Experience on Developing an Information System

Experience on Developing an Information System Using CASE Tools Anne M. Welch, James W. Hong and Michael A. Bauer Department of Computer Science University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada fwelch,jwkhong,[email protected]

June 10, 1994

Abstract

Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) tools were introduced commercially in the early 1980's for assisting developers in the design and development of information systems. Although most CASE tools' capabilities have improved considerably since then, they are still not meeting the expectations that were initially anticipated. In this report, we provide an overview of the project which involved the development of an information system using an integrated CASE tool, namely the Information Engineering Facility (IEF) by Texas Instruments. We present a brief overview of the information system that was developed. We also present a brief overview of the IEF CASE tool and our evaluation of the speci c pros and cons of the tool. Our overall experience as well as the lessons learned on the project are also discussed.

This research work is supported by the Supply Services Canada and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

Contents

1 Introduction 2 Project Overview 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Information Strategy Planning : : : : Business Area Analysis : : : : : : : : : Business System and Technical Design Construction and Testing : : : : : : : Methodology : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Evaluation Factors : : : : : : : : : : :

7 8 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

3 Overview of the Information System 3.1 Objective : : : : : : 3.2 Rationale : : : : : : 3.3 Information System

11

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

4 Overview of the IEF CASE tool 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

IEF Planning Toolset : : IEF Analysis Toolset : : : IEF Design Toolset : : : : IEF Construction Toolset

12 12 12

13

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

5 Development of the Information System

5.1 Information Strategy Planning (ISP) : : : : : 5.1.1 IEF Planning Toolset Summary : : : : 5.1.2 IEF Planning Toolset Deliverables : : 5.2 Business Area Analysis (BAA) : : : : : : : : 5.2.1 IEF Analysis Toolset Summary : : : : 5.2.2 IEF Analysis Toolset Deliverables : : 5.3 Business System and Technical Design (BSD) 5.3.1 IEF Design Toolset Summary : : : : : 5.3.2 IEF Design Toolset Deliverables : : : 5.4 Construction and Testing : : : : : : : : : : : 5.4.1 IEF Construction Toolset Summary : 5.4.2 IEF Construction Toolset Deliverables

8 9 9 9 9 9

13 14 14 15

15 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

6 Experience

6.1 Summary of Good Features of the IEF Toolsets : 6.2 Summary of Poor Features of the IEF Toolsets : 6.3 Summary of Inconsistencies in the IEF Toolsets :

16 16 18 24 24 26 28 30 30 31 32 32

32 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

33 34 35

7 Project Summary

7.1 Goals : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 7.1.1 Case Study : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 7.1.2 CASE Tool Review : : : : : : : : : : 7.2 Evaluation Factors : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 7.2.1 Diagramming Capabilities : : : : : : 7.2.2 Software Engineering Methodologies 7.2.3 Consistency Checking : : : : : : : : 7.2.4 Toolset Integration : : : : : : : : : : 7.2.5 Documentation : : : : : : : : : : : : 7.2.6 Database Generation : : : : : : : : : 7.2.7 Code Construction : : : : : : : : : : 7.2.8 Reengineering Support : : : : : : : : 7.2.9 Availability of Metrics : : : : : : : :

35 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

8 Conclusions and Future Work 8.1 Conclusions : 8.2 Future Work

38

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

A Distributed Project Management Information System A.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : A.1.1 Objective : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : A.1.2 Information System : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : A.1.3 Rationale : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : A.2 De nition of Information System : : : : : : : : : : : : : A.2.1 Update/Create Tool (Information Maintenance) A.2.2 Retrieval/Browse Tool : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : A.2.3 Entities, Attributes and Relationships : : : : : :

36 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 39

42 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

B IEF-Generated Entity Type De nition Report C A Sample IEF-Generated C Code D Evaluation of the IEF Toolsets

D.1 The IEF Planning Toolset : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.1.1 IEF Organizational Hierarchy Diagram (OHD) : : : : D.1.2 IEF Data Model: Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) D.1.3 Activity Hierarchy Diagram (AHD) : : : : : : : : : : D.1.4 Activity Dependency Diagram (ADD) : : : : : : : : : D.1.5 Matrix Processor : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.1.6 Summary : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.2 The IEF Analysis Toolset : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.2.1 Data Model: Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) : : D.2.2 Data Model List (DML) : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

42 42 42 42 43 43 44 45

52 59 66 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

66 66 68 70 71 72 73 73 74 74

D.2.3 Activity Hierarchy Diagram (AHD) : : : : : : : : D.2.4 Activity Dependency Diagram (ADD) : : : : : : : D.2.5 Action Diagram - Process Action Diagram (PAD) D.2.6 Action Block Usage : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.2.7 Matrices : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.2.8 Business System De nition : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.2.9 Summary : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.3 The IEF Design Toolset : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.3.1 Business System Defaults : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.3.2 Dialog Design : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.3.3 Screen Design : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.3.4 Action Diagram : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.3.5 Work Set List : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.3.6 Structure Chart : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.3.7 Action Block Usage : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.3.8 Data Structure List and Data Store List : : : : : : D.3.9 Transformation : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.3.10 Retransformation : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.3.11 Referential Integrity : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.3.12 Reports : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.3.13 Consistency Checks : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.3.14 Summary : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.4 The IEF Construction Toolset : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.4.1 Environment : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.4.2 Packaging : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.4.3 Generation : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : D.4.4 Application Environment Facility (AEF) : : : : : : D.4.5 Summary : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

