Computer-aided software engineering: perceptions of technology, work, and management among I.S. personnel

• Authors: Neil C. Ramiller
• Venue: SIGCPR '93 Proceedings of the 1993 conference on Computer personnel research
• Year: 1993

This paper describes a study of how users and prospective users ofcomputer-aided software engineering technology (CASE) perceive CASE asan innovation in their work. The study focused on how informationsystems personnel view the interaction of the technology with theirestablished base of knowledge and skill, their goals and aspirations inwork, and the managerial and organizational environment. Five majorareas of concern among I.S. personnel were identified, including:The efficacy of CASE technology.The learning challenge posed by the new technology, and theimplications of this challenge for personal control in the worksituation.The potential effects of CASE on the individual's experience ofwork and sense of professionalismThe impact of CASE on existing policies and procedures, andmanagement's understanding and flexibility in adapting these to fit thenew conditions.The adequacy of available resources, such as training andconsulting, to support the personal transition to a CASEenvironment.Survey respondents generally viewed the adoption of CASE in apositive light, and were especially positive on the issue of knowledgeand personal control. However, respondents expressed pessimism conceringpolicy impacts and management adaptability. Cluster analysis based onresponses in the five areas of concern exposed four major groups ofrespondents. These arrayed themselves from “fans” or enthusiasts, who were strongly positive in their responses on alldimensions, to the “pessimists,” who on balance responded negatively on most issues. In between these expremes lay two groups,including “moderates” who gave intermediate responses on allissues, and “ management skeptics,” who expressed stronglypositive views of the technology itself, their ability to learn andadapt to it, and its implications for professional outcomes, butstrongly negative views on management adaptability and theorganization's capability to provide transitional support. The fourgroups varied significantly in age, CASE experience, change agentcontact, and level of internal communication; further, externalorientation, as measured by exposure to trade media and byparticipation in professional associations, set the management skepticsapart from the other groups. The findings of the study indicate thatI.S. personnel tend to hold complex and varied views of CASE, itsimplications for work, and the implementation process. This serves toremind managers not to think of I.S. personnel as a homogeneous groupbut rather as a diverse and potentially sophisticated community callingfor advance leadership strategies. The study's findings suggest,further, that where resistance or dissatisfaction arises during theimplementation of CASE, the problem may well rest in managementcompetence, policies, and actions, rather than in an inherentunwillingness of the I.S. personnel to learn new practices and adopt newwork routines. The association of selected antecedents with positiveperceptions of CASE suggests possiblities for favorably managing theconditions of implementation.