Research
Surveying object technology usage and bene®ts:
A test of conventional wisdom
1Jane Fedorowicz
a,*, Alain O. Villeneuve
b,2aDepartment of Accountancy, Bentley College, 175 Forest Street, Waltham, MA 02452, USA bFaculte d'administration, Universite de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke (QueÂbec) J1K 2R1, Canada
Received 8 January 1998; accepted 27 September 1998
Abstract
Vendors and developers alike profess a profound shift in the paradigm of systems analysis, design, and programming based on object-oriented techniques. A survey was sent to over 1200 IS professionals with an expressed interest in OO. The results of the questionnaire provided descriptive information on their level of experience with OO in use in the ®eld and also to garnered professional perceptions on the usefulness and bene®ts of various aspects of OO use. We found that many vendor-touted bene®ts are upheld by professionals using these tools, yet not always to the extent predicted. In particular, the techniques were harder to learn than expected and do not give a novice an anticipated edge in acquiring professional expertise. Overall, however, respondents preferred to use OO for application development, as well as to support team-based activities such as client communications, project team communications, and new team member familiarization. Professional users expected that OO could require a greater time investment at the beginning of the system development life cycle, with time savings accruing at the latter stages of a project's implementation and use. Expectations concerning the reusability and shareability of objects also appeared to be met. The most favorable preferences and bene®ts were reported by those respondents who have used OO most.#1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Object orientation; Systems development; Practitioner survey
1. Introduction
Object-oriented techniques (OOT) have been used to help in understanding the relationship among enti-ties in an enterprise's domain and also to provide expanded programming languages that permit these
relationships to be shared among programs and appli-cations. Object orientation (OO) also encompasses specialized analysis and design methodologies for depicting and formalizing object entities.
OO has made its way into computer-aided software engineering (CASE) tools, traditional programming languages (e.g., C, OO-COBOL) and data base management systems. The World Wide Web is said to be the ideal vehicle for sharing objects and reusing them, as well as a key bene®ciary of the technology itself. A second generation of OO methodologies has been developed; the best features of the leading approaches of Rumbaugh, Booch and Jacobson are *Corresponding author. Tel.: 891-3153; fax:
+1-781-891-2896; e-mail: [email protected]
1Preliminary results were presented at The First Informs Conference on Information Systems and Technology, Washington, DC, May 5±9, 1996.
2Tel.: +1-819-821-7329; e-mail: [email protected]
merged into a combined, universal OO method [20]. Examples of OO use in large-scale applications have been published (e.g., [5]). Vendors and columnists continue to laud the merits of the technology, although others have begun to question the universal bene®ts attributed to the collection of ideas, tools, methods and languages claiming to exhibit OO characteristics. A typical set of attributions appears in CACM: ``OOT promotes a better understanding of requirements and results in more modi®able and maintainable applica-tions, providing other bene®ts such as reusability, extensibility, robustness, reliability, and scalability. OOT promotes better teamwork, good communication among team members, and a way to engineer reliable software systems and applications'' [12].
The intent of our work was to test the claims about OO's in¯uence within professional practice. A survey was sent to over 1200 IS professionals with an expressed interest in OO. We hoped to obtain descrip-tive information on their experience with OO, and also to gather their perception of OO usefulness and bene®ts.
2. Conceptual framework
2.1. Perceptual and comparative assessment of OO
Given the large amount of press coverage that OO has experienced in the past few years, it might be expected that this technology has achieved positive acceptance. The ®rst set of hypotheses aims to verify this.
Several models have been proposed for determining when an IS development process has achieved suc-cess. Although there is no consensus on the de®nition of success, researchers have proposed a number of constructs to measure both actual and perceived suc-cessful use, such as ease of use, usefulness, and ef®ciency. Much of the literature on successful tech-nology adoption focuses on technologies that have been developed to support end users (e.g., [17, 18]). In the case of OO, IS developers can be viewed simulta-neously as users of systems (e.g., OO development tools, languages and environments), adopters of meth-odologies (e.g., particular OO development methods), and developers of other users' systems (the end pro-duct of the OO activity). Therefore, a study of OO
adoption must do more than incorporate the use con-structs proposed for measurement of end-user reac-tions. In addition to understanding the perceived ®t between the application development task itself and OO tools and methods, comparisons of OO methods to prior, traditional methods are needed to establish the difference from traditional alternatives. These com-parisons provide a baseline for assessing skill acquisi-tion and productivity impacts within the applicaacquisi-tion development process.
Few researchers have ventured to study the impact of alternative development methodologies on the development process per se. Finlay and Mitchell [15] discuss one company's experience with CASE tools, noting that developers perceived improvements in productivity, systems quality, and developer effec-tiveness. Although their study did not extend to OO, the parallels between OO and CASE tools as embodi-ments of development and communication methods provide preliminary validation for the productivity bene®ts discussed in the popular press.
Thus, the ®rst set of hypotheses includes evaluative criteria similar to those of most end-user studies, including system usefulness and ef®ciency [9, 11]. It also covers issues that are peculiar to the role of developer, comparing OO to traditional approaches in job ef®ciency improvements (i.e., productivity impact), and an overall comparison for application development preferences.
