English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

group, and 5% are widely used, but not to capacity. Aaen et al. [1], based on a survey of 102 CASE user organizations in Denmark and Fin-land, report that less than 20% of the organizations were close to routine users of CASE tools, even though 24% had used them more than three years. About half the respondents had used the tools for two projects or less, and in the majority of the organizations, less than one-fourth of the analysts used CASE tools. Kusters and Wijers [14] found in their analysis of 262 Dutch organizations that in 20% of the organizations more than 75% of analysts used CASE tools on a regular basis and in 18% the rate was between 51% and 75%. Even so, in 37% of the organizations, 25% or less of the analysts used CASE tools on a regular basis. Besides the waste of the initial investment in CASE tools, the low rate is alarming because most empirical studies indicate positive rather than negative impact of CASE tools on systems development effectiveness. Norman and Nunamaker [17] reported that software engineers generally perceived their productivity being improved with the use of CASE technology. Banker and Kauffman [2] found an order of magnitude increase in software development productivity in their analysis of 20 projects that applied a CASE tool emphasizing reusability. Aaen et al. [1] found that about 72% of their sample perceived the objectives of improved quality of systems, improved systems development procedures, and increased standardization were met to a significant degree, but about 60% of respondents assessed the objective of improved productivity was met only to a minor degree. 47% of the respondents indicated good profitability of CASE investments while 31% assessed it as poor. The author examines attitudes toward CASE usage in a wide variety of organizations. CASE (Computer-Aided Software/Systems Engineering) tools are claimed to increase information systems and software development effectiveness in terms of productivity of systems development and the quality of the developed systems. However, the results of prior research on CASE adoption [1, 6, 14, 17] are to some extent paradoxical. While most research reports positive rather than negative impact on the quality of developed systems , and to a lesser extent on the productivity of the development process, the actual use of CASE technology has been much less than one would expect. Kemerer [13], for example, reports that one year after introduction, 70% …

Why are CASE tools not used?