Ibragimova, Bashorat

Jones, Mary

English

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)AMCIS 2003 Proceedings Americas Conference on Information Systems(AMCIS)December 2003IS Development Project Tools, Methodologies, andLanguages Revisited: An Exploratory AssessmentMary JonesUniversity of North TexasBashorat IbragimovaUniversity of North TexasFollow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2003This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been acceptedfor inclusion in AMCIS 2003 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contactelibrary@aisnet.org.Recommended CitationJones, Mary and Ibragimova, Bashorat, "IS Development Project Tools, Methodologies, and Languages Revisited: An ExploratoryAssessment" (2003). AMCIS 2003 Proceedings. 166.http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2003/1662003 — Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems 1333IS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TOOLS, METHODOLOGIES,AND LANGUAGES REVISITED:  AN EXPLORATORYASSESSMENTMary C. JonesUniversity of North Texasjonesm@unt.eduBashorat IbragimovaUniversity of North TexasibragimB@unt.eduAbstractThis study examines information systems (IS) project developers and analysts’ usage and familiarity with ISmethodologies, development tools, and languages. It is research-in-progress that outlines the background forthe study, presents the basis for inclusion of various methodologies, tools, and languages in the study, anddescribes the way in which data will be collected. The latter includes a description of the sampling frame anda pilot study to refine the survey instrument.Keywords:  Development tools, programming languages, development methodologiesIntroductionBecause of today’s rapidly changing business environment and the continually evolving nature of information technology,corporate information systems (IS) must be completed more quickly, more efficiently, and at a lower cost than ever before(Willcocks and Sykes, 2000). Electronic marketplaces and the increasingly integrated nature of information systems are placingincreased pressure on IS staff to make IS development projects more flexible, more cost effective, and more standardized acrossapplications (Zheng, et al., 2000). Choosing the right IS development tools are becoming increasingly more difficult because ofthe growing number from which to choose, and firms often find themselves overwhelmed by all the options (Hoffer, et al., 2001).As a result, IS development is becoming increasingly less standardized, leading to different levels of system quality and cost(McNurlin and Sprague, 1998; Yourdon, 2000). Because of the substantial investment firms make in IS technology, they wantto make choices about IS development that will be as effective in three to five years as they are now (Dewan, et al., 1998; Weiss,2001). Identifying practices of other organizations is one way firms can ensure that they have a project application developmentenvironment that enables them to compete effectively (O’Dell and Grayson, 1998). The primary objective of this study is toexamine which development methodologies, tools, and languages are the most widely used in IS development projects. Oneresearch question of the overall study is what are the trends in usage of IS development tools, methodologies, and languages.Another is what are the  implications of the trends in these artifacts for IS managers. For example, this study identifies projectedtrends in language usage for the next five years. This has implications for IS managers in terms of training programs and skill setsrequired of existing employees and new hires. It also has implications for planning of future projects. BackgroundManaging the processes and resources of an IS development project requires rigor and structure (Karon, 1996). Developers haveused a variety of development methodologies, tools, and languages to help govern these projects.  The traditional waterfall or life-cycle methodologies break the total system development project into a series of phases that are logically and sequentially tiedtogether However, many firms have found that the traditional waterfall methods (e.g., Systems Development Life Cycle or SDLC)do not allow for the rapid, low cost development required today (Heichler and Cafasso, 1995; Keen, 1998; Wallace, 1999; Hoffer,et al., 2001). This has led them to search for ways to enhance the productivity of IS development projects, and many have adoptednewer methodologies that retain the principles of the traditional methodologies, while increasing productivity (Karon, 1996). Forexample, Rapid Application Development (RAD) dramatically reduces the time and cost associated with development byIT Project Management1334 2003 — Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systemscompressing the steps of the traditional waterfall methods (King, 1996; Martin, 1991; Malcolm, 2002). Other methods, such asJoint Application Development (JAD) and Rapid Prototyping, allow firms to retain waterfall methods, yet increase the efficiencyof one or more steps of those traditional methods (Matthews, 1995; Cooprider & Henderson, 1992). Development tools and languages have also evolved to improve productivity such as visual development suites, object orienteddesign tools, and web-based development tools  (March, et al., 2000; Orenstein, 1999; Wieringa, 1998). For example, Visual Basic(VB) became one of the most widely used development tools/languages in the 1990’s, and as a result many applications todayare VB based (Orenstein, 1999). Many developers are currently making the transition to VB.Net, as Microsoft phases out thepopular VB 6.0 (Hayes, 2002; Krill, 2003). Object oriented design is used to facilitate a different approach to data and processmanagement (Hayes, 1996; Lattanzi & Henry, 1998). C++ is a language that has risen in popularity for object oriented design(Karges, 2002), and Java has evolved in response to the call for open systems and portable applications to increase developmentproductivity (Montalbano, 2002; Morejon, 2002; Yager, 2002; Zeichick, 2003).  Java and Visual Basic have been predicted tobe the most important languages in future development efforts (Orenstein, 1999). Other tools/languages have evolved in responseto requirements of web related application development such as XML and HTML (Hapgood, 2000; Gilerson, 2002).However, developers have not abandoned traditional development tools and languages, but instead are looking for ways to mergethe old with the new (Niccolai, 2003; Winsberg and Richards, 1994; Ulrich, 2001). For example, COBOL is still a fairly popularlanguage (Swanson and Dans, 2000). Part of this is because of the 1997 changes in COBOL to make it compatible with newerlanguages such as VB, C and C++ (Karges, 2002). COBOL 2002 also offers XML and dynamic HTML support (Karges, 2002).In addition, at least one enterprise resource planning package is largely based in COBOL and requires a COBOL compiler to use(Hiney, 2002). Furthermore, firms are increasingly revisiting automated development aides such as CASE tool packages to helpincrease the efficiency of the development process through the use of an integrated set of analysis, design, and development  tools(Jones, et al., 1999; Banker and Kauffman, 1991; Chen and Norman, 1992; Iivari, 1996). Many developers also still rely on traditional modeling tools such as ERDs or DFDs (Winsberg and Richards, 1994; Jenkins,1995). Other modeling tools such as data dictionaries enable developers to represent standards in a formal and unambiguous wayand help prevent different interpretations (Kelly, et al., 2000; Apicella, 2000).  Experience with designing, modifying, a workingwith data models is one of the key skills in the database management environment (Watson, 2002). MethodologyWe plan to conduct an on-line survey of information systems analysts and developers. The sample will be drawn from a renteddatabase in which members have listed themselves as either IS analysts or developers obtained from Cahners Publications, awidely recognized publisher of IS practitioner journals. To help ensure content validity and reliability, the survey was derivedfrom one conducted and validated by one of the authors in 1993 (Jones and Arnett, 1993). Survey items were added based oncurrent literature and the authors’ own knowledge of methodologies, languages, and tools used today. However, to further helpensure content validity, we will conduct a pilot study of a smaller subset of the sample database, in which we will ask for feedbackon anything that may have been omitted. Guided by the 1993 study, the survey is broken into five parts: familiarity withdevelopment tools; use of these tools; use of methodologies; current use of programming languages; and predicted future use ofprogramming languages.The development tools included many items from the 1993 study. Tools were dropped if over 60% of respondents in the 1993study indicated that they did not use them (disagreed or strongly disagreed that they used them).   Three other changes were madein the tools section. In the earlier study, prototyping was included as a tool, and methodologies were not assessed. However,prototyping is actually a methodology rather than a tool (Hoffer, et al., 2001). Thus, it was moved to the methodology section inthe new study.  