H1a:OO is perceived to be useful and ef®cient.
H1b:OO is perceived to promote job ef®ciency more than other approaches respondents have used.
H1c: OO is preferred for application development over traditional approaches.
2.2. Learning and communication
transfer of expertise than more traditional approaches. This contention is based on the notion that OO more closely resembles the way humans store and retrieve knowledge from mental models in memory than tradi-tional approaches [13, 30]. This was corroborated in an experiment by Wang [31], where student subjects using an OO method produced analysis that more closely matched the problem than those using structured ana-lysis. The students also reported that the OO method was easier to use than the structured analysis method.
In their experiment, Agarwal et al. [2] suggest that performance using process-oriented and OO tools depends on the cognitive ®t of the tool with the task, with process-oriented tools outperforming or match-ing performance with OO tools in requirements ana-lysis activities.
Vessey and Conger [28] noted that novices ®nd OO harder to learn than other structured approaches and that their initial performance suffers in comparison with structured techniques. They identi®ed several differences in the ability of novices to specify infor-mation requirements when using one of three devel-opment methodologies, with OO more dif®cult to learn and resulting in poorer initial performance than traditional structured techniques or the Jackson Sys-tems Development approach. However, their subjects were students without prior experience in any of the techniques rather than practicing professionals, elim-inating the potential for measuring user preferences across methods and enjoining the generalizeablility of their laboratory ®ndings to practitioners.
We hypothesize that OO will be perceived as super-ior to other approaches that respondents have used in facilitating the transfer of expertise and will be easier to learn for novices than traditional approaches. It is also conjectured that the OO skill acquisition learning curve will be shortened as a result of the similarities to mental models as a representation of knowledge.
H2a: OO is perceived to be easy to use and easy to learn.
H2b:OO is perceived to be easier to learn for novices than traditional approaches.
H2c:OO is perceived to be easier to become skilled in comparison to other approaches respondents have used.
Coordination and communication have been found to be determinants of systems development success [8, 10, 27] and provide the leverage to exploit OOT fully [25, 26]. Both external and internal communication is essential for the success of team-based projects. OO promotes a formal, commonly understood communi-cations vehicle, which is particularly useful in large, complex projects [22]. Thus, we also examine the usefulness of OOT as a communication mechanism.
H3a:OO is perceived to promote communication with team members better than traditional approaches.
H3b:OO is perceived to promote communication with users better than traditional approaches.
2.3. Time savings
Traditional systems development techniques have been criticized for failing to produce successful sys-tems, for producing error-ridden applications, and for greatly exceeding expectations of budgeted time and expenses. Most development effort (time and expense) typically is spent on the programming and testing of applications, with very little (perhaps 5%) of the effort spent on requirements analysis. Yet, studies have shown that most errors originate in the requirements analysis or design phases of the systems development life cycle (SDLC) but are not discovered until the coding, testing, or maintenance phases [24]. One of the supposed bene®ts of OOT is the emphasis placed on understanding the application domain and perform-ing requirements analysis. Hence, OO efforts that span many phases of the SDLC should lead to improve-ments in the success rate, cost, and error rate of the ensuing applications. Our fourth set of hypotheses test the relationship between time savings and the use of OOT. We further suggest that gains will be higher when OO is used for more steps of the SDLC. Addi-tionally, we expect that the time savings are not universal across all stages of the SDLC, but rather that OO is expected to take longer in the initial stages and reap time saving bene®ts in the latter ones, a savings which has yet to be documented for other methodologies.
H4b:Larger time saving is perceived when OO is used for more steps of the SDLC.
H4c: OO is perceived to take longer in the initial stages of SDLC but to save time in later stages.
2.4. Project characteristics and reuse
Proponents of OO claim that there are major time savings over traditional approaches; these should lead to systems development productivity gains, which, particularly in the area of code reuse, have already been found to be associated with high levels of CASE tool integration across several activities within the SDLC [3]. OO proponents frequently discuss exam-ples attributing reuse with dramatic increases in pro-ductivity.
Part of the leveraging effect of OO as a coordination and communication mechanism is, like many other modern methods, the ability to rely on a single model throughout the SDLC. More diffusion will favor better coordination amongst all of the individuals involved in the development effort, as well as a common language and representation for the objects themselves, hence substantiating expected bene®ts in terms of reuse and sharing of objects. We hypothesize that the more diffused OO is throughout SDLC, the greater the prevalence of object reuse and sharing. We also hypothesize that more diffusion will lead to more favorable impressions of OO, speci®cally those iden-ti®ed in Hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4.
H5a:More object reuse is perceived when OO is used for more steps of the SDLC.
H5b: More object sharing is perceived when OO is used for more steps of the SDLC.
H5c:Usage in more steps of the SDLC is associated with more favorable perceptions of OO.