E TI IEF Tutorials

E.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : E.2 Information Engineering Facility (IEF) : E.3 IEF Toolsets : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : E.3.1 Planning Toolset : : : : : : : : : E.3.2 Analysis Toolset : : : : : : : : : E.3.3 Design Toolset : : : : : : : : : : E.3.4 Construction Toolset : : : : : : : E.4 IEF Tools and Features : : : : : : : : : E.4.1 Chain : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : E.4.2 Edit : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : E.4.3 View : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : E.4.4 Redraw : : : : : : : : : : : : : : E.4.5 Consistency Checks : : : : : : : E.4.6 Help : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

75 75 76 79 79 80 80 81 81 82 84 85 86 86 87 87 87 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 91 92 93

94 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

94 94 94 94 95 96 96 97 97 97 97 97 97 98

E.4.7 Reports : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : E.5 Tutorial 1 - Organizational Hierarchy Diagram E.6 Tutorial 2 - Entity-Relationship Diagram : : : E.6.1 Entities, Attributes and Relationships : E.7 Tutorial 3 - Activity Hierarchy Diagram : : : : E.7.1 Function and Process Descriptions : : : E.7.2 IEF Activity Hierarchy Report : : : : : E.8 Tutorial 4 - Activity Dependency Diagram : : : E.8.1 Process Dependencies : : : : : : : : : : E.9 Tutorial 5 - Process Action Diagrams : : : : : : E.9.1 Sample IEF Process Action Diagrams : E.10 Tutorial 6 - Business System Defaults : : : : : E.11 Tutorial 7 - Dialog Flow Diagram : : : : : : : : E.12 Tutorial 8 - Procedure Action Diagrams : : : : E.13 Tutorial 9 - Screen Design : : : : : : : : : : : : E.14 Tutorial 10 - Construction : : : : : : : : : : : : E.15 Tutorial 11 - Testing : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : E.15.1 Testing using the Installation Monitor : E.15.2 Testing using the AEF : : : : : : : : : :

98 : 100 : 102 : 104 : 108 : 110 : 114 : 115 : 117 : 118 : 119 : 123 : 125 : 128 : 130 : 132 : 134 : 134 : 134

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

List of Figures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Organizational Hierarchy Diagram : : : : : : Consistency Check Report : : : : : : : : : : : Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) : : : : : Entity Relationship Diagram (Project Entity) Activity Dependency Diagram (ADD) : : : : Activity Hierarchy Diagram (AHD) : : : : : : A Sample Action Block Diagram : : : : : : : Structure Chart Diagram : : : : : : : : : : : A Sample User Interface Screen : : : : : : : : Dialog Flow Diagram (DFD) : : : : : : : : :

17 : 19 : 20 : 21 : 22 : 23 : 25 : 27 : 29 : 127

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

1 Introduction Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) tools were introduced commercially in the early 1980's. CASE was developed to facilitate the use of a structured and consistent methodology for software/systems development, particularly within an organization. The use of a structured development methodology and speci cally a CASE tool which would enforce the consistency of methods in an organization was seen as a solution to the diculty of maintaining a consistent methodology and quality of product. Although some organizations have adopted the use of CASE tools 1], in some instances these tools are simply not used after purchase 15]. Reasons which have been cited for the lack of acceptance include the length of the learning curve involved in adapting to the CASE tool and simply the adjustment to structured development methodology in an environment where this has not been followed previously. CASE tools are purported to decrease development time and increase productivity, however, the learning phase must be completed and the technology accepted, before changes in productivity can accurately be assessed. CASE tools fall into three categories depending on the phase of the development life cycle the tool supports. Upper CASE tools support the planning and analysis phases of system development with some support of the design phase. Lower CASE tools support the design and construction phases of development. Integrated CASE tools (I-CASE) support all the phases of development and provide support as well for reengineering. Advancements in the CASE tools available have resulted in the growth of the integrated CASE tools category which take the developer or development teams through the entire process from planning to construction and testing. This project was undertaken to study the development of an information system using an integrated CASE tool. The goals of the project were: To develop a case study for possible use in class environments (such as software engineering, systems analysis and design). To assess the reason(s) CASE tools have not achieved the level of acceptance that was initially anticipated. { Is the learning curve excessively long? { If so, why is the learning curve so long? { Is the learning curve worth the eort? The integrated CASE tool that was selected was Texas Instruments' (TI) Information Engineering Facility (IEF), Version 5.1. This CASE tool consists of four toolsets: 1) Planning, 2) Analysis, 3) Design and 4) Construction. These allow the developer(s) to evolve the application under development through the entire process from planning to implementation. The same information system that was developed for this case study was also developed in the department without the use of a CASE tool which provided insight into the development process without the introduction of CASE technology. The rest of this report is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the project, including the methodology followed for the project. A number of factors were identi ed prior to 7

