\ref{propn}, but in general
these are not overly unusual. Classes 06, 12, 13 and 14/20, for
example, show significantly lower percentages of sites when compared
to the percentages of category employees. These classes, however,
represent labour-intensive industries (Retail, Wholesale,
Distribution, Health Care, Construction, Engineering, and Legal and
Business Services), in which the proportion of software development
units to total personnel could be expected to be small. In contrast,
the proportions of sites for classes 02 and 04 are much greater than
the corresponding percentages of employees. Given that this cannot
be attributed to low survey response, this might be taken to suggest
that the number of employees per functional unit (and consequently
per software development unit) is relatively low in these industry
types (Oil, Gas, Minerals, Electricity, and Manufacturing
(Non-food)). Support for the inclusion of a large number of sites
from the Manufacturing class is provided by a recent survey of the
information technology departments of 2000 Australasian
organisations (Philipson, 1993), in which sites from the
manufacturing industry also made up the largest percentage of the
sample (at 23.7\%). Thus the only potentially questionable
difference in proportions occurs for class 02, which included all of
the recently established electricity and gas distribution/retail
authorities, hence the high percentage of sites in comparison to the
number of employees. Over the entire sample, however, the
distribution of site types is approximately proportional to the
employee distribution. This would suggest that the responses of the
selected sample should provide an appropriate pointer to those we
could expect from the entire development industry in this country.
(Results broken down according to industry type will be published in
a subsequent paper.)
The survey was distributed by mail to Information Systems Managers
over a period of two months. Each approach included a cover letter,
explaining the motivation for the study, a copy of the survey and a
pre-addressed reply-paid envelope. Every site that had not replied
within six weeks of posting was contacted again in the same manner,
but with a slightly different cover letter.
The response to the survey was extremely satisfying and quite
unexpected. Of the original sample of 1068 sites 95 were found to be
repeats---that is, more than one letter was sent to the same
organisation, usually under a different name. A further 38 sites
were found to be invalid---they were no longer trading, or declined
to complete the survey. This left an actual sample of 935 sites. Of
these, 753 usable replies were received. This represents a response
rate of just over 80\%. It is to be hoped that such a large number
of responses will help to ensure that the responses are
representative of the development population. \\
\noindent 2.2 Results \\
\noindent The first response section of the survey included spaces
for the respondent's name, title, address and so on. Of some
interest here were the job titles of the respondents. The twelve
most frequently used titles are shown in Table~\ref{jobs}.
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||l|r||} \hline
\multicolumn{2}{||c||}{Respondent's Job Title} \\ \hline
Title & Frequency \\ \hline \hline
IS Manager & 109 \\ \hline
MIS Manager & 51 \\ \hline
(Unspecified) & 49 \\ \hline
Systems Manager & 32 \\ \hline
DP Manager & 30 \\ \hline
Company Secretary & 25 \\ \hline
Financial Controller & 22 \\ \hline
General Manager & 21 \\ \hline
IT Manager & 18 \\ \hline
Consultant & 15 \\ \hline
Systems Development Manager & 14 \\ \hline
Computer Manager & 13 \\ \hline
Computer Services Manager & 12 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Frequency of respondent job titles}
\label{jobs}
\end{table}
The frequencies shown in Table~\ref{jobs} account for just over 400
of the 753 replies. Responsibility for software development and use
would appear to be well-defined, with jobs specific to computers or
information systems making up nine of the top twelve job classes.
Moreover, 449 of the responses were from managers, illustrating the
relative importance that is now afforded to positions concerned with
the control of software systems.
The first two software-related questions in the survey were
concerned with system usage and overall system implementation
strategies. The results of these questions are shown in
Tables~\ref{useis},~\ref{strat}~and~\ref{stratpn}.