Banker and Kemerer [4] found that economies of scale frequently exist for large projects. In this vein, we hypothesize that a scaling effect promotes reuse and sharing of objects, in no small part due to larger projects usually comprising more objects than smaller ones. Since companies typically begin with smaller yet mission-critical projects before embarking on
large projects, it is expected that libraries of objects will not be available for initial applications, as reuse will probably not be effective until a signi®cant library has been assembled. Kraut and Streeter found that formal, impersonal project communication mechan-isms were used more frequently in larger projects, especially once the project had ®nished the require-ments and design stages of the SDLC. They also found that these mechanisms were deemed more valuable: they were more widely used.
H6a:Object reuse is more likely to be expected when larger projects have been developed.
H6b: Object sharing is more likely to be expected when larger projects have been developed.
H6c: Experience with larger projects is associated with more favorable perceptions of OO.
2.5. Experience
Many of the bene®ts of OO are best achieved after considerable experience with the techniques. Reuse is frequently cited as exhibiting a growth curve based on number of prior systems built with OOT. Finlay and Mitchell noted an improvement in systems quality due to the introduction of CASE tools, as well as perceived initial improvement in productivity. Novice users were more likely to perceive a positive impact on developer productivity.
Therefore, we expect to ®nd a positive relationship between OO experience with the approach and users' perceptions, their preferences with respect to other approaches, and their assessment of its contribution to different aspects of SDLC. In addition to determining whether experienced respondents are more favorable in their evaluation of OO, these hypotheses will also tell whether greater involvement leads to increased expectations of the bene®ts and characteristics. In contrast, other, non-OO experience, is not expected to affect OO evaluation. Assuming a `paradigm shift' inherent in a transition to OO, experience with other methods should not affect respondent perceptions.
H7b: Non-OO experience does not demonstrate any relationship with OO perceptions, preferences, or assessment of bene®ts.
2.6. Tools and methods
OO properties are attributed to a broad range of theoretical concepts and vendor products. Commer-cial products possess a range of OO `purity'. For example, Smalltalk is perceived to exhibit pure OO characteristics, while hybrid languages such as C do not [1, 16]. Ease of use of available products also varies from one to another. We expect to ®nd differ-ences in perceptions concerning OO's bene®ts due to the type of tool used [6, 7, 23]. We also expect that for those using languages, e.g., programming in Small-talk, will lead to higher perceptions of bene®ts than those programming in C.
H8a: Usage of OO development environments is associated with more favorable perceptions than OO programming languages.
H8b: Usage of Smalltalk is associated with more favorable perceptions of OO than usage of C.
Many argue that the use of an OO language does not mandate that the application is necessarily OO, but that it still may be developed using a traditional methodology. Similar to CASE technology, adoption
of an object-based language does not guarantee many of the expected bene®ts and must be accompanied by a robust methodology [29]. Thus, we expect that respon-dents who have adopted one (or more) methodologies to support OO development should expect to achieve greater bene®ts than those who do not rely on a methodology.
H9: Using formal OO methodologies is associated with more favorable perceptions of OO.
Fig. 1 summarizes our research model.
3. Method
A survey was developed to ascertain OO usage history, tool and product experience, perceptions about OO and traditional development techniques, overall perceptions of the usefulness of OO, assess-ments of reuse, shareability and similar claims, and demographic data on respondents and their compa-nies. Use of the survey research method provides a broad-based mechanism for assessing the breadth of penetration in a wide variety of companies and indus-tries. Although some of the hypotheses could be measured in a limited way in a laboratory setting, the emphasis on perceptual data enables the collection of a wide range of baseline data to lend generalize-ability to subsequent experimental analysis. Several
common IS research scales on use and usability formed the basis of the sections measuring perceptions (e.g., [9]). Factual questions required checking one or more applicable boxes or ®lling in a blank space. In addition, respondents were asked to enumerate the different OO tools and methods they have used.
The survey was pretested at two professional IS conferences, one in a session on OO, and another at an OO exposition, for a total of 77 pretest subjects. Con®rmatory factor analysis was used to assess the scales, which had been developed from our theoretical model. All factors were clean and strong with no cross-loading. No items were dropped from the pretest version, three perceptual bene®ts items were added and ®ve demographic items were transformed from close-ended to open-ended.
Subsequently, a mailing list of practitioners with interest in OO tools was obtained from a leading OO tool company, and surveys were sent to over 1200 individuals. A total of 228 useable responses were received.
3.1. Sample
Demographic data describing the sample is included in Fig. 2. The respondents were a mix of IS staff, IS managers, consultants, non-IS managers, and upper level management. Most (70%) had direct,
hands-on experience with commercial OO tools, 50.3% of them had experience with more than one tool. Many (40.0%) reported direct experience with formal OO methodologies, 44% of those had experi-ence with more than one methodology. Over 120 different tools and 30 methodologies were listed as being used, reducing the potential for bias that might be inferred from a narrow cross-section of tool and method experience. Not all respondents reported using commercial tools or formal methodologies. Ninety-seven had taken an OO course.