the start of the project which would provide a basis for the evaluation of the CASE tool. These are detailed in the overview of the project. Section 3 provides a brief overview of the information system that was developed for this project and the rationale for the selection of this information system. Complete details of the information system can be found in Appendix A. Section 4 provides an overview of the IEF toolsets and the tools available in each toolset. A detailed evaluation of the IEF toolsets is given in Appendix D. A set of tutorials that can be used for learning the IEF CASE tool is also included in Appendix E. Section 5 provides details of the development of the information system. This section is divided into subsections, one for each of the four development phases and each subsection also includes a brief summary of the evaluation of the applicable IEF tools and toolset. Section 6 provides a discussion of the experience in the use of the IEF. This section highlights some of the good features and poor features of the IEF, some of which may be applicable to I-CASE tools in general. Section 7 provides a summary of the project. This section also includes comments regarding the evaluation factors stated in Section 2 and provides answers to the questions raised for these factors. Section 8 provides the conclusions reached at the end of this project. The questions raised in the goals of the project are answered, or at the very least the author's opinions regarding the answers to those questions are provided. This section also provides plans or suggestions for future work in this area.

2 Project Overview This project involved a case study using the Information Engineering Facility (IEF) by Texas Instruments (TI). The software development methodology followed was determined by the IEF tool which uses the Information Engineering structured methodology de ned by James Martin 9, 13, 18]. The project involved four distinct phases: 1) Information Strategy Planning, 2) Business Area Analysis, 3) Business System and Technical Design, and 4) Construction and Testing.

2.1 Information Strategy Planning

Information Strategy Planning (ISP) involves the de nition of broad information requirements for a business system as well as a plan for the development of the information system. This includes a de nition of the organization and the entire set of business processes for a business system. This project analyzed a speci c business process and designed and implemented an information system for that process rather than an entire business system. The plan established for this project was a Systems Project Management Plan (SPMP) 17]. Microsoft Project, Version 3.0 was also used to detail the project plan. The IEF Planning Toolset, does not support documentation of a project plan.

8

2.2 Business Area Analysis

Business Area Analysis (BAA) involves the analysis of a speci c business area. BAA further de nes the data and activity requirements of a business process as well as the dependencies and interactions between data and activities. The IEF Analysis Toolset supports the activities of the BAA phase of development.

2.3 Business System and Technical Design

Business System and Technical Design (BSD/TD) involve the detailed development of the elementary processes and activities in a business process and identi cation of the target environment for the completed information system. The IEF Design Toolset supports the activities of the BSD/TD phase of development.

2.4 Construction and Testing

Construction involves the generation and installation of the database and the code for the information system. The IEF Construction Toolset for OS/2 supports the construction activities and provides testing facilities to debug the installed information system.

2.5 Methodology

The goals of this project required adherence to the Information Engineering methodology and use of all IEF toolsets. The lack of an organizational structure to analyze in this project required the use of unrelated information to fully review the IEF Planning Toolset. The information used for this purpose is de ned in the pertinent sections of this document. The information system selected for development was the Distributed Project Management Information System (DPMIS). The DPMIS provides a set of applications to support the information requirements necessary to track the progress, status and descriptive details of projects spanning multiple sites. Details of the information system are included in the section, \Overview of the Information System". The DPMIS developed was saved at the completion of each development phase to provide a complete case study for future reference. The process of developing this system was detailed and documented with a view to providing documentation of the CASE development process and information on the functionality of the selected CASE tool. In addition, a set of tutorials has been developed for possible use in future courses, to assist individuals in gaining experience with the IEF toolsets.

2.6 Evaluation Factors

The following aspects of the CASE tool's performance and functionality were taken into consideration and the associated questions answered in order to complete the evaluation. The factors considered in this study have been de ned through a combination of the author's CASE tool experience and a review of the available literature 1, 15]. Diagraming Capabilities 9

{ Quality of Diagrams

Are diagram labels readable? Can diagram objects be resized? Can diagram lines be redrawn? { Flexibility of Diagraming Tools
Is it possible to transfer between levels of a diagram?
Is it possible to transfer between related diagrams? { Quality of Printout of Diagrams
Is diagram printout legible?
Can diagram fonts be adjusted?
Can diagram headings be changed?




Software Engineering Methodologies { Methodologies Supported
Does the tool support a single methodology?
Are multiple methodologies supported?
What methodologies are supported? { Adherence to Speci c Methodologies
Are there speci c omissions that can be identi ed related to the methodology? Consistency Checking { Flexibility of Consistency Checking
Are consistency checks run automatically by the CASE tool?
Can the user initiate consistency checks?
Can the user specify the level of the consistency check? { Completeness of Consistency Checks
Are there errors in the development process that are not identi ed in consistency checks and become evident at a later phase of development? Toolset Integration { Level of Integration
Are all of the toolsets for the CASE tool integrated?
Is a common repository accessible by all tools?
Is all of the information entered in the planning phase toolset available to the analysis phase toolset?
Do details of the information system need to be reentered? Documentation 10

{ Completeness of Documentation

Are there omissions of detail regarding the information system that can be identi ed in the documentation produced?
Is the documentation produced useful to individuals not familiar with the speci c CASE tool?
Are all details regarding a process or object presented in the documentation and reports available? { Readability of Documentation
Do documents include a description of processes or objects that allows the reader to understand the purpose of the object or process with respect to the information system?
Are headings included that identify the report or document?


