INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN MANAGEMENT IV

Table 2. Comparison of CASE tools – part 2.CASE toolsImported datastandardExported datastandardDiagrams export standardComparative criterionEnterprise Architectversion 7.1Poseidon for UMLversion 6.0.2Rational SoftwareArchitect version 7.5.1Microsoft Visioversion 2007Visual Paradigm for UMLversion 6.3ArgoUMLversion 0.26StarUMLversion 5.0.2UMLetversion 9.03XMI / XML + − − + + + + − 5Rational Rose - MDL − + − − + − + − 3CSV + − − − − − − − 1Java - JAR files + + − − − + − − 3Number of other formats − 1 − 2 3 3 − − −SUM 3 3 0 3 5 5 2 0XMI / XML + + + + + + + − 7PDF − − + + − − − − 2CSV + − − − − − − − 1Number of other formats − − 1 − 2 − − − −SUM 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 0EPS − + − − − + − + 3GIF + + + − − + − − 4JPG + + + − + − + + 6PNG + + + − + + − − 5SVG − + + − + + − + 5WMF + + − − − − + − 3BMP + + + − − − + − 4EMF + − − − + − + − 3PDF − + + + + − − + 5Number of other formats − − − 1 − 1 − − −SUM 6 8 6 2 5 5 4 4Source: Own preparation.SUMIn the comparative analysis there was used a simple, additive method of assigningsuitable weight with SPMC (Single Participant Multiple Criteria) model. Themodel, a single decision-maker, consists of a set of possible variants (or actions){A1, A2, ..., Am} as well as a set of criteria {C1, C2, ..., Cn} among which everycriterion is connected with choice preferences of defined variant. The aim of analysisis to receive a ranking of variants on the basis of given criteria.Results of the detailed comparison of CASE tools were collected in table 1 and2. They are a self-study and were prepared on the basis of information from producers’websites and electronic documentation attached to available softwareversions (full, test and demonstration versions). In order to provide complete expressionof partial criteria in a form of numerical values, their choice was determinedby data availability. Systems evaluation which sums up every category(main criterion) is showed with the use of a five-score scale (0-5). Criteria wereassigned suitable values of preferences (weight). In the summary there is calculatedthe sum and the weighted average of evaluation by scores whose values reflecttaken place in the ranking (tab. 3).11