Most (60%) reported that OO is used by their company for developing new applications, while 18% said that OO was used on existing applications. When questioned about the use of OO for the different steps in the SDLC, 30.7% of the respondents reported using OO for understanding the domain, 55.3% for analysis, 60.1% for design, 54.4% for implementation, and 33.3% for maintenance.
3.2. Measures
Most perceptual data were captured on ®ve-point self-anchoring Likert scales with a `6' representing no opinion [19]. Perceptions of reusability, shareability, understandability by novices, and usefulness for short-ening the learning curve were three-point scales (yes/ no/no opinion). Because of the lack of available
quanti®able analysis of reuse and shareability patterns of objects at most sites at the time of the survey, a ®ner demarcation was thought to be dif®cult to assess.
Several constructs and variables formed the basis for the comparisons. Factor analysis was applied to derive a construct comprisingperceived ease of learn-ing andease of useto represent the perceived attri-butes of the technology (two-items, r0.50). A construct representing major outcomes of using the technology,perceived usefulness and ef®ciency, was also computed (two-items, r0.68). A construct re¯ecting the comparativeease of skills development was derived (three items, 0.73), and another
regrouping different aspects ofef®ciency and produc-tivitywas devised (®ve items,0.91).
Project size was self-reported from a set of choices on a checklist, with the range covering pilot projects, small projects only, large projects only, and all pro-jects. Another variable, count of SDLC steps when OO is used, encodes its breadth (or span) of activities within the SDLC. Company size, years in computer industry, years in current position, and years of experi-ence with OO were transformed into logarithms due to highly signi®cant skewness.
Each tool reported being used was coded either as an environment, a language, or other (e.g., DBMSs, object libraries) based on information available in the trade literature ([21]; Lexis/Nexis; Company ads). A variable was then devised to capture the respondent's exposure to languages only, environment only, both environment and language, or none. Another variable was derived to capture those languages that the respondent had used: C, C and SmallTalk, Smalltalk, or other.
4. Results
4.1. Assessment of OO and comparison to other approaches
The ®rst set of hypotheses was supported (see Table 1). In terms of its perceived characteristics, OO was found to be useful and ef®cient. Overall, respondents strongly prefer OO to other approaches for application development and ®nd that it promotes job ef®ciency more than other techniques.
The second set of hypotheses assesses the learning bene®ts of OO. The results show that OO is not
considered to be easier for novices to learn than other methods. Slightly less than half of the respondents believe that objects are understandable by novices, a non-signi®cant ®nding demonstrating a mix of opinion on the ability of novices to immediately grasp OO concepts. Contrary to the stated hypothesis, OO was thought to takelongerfor an IS novice to learn and to become an IS expert. These ®ndings are consistent with Vessey and Conger's 1994 results, and also with pub-lished company reports in the trade press of a 12-month learning period for getting developers up to speed with OO. When speci®cally compared to other approaches respondents have used, skill in OO was perceived to be moredif®cult to acquire. However, once learned, OO appears to be the technique of choice, based on the results of the ®rst two sets of hypotheses.
Once a project is underway, the bene®ts of OO as a development environment begin to accrue. A majority of the respondents believe that objects are useful for short-ening the learning curve for new project team members. Respondents strongly prefer OO to other approaches for communicating with users and for communicating among team members, demonstrating support for Hypotheses 3a and 3b. Thus, any similarities of OO to human knowledge representations may not assist in the initial learning process but may help as a communica-tions aid for team members and their clients.
The fourth set of hypotheses, examining the use of OOT within SDLC stages, were all supported. Overall, OO is perceived to save time in developing applica-tions. Breadth of use throughout the SDLC signi®-cantly correlates with time savings during implementation and maintenance. When compared to other approaches, OO was found to take about the same time for understanding the domain and design steps, take more time for analysis, and less time for implementation and maintenance. A factor analysis of the items pertaining to time savings grouped understanding the domain with analysis anddesign, and a second factor loadedimplementation with maintenance. It thus seems that an OO invest-ment in the early aspects of the SDLC pays off later in the cycle, especially for maintenance activities.
4.2. Reuse and sharing
majority of respondents believe that objects are share-able and reusshare-able. Both project size and breadth of use throughout the SDLC correlate signi®cantly with per-ceptions of shareability and reusability of objects. This may mean that OO is more bene®cial for larger projects because the number of objects in the system or the size of the development team is greater. Also, when OO is used across more SDLC steps, the learn-ing curve for OO may be shortened, due to more uniform, formal communications throughout the SDLC process.
Project size also signi®cantly correlates with pre-sumed time savings during implementation and main-tenance. Since diffusion of the approach across the development cycle also leads to time savings during the latter steps of the development, this may con®rm a scaling effect due to project size and diffusion of the
approach. Larger projects may lead to more overall bene®ts, as may the breadth of use of the approach within the SDLC; larger diffusion of the approach throughout the SDLC may lead to more usefulness and ef®ciency.