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||l|r|r||} \hline
\multicolumn{3}{||c||}{Use of Information Systems} \\ \hline
& Yes & No \\ \hline \hline
Use information systems? & 736 & 17 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Use of computer-based information systems}
\label{useis}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||l|r|r||} \hline
\multicolumn{3}{||c||}{System Implementation Strategies} \\ \hline
& Yes & No \\ \hline \hline
Perform in-house development? & 441 & 280 \\ \hline
Purchase packages off-the-shelf? & 626 & 88 \\ \hline
Systems supplied by software house? & 441 & 273 \\ \hline
Use other implementation approaches? & 59 & 655 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Methods of system implementation}
\label{strat}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||l|r|r|r|r|r|r||} \hline
\multicolumn{7}{||c||}{System Implementation Strategy Proportions} \\ \hline
& 1-20\% & 21-40\% & 41-60\% &
61-80\% & 81-100\% & Average \\ \hline
& Cases: & Cases: & Cases: &
Cases: & Cases: & \\ \hline \hline
In-house development & 176 & 60 & 50 &
57 & 98 & 28\% \\ \hline
Packages off-the-shelf & 222 & 99 & 81 &
95 & 129 & 42\% \\ \hline
Software house & 197 & 64 & 45 &
61 & 74 & 26\% \\ \hline
Other & 14 & 8 & 6 &
12 & 19 & 5\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Proportions of systems implemented under various strategies}
\label{stratpn}
\end{table}
When compared to past reports, certain trends can be identified from
the results presented in Tables~\ref{strat}~and~\ref{stratpn}.
McAulay (1987) found that of 120 New Zealand respondents, the
average proportions of systems implemented under the approaches
considered in Tables~\ref{strat}~and~\ref{stratpn} were: 56\% of
systems were developed in-house, 27\% were implemented from
pre-packaged solutions, and 8\% were developed by software houses.
Based on further questions, McAulay stated that the dominance of
in-house development was not surprising, but that changes were
anticipated. More than 50\% of her respondents expected package use
to increase relative to other methods, whereas only 36\% expected
in-house development to increase. Costs of in-house development and
a lack of time were cited as the main reasons for moving away from
in-house development to packaged solutions. Of the 120 respondents,
13\% felt that the proportion of package use would decrease, due
mainly to the need for integrated systems and for systems that
satisfied unusual user requirements. McAulay (1987) remarked,
however, that the first of these two reasons was likely to become
less prominent given the trend towards integration-oriented packages.
By 1989 it was reported that most New Zealand companies would look
for a package solution to fulfil application requirements before
they would consider in-house development (CIS, 1989). This trend
appears to have continued, given the results of the current survey.
When compared with McAulay's results (1987), it can be seen that
in-house development has fallen from 56\% to 28\% on average, and
that both package use and software house development have increased
markedly, from 27\% and 8\% to 42\% and 26\% respectively. These
results confirm the expectations of McAulay's respondents with
respect to changes in development strategies.
The remainder of the survey was concerned with in-house development
so only those respondents that undertook their own development (a
total of 456 sites) continued answering. The next question in the
survey asked respondents who did not use CASE tools or 4GLs to
specify the development languages that they did use. This generated
valid responses from 187 sites. Just under half of this set of
respondents (84) said they used one language, 56 respondents said
that two languages were employed, 22 sites said they utilised three
development languages, 13 cited use of four languages and 12 said
that five or more languages were used for software development. The
actual languages used are shown in Table~\ref{olang}.