Database Generation { What databases types can be generated? Code Construction { Programming Languages
What languages can be generated? { Quality of Code Generated
Does the code generated compile without errors?
If not, how many errors are encountered per module?
Are changes/additions necessary to the nal code?
How many changes/additions are required? Reengineering Support { Are changes made in earlier development phases integrated into the latter phases (specifically related to reengineering)? Availability of Metrics { Management Metrics
Are management metrics available? { Quality Metrics
Are quality metrics available?

3 Overview of the Information System The information system selected for development was the Distributed Project Management Information System (DPMIS). This section provides essential details of the DPMIS. A complete description of the DPMIS is appended to this document (Appendix A). 11

3.1 Objective

The DPMIS supports the tracking of the progress, status and descriptive details of projects spanning multiple sites, including: De nition of Projects which are local to sites or span multiple sites. Permit the creation, update and deletion of Projects by Project Leaders. Permit any Project Member to Browse and/or Retrieve information about any Project or related entities.

3.2 Rationale

The information system oers a number of attractions for use in the case study: We have experience with a distributed project, namely CORDS, 10] which can provide a set of needs and for which such an information system would have been very useful. It oers local update and yet requires a browsing capability which entails multi-site queries. Interfaces for the two tools, one for information maintenance and one for information retrieval, should be kept simple. It is easy to explain the scenario and need for such an information system to non-technical users (e.g. managers and executives). It is easy to de ne additional tools for generating reports, extracting data for PERT or Gantt Charts, extracting e-mail lists, etc.

3.3 Information System

The information system consists of two (initial) components: 1. Information Maintenance Tool The Information Maintenance Tool allows the creation, update and deletion of all entities de ned in the information system. 2. Information Retrieval Tool The Information Retrieval Tool allows the retrieval of information regarding all current Projects and the related entities de ned in the information system. Each tool will run local to a Site. The Information Maintenance Tool will update a local database (or designate) while the Information Retrieval Tool will permit information to be collected from the multiple sites. The entities de ned in the information system are as follows: Projects are research projects being conducted by organizations at various sites in Canada, the United States and Europe. 12

Sites are organizations in Canada, the United States and Europe where Projects are undertaken.

Sites can be maintained on the database without currently active projects. Members are sta, students and faculty at the sites who are currently involved with projects which are being monitored using the DPMIS. Milestones represent signi cant development events that exist for each project. Deliverables represent speci c documents, prototypes and presentations and their respective delivery dates that exist for each project. Documents represent information about the current projects.

4 Overview of the IEF CASE tool The IEF products utilized in this project were the IEF Version 5.1 for use in the DOS/Windows Version 3.1 environment and the IEF Version 5.1 for use in the OS/2 environment. The initial development of the DPMIS was done using the Planning, Analysis and Design Toolsets of the IEF for Windows because the OS/2 operating system and Extended Services for OS/2 were not available at the start of this project. The IEF Construction Toolset requires either a mainframe environment or the OS/2 operating system with Extended Services for OS/2. The IEF DPMIS model was transferred to the IEF for OS/2 when this became available. This section of the document details the IEF toolsets and the tools available in each toolset. The IEF Planning, Analysis and Design toolsets are nearly identical for both environments, however, dierences that do exist in the toolsets are noted.

4.1 IEF Planning Toolset

The Planning Toolset of the IEF was used during information strategy planning in the development of the business information system. The Planning Toolset of the IEF has the following options available. Data Model facilitates the creation of an entity relationship diagram (ERD) for the information system under development. Data Model List provides an alternative method of constructing the ERD and provides the entity relationship details in a list format. Activity Hierarchy facilitates the creation of an activity hierarchy diagram (AHD) for the information system under development. Activity Dependency facilitates the creation of an activity dependency diagram (ADD). This is developed automatically by the IEF as the user develops the AHD. Organizational Hierarchy accesses the organizational hierarchy diagraming tool to enable the construction of the organizational hierarchy diagram.

13

Matrices are automatically generated by the IEF and are utilized to perform analysis of the system. Check initiates a Consistency Check.

4.2 IEF Analysis Toolset

The Analysis Toolset of the IEF is used during business area analysis of the information system under development. The Analysis Toolset of the IEF has the following options available 1 . Data Model. Data Model List. Activity Hierarchy. Activity Dependency. Action Diagram facilitates the creation of action diagrams (algorithms) for processes de ned in the activity hierarchy. Work Set List provides a list of the work sets available for the system. Work sets are used for items such as counters, user input that is not entity related (e.g., menu selections). Structure Chart which displays the action block hierarchy diagram. Action Block Usage which displays the usage of action blocks by procedures and procedure steps. Matrices. Business System De nition facilitates the de nition of a business system for use in the Design Toolset. Check.

