Assessment of reverse engineering tools: A MECCA approach

Skramstad, Torbjørn; Khan, M.K.

doi:10.1109/aqsdt.1992.205845

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We have observed that methods proposed for pre‐usage evaluation 1 are primarily CASE tool centred (Zucconi, 1989; Sodi, 1991; Topper, 1991; Dixon, 1992; IEEE, 1992; 1998; Le Blanc & Korn, 1992; 1994; Mosley, 1992; Huff et al ., 1992; Skramstad & Khan, 1992; Beckworth, 1993; du Plessis, 1993; Shafer & Shafer, 1993; Bell, 1994; Antonakopoulos et al ., 1995; ISO, 1995; Jankowski, 1995; 1997; Daneva & Terzieva, 1996; Daneva, 1997; Kitchenham & Jones, 1997a,b; 2 Powell et al ., 1997; Juric & Kuljis, 1999). They are systematic , in that they embody a systematic way of working during an evaluation.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas some published frameworks are rather ‘inclusive’ and aimed at CASE tools in general (Ovum, 1993), others are tailored for use in a pre‐usage evaluation of specific types of CASE tool, and perhaps limited aspects of them. For example, there are those designed for analysis of: support for customisability of a CASE tool (Goldkuhl et al ., 1992); CASE‐tool support for planning and design activities (Henderson & Cooprider, 1990); support for structured systems analysis and design techniques (Vessey et al ., 1992); hypertext functionality in CASE tools (Kaipala, 1997); reverse engineering tools (Skramstad & Khan, 1992); data modelling tools (Moriarty, 1998); database design tools (Reiner, 1992); testing tools (Poston & Sexton, 1992); software engineering environments (Palvia, 1992); collaborative work (Vessey & Sravanapudi, 1995); conformance to a specific modelling notation (e.g. UML –Juric & Kuljis, 1999); conformance to method rules in structured analysis (Jankowski, 1997); usability of CASE tools (Cronholm, 1998); and quality assurance of ER Models (Barker, 1990, chapter 10).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…methods which address conformance to method rules (e.g. Structured Analysis –Jankowski, 1997; UML –Juric & Kuljis, 1999), or support for reverse engineering (Skramstad & Khan, 1992).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The 2G method for doubly grounding evaluation frameworks

Lundell¹,

Lings²

2003

Information Systems Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are a number of approaches open to an information system (IS) development organization wishing to evaluate the potential relevance of an IT product for use in their own organization. This work considers method support for evaluation of CASE tools, as a complex example of an IT product. Our interest is in evaluation for selection, namely the evaluation of products prior to experience of their use in the defined context. Certain weaknesses are apparent in existing evaluation methods proposed in the literature for evaluation for selection. Our primary concern in this paper is to present a new method which, we claim, addresses these weaknesses. We provide a rationale and a detailed description of the new method, which is referred to as 2G. The method specifically addresses the important early phases of an evaluation, during which an evaluation framework is to be established. The method is to be used within the intended usage context for the IT product, so the resulting evaluation framework will be situated rather than general. We identify weaknesses in previously available methods, and discuss the advantages offered by the 2G method. The method has a solid basis in underlying theory, something which has influenced our presentation of it. Equally importantly, our presentation is strongly influenced by our experience with the method in actual usage situations, in small and medium IS development organizations. We claim that 2G is a practical candidate for any IS development organization wishing to undertake evaluations of CASE tools prior to adoption.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The 2G method for doubly grounding evaluation frameworks

Lundell¹,

Lings²

2003

Information Systems Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There exists a wealth of literature on the CASE tool, which can be broadly classified into four categories: CASE selection, CASE adoption, CASE impact, and CASE design. The works of Skramstad and Khan (1992), Shafer and Shafer (1993), and Blanc and Korn (1994), fall under the first category, while authors like McClure (1989), Drotos and Burgetz (1990), Hughes and Clark (1990), and offered guidelines for integrating a chosen CASE tool within an organizational environment.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Adoption versus abandonment of CASE tools: lessons from two organizations

Rahim

Khan

Selamat

1997

Information Technology &Amp; People

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, computer‐aided software engineering tools (CASE) have emerged to provide automation support to the software development process. Such automation is a revolutionary progress which promises dramatic improvement in software quality and productivity. However, despite such promises, CASE tools have not proved to be effective in some organizations owing to the fact that far fewer efforts are expended by organizations on evaluation for selection and introduction of appropriate CASE tools. Proposes a conceptual model on CASE environment that is assembled from two distinct but related processes : “CASE selection” and “CASE adoption”. Further argues that CASE adoption process will be affected if an organization fails to select appropriate CASE tools. Therefore, the success of CASE adoption is very much dependent on the process of CASE selection. Moreover, there is also a possibility that even a suitable CASE tool may not contribute positively, if it is not adopted systematically. Thus, if the CASE adoption fails then a CASE environment would not function. Against this background, cites two case studies describing the experiences of two organizations that adopted a particular brand of front‐end CASE tool. One organization was successful in introducing the tool, and experienced considerable improvement in quality and productivity. Conversely, the same CASE tool failed to achieve its purpose in another organization. In the light of the model, further describes why and how CASE failed in one organization, and was considered successful in another. Finally, also highlights the lessons learned from their experiences.

show abstract

“…It extracts the semantic and syntactic information of an existing software system [6]. It is commonly stated that the reverse engineering process is used in software maintenance, but the technology can be a useful tool in the development process as well [7]. According to our model in figure 1 and 4, the process of reverse engineering starts with the operational state of the software system.…”

Section: Other Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A redefined software life cycle model for improved maintenance

Skramstad¹,

Khan²

Proceedings Conference on Software Maintenance 1992

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software Maintenance has been considered the post development phase of the sofmare life cycle model. This paper, however, indicates that maintenance should be integrated into all phases rather than being a separate stage. We propose a redefined software life cycle model with respect to software maintenance. The maintenance phase is truly a miniature development cycle. In maintenance, a need is identified, it is analyzed, the existing system is understood, and then modifications are implemented. The contemporary maintenance approaches like reengineering and reverse engineering are also discussed in the context of the proposed life cycle model.

show abstract

Assessment of reverse engineering tools: A MECCA approach

Cited by 3 publications

References 7 publications

The 2G method for doubly grounding evaluation frameworks

The 2G method for doubly grounding evaluation frameworks

Adoption versus abandonment of CASE tools: lessons from two organizations

A redefined software life cycle model for improved maintenance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About