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\small
\begin{tabular}{||l|r||l|r||} \hline
\multicolumn{4}{||c||}{Development Languages Used} \\ \hline
Language Used: & Cases: & Language Used: & Cases: \\ \hline \hline
COBOL & 62 & SQL & 7 \\ \hline
RPG & 48 & FORTRAN & 6 \\ \hline
DBASE & 32 & LOTUS 123 & 6 \\ \hline
BASIC & 21 & UNIX SCRIPTS & 5 \\ \hline
C++ & 18 & PL/1 & 4 \\ \hline
C & 16 & ASSEMBLER & 3 \\ \hline
PICK TOOLS & 14 & CL & 3 \\ \hline
PARADOX & 11 & DATAFLEX & 3 \\ \hline
CLIPPER & 10 & QUEO & 3 \\ \hline
FOXPRO & 10 & Twelve different languages & 2 \\ \hline
PASCAL & 9 & Forty-three different languages & 1 \\ \hline
MS ACCESS & 8 & & \\ \hline
(Unspecified) & 8 & Distinct languages specified & 76 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Development languages used by non-CASE/4GL users}
\label{olang}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{olang} illustrates that, at those sites not using CASE
tools or 4GLs, COBOL continues to be the most widely used
development language. Even considering that CASE tool/4GL users were
excluded from this question, the results provide some support for
Pressman's assertion (1992) that languages like COBOL and, to a
lesser extent, FORTRAN, now nearly thirty years old, are still
widely used. The results also illustrate a continuation of the trend
reported by Botica (1987) for language use in this country. He cited
a 1984 study in which 26\% of respondents said that COBOL was used
and 23\% said that they used BASIC. This pattern was echoed in a
1987 survey of New Zealand developers (unfortunately, no sample size
was given): COBOL 26.6\%, BASIC 18.9\%, Others 13.8\%, RPG 13.1\%,
Fortran 6. 4\%, Assembler 4. 8\%, PL/1 2.6\%. All of these languages
feature strongly, in almost the same order of usage, in the
responses to the current survey.
The final two sections of the survey were addressed only to those
sites that employed CASE tools and/or 4GLs. It was originally
intended that respondents would firstly specify the CASE tools
they were using and then the 4GLs they were using. After an
examination of both trade and academic literature, however, it was
decided that the two product classes should in fact be left in one
category, for the following reasons:
\begin{itemize}
\item As suggested in the introduction to this paper, the terms
`CASE tool' and `4GL' have been defined in very vague terms. It was
considered that this would make any objective and consistent
categorisation of products unlikely. \enlargethispage{0.5\baselineskip}
\item When first introduced, many tools were oriented towards
assisting specific development tasks---some were related only to
front-end activities, that is, analysis and design tasks (Burkhard
and Jenster, 1989; CIS, 1989). In contrast, the focus of other tools
was on the back-end of development, to assist personnel in the
coding and testing phases (Norman and Chen, 1992). In recent years,
however, increased product integration has meant that, in many
cases, diverse products have been pooled to create a single
development environment. Moreover, several products now address the
entire development life cycle. This could be taken as confirmation
of the assertion that 4GLs would be subsumed by CASE (Kolodziej,
1988; Stamps, 1989). It could equally suggest, however, that 4GL-type
products have simply been provided with more effective front-end
interfaces. Irrespective of these arguments, consistent
classification of products given these circumstances was again
thought to be unlikely.
\end{itemize}
Thus the remainder of the survey was completed by respondents whose
organisation used a CASE tool and/or a 4GL---a set of 265 sites.
This represents approximately 35\% of the original respondent total
(753 replies) and 60\% of those who said they performed in-house
development. It is difficult to compare these figures against those
of previous surveys and reports as, in general, it is not clear
whether the proportions cited in these reports referred to general
organisations or only to those sites that performed in-house
development. For illustrative purposes, however, some of the results
are included here. King (1992) reported the results of two UK
industry surveys, with both illustrating the failure of CASE to gain
widespread industry acceptance. One survey of 250 UK companies found
that 41\% had no plan to use CASE, 27\% were planning to use it,
25\% were using it and 7\% had used and rejected it. Similarly, a
1987 report from Australia revealed that, based on the responses of
more than 500 sites, fewer than one in five Australian installations
were using 4GLs, and only 4.6\% intended to install a 4GL in the
following year (Pacific Reporter, 1987). In terms of usage trends in
this country, McAulay (1987) found that 38\% of 120 New Zealand
companies were using a 4GL of some sort. Botica (1987) reported a
similar result---he found that fourth generation tools were being
used by 31.3\% of sites, based on an independent survey of an
unspecified number of installations. Another 5\% were considering
using them, and 63.7\% had no intention of using them.