4.3 IEF Design Toolset

The Design Toolset of the IEF is used during business system design and technical design of the information system under development. The Design Toolset of the IEF has the following options available. Business System Defaults allows the setting of system defaults such as screen video properties and function key assignments. Dialog Design allows the development of the dialog ow diagram. Screen Design allows the design of the user interface. 1

Options that are not described here possess the same meaning as given previously.

14

Action Diagram. Work Set List. Structure Chart. Action Block Usage. Prototyping allows the review of the design of the user interface. Dialect De nition allows the user to de ne objects for use in the model. The IEF has a default dialect. Check. Data Structure Defaults allows the user to set the defaults for data structures. Data Structure List presents a list of the physical data model. Data Store List provides a list of the data stores, tablespaces and records. Transformation is the transformation of the data model objects to data model structures. Retransformation is used to perform transformation again when changes have been made to the data model. Referential Integrity Process checks the integrity of the data model relationships.

4.4 IEF Construction Toolset

The Construction Toolset of the IEF was used to generate and install the database tables and the code for the DPMIS. The code generated was C although generation of COBOL source code is also available. The Construction Toolset of the IEF has the following options available. Environment is the tool used to de ne the environment the application will be used in following development. The environment parameters that are de ned here include the target operating system, database management system and language. Packaging allows the user to specify the type of load modules: Online, Batch, or Window and the number of load modules or objects will be required for the business system. Generation is the nal tool used in this toolset. This tool allows the user to generate and install the database and code. Installation includes compilation and linking of the load modules and results in the production of executable modules.

5 Development of the Information System The development of the DPMIS followed the Information Engineering methodology used by the IEF CASE tool. The following sections describe the activities and IEF tools used in each phase of development. The reference materials available for the IEF 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] were reviewed prior to the initiation of the DPMIS development. 15

5.1 Information Strategy Planning (ISP)

The IEF Planning Toolset was used throughout this phase of the project. The IEF Planning Toolset does not support project management plan documentation, therefore, a SPMP 17] was developed. The basic information requirements and functional requirements of the DPMIS had been outlined prior to the initiation of the use of the IEF. The de nitions of the DPMIS and the entities for this system were clari ed prior to the development of an entity relationship diagram (ERD). The entity relationship diagram was developed in detail during the planning phase although this is not necessary in the ISP phase of development. Generally the details of entities and entity relationships for an information system would be entered in the Business Area Analysis (BAA) phase with the use of the Data Model tool. The Data Model tool is accessible in both the Planning Toolset and the Analysis Toolset. The consistency check feature provided by the IEF was used throughout the planning phase and was the nal step undertaken before moving on to the analysis phase to ensure the information contained in the IEF model of the DPMIS was correct and complete (see Figure 2). The reports available from the IEF, including the consistency check reports, were reviewed and used to con rm the correctness and completeness of the planning phase development throughout this phase of the project. In addition to the development of the DPMIS with the IEF Planning toolset additional examples were used and tests were undertaken to ensure the utilization of all of the features of the Planning toolset. In particular, the IEF Organizational Hierarchy diagraming tool was utilized to develop an organizational hierarchy diagram (OHD) (Figure 1). The details of the good features, poor features and inconsistencies that were encountered in the use of the IEF Planning Toolset are included in the \Evaluation of the IEF Toolsets" document (Appendix D). A summary of these comments is included here.

5.1.1 IEF Planning Toolset Summary The IEF Planning Toolset is, overall a straight forward tool to learn to use. The on-line Help facility is very good and detailed. Methods for developing the diagrams are consistent throughout the various diagramming tools. The IEF does not oer the exibility or diagram quality that would be required to develop presentation quality diagrams. The diagrams produced are more appropriate for information only. For example, the information contained in the diagrams could be useful to an analysis team for the next phase of development. The following short comments provide a brief outline of notable good features, poor features and inconsistencies. Details of these features and other features can be found in Appendix D.

Chaining allows the developer to move quickly between sections of a diagram and between diagrams.

Chaining does not allow the display of dierent sections of a diagram in dierent windows

at the same time. Subordinate units in an organizational hierarchy diagram (OHD) cannot have two parents. Names of organizational units cannot exceed 32 characters in length. 16

Model :UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO Subset:ALL

Date: Jun. 06, 1994 Time: 09:14

CHANC>

PRESIDE>

INSTITUTI> LIBRARIES VICE-PR> DEAN A> DEAN A> DEAN B> DEAN D> DEAN E> D

Figure 1: Organizational Hierarchy Diagram

17

Printing of diagrams produces poor quality print outs. Help is very good in the Planning Toolset. There are instances where the information

provided was inadequate. Reports are useful and provide good detail regarding the information system that is being developed. Automatic population of related diagrams and matrices by the IEF is a great time saver. Consistency checks are the primary error checking method used throughout development. The reports provided are useful (See Figure 2). Consistency checks can be initiated by the developer. Release Notes provided in the Reports menu are useful, particularly, since the documentation available was for Version 4.1.