4.3. Experience with OO
The tests of Hypothesis 7a found that respondents' experience with OO has a positive relationship with many, but not all, OO perceptions, preferences, and bene®ts (see Table 3). Perceived ease of use is posi-tively and signi®cantly associated with respondents' work experience with OO, as is comparative ease of skills development. This probably re¯ects a learning process, where more experience leads to more mastery of the technology and therefore to a more favorable Table 1
Perceptual and comparative assessments of OO. Note the lower the rating on scales, the more positive the perception of OO
na Mb zc
Hypothesis 1
Factor for direct assessment of OO
Usefulness and efficiency (10 point scale) 186 4.63 ÿ8.88f
Factors for comparative assessment to traditional methods
Efficiency in job (25) 170 11.88 ÿ9.05f
Prefer OO for application development 200 1.98 ÿ12.29f
Hypothesis 2
Easy to learn and use (10) 203 6.13 0.92
Faster for a novice to learn 199 3.56 6.16f
Faster for a novice to become an expert 194 3.52 5.89f
Ease of skills development (15) 192 9.68 3.65f
Hypothesis 3
Shortens the learning curve of new team members (2) 180 1.31 ÿ5.46f
Prefer OO for communicating with team members 198 2.11 ÿ10.21f
Prefer OO for communicating with users 191 2.39 ÿ7.39f
Hypothesis 4
Overall time savings (25) 161 13.60 ÿ4.37f
Time required for
Understanding the domain 196 3.10 1.13
Analysis 196 3.24 2.64e
Design 196 3.16 1.80
Implementation 190 2.63 ÿ4.15f
Maintenance 167 1.81 ÿ15.45f
Correlationbetween Count of SDLC steps and Time savings ÿ0.174d
aDifferent sample sizes due to missing values.
bMean value of construct on a ®ve-point scale unless indicated in parentheses after construct name. Two-point scales: 1
yes, 2no. cz-Value re¯ects a mean valueMwhich is signi®cantly different from the scale mean.
perception of its characteristics. More work with the approach may also aid in `unlearning' traditional approach methods and favor a more positive percep-tion of ease of skills development.
Perceived and comparative bene®ts of the approach are associated with work experience with the approach, size of projects, and the number of SDLC steps covered with the approach. This means that the more one works with the approach, the more OO's contribution in terms of usefulness and ef®ciency is realized. In addition, respondents' work experience with OO also leverages time savings, reducing the time required for understanding the domain, conduct-ing the analysis, and implementconduct-ing systems. Respon-dents from companies using OO for maintenance activities report higher expectations for time saving in the maintenance step than those from companies not reporting maintenance activity (t-test under H of unequal variance,p-value0.0007).
Table 2
Reuse and sharability. Note the lower the rating on scales, the more positive the perception of OO
na Mb zc
Shareability (2) 194 1.20 ÿ10.65f
Reuseability (2) 197 1.19 ÿ10.90f
Hypothesis 5,6:Correlations with: Count of SDLC steps Project size
Sharing ÿ0.209e ÿ0.262e
Reuse ÿ0.165d ÿ0.192d
Easy to learn and use ÿ0.064 ÿ0.155
Usefulness and efficiency ÿ0.268f ÿ0.326f
Ease of skills development ÿ0.035 ÿ0.111
Efficiency in job ÿ0.213e ÿ0.336f
Prefer for development ÿ0.260f ÿ0.357f
Prefer for communicating with team ÿ0.307f ÿ0.293f Prefer for communicating with users ÿ0.205e ÿ0.205e
Total time savings ÿ0.174d ÿ0.200d
Time to understand ÿ0.126 ÿ0.057
Time for analysis ÿ0.009 0.108
Time for design ÿ0.023 ÿ0.096
Time for implementation ÿ0.245f ÿ0.312f
Time for maintenance ÿ0.264f ÿ0.268f
aDifferent sample sizes due to missing values.
bMean value of construct on a ®ve-point scale unless indicated in parentheses after construct name. Two-point scales: 1yes, 2no. cz-Value re¯ects a mean valueMwhich is signi®cantly different from the scale mean.
dp< 0.05. ep< 0.01. fp< 0.001.
Table 3 Experience
Hypothesis 7: Correlations with Years of OO Experience
Project size 0.381c
Count of SDLC steps 0.265c
Easy to learn and use ÿ0.156a
Usefulness and efficiency ÿ0.194b Ease of skills development ÿ0.261c
Efficiency in job ÿ0.248b
Shareability ÿ0.103
Reuseability ÿ0.092
Shortens learning curve 0.089
Faster for novice to learn 0.037 Faster for novice to become expert ÿ0.166a Prefer for development ÿ0.279c Prefer for communicating with team ÿ0.241c Prefer for communicating with users ÿ0.175a
More work experience with OO does not lead to higher perception of shareability, reusability, and accessibility to novices. These perceptions of experi-enced respondents did not differ signi®cantly from the overall pool of subjects, suggesting that opinions about OO use and bene®ts meet the initial expecta-tions of developers. The only exception is that more work experience is associated with the perception that OO will allow novices to become expert faster.
In contrast, no difference in perception of bene®ts or technique preferences were found due to company size, years in computer industry, job tenure, gender and age of the respondents. Therefore, Hypothesis 7b was supported.
4.4. Tools and methods
The last hypotheses are intended to determine which OO technologies provide the most perceived bene®ts. There are a vast number of languages, CASE-like methodologies, and other technologies that are labeled OOT by their vendors. Our hypotheses divide the respondents into those who use several technolo-gies, and those who do not (see Table 4). Because
these variables contain categorical data, ANOVAs, t-tests, multi-way frequency analysis (LOGIT) and Tukey HSD tests were computed to assess signi®cance. Hypothesis 8a looks at the added value of devel-opment environments over OO languages. For this, a subset of the dataset was created: it includes only those respondents reporting the use of a language (e.g., C or Smalltalk) or an environment (e.g., STP/ OMT). Those reporting both or neither were elimi-nated, leaving a sample of 102. There were a few notable, signi®cant differences between the language only and environment only groups. The latter rated OO higher on usefulness and ef®ciency and expressed a preference for OO for communication with users. The other results were not signi®cant.
Whentypeof tool is ignored, the bene®ts of using anytype of tool becomes apparent. Those respondents using any combination of languages and/or environ-ments express a stronger preference for using OO for application development than non-users, for commu-nicating with users, and expect higher time savings, especially for implementation and maintenance. Those with tool experience see no difference with other approaches in terms of time to understand the
Table 4
Use of tools Note:Only significant results are reported here
Hypothesis 8:ANOVA results Type of toolsa Use of (Any) toolsb OO Languagesc
t-test (df) F(df) t-test (df)
Preference for development 6.42 (1 190)
Ease of learning and use
Usefulness and efficiency 2.10 (84) Efficiency in job
Ease of skills development 3.25 (67)
Preference for communication with team
Preference for communication with users 2.49 (90) 5.51 (1 181) Shareable (n.s., Chi-squared tests)
Reusable (n.s., Chi-squared tests)
Shortens learning curve (n.s., Chi-squared tests) Faster for novice to learn
Faster for novice to become expert
Time savings 5.80 (1 151)
Time to understand domain 3.99 (1 186)
Time for analysis Time for design
Time for implementation 4.92 (1.180)
Time for maintenance 6.25 (1 157)
aSubsample size102. bFull sample size228.
domain; those who do not use tools believe that it will take longer to understand the domain with OO than with traditional approaches.
Hypothesis 8b was dif®cult to test, because there are only 9 respondents who solely use Smalltalk (a per-centage that is quite similar to the general population of OO language users). Therefore, statistical signi®-cance is suspect. The only variable exhibiting a sig-ni®cant difference is Ease of Skills Development, wherein Smalltalk users found OO less dif®cult to learn and become skillful in than the pure Cusers. However, this ®nding con®rms the widespread per-ception that C is a much more dif®cult skill to acquire than Smalltalk.
Hypothesis 9 examines whether the adoption of a formal methodology (e.g., Booch, Rumbaugh) increases the perceptions of OO bene®ts. Signi®cance was established for respondents' preference for OO for application development, and its use as a commu-nication tool with users and team members (see Table 5). There were no signi®cant differences in expectations for time savings.
Additional analysis was run to ascertain whether methodologies were more effective when both tools
and methods were used. When OO methods are used in conjunction with an OO development environment or OO programming language, perceptions of time savings in the area of maintenance become signi®cant. Also, joint use of tools and methodologies was also a prerequisite for signi®cant ®ndings for usefulness and ef®ciency.
5. Discussion
The descriptive analysis reported here provides an initial understanding of the bene®ts and experiences of professionals practicing in the ®eld. Overall, our hypotheses are supported by the data. We ®nd that many of the vendors' claims are upheld by profes-sionals using the tools, yet not always to the extent that the vendors wish. In particular, the techniques are hard to learn, and do not give a novice an anticipated edge in acquiring expertise. Overall, however, respondents prefer to use OO for application development, as well as to support team-based activities, such as client communications, project team communications, and new team member familiarization. Professional users
Table 5
Use of methods note:only significant results are reported here
Hypothesis 9:ANOVA results Experience with methodsa
Experience with methods (Tool users only)b
F(df) F(df)
Preference for development 9.46 (1 190) 7.07 (1 146)
Ease of learning and use
Usefulness and efficiency 3.94 (1 131)
Efficiency in job Ease of skills development
Preference for communication with team 12.55 (1 188) 12.20 (1 143) Preference for communication with users 8.19 (1 181) 5.87 (1 138) Shareable (n.s., Chi-squared tests)
Reusable (n.s., Chi-squared tests)
Shortens learning curve (n.s., Chi-squared tests) Faster for novice to learn
Faster for novice to become expert Time savings
Time to understand domain Time for analysis Time for design Time for implementation
Time for maintenance 5.09 (1 118)
expect that OO will require a greater time investment at the beginning of SDLC, with time savings accruing at the latter stages of a project's implementation and use. Expectations concerning the reusability and shareability of objects also appear to be met. Table 6 summarizes the main ®ndings from the analysis.