Returning to the results of the current survey, more than 150 of the
265 CASE tool/4GL users said that they employed one CASE/4GL
product, 57 sites cited use of two products, 32 respondents said
that three products were used, seventeen organisations stated that
they used four tools and five sites said that five or more CASE/4GL
products were being utilised. The breakdown of usage over the
various products is shown in Table~\ref{case4gl}. \pagebreak
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\fontsize{12pt}{13pt}\selectfont
\begin{tabular}{||l|r||l|r||} \hline
\multicolumn{4}{||c||}{CASE Tools/4GLs Used} \\ \hline
Product Used: & Cases: & Product Used: & Cases: \\ \hline
\hline
POWERHOUSE & 33 & SYSTEM ARCHITECT & 5 \\ \hline
ORACLE & 28 & AREV & 4 \\ \hline
LINC & 23 & ASSET & 4 \\ \hline
ADW & 21 & CUE-BIC & 4 \\ \hline
IEW & 17 & DEFT & 4 \\ \hline
ORACLE CASE & 17 & EXCELERATOR & 4 \\ \hline
PARADOX & 17 & IE:ADVANTAGE & 4 \\ \hline
(Unspecified) & 17 & SAS & 4 \\ \hline
FOXPRO & 16 & SUPERBASE & 4 \\ \hline
INFORMIX & 15 & ASAP & 3 \\ \hline
INGRES & 12 & CLARION & 3 \\ \hline
MS ACCESS & 10 & CQCS & 3 \\ \hline
LDA & 8 & EASYCASE & 3 \\ \hline
PROGRESS & 8 & GUPTA SQL & 3 \\ \hline
SYNON & 8 & IEF & 3 \\ \hline
DATAFLEX & 7 & NATURAL CONSTRUCT & 3 \\ \hline
NATURAL & 7 & PICK TOOLS & 3 \\ \hline
PACE & 7 & RTMAS & 3 \\ \hline
SPEED & 7 & Twenty-two different CASE tools/4GLs &
2 \\ \hline
PRIME INFORMATION & 6 & Forty-nine different CASE tools/4GLs &
1 \\ \hline
ALL & 5 & & \\ \hline
LBMS & 5 & & \\ \hline
RALLY & 5 & Distinct CASE tools/4GLs specified &
111 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{CASE tools and 4GLs used for in-house software development}
\label{case4gl}
\end{table}
The results presented in Table~\ref{case4gl} illustrate the
diversity of the CASE tool/4GL market, with more than 100 different
development products cited as currently in use. The responses are
dominated, however, by Oracle product users (45 sites),
KnowledgeWare product users (ADW and IEW -- 38 sites) and PowerHouse
users (33 sites).
The next question in the survey asked respondents to indicate
whether they used their CASE tool and/or 4GL products during more
than one phase of development. The responses to this question are
shown in Table~\ref{phase}.
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\small
\begin{tabular}{||l|r|r|r||} \hline
\multicolumn{4}{||c||}{CASE Tool/4GL Use During Phases} \\ \hline
& Yes & No & Blank \\ \hline \hline
Feasibility study? & 63 & 180 & 19 \\ \hline
Analysis? & 134 & 115 & 13 \\ \hline
Design? & 192 & 63 & 7 \\ \hline
Coding? & 220 & 33 & 9 \\ \hline
Unit testing? & 175 & 77 & 10 \\ \hline
Implementation? & 176 & 80 & 6 \\ \hline
System testing? & 165 & 82 & 15 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Development phases during which CASE tools/4GLs are used}
\label{phase}
\end{table}
It can be seen from Table~\ref{phase} that the tools are used most
frequently for assistance with coding---more than 80\% of the CASE
tool/4GL users stated that one or more products were utilised in
this phase of development. Five of the remaining six phases also
experienced strong CASE tool/4GL use, with between 50\% and 72\% of
sites using the tools at those times. Only the feasibility study
showed an overall absence of tool use, with just 23\% of product
users stating that CASE tool/4GL support was employed for the
relevant tasks. Although this could be interpreted as a reflection
of a lack of product support for the feasibility study, it may
simply be evidence of the assertion that support is generally
unnecessary at this time, as the importance of this stage is
relatively low (CIS, 1989).