5.1.2 IEF Planning Toolset Deliverables The IEF deliverables for the ISP phase were produced. Examples of the diagrams and reports produced are included to provide a view of the type of documentation produced by the IEF Planning Toolset. The entire set of deliverables for this phase is not included because of the length of some of the reports. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Organizational Hierarchy Diagram (Figure 1) Data Model (Entity-Relationship Diagram) (Figure 3) Entity Hierarchy Report Data Model List Entity Type De nition Attribute De nition Report Process (Activity) Hierarchy Diagram (Figure 6) Activity Hierarchy Report Process (Activity) Dependency Diagram (Figure 5)

18

Model : DISTRIBUTED PROJECT MANAGEMENT Subset: ALL

Mar. 20, 1994

09:43 page 1

Consistency Check ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Level: TD ---------Model/Subset ---------Process ADD_PROJECT WARNING : ICCPF10W Dependencies of elementary processes and external objects should be associated with information views. Business System DISTRIBUTED_PROJECT_MANAGEMENT WARNING : ICCBS02W All processes scoped in a business system should be implemented. Screen for Procedure Step MAINTAIN_PROJECT WARNING : ICCSC10W Each mandatory input predicate view should be input by a screen variable or provided by a dialog flow. Link from Procedure Step MAINTAIN_PROJECT to Procedure Step MAINTAIN_PROJECT WARNING : ICCDV11W The view provided as import should have all the attribute views needed by the receiving action block. Link from Procedure Step MAINTAIN_PROJECT to Procedure Step MAINTAIN_MEMBER WARNING : ICCDV11W The view provided as import should have all the attribute views needed by the receiving action block. Screen for Procedure Step MAINTAIN_MEMBER WARNING : ICCSC10W Each mandatory input predicate view should be input by a screen variable or provided by a dialog flow. Link from Procedure Step MAINTAIN_DELIVERABLE to Procedure Step MAINTAIN_MEMBER WARNING : ICCDV11W The view provided as import should have all the attribute views needed by the receiving action block. Link from Procedure Step MAINTAIN_DELIVERABLE to Procedure Step MAINTAIN_DELIVERABLE WARNING : ICCDV11W The view provided as import should have all the attribute views needed by the receiving action block. External Object DISTRIBUTED_PROJECT_MANAGEMENT WARNING : ICCEX02W An external object should be associated with at least one activity. Number of ERRORS: 0, number of WARNINGS: 9.

-End of Report-

Figure 2: Consistency Check Report

19

Model :DISTRIBUTED PROJECT MANAGEMENT Subset:ALL

Date: Mar. 20, 1994 Time: 09:40

DISTRIBUTED PROJECT MANAGEME> HAS RELATION TO IS RELATED TO

HAS DELIVERABLES IS DESCRIBED BY DOCUMENT IS COORDINATED BY PROJECT

SUPERVISES IS SUPERVISED BY

COORDINATES PROJECT HAS MILESTONE HAS MEMBER IS MEMBER OF PROJECT

IS AT

IS AT PRIMARY

IS PRINCIPAL> MEMBER

HAS PRIMARY AFF>

IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALSO WORKS AT WORKS ON IS AUTHOR OF

IS CONTACT FOR

MANAGES

HAS MEMBER

IS PRIMARY AFFILIATION FOR

HAS PROJECT

IS PRIMARY LOCATION FOR

HAS CONTACT

SITE

CAN FTP DOCUMENT

IS MILESTONE OF

Figure 3: Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD)

20

IS MANAGED BY

Model :DISTRIBUTED PROJECT MANAGEMENT Subset:ALL

Date: Mar. 20, 1994 Time: 09:43

DISTRIBUTED PROJECT MANAGEMENT HAS RELATION TO IS RELATED TO

HAS DELIVERABLES IS DESCRIBED BY DOCUMENT IS COORDINATED BY PROJECT HAS MILESTONE HAS MEMBER

IS AT

IS AT PRIMARY

H

IS PRIMARY AFFIL

HA

IS PRIMARY LOC

Figure 4: Entity Relationship Diagram (Project Entity)

21

Model :DISTRIBUTED PROJECT MANAGEMENT Subset:ALL PROJECT INFORMATION EXISTS

MILESTONE

INFORMAT>

PROJECT MANAGEMENT DATABASE INFO

INFORMATION

EXISTS

SITE INFORMATION RETRIEVAL

MEMBER INFORMATION>

I>

SITE

DOCUMENT INFORMATION EXISTS

DELIVERABLE

Date: Mar. 30, 1994 Time: 21:06

MEMBER INFORMATION RETRIEVAL

Figure 5: Activity Dependency Diagram (ADD)