In the earlier study, 4GLs were included in the tools section. However, 4GLs have begun to lose their identity asa group, and it is more valuable to examine specific languages (Hapgood, 2000), so the 4GL item was dropped from the toolssection. The 1993 study also assessed CASE tools separately in each stage of the SDLC. Because we do not assume an SDLCmethodology in this study, CASE tools were moved into a single item in the tools section. Finally, we included new items thateither were not available or not widely used in the 1993 study.Both current and predicted use of languages is assessed. COBOL, RPG, and C were kept from the 1993 study because they werethe most widely predicted to be used in the future (Arnett and Jones, 1993). Use of Basic was also widely predicted, but in lightof upgrades in the Basic programming environment, Basic was changed to Visual Basic in the current survey. Newer languageswere chosen based on popularity as discussed in the background section above. The methodologies section is new in this study,Jones & Ibragimova/IS Development Project Tools2003 — Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems 1335and those chosen are based on the more commonly used as discussed in the background section above.  Means and standarddeviations are used to conduct a preliminary assessment of use, to assess the content validity of the instrument, and to guiderevisions of the instrument.Contributions of the StudyThis study should make several contributions to the practice of IS development. First, it will provide IS practitioners an integratedset of information about which tools, methodologies, and languages are currently being used. It will also provide informationabout which languages are predicted to be used in the next several years. Practitioners can use this information to help frame theirown decisions about which development tools, methodologies, and languages to use. They can also make more informed decisionsabout which of these they may want to obtain more information about or more training on. IS mangers can use the informationto not only make decisions about usage, but perhaps to justify purchases or policy decisions about future developmentenvironments.ReferencesApicella, M. “Migrating ERP Data to an ASP Data Center,” InfoWorld (22:26), 2000, pp. 54-55.Arnett, K. P., and Jones, M. C.  “Programming Languages: Today and Tomorrow,” Journal of Computer Information Systems(33:4), Summer, 1993, pp. 77-81.Banker, R. D., and Kauffman, R. J.  “Reuse and Productivity in Integrated Computer-Aided Software Engineering: An EmpiricalStudy,” MIS Quarterly (15), 1991, pp. 375-401.Chen, M., and Norman, R. J.  “A Framework for Integrated CASE,” IEEE Software, March, 1992, pp. 18-22.Cooprider, J. G., and Henderson, J. C.  “Technology-Process Fit:  Perspectives on Achieving Prototyping Effectiveness,” Journalof Management Information Systems (7:3), 1991, pp. 67-87.Dewan, S., Michael, S. C., and Min, C. K.  “Firm Characteristics and Investments in Information Technology:  Scale and ScopeEffects,” Information Systems Research (9:3), 1998, pp. 219-232.Gilerson, E.  “Front End XML for ASP Developers,” Computerworld, November 19, 2002 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/development/story/0,10801,76048,00.html, accessed February 16,2003).Hapgood, F.  “Old Languages, New Twist,” Computerworld, March 1, 2000 (available online athttp://www.cio.com/archive/030100/update.html, accessed February 16, 2003).Hayes, F.  “Tools Ease Migration to Object-Based Design,” Computerworld, April 1, 1996 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO3392,00.html, accessed February 9, 2003).Hayes, F.  “Visual Basic Hits .Net Crossroads,” Computerworld, August 12, 2002 (avaialble online athttp://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/appdev/story/0,10801,73332,00.html, accessed February 16,2003).Heichler, E., and Cafasso, M.  “Methodologies Sought to Solve Client/Server Puzzle,” Computerworld, February 6, 1995(available online at http://www.computerworld.com/news/1995/story/0,11280,12358,00.html, accessed February 16,2003).Hiney, E. “The Need for COBOL,” Computerworld, November 4, 2002 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/news/2002/story/0,11280,75561,00.html, accessed February 16, 2003).Hoffer, J. A., George, J. F., and Valacich, J. S.  Modern Systems Analysis and Design (3rd ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ:  PrenticeHall, 2001.Iivari, J.  “Why Are CASE Tools Not Used?,” Communications of the ACM (39:10), 1996, pp. 94-103.Jenkins, A.  “One Bit at a Time,” Computerworld, February 1, 1995 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/news/1995/story/0,11280,15298,00.html, accessed February 16, 2003).Jones, M. C., and Arnett, K. P.  “Current Practices in Management Information Systems,” Information & Management (24:1),1993, pp. 61-69.Jones, M. C., Price, R. L., and Ferrier, K.  “CASE Tools Revisited:  A Comparison of CASE User and Non-User Perceptions,”The Journal of Computer Information Systems, Fall, 1999, pp. 57-63.Karges, C.  “COBOL Forever,” Computerworld ,  April 29, 2002 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/news/2002/story/0,11280,70550,00.html, accessed February 16, 2003).Karon, P.  “Methodology Revived,” Computerworld, February 1, 1996 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/news/1996/story/0,11280,1914,00/html, accessed February 9, 2003).IT Project Management1336 2003 — Ninth Americas Conference on Information SystemsKeen, P. G. W.  “Let’s Put Project Management Out of Its Misery,” Computerworld, December 7, 1998 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO34677,00.html, accessed February 9, 2003).Kelly, V. E., Thomas, C. P., and Wang, H.  “Managing Data-Based Systems Across Releases Using Historical Data Dictionaries,”Bell Labs Technical Journal (5:2), 2000, pp. 121-133.King, J.  “Vendors Feed User Frenzy for Rapid Application Development,” Computerworld, June 10, 1996 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO5807,00.html, accessed February 9, 2003).Krill, P.  “Migration Programs Launched for Visual Basic Developers,” Computerworld, February 12, 2003 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/development/story/0,10801,78503,00.html, accessed February 16,2003).Lattanzi, M., and Henry, S.  “Software Reuse Using C++ Classes: The Question of Inheritance,” Journal of Systems & Software(41:2), 1998, pp. 127-132.Malcolm, A.  “Borland Goes RAD for App Lifecycle,” Computerworld, December 5, 2002 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/development/story/0,10801,76428,00.html, accessed February 16,2003).March, S., Hevner, A., and Ram, S.  “Research Commentary:  An Agenda for Information Technology Research in Heterogeneousand Distributed Environments,” Information Systems Research (11:4), 2000, pp. 327-341.Martin, J.  Rapid Application Development, New York:  Macmillan Publishing Company, 1991.Matthews, J.  “JAD to the Rescue,” Computerworld, December 4, 1995 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO11544,00.html, accessed February 9, 2003).McNurlin, B. C., and Sprague, R. H.  Information Systems Management in Practice (4th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ:  PrenticeHall, Inc., 1998.Montalbano, E.  “IBM Works Toward Common Runtime, Tools Environment,” Computer Reseller News (1023), 2002, p. 80.Morejon, M.  “Standards Key to Application Integration Process,” Computer Reseller News (1008), 2002, p. 95.Niccolai, J.  “Memo Reveals Doubts at Sun Over Java,” Computerworld, February 11, 2003 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/development/java/story/0,10801,78450,00.html, accessed February16, 2003).O’Dell, C., and Grayson, C. J.  “If Only We Knew What We Know: Identification and Transfer of Internal Best Practices,”California Management Review (40:3), 1998, pp. 154-174.Orenstein, D.  “Java, Visual Basic Seen as Languages of Future,” Computerworld, March 29, 1999 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/news/1999/story/0,11280,35144,00.html,  accessed February 9, 2003).Swanson, E. B., and Dans, E.  “Systems Life Expectancy and the Maintenance Effort: Exploring Their Equilibration,” MISQuarterly (24:2), 2000, pp. 277-297.Ulrich, W. M.  “Remember Cobol?  If You Don’t, Get Reacquainted,” Computerworld, May 21, 2001 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60683,00.html, accessed February 9, 2003).Wallace, B.  “Ford to Retool App Development,” Computerworld, January 18, 1999 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO33624,00.html, accessed February 9, 2003).Watson, S.  “The Data Designers,” Computerworld, April 15, 2002 (available online at http://www.computerworld.com/databasetopics/data/story/0,10801,70079,00.html, accessed February 16, 2003). Weiss, T. R.  “IT Spending Still on the Rise, But Not for as Many Users,” Computerworld, July 23, 2001 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO62436,00.html, accessed February 9, 2003). Wieringa, R.  “A Survey of Structured and Object-Oriented Software Specification Methods and Techniques,” ACM ComputingSurveys (30:4), 1998, pp. 459-527.Willcocks, L. P., and Sykes, R.  “The Role of the IT Function,” Communications of the ACM (43:4), 2000, pp. 32-38.Winsberg, P., and Richards, D.  “Data Modeling Isn’t Dead,” Computerworld, April 4, 1994 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1120,15704,00.html, accessed February 9, 2003).Yager, T.  “Price of Performance,” InfoWorld (24:45), 2002, p. 32.Yourdon, E.  “The Value of Tools,” Computerworld, December 18, 2000 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/appdev/story/0,10801,55235,00.html, accessed February 16,2003).Zeichick, A.  “Maturing Java Gives Developers a Respite,” Computerworld, January 3, 2003 (available online athttp://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/development/story/0,10801,77235,00.html, accessed February 16,2003).Zheng, S., Yen, D. C., and Tarn, J. M.  “The New Spectrum of the Cross-Enterprise Solution: The Integration of Supply ChainManagement and Enterprise Resources Planning Systems,” Journal of Computer Information Systems, Fall, 2000, pp. 84-93.

IS Development Project Tools, Methodologies, and Languages Revisited: An Exploratory Assessment

https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1632&amp;context=amcis2003

IS Development Project Tools, Methodologies, and Languages Revisited: An Exploratory Assessment

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)