The final product-related question in the survey was concerned with
development organisations' analysis and design methods. The
popularity of structured analysis and design techniques is widely
acknowledged, as is the general expectation that CASE support for
these techniques leads to increased product quality (CIS, 1989; Tse
and Pong, 1989; Vessey {\em et al\/}., 1992). Moreover, 4GLs are
notably strong in their support for screen and report definition,
often as part of a prototyping methodology (Keuffel, 1991; Jones,
1988). Given this type of support, widespread use of these methods
was expected. The first part of the question therefore addressed the
methods that were supported by the tools, and the second part
considered actual use of the methods (irrespective of tool support).
The associated responses are shown in
Tables~\ref{andes1}~and~\ref{andes2}.
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\small
\begin{tabular}{||l|r|r|r||} \hline
\multicolumn{4}{||c||}{Analysis and Design Methods With Tool Support} \\ \hline
& Yes & No & Blank \\ \hline \hline
Data models? & 127 & 103 & 26 \\ \hline
Data flow diagrams? & 103 & 124 & 29 \\ \hline
Database operation definition? & 115 & 99 & 42 \\ \hline
Functional decomposition? & 114 & 102 & 40 \\ \hline
Screen/Report definition? & 226 & 20 & 10 \\ \hline
Other? & 26 & 230 & 0 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Analysis and design methods supported by the CASE
tools/4GLs used}
\label{andes1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\small
\begin{tabular}{||l|r|r|r||} \hline
\multicolumn{4}{||c||}{Analysis and Design Methods Used} \\ \hline
& Yes & No & Blank \\ \hline \hline
Data models? & 132 & 76 & 48 \\ \hline
Data flow diagrams? & 106 & 102 & 48 \\ \hline
Database operation definition? & 100 & 93 & 63 \\ \hline
Functional decomposition? & 105 & 97 & 54 \\ \hline
Screen/Report definition? & 207 & 33 & 16 \\ \hline
Other? & 26 & 230 & 0 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Analysis and design methods used in development}
\label{andes2}
\end{table}
McAulay (1987) found that 47\% of the 120 respondents to her survey
did not use any structured analysis technique---data flow methods
were employed by 25\% of the sites, while data analysis techniques
were in use in just 21\% of the responding companies. The results
presented in Tables~\ref{andes1}~and~\ref{andes2} show that the use
of data analysis procedures has increased markedly in the
intervening six years. Even if it is assumed that none of the
non-CASE/4GL sites use data modelling, the ratio of developers using
data analysis has still increased by 9\% to 30\%. In contrast, the
use of data flow diagrams (DFDs) appears to have remained stable at
around 25\% (under the worst case scenario). These results would
appear to provide industry support for the assertions that both data
models and data flow diagrams are used extensively in development
(Tate {\em et al\/}., 1992; Gray {\em et al\/}., 1991). Clearly the
most widely employed method, however, is screen and report
definition. Nearly 80\% of the CASE tool/4GL users said that this
technique was used as part of their development process.
The last pair of questions in the survey were rather more
exploratory in nature, in that they addressed the number and type of
systems produced using the organisations' CASE tools and 4GLs over
the last three years. The results of these questions are shown in
Tables~\ref{num}~and~\ref{type}.
