This paper reports the results of a controlled experiment undertaken
to investigate whether the methodology support offered by a CASE
tool does have an impact on the tool�s acceptance and actual use
by individuals. Subjects used the process modelling tool SPEARMINT
to complete a partial process model and remove all inconsistencies.
Half the subjects used a variant of SPEARMINT that corrected consistency
violations automatically and silently, whilst the other half used
a variant of SPEARMINT that told them about inconsistencies both
immediately and persistently but without automatic correction. Measurement
of acceptance and prediction of actual use was based on the technology
acceptance model, supplemented by beliefs about consistency rules.
The impact of form of automated consistency assurance applied for
hierarchical consistency rules was found to be significant at the
0.05 level with a type I error of 0.027, explaining 71.6% of the
variance in CASE tool acceptance. However, intention to use and thus
predicted use was of the same size for both variants of SPEARMINT,
whereas perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use were affected
contrarily. Internal validity of the findings was threatened by validity
and reliability issues related to beliefs about consistency rules.
Here, further research is needed to develop valid constructs and
reliable scales. Following the experiment, a small survey among experienced
users of SPEARMINT found that different forms of automated consistency
assurance were preferred depending on individual, consistency rule,
and task characteristics. Based on these findings, it is recommended
that vendors should provide CASE tools with adaptable methodology
support, which allow their users to fit automated consistency assurance
to the task at hand.
%0 Journal Article
%1 Zett05
%A Zettel, J.
%D 2005
%J Empirical Software Engineering
%K development management tool
%P 367-394
%T Methodology Support in CASE Tools and Its Impact on Individual Acceptance
and Use: A Controlled Experiment
%V 10
%X This paper reports the results of a controlled experiment undertaken
to investigate whether the methodology support offered by a CASE
tool does have an impact on the tool�s acceptance and actual use
by individuals. Subjects used the process modelling tool SPEARMINT
to complete a partial process model and remove all inconsistencies.
Half the subjects used a variant of SPEARMINT that corrected consistency
violations automatically and silently, whilst the other half used
a variant of SPEARMINT that told them about inconsistencies both
immediately and persistently but without automatic correction. Measurement
of acceptance and prediction of actual use was based on the technology
acceptance model, supplemented by beliefs about consistency rules.
The impact of form of automated consistency assurance applied for
hierarchical consistency rules was found to be significant at the
0.05 level with a type I error of 0.027, explaining 71.6% of the
variance in CASE tool acceptance. However, intention to use and thus
predicted use was of the same size for both variants of SPEARMINT,
whereas perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use were affected
contrarily. Internal validity of the findings was threatened by validity
and reliability issues related to beliefs about consistency rules.
Here, further research is needed to develop valid constructs and
reliable scales. Following the experiment, a small survey among experienced
users of SPEARMINT found that different forms of automated consistency
assurance were preferred depending on individual, consistency rule,
and task characteristics. Based on these findings, it is recommended
that vendors should provide CASE tools with adaptable methodology
support, which allow their users to fit automated consistency assurance
to the task at hand.
@article{Zett05,
abstract = {This paper reports the results of a controlled experiment undertaken
to investigate whether the methodology support offered by a CASE
tool does have an impact on the tool�s acceptance and actual use
by individuals. Subjects used the process modelling tool SPEARMINT
to complete a partial process model and remove all inconsistencies.
Half the subjects used a variant of SPEARMINT that corrected consistency
violations automatically and silently, whilst the other half used
a variant of SPEARMINT that told them about inconsistencies both
immediately and persistently but without automatic correction. Measurement
of acceptance and prediction of actual use was based on the technology
acceptance model, supplemented by beliefs about consistency rules.
The impact of form of automated consistency assurance applied for
hierarchical consistency rules was found to be significant at the
0.05 level with a type I error of 0.027, explaining 71.6% of the
variance in CASE tool acceptance. However, intention to use and thus
predicted use was of the same size for both variants of SPEARMINT,
whereas perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use were affected
contrarily. Internal validity of the findings was threatened by validity
and reliability issues related to beliefs about consistency rules.
Here, further research is needed to develop valid constructs and
reliable scales. Following the experiment, a small survey among experienced
users of SPEARMINT found that different forms of automated consistency
assurance were preferred depending on individual, consistency rule,
and task characteristics. Based on these findings, it is recommended
that vendors should provide CASE tools with adaptable methodology
support, which allow their users to fit automated consistency assurance
to the task at hand.},
added-at = {2007-11-01T10:10:38.000+0100},
author = {Zettel, J.},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2fd477038d146b1942fe127cb7d062870/carsten},
file = {Zett05.pdf:Zett05.pdf:PDF},
interhash = {e46b0a778cb455077df3c650fa7e1908},
intrahash = {fd477038d146b1942fe127cb7d062870},
journal = {Empirical Software Engineering},
keywords = {development management tool},
owner = {ritterskamp},
pages = {367-394},
timestamp = {2007-11-01T10:16:55.000+0100},
title = {Methodology Support in CASE Tools and Its Impact on Individual Acceptance
and Use: A Controlled Experiment},
volume = 10,
year = 2005
}