{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018018018018018018, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003003003003003003, 'mean_word_length': 5.408653846153846, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
CASE deployment in IS organizations

Many reasons have been put forth to account for these inconsistencies [6]. Most important of these seems the lack of use of common outcome measures [5]. Lack of carefully constructed outcome measures constrains IS managers in their benchmarking and technology assessment efforts. Iivari [6] makes a similar observation in the context of CASE technology. A meaningful assessment of technology outcomes requires that appropriate measures of technology usage within business processes be first defined [3]. We propose a measurement framework to assess CASE usage in the systems development process and its constituent subprocesses. We conducted a national survey to collect the empirical data for our study. Using our CASE usage assessment framework, we compute two measures, adoption and infusion, to describe CASE spread in IS organizations. Our analysis provides insights on demographic differences and similarities between adopters and non-adopters of CASE technology. Development tasks that are most supported and least supported by CASE are identified. Our results have implications for organizations that use CASE and for those examining it as a possible planning and design support technology for systems development. The results also have significant implications for the vendor community.