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\small
\begin{tabular}{||l|r||l|r||} \hline
\multicolumn{4}{||c||}{Number of New Systems Completed} \\ \hline
Number of systems: & Cases: & Number of systems: & Cases: \\ \hline \hline
None & 15 & Eight & 4 \\ \hline
One & 33 & Nine & 2 \\ \hline
Two & 37 & Ten & 15 \\ \hline
Three & 41 & 11-15 & 12 \\ \hline
Four & 32 & 16-20 & 2 \\ \hline
Five & 23 & 21-40 & 0 \\ \hline
Six & 20 & 41-60 & 3 \\ \hline
Seven & 6 & & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Number of new systems completed with CASE tools/4GLs in
last 3 years}
\label{num}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{center}
\small
\begin{tabular}{||l|r||} \hline
\multicolumn{2}{||c||}{Types of Systems Developed} \\ \hline
Type: & Cases: \\ \hline \hline
Interactive transaction processing & 112 \\ \hline
Interactive reporting & 88 \\ \hline
Real time & 71 \\ \hline
Batch reporting & 33 \\ \hline
Interactive & 23 \\ \hline
All types & 19 \\ \hline
Batch & 10 \\ \hline
Batch transaction processing & 9 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Types of systems developed using CASE tools and 4GLs}
\label{type}
\end{table}
\subsubsection*{3 Conclusions}
If it is reasonable to conclude that 750 responses constitute an
adequate sample then the results just presented provide a relevant
and useful insight into software development in this country. These
findings have implications not only for those directly involved in
software development but also for those who teach it.
In terms of system implementation methods, the last five years have
seen a significant increase in the amount of package use when
compared to other methods. Not only is the number of sites using
packages for system implementation very high, at 85\% of the
respondents, but packages are now also used to implement the
greatest proportion of systems. There may be several reasons for
this situation---probably the greatest contributors are the
increasing availability of high-quality packages and the high costs
of in-house development. These findings also suggest that, along
with traditional training in software development, a reasonably
large component of package-based education might be equally
appropriate in preparing students for the information systems
workplace.
A large number of sites undertaking in-house development continue to
use tools and languages developed prior to the CASE tool/4GL `era',
with 76 such languages being specified by 187 respondents. The
strong use of COBOL and RPG may indicate that organisations are
still making extensive use of some older applications and that the
long-term investment in these systems continues to create a
cost-based reluctance to migrate crucial and/or highly complicated
systems to a new environment. Moreover, given that junior
development staff are often assigned to maintenance tasks it would
appear that teaching at least some COBOL remains a relatively
sensible education strategy.
Just over 60\% of the survey respondents who said they performed
in-house development also stated that they used at least one CASE
tool or 4GL, a figure much higher than expected given the slow
initial acceptance of these products. This result indicates a
significant shift towards the use of these products when compared to
the situation just six years ago. Given that the proportion of
in-house development has also decreased in this time, it could be
concluded that these advanced tools have been purchased for the
development of strategic systems, while the concurrent development
of less important operational systems has continued either under a
3GL-type environment or through the use of package solutions.
The breakdown of CASE tool/4GL products in use highlights the
diversity of the development tool market, with more than 100
products mentioned. The listing also illustrates the problem of
product classification (as discussed earlier in the paper)---of the
41 CASE tool/4GL products in use at more than two sites, 17 of these
also appeared in the non-CASE tool/4GL product list.
Of the development phases considered in the survey, tool support was
used most frequently to assist coding tasks. This is almost
certainly a result of the large number of programming aid tools
available and in use relative to the number of front-end or full
life cycle tools. The solid support for and use of various analysis
and design methods provided no real surprises. A few respondents
stated that they used a technique that was not supported, and {\em
vice versa}, but in general those methods with tool support were
widely utilised. These results also provide reasonably strong
evidence of the continued use of structured analysis and design
techniques, with data analysis and modelling being the most popular
of these approaches. This represents something of a turnaround to
the situation six years ago when data flow techniques were more
widely used. In terms of development personnel education and
training, these results suggest that equal attention should be given
towards data and process analysis techniques, along with a
consideration of screen and report prototyping methods.
In summary it can be concluded that the adoption of CASE tools and
4GLs has increased significantly over the last five years, so much
so that these products now appear to be an integral component of the
suite of tools used by organisations involved in software
development. Given the tremendously high degree of response to the
survey we intend to make it a regular event, so that trends can be
identified quickly and accurately. Such an approach should enable
all those involved---vendors, developers, managers and
educators---with effective and up-to-date indications of industry
product requirements.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgements}
\noindent The author is grateful for the support provided by the
Information Science department at the University of Otago.
