A COMPARISON OF STRUCTURED ANALYSIS AND OBJECT ORIENTED ANALYSIS - An Experimental Study

Davide Falessi, Giovanni Cantone, Claudio Grande

Abstract

Despite the fact that object oriented paradigm is actually widely adopted for software analysis, design, and implementation, there are still a large number of companies that continue to utilize the structured approach to develop software analysis and design. The fact is that the current worldwide agreement for object orientation is not supported by enough empirical evidence on advantages and disadvantages of object orientation vs. other paradigms in different phases of the software development process. In this work we describe an empirical study focused on comparing the time required for analyzing a data management system by using both object orientation and a structural technique. We choose the approach indicated by the Rational Unified Process, and the Structured Analysis and Design Technique, as instances of object oriented and structured analysis techniques, respectively. The empirical study that we present considers both an uncontrolled and a controlled experiment with Master students. Its aim is to analyze the effects of those techniques to software analysis both for software development from scratch, and enhancement maintenance, respectively. Results show no significant difference in the time required for developing or maintaining a software application by applying those two techniques, whatever is the order of their application. However we found two major tendencies regarding object orientation: 1) it is more sensitive to subjects’ peculiarities, and 2) it is able to provide some reusability advantages already at the analysis level. Since such result concerns a one-hour-size enhancement maintenance, we expect significant benefits from using object orientation, in case of real-size extensions.

References

  1. Agarwal, R., De, P., and Sinha, A. P. 1999. Comprehending Object and Process Models: An Empirical Study. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25, 4, 541- 556.
  2. Basili, V., Caldiera, G., and Rombach, D., 1994. Goal question metric paradigm, in Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, vol. 1, J. J. Marciniak, John Wiley & Sons.
  3. Baskerville, R., Fitzgerald, B., Fitzgerald, G., Russo, N. 1996, Beyond system development methodologies: time to leave the lamppost, in Orlikowski, W.J., Walsham, G., Jones, M.R., De Gross, J.I. (Eds),IT and Changes in Organisational Work, Chapman & Hall, London.
  4. Booch, G., 1994. Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, second ed., Redwood City, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings.
  5. DeMarco, T., 1978. Structured Analysis and Systems Specifications, Prentice Hall.
  6. Höst, M., Wohlin, C., Thelin, T., 2005. Experimental context classification: incentives and experience of subjects, 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
  7. Fichman, R. G. and Kemerer, C. F., 1992. Object-Oriented and Conventional Analysis and Design Methodologies. Computer 25, 10 (Oct. 1992), 22-39.
  8. Kruchten, P., 2003. The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, Addison Wesley Professional.
  9. Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., 1999. The unified Software Development Process, Addison-WesleyLongman.
  10. Sutcliffe, A. G., 1991. Object-oriented systems development: survey of structured methods. Inf. Softw. Technol. 33, 6 (Aug. 1991), 433-442.
  11. Vessey, I. and Conger, S. A., 1994. Requirements specification: learning object, process, and data methodologies. Commun. ACM 37, 5 (May. 1994), 102-113.
  12. Wang, S., 1996. Two MIS Analysis Methods: An Experimental Comparison, J. Education for Business, pp. 136±141, Jan./Feb.
  13. Wieringa, R., 1998. A survey of structured and objectoriented software specification methods and techniques. ACM Comput. Surv. 30, 4 (Dec. 1998), 459-527.
  14. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A., 2000. Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction, The Kluwer International Series in Software Engineering.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Falessi D., Cantone G. and Grande C. (2007). A COMPARISON OF STRUCTURED ANALYSIS AND OBJECT ORIENTED ANALYSIS - An Experimental Study . In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 2: ICSOFT, ISBN 978-989-8111-06-7, pages 213-221. DOI: 10.5220/0001336602130221


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icsoft07,
author={Davide Falessi and Giovanni Cantone and Claudio Grande},
title={A COMPARISON OF STRUCTURED ANALYSIS AND OBJECT ORIENTED ANALYSIS - An Experimental Study},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 2: ICSOFT,},
year={2007},
pages={213-221},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0001336602130221},
isbn={978-989-8111-06-7},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 2: ICSOFT,
TI - A COMPARISON OF STRUCTURED ANALYSIS AND OBJECT ORIENTED ANALYSIS - An Experimental Study
SN - 978-989-8111-06-7
AU - Falessi D.
AU - Cantone G.
AU - Grande C.
PY - 2007
SP - 213
EP - 221
DO - 10.5220/0001336602130221