The most favorable preferences and bene®ts are reported by those respondents who have used OO the most. Those with OO experience, who have worked on the largest projects, and who have employed OO in the most SDLC steps have the most positive responses to the survey. Those who adopt formal methodologies and development environments also express more
favorable opinions than those who work without them. Thus, in its users' eyes, OO appears to exceed expec-tations once the professional has invested considerable time in learning the techniques and applying the tools needed to develop systems effectively within the `OO paradigm'.
6. Limitations
This study reports on data from a mailed question-naire. As is the case with all questionnaires, this research method trades off control and measurement Table 6
Summary of significant findings
Overall, respondentsprefer OOto other traditional analysis and design methods forapplication development. This preference is stronger when OO is used in a greater number of SDLC steps, when project size is larger, and when the respondent has greater OO experience. Those using any tools (environment, language, or both) express stronger preferences than those who do not, as do respondents using formal methodologies, especially when methodologies are used alongside tools.
Respondents find OO to bemore useful and efficientthan other approaches to systems development. This opinion is stronger when OO is used in a greater number of SDLC steps, when project size is larger, and when the respondent has greater OO experience. Respondents using development environments are more favorable to OO than those relying on OO programming languages. Those using formal methodologies in conjunction with any type of tool also express more favorable opinions of usefulness and efficiency.
When compared with other approaches, respondents find OO to bemore difficult to acquire skills in, although experienced users find it less difficult than those with less OO experience. In particular, they found it harder to learn and harder to become skillful in than other approaches. Those with greater OO experience also found OO to be moreeasy to learn and usein general than those with less experience. Those using both methods and tools also find OO easier to learn and use. The respondents perceive that OO will takelonger for a novice to learnthan traditional techniques, andlonger for a novice to become an IS expert. Those with more OO experience thought that IS expertise is harder to acquire than those with less experience.
Compared to other approaches, OO is preferred because of the characteristics leading tojob efficiency,with respondents considering OO to be more efficient, more productive, more effective, easier to do your job, and improving job performance. These preferences are stronger when OO is used in a greater number of SDLC steps, when project size is larger, and when the respondent has greater OO experience.
Respondents prefer OO forcommunicating with usersand forcommunicating among team members. These preferences are stronger when OO is used in a greater number of SDLC steps, when project size is larger, and when the respondent has greater OO experience. Client communication rating is enhanced by the use of environments over languages, also when using any type of tool, and when employing a formal methodology, especially when also using a tool. Likewise, team communication is improved when a formal methodology is used, especially in conjunction with a tool. Respondents also find OO to be useful forshortening the learning curve for new project members.
OO leads totime savingswhen used across a greater number of SDLC steps, for larger projects, and when any tool is used. However, all respondents expect OO to takelonger to perform the analysisstep of SDLC than traditional methods. Time savings are expected to accrue from theimplementation and maintenancesteps, especially when used across a greater number of SDLC steps, for larger projects, when OO tools are used, and when methodologies are used with tools. Tool users expect OO to take about the same time as traditional methods for understanding the domain, yet those not using tools expect to take longer for this step.
for a greater breadth of coverage and range of respon-dents. The survey was sent early in the adoption life cycle of OO technology, so that the potential for gathering pre-existing internal statistics for measure-ment of much of the data of interest was low. Given our goal of encouraging response by employing a short survey instrument, we elected to rely on perceptual data rather than asking respondents to collect or measure OO activity outside of their personal domain. We anticipated the relatively low response rate to the questionnaire, given the amount of unsolicited mail in this ®eld, and the short average tenure of the typical respondent added to an expected high rate of returned or forwarded mail.
The respondents represent a cross-section of the IS industry actually using OO techniques as re¯ected by the range of reported job titles and companies. They also are active practitioners, and may be more experi-enced with OO techniques and development tools than the ``average'' IS developer. Because they, for the most part, reported at least some experience with OO, they may be overly enthusiastic about the tech-nology. Cognitive dissonance theory would suggest that developers who have spent considerable effort learning OO techniques would report overly positive perceptions to justify the invested effort [14]. Thus, the positive ®ndings may not re¯ect the population involved in IS development activities.
7. Conclusion
The result of this analysis is immediately useful for ®rms that are beginning to move toward an OO environment. It recognizes that a long initial period of transition will lead to substantial expected bene®ts, but only after the company has invested considerable time and effort. It is also useful for those ®rms and professionals with some experience in OO, guiding them to further pursue OO to garner expected bene®ts. It substantiates claims in the trade press that the move to the OO paradigm involves more than learning a new programming language.
This study invokes concerns about the dif®culties professionals report in moving to OO, in spite of suggestions that link OO representations to the natural knowledge representation schemes of experts. It leads to questions about the properties of OO that best
promote reuse and sharing, as these bear out as the keys to success for the approach.
References
[1] R. Adhikari, Adopting OO languages? Check your mindset at the door, Software Magazine, November, (1995) 49±50, 54±55.