22

Model :DISTRIBUTED PROJECT MANAGEMENT Subset:ALL

Date: Mar. 30, 1994 Time: 21:04

DISTRIBUTED PROJECT MANAGEME> INFORMATION MAINTENANCE PROJECT MAINTENANCE SITE MAINTENANCE MEMBER MAINTENANCE MILESTONE MAINTENANCE DELIVERABLE MAINTENANCE DOCUMENT MAINTENANCE INFORMATION RETRIEVAL PROJECT INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SITE INFORMATION RETRIEVAL MEMBER INFORMATION RETRIEVAL MILESTONE INFORMATION RETRIE> DELIVERABLE INFORMATION RETR> DOCUMENT INFORMATION RETRIEV>

Figure 6: Activity Hierarchy Diagram (AHD)

23

5.2 Business Area Analysis (BAA)

The Analysis toolset of the IEF was used to continue development of the DPMIS in the business area analysis phase. The Activity Hierarchy Diagram (AHD) had been developed to the Process Hierarchy Diagram (PHD) level rather than the Function Hierarchy Diagram (FHD) level and details such as expected eects had been included in the initial phase of the project. The analysis phase of the project, therefore, consisted of a review of the information developed during the planning phase and adjustments and corrections to this information as well as to the de nition of the DPMIS. The entity-relationship diagram (ERD) that had been constructed in the planning phase was reviewed and necessary changes were made. An alternative ERD was constructed to review the partitioning and entity subtype features of the IEF data model tool. Partitioning and entity subtypes were not used in the DPMIS because these were not applicable. The use of the Data Model List tool of the IEF toolset was reviewed. This tool can be utilized to build the ERD as an alternative to the Data Model diagraming tool that was used for this project. The Data Model List tool was not used to build an ERD. It was used to implement some of the changes necessary. The Matrix Processor of the IEF toolsets was reviewed and used to review the relationships of function, processes and entities and the expected eects of functions and processes on the entities in the data model. The Action Diagram tool of the Analysis toolset was used to develop action diagrams for the elementary processes de ned in the analysis and planning phases of development. Ultimately, the action block synthesis tool of the IEF toolset was used to produce the process action diagrams and further review and development of these diagrams was reserved for the design phase of the project. Figure 7 shows a sample action block diagram developed by the IEF Action Diagram tool. A nal consistency check was completed for the analysis phase and the Business System De nition completed to provide a business system de nition to utilize in the design phase of the project. The reports available in the IEF Analysis toolset were reviewed and utilized where appropriate throughout the business area analysis phase of the project. An example of a report generated by the IEF is appended to this document (Appendix B). The details of the good features, poor features and inconsistencies that were encountered in the use of the IEF Analysis Toolset are included in the \Evaluation of the IEF Toolsets" document (Appendix D). A summary of these comments is included here.

5.2.1 IEF Analysis Toolset Summary The Analysis Toolset usage followed very closely to that of the Planning Toolset and since the mechanical procedures for the use of IEF tools had been learned in the Planning Toolset the development was on the most part smoother and faster. The following short comments provide a brief outline of notable good features, poor features and inconsistencies. Details of these features and other features can be found in Appendix D. Chaining is useful again for moving to sections of a diagram and between diagrams. Consistency Checks are still very helpful. The checks that are initiated by the IEF are unobtrusive and essential. 24

Model : DISTRIBUTED PROJECT MANAGEMENT Subset: ALL

Mar. 20, 1994 12:31 Page: 1

Process: ADD_MEMBER ___________________________________________________________________________ Process Description: Add Member is an elementary process in the Member Maintenance process hierarchy. Action Block Description: ADD_MEMBER IMPORTS: ... EXPORTS: ... LOCALS: ENTITY ACTIONS: ... 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 13 3 14 3 15 3 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 19 19 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 23 23 21 24 21 20 17 25 17 16 1 26 1

READ stored site WHERE DESIRED stored site organization IS EQUAL TO import_1 site organization WHEN successful MOVE stored site TO export_1 site CREATE stored member SET surname TO import member surname SET first_name TO import member first_name SET project_position TO import member project_position SET email TO import member email SET telephone TO import member telephone SET fax TO import member fax SET job_type TO import member job_type SET password TO import member surname ASSOCIATE WITH stored site WHICH is_primary_affiliation_for IT WHEN successful MOVE stored member TO export member WHEN already exists EXIT STATE IS member_ae WITH ROLLBACK WHEN permitted value violation EXIT STATE IS member_pv WITH ROLLBACK IF EXITSTATE IS EQUAL TO ok READ stored_manager member WHERE DESIRED stored_manager member surname IS EQUAL TO manager_in member surname AND DESIRED stored_manager member first_name IS EQUAL TO manager_in member first_name WHEN successful MOVE stored_manager member TO manager_out member ASSOCIATE stored_manager member WITH stored member WHICH is_managed_by IT IF import member project_position IS EQUAL TO "student" READ stored_supervisor member WHERE DESIRED stored_supervisor member surname IS EQUAL TO supervisor_in member surname AND DESIRED stored_supervisor member first_name IS EQUAL TO supervisor_in member first_name WHEN successful MOVE stored_supervisor member TO supervisor_out member ASSOCIATE stored_supervisor member WITH stored member WHICH is_supervised_by IT WHEN not found EXIT STATE IS supervisor_nf WHEN not found EXIT STATE IS manager_nf WHEN not found EXIT STATE IS site_nf WITH ROLLBACK

