Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: a comparison of five theoretical models

Riemenschneider, Cynthia K.; Hardgrave, Bill C.; Davis, Fred D.

doi:10.1109/tse.2002.1158287

Cited by 197 publications

(192 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

170

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This data seems to back the claim made in [36], where it was assessed that usefulness had a much greater impact in intention to use a method than ease of use. In fact, the experiment showed how 20 out of the 26 subjects chose the MDD method to continue with the project development, although we cannot split the effect of the paradigm from the effect of the particular MDD approach (OOH4RIA) that was used in the experiment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

“…A comparative study of the fit of these models, initially devised to assess individual's intention to use a given information technology tool, to predict intention to adopt a given method [36] proved that some of the dimensions defined in those models were useful to predict method adoption (namely Usefulness, Compatibility, Subjective norm and Voluntariness), while others, given the differences between adopting a method and a tool, could be dropped (e.g. Career Consequences, Perceived behavioral control, etc.).…”

Section: Conceptual Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

MDD vs. traditional software development: A practitioner’s subjective perspective

Martínez

Luján-Mora

Meliá

2013

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Context: Today practitioners have a myriad of methods from which to choose for the development of software applications. However they lack empirical data that characterize these methods in terms of usefulness, ease of use or compatibility, all of them relevant variables to assess the developer's intention to use them. OBJECTIVE: To compare three methods, each following a different paradigm (Model-Driven, Model-Based and the traditional, code-centric, respectively) with respect to its intention to use by junior software developers while developing the business layer of a Web 2.0 application. METHOD: We have conducted an experiment with 26 graduate students of the University of Alicante. The application developed was a Social Network, which was organized in three different modules. Subjects were asked to use a different method for each one of the three modules, and then answer a questionnaire that gathered their perceptions during its use. RESULTS: The results show that the method that followed the Model-Driven development paradigm is regarded as the most useful, although it is also regarded as the more difficult to use. They also show that junior software developers feel comfortable with the use of models, and are likely to use them if accompanied by a model-driven development environment. CONCLUSIONS: Model-driven development methods seem to show a great potential for adoption. However, further experimentation is needed to be able to generalize the results to a different population, different methods, languages and tools, different domains or different application sizes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Conceptual Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

MDD vs. traditional software development: A practitioner’s subjective perspective

Martínez

Luján-Mora

Meliá

2013

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findings resemble with known models of technology acceptance [13]; little knowledge of RUP and thereby low motivation results in low or no use. On the other hand, knowledge and motivation for RUP results in medium/extensive use.…”

Section: Case Study Bsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…This will both ensure that necessary detailed information becomes available and affects the tailoring process and that the resulting process actually is taken into use due to ownership and relevance. Various acceptance models such as TAM, TAM2, PCI and others [13] may help to explain and underline the importance of involving stakeholders that, after the tailoring, are going to use or be affected by the resulting process. For example, stakeholder participation may affect the Usefulness-construct (the extent to which the person thinks using the system will enhance his or her job performance) and the Ease-of-use-construct (the extent to which the person perceives using the system will be free of effort).…”

Section: Background: Methods Tailoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tailoring and Introduction of the Rational Unified Process

Hanssen

Bjørnson²,

Westerheim

2007

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. RUP is a comprehensive software development process framework that has gained a lot of interest by the industry. One major challenge of taking RUP into use is to tailor it to specific needs and then to introduce it into a development organization. This study presents a review and a systematic assembly of existing studies on the tailoring and introduction of RUP. From a systematic search for study reports on this topic we found that most research is anecdotal and focus on the effects of RUP itself. Only a few number of studies address tailoring and introduction. We have found that tailoring RUP is a considerable challenge by itself and that it must be closely related to existing best practices. We see a tendency of turning from large complete process frameworks towards smaller and more light-weight processes which may impose a smoother transition from process model to process in use.

show abstract

“…Since the completion of this project, members of the development team have participated in local meetings of software developers explaining the role XP played in this and other projects on which they are engaged. A more detailed study, reported in Toleman et al (2004), aligns diffusion theory (Rogers 1995) and adoption models (Riemenschneider et al 2002) with an explanation of the acceptance of XP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%