[2] R. Agarwal, A.P. Sinha, M.R. Tanniru, Cognitive ®t in requirements modeling: A study of object and process methodologies, Journal of Management Information Systems 13(2), 1996, pp. 137±162.
[3] R.D. Banker, R.J. Kauffman, Reuse and productivity in Integrated Computer-Aided Software Engineering: An em-pirical study, MIS Quarterly 15(3), 1991, pp. 375±401. [4] R.D. Banker, C.F. Kemerer, Scale economies in new software
development, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 15(10), 1989, pp. 1189±1205.
[5] W. Berg, M. Cline, M. Girou, Lessons learned from the OS/ 400 Project, Communications of the ACM 38(10), 1995, pp. 54±64.
[6] B.A. Blake, P. Jalics, An assessment of object-oriented methods and C, Journal of Object-oriented Programming 9(1), 1996, pp. 42±48.
[7] T. Bruckhaus, N.H. Madhavji, I. Janssen, J. Henshaw, The impact of tools on software productivity, IEEE Software, September, (1996) 29±38.
[8] B. Curtis, H. Kraemer, N. Iscoe, A ®eld study of the software design process for large systems, Communications of the ACM 31(11), 1988, pp. 1268±1287.
[9] F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly 13(3), 1989, pp. 319±340.
[10] S.M. Dekleva, The in¯uence of the information systems development approach on maintenance, MIS Quarterly 16(3), 1992, pp. 355±371.
[11] W.H. DeLone, E.R. McLean, Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable, Information Systems Research 3(1), 1992, pp. 60±95.
[12] M.E. Fayad, W.-T. Tsai, Introduction to section on object-oriented experiences, Communications of the ACM 38(10), 1995, pp. 50±53.
[13] M. Fayad, W.-T. Tsai, M.L. Fulghum, Transition to object-oriented software development, Communications of the ACM 39(2), 1996, pp. 109±121.
[14] L. Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989.
[15] P.N. Finlay, A.C. Mitchell, Perceptions of the bene®ts from the introduction of CASE: An empirical study, MIS Quarterly 18(4), 1994, pp. 353±370.
[16] A. Goldberg, , Why Smalltalk? Communications of the ACM 38(10), 1995, pp. 105±106.
[18] D.L. Goodhue, R.L. Thompson, Task-technology ®t and individual performance, MIS Quarterly 19(2), 1995, pp. 213± 236.
[19] E.M. Hufnagel, C. Conca, User response data: The potential for errors and biases, Information Systems Research 5(1), 1994, pp. 48±73.
[20] D. Kara, Object-oriented analysis and design gears up for the mainstream, Application Development Trends, March, 1996, 109±110.
[21] P. Korzeniowski, Breaking down the OO language barrier, Software Magazine, September 1995, 43±45, 49±53. [22] R.E. Kraut, L.A. Streeter, Coordination in software
devel-opment, Communications of the ACM 38(3), 1995, pp. 69± 81.
[23] A.H. Lindsay, P.R. Hoffman, Bridging traditional and object technologies: Creating transitional applications, IBM Sys-tems Journal, 36(1) 1997.
[24] Object Management Group (1992), unpublished slide pre-sentation on Hughes DoD Composite Software Error History. [25] C.M. Pancake, The promise and the cost of object technology: a ®ve-year forecast, Communications of the ACM 38(10), 1995, pp. 33±49.
[26] Software Magazine (1996), The Business Case for Object Technology, May, Editorial supplement.
[27] M. Tan, Establishing mutual understanding in systems design: an empirical study, Journal of Management Informa-tion Systems 10(4), 1994, pp. 159±182.
[28] I. Vessey, S.A. Conger, Requirements speci®cation: learning object, Process and Data Methodologies 37(5), 1994, pp. 102±113.
[29] I. Vessey, S.L. Jarvenpaa, N. Tractinsky, Evaluation of vendor products: CASE tools as methodology companions, Communications of the ACM 35(4), 1992, pp. 91±105. [30] A.O. Villeneuve, J. Fedorowicz, Understanding expertise in
information systems, Or what's all the fuss about OO, Decision Support Systems 21(2), 1997, pp. 111±131. [31] S. Wang, Toward formalized object-oriented management
information systems analysis, Journal of Management Information Systems 12(4), 1996, pp. 117±141.
Jane Fedorowiczis Associate Professor of Accountancy at Bentley College where she is teaching accounting and information systems courses. She re-ceived her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Systems Sciences from Carnegie-Mellon University. She has previously taught at Carnegie-Mellon University, Northwes-tern University, Boston University and the University of Massachusetts at Boston. Professor Fedorowicz currently serves as Associate Editor ofInformation Systems Research, Communications of the Associa-tion for InformaAssocia-tion Systems, and the Review of Accounting Information Systems. Her primary research interests involve the impact of information technologies on individuals and organiza-tions, especially executive information systems and object oriented technologies. She is also conducting case studies of Year 2000 initiatives. She has published in Decision Sciences, Journal of Management Information Systems, Information and Management, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Communications of the ACM, International Journal of Technology Management, Decision Support Systems, and many other venues.