Figure 7: A Sample Action Block Diagram

25

This process will facilitate cr

Help was again, on the whole, very good. There were diculties in locating some information

on topics such as View Maintenance. Printing again presents a problem because generating readable print outs is dicult, if not impossible. Data Model List provides a simple alternative tool for development of the ERD. Consistency Check was successful despite the omission of an identi er for an entity subtype. An identi er is essential in the development of an Action Diagram that eects this entity subtype. Action Block Synthesis and Expand Expected E ects are tools that provide automatic generation of portions of the action diagrams. These can save a great deal of time and should be utilized. Stereotype is another tool for automatic generation. Stereotype action diagrams can be automatically generated for diagrams such as menus. This is a useful tool, however, it is dicult to locate from the the information in the documentation provided.

5.2.2 IEF Analysis Toolset Deliverables

The IEF deliverables for the BAA phase were produced. Examples of the diagrams and reports produced are included to provide a view of the type of documentation produced by the IEF Analysis Toolset. The entire set of deliverables for this phase is not included because of the length of some of the reports. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Data Model (Entity-Relationship Diagram) Entity Hierarchy Report Data Model List Entity Type De nition Attribute De nition Report Process (Activity) Hierarchy Diagram Activity Hierarchy Report Process (Activity) Dependency Diagram Activity De nition Report Process Action Diagrams Structure Chart (action block hierarchy) Diagram (Figure 8) 26

Model :DISTRIBUTED PROJECT MANAGEMENT Subset:ALL

Date: Mar. 30, 1994 Time: 21:11

DELETE DOC> UPDATE DO> ADD DOCU> MAINTAIN D>

UPDATE DO> ADD AUTHOR ADD AUTHOR

Figure 8: Structure Chart Diagram

27

5.3 Business System and Technical Design (BSD)

The IEF Design toolset was used to complete the business system and technical design for the DPMIS. The design of the DPMIS information maintenance tool was completed rst, followed by the design of the DPMIS information retrieval tool. Design of both tools followed the format detailed below. Procedures and procedure steps which used the elementary processes de ned in the analysis and planning phases of development were de ned and created in the design phase. The ows between procedures and procedure steps were detailed with the Dialog Design tool of the IEF producing the dialog ow diagram. Action diagrams for the procedures and procedure steps de ned were constructed in the design phase. Design also involved the user interface (screen) design. The initial step in the system design was to review the Business System Defaults de ned in the IEF Design toolset such as, screen video properties and function key assignments. The next step in design was the identi cation of essential ows between procedures such as the ows from the menu procedures to the procedures for maintenance and retrieval of database information. All ows identi ed throughout the design phase were included in the IEF dialog ow diagram. Initial construction of procedure and procedure step action diagrams was undertaken with the use of the IEF Stereotype tool. This tool automatically generates action diagrams which t the stereotype selected. For example, the basic outline of an action diagram for a menu can be generated by selecting the menu stereotype. The action diagrams generated with this tool were reviewed and utilized where appropriate. Procedure and procedure step action diagrams were also constructed with the use of the Edit feature in the action diagraming tool. Screen design for each of the procedures and procedure steps identi ed was completed with the use of the IEF screen design tool. The IEF screen design tool provides an auto layout feature for screen design. This feature was used to determine its usefulness, however, ultimately the screen design was done without the use of the auto layout feature. The Prototype tool provided by the IEF was utilized to review the screens designed. Figure 9 is a sample screen developed for the DPMIS using the IEF screen design tool. The IEF Design toolset for OS/2 includes a Window Design tool. The use of this tool was reviewed briey by redeveloping some of the user interface in a Windows design, however, the Windows design was not implemented for the DPMIS. Consistency checks were performed at the business system design level following which technical design was undertaken with the use of the IEF transformation, referential integrity and retransformation features available in the Design toolset. Transformation of the data model objects into data structure objects was completed successfully. The IEF automatically performs both consistency and referential integrity checks before allowing the transformation to proceed. The reports available from the IEF, including the consistency check reports, were reviewed and used to con rm the correctness and completeness of the system development throughout the design phase. The details of the good features, poor features and inconsistencies that were encountered in the use of the IEF Design Toolset are included in the \Evaluation of the IEF Toolsets" document (Appendix D). A summary of these comments is included here. 28

Model :DISTRIBUTED PROJECT MANAGEMENT Subset:ALL

TRANCODE

Date: Mar. 20, 1994 Time: 12:33

PROJECT MAINTENANCE

YY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS

PROJECT DETAIL Project Name XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Status XXXXXXXXXX Start Date YY-MM-DD Completion Date YY-MM-DD Description XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX SITE Organization XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX PROJECT LEADER Surname XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX First Name XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX MILESTONE Milestone Name XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX DELIVERABLE Deliverable NameXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Command XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > > > > > > > > > >