淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-2006201112592400
中文論文名稱 小型軟體公司軟體產品發展模式最適化之研究
英文論文名稱 Optimizing Software Product Development for Small Company
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 資訊管理學系碩士在職專班
系所名稱(英) On-the-Job Graduate Program in Advanced Information Management
學年度 99
學期 2
出版年 100
研究生中文姓名 朱懿中
研究生英文姓名 YI-CHUNG CHU
學號 798630025
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2011-05-28
論文頁數 70頁
口試委員 指導教授-黃明達
委員-林至中
委員-陳正綱
委員-游佳萍
中文關鍵字 軟體產品管理  軟體開發流程  MSF 
英文關鍵字 Software Product Management  Software Develop Process  MSF 
學科別分類
中文摘要 小型軟體公司在發展軟體產品的過程中,受限於緊迫的時程與有限的資源,承受了極大的考驗。透過導入大型軟體開發準則雖然可以解決軟體產品管理上的需求,但所需要的費用與資源遠超過小型軟體公司所能負擔的範圍,而導入敏捷式開發模式雖然可以滿足開發管理上的需求,但無法完整涵蓋整個軟體產品的管理範疇。
本研究的目的,係透過個案S公司6年來在軟體產品發展過程中的實務經驗,與微軟解決方案框架(MSF, Microsoft Solution Framework)進行比較分析,找出能夠提高軟體產品市場符合性、降低開發成本、縮短開發時程的執行方法,並提出小型軟體公司發展軟體產品的實務指引,作為未來執行新軟體產品發展的依據。
本研究所提出的小型軟體公司軟體產品發展指引SPDG(Small Company Software Product Develop Guideline)遵循著MSFv4的基本原則、思維與團隊模型,作為軟體產品管理機制的基礎,並依據個案的實務經驗提出了15項的執行方法,達到節省開發時程16.1%、提昇產品品質、提高工作效率的效益。SPDG能夠讓小型軟體公司同時兼顧既有任務的執行與開發管理機制的逐步改善,為一套經過驗證且確實可行的實務指引。
英文摘要 To small software companies, they are encountered with extreme challenges in the process of developing software products due to the limited time and resources. Although the demands of the software product management could be solved by introducing the large-scale software developing standards, but the necessary expenses and recourses far exceed the affordable range of the small companies. Besides, although introducing agile software development could satisfy the needs in the development, it could not cover all the managerial field of the software products completely.
The aim of this research is to find out the method to raise the market compatibility of the software products, decrease the developing costs, and reduce the developing time by comparing and analyzing the proven practices by S company in their software products’ developing process for 6 years and the Microsoft Solution Framework (MSF). In addition, the practical guidelines of developing software products are proposed to those small companies and are regarded as the reference for developing the new software products in the future.
The Small Company Software Product Develop Guideline (SPDG) proposed by this study follows the foundational principles, the mindset, and the team model of MSFv4 and is considered to be the base of the managerial mechanism of the software products. Moreover, 15 executive methods are provided depended on the proven practices of the case to reduce the developing time by 16.1%, add the product quality, and increase the work efficiency. The small companies could not only execute the existed tasks but also improve the developing managerial mechanism gradually with SPDG, which is surely a set of testified and feasible practical guidance.
論文目次 目次
===================
目次 IV
表目錄 VI
圖目錄 VIII
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 論文架構 4
第二章 文獻探討 5
第一節 軟體產品管理的範圍 5
第二節 敏捷式軟體開發 6
第三節 能力成熟度整合模式 8
第四節 微軟解決方案框架v4 9
第五節 小結 14
第三章 研究設計 15
第一節 研究方法 15
第二節 研究對象 16
第三節 研究流程 17
第四章 個案研究與分析 18
第一節 個案描述 18
第二節 個案所遭遇的問題 21
第三節 個案執行方法與效益 25
第四節 個案實務的焦點功能領域 31
第五節 建構實務指引 49
第五章 結論與建議 65
第一節 結論 65
第二節 建議 67
參考文獻 68



表目錄
===================
表2-1 MSF運行歷程焦點功能領域 12
表2-2 MSF運行歷程的關鍵產出、檢核點 13
表3-1 研究項目與研究資料之關聯 16
表4-1 S公司產品發展花費人月統計表 18
表4-2 W產品各版本主要新增功能項目 19
表4-3 團隊模型問題的執行方法完成度與效益 26
表4-4 治理模型問題的執行方法完成度與效益 27
表4-5 開發與技術問題的執行方法完成度與效益 28
表4-6 展望歷程差異比較表 34
表4-7 規劃歷程差異比較表 37
表4-8 建置歷程差異比較表 40
表4-9 穩定化歷程差異比較表 43
表4-10 部署歷程差異比較表 46
表4-11 展望、規劃歷程未採用功能領域項目的風險影響列表 47
表4-12 建置、穩定化、部署歷程未採用功能領域項目的風險影響列表 48
表4-13 SPDG運行歷程的焦點功能領域 54
表4-14 SPDG運行歷程的關鍵產出、檢核點 55
表4-15 SPDG可量化效益 – 節省人月數 61



圖目錄
===================
圖2-1 MSF與實作指引關係圖 9
圖3-1 研究流程圖 17
圖4-1 S公司軟體產品發展管理機制 20
圖4-2 SPDG與其他實例關係圖 49
圖4-3 新軟體產品發展執行流程圖 57
圖4-4 既有軟體產品發展機制調校執行流程圖 59

參考文獻 一、 中文文獻
1. 中華民國資訊軟體協會,99年度資訊委外服務人員計價參考要點。http://www.cisanet.org.tw/Download/Download/ed0fcc8b-12ec-4e0e-abaa-75967666107e,Accessed 2011/1/15。
2. 蔡煥麟,微軟解決方案框架精要,博碩文化股份有限公司,2007。

二、 英文文獻
3. Agile Alliance, Manifesto for Agile Software Development, http://www.agilemanifesto.org/, Accessed 2010/12/15.
4. Anton Jansen and Jan Bosch, “Software Architecture as a Set of Architectural Design Decisions,” In Proceedings of WICSA 5, 2005, November, pp. 109-119.
5. Barry W. Boehm, “Software Engineering Economics,” IEEE Transactions On Software Engineering, Vol. SE-10, No. 1, 1984, January.
6. Bekkers Willem, Spruit Marco, Weerd van de Inge, Vliet van Rob, and Mahieu Alain, “A Situational Assessment Method for Software Product Management,” The 18th European Conference on Information Systems(ECIS 2010), Pretoria, South Africa, 2010, June.
7. Willem Bekkers, Inge van de Weerd, Marco Spruit, and Sjaak Brinkkemper, “A Framework for Process Improvement in Software Product Management,” Riel, A., O’Connor, R., Tichkiewitch, S., Messnarz, R.(eds.) EuroSPI, CCIS, Vol. 99, Springer, Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 1-12.
8. Carnegie Mellon University, CMMI for Development, Version 1.2, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008, ESC-TR-2006-008, 2006.
9. Christof Ebert, “Software Product Management,” CrossTalk:The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 2009, January, pp. 15-19.
10. Christof Ebert, “The Impact of Software Product Management,” The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 80, Issue 6, 2007, June, pp. 850-861.
11. Christof Ebert, “Understanding the Product Life Cycle: Four Key Requirements Engineering Techniques,” IEEE Software, Vol. 23, Issue 3, 2006, May-June, pp. 19-25.
12. Craig Larman, Agile & Iterative Development:A Manager’s Guide, Addison Wesley, 2003.
13. David J. Anderson, “Stretching Agile to Fit CMMI Level 3 - The Story Of Creating MSF for CMMI Process Improvement at Microsoft Corporation,” Proceedings of the Agile Development Conference (ADC’05), 2005.
14. Michael S.V. Turner, Microsoft Solutions Framework Essentials: Building Successful Technology Solutions, Microsoft Press, 2006.
15. Inge van de Weerd, Johan Versendaal, and Sjaak Brinkkemper, “A Product Software Knowledge Infrastructure for Situational Capability Maturation:Vision and Case Studies in Product Management,” Proceedings of the 12th Working Conference on Requirements Engineering:Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ’06), Luxembourg, 2006, pp. 97-112.
16. Inge van de Weerd, Sjaak Brinkkemper, Richard Nieuwenhuis, Johan Versendaal, and Lex Bijlsma, “Towards a Reference Framework for Software Product Management,” Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, 2006, September 11-15, pp.319-322.
17. Kent Beck, Extreme Programming Explained:Embrace Change, Addison-Wesley, 2000.
18. Kent Beck, Test-Driven Development by Example, Addison Wesley, 2003.
19. Kent Beck, Extreme Programming, http://www.extremeprogramming.org/, Accessed 2010/12/02.
20. Kristian Rautiainen, Casper Lassenius, and Reijo Sulonen, “4CC: A Framework for Managing Software Product Development,” Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2002, June.
21. Robert K. Yin, “Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.),” Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing, 1994.
22. Sybren Deelstra, Marco Sinnema, and Jan Bosch, “Product Derivation in Software Product Families: A Case Study,” The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 74, 2005, pp. 173-194.
23. Sybren Deelstra, Marco Sinnema, and Jan Bosch, “Experiences in Software Product Families: Problems and Issues during Product Derivation,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3154, 2004, pp. 120-122.
24. Wiki, Test-Driven Development, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_driven, Accessed 2010/12/02.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2011-06-28公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2011-06-28起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信