\subsubsection*{References}
\noindent Botica, A., ``Number Eight Style is Strength'', {\em
Computerworld New Zealand\/}, 27 July 1987, pp. 21-31. \\
\noindent Burk\-hard, D.L. and Jen\-ster, P.V., ``Ap\-pli\-ca\-tions
of Com\-pu\-ter-Ai\-ded Soft\-ware En\-gi\-nee\-ring Tools: Sur\-vey
of Cur\-rent and Pro\-spec\-tive Us\-ers'', {\em ACM SIG\-BDP Da\-ta
Base\/}, Fall 1989, pp. 28-37.\\
\noindent Chen, M. and Norman, R.J., ``A Framework for Integrated
CASE'', {\em IEEE Software\/}, March 1992, pp. 18-22.\\
\noindent CIS, {\em CASE Project - Report on Computer Aided Software
Engineering in New Zealand\/}. Case Study Report, Center for
Information Science, University of Auckland, May 1989.\\
\noindent Gray, R.H.M., Carey, B.N., McGlynn, N.A. and Pengelly, A.
D., ``Design Metrics for Database Systems'', {\em BT Technology
Journal\/} 9 (4), October 1991, pp. 69-79.\\
\noindent Huff, C.C., ``Elements of a Realistic CASE Tool Adoption
Budget'', {\em Communications of the ACM\/} 35 (4), April 1992, pp.
45-54. \\
\noindent Jones, R., ``A Quantum Leap in Languages: Major Gains in
Using 4GLs'', {\em Computerworld New Zealand\/}, 31 October 1988,
pp. 18-19.\\
\noindent Keuffel, W., ``Trans\-for\-ma\-tion Stra\-te\-gies'', {\em
Com\-pu\-ter Lan\-guage (USA)\/}, Oc\-to\-ber 1991, pp. 35-42.\\
\noindent King, S.F., ``Making CASE Work''. Unpublished Research
Proposal, Advanced Technology Centre, University of Warwick,
Coventry, April 1992.\\
\noindent Kolodziej, S., ``Fighting the 4GL Identity Crisis'', {\em
Computerworld New Zealand\/}, 14 November 1988, pp. 32-34. \\
\noindent Maria, A., ``CASE Technology: Today's Reality'', {\em
Journal of Systems Management\/}, February 1991, pp. 18, 26.\\
\noindent McAulay, K., ``Information Systems Development and the
Changing Role of MIS in the Organisation'', {\em Proceedings, 1st
New Zealand MIS Management Conference\/}, Wellington/Auckland, March
1987, pp. S1.1-S1.16. \\
\noindent Norman, R.J. and Chen, M., ``Working Together to Integrate
CASE (Guest Editors' Introduction)'', {\em IEEE Software\/}, March
1992, pp. 13-16.\\
\noindent Pacific Reporter, ``4GL Sales Hype Baf\-fles Aus\-sie Users'',
{\em Computer\-world New Zealand\/}, 1 June 1987, p. 6. \\
\noindent Philipson, G. (ed.), {\em MIS 2000\/}. Strategic Publishing
Group, Sydney, 1993. \\
\noindent Pressman, R.S., {\em Software Engineering: A
Practitioner's Approach\/}. McGraw-Hill (3rd ed.), New York, 1992. \\
\noindent Stamps, D., ``CASE vs. 4GLs'', {\em Datamation\/}, 15
August 1989, pp. 29-32.\\
\noindent Tate, G., Verner, J. and Jeffery, R., ``CASE: A Testbed
for Modeling, Measurement and Management'', {\em Communications of
the ACM\/} 35 (4), April 1992, pp. 65-72.\\
\noindent Tse, T.H. and Pong, L., ``Towards a Formal Foundation for
DeMarco Data Flow Diagrams'', {\em The Computer Journal\/} 32 (1),
1989, pp. 1-11.\\
\noindent Vessey, I., Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Tractinsky, N.,
``Evaluation of Vendor Products: CASE Tools as Methodology
Companions'', {\em Communications of the ACM\/} 35 (4), April 1992,
pp. 90-105.
\end{document}
