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 U0002-2805201412505800
中文論文名稱 大型專案建置階段所遭遇問題之研究
英文論文名稱 A Study of Encountering Problems of Large-Scale Project in Implementation Phase
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 102
學期 2
出版年 103
研究生中文姓名 郭國基
研究生英文姓名 Kuo-Chi Kuo
學號 701630245
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2014-06-21
論文頁數 71頁
口試委員 指導教授-黃明達
委員-周清江
委員-江俊毅
中文關鍵字 大型專案  軟體建置階段  問題因素  解決方案 
英文關鍵字 Large-Scale Project  Implementation Phase  Problem Factors  Solutions 
學科別分類
中文摘要 根據2013年Standish Group CHAOS 報告,指出61%的專案有品質不良、超出預算或失敗等問題,此狀況在大型專案影響更鉅;故探討大型專案建置階段所遭遇的問題、分析主要因素、提出改善建議是當前值得研究的內容。
本研究採用個案分析法,以政府某大型資訊系統委外服務案為研究對象,探討該個案於2010年至2012年共2年8個月建置階段遭遇的問題,將問題分為5個構面類型、25個問題因素、3個影響程度等級及7個軟體生命週期階段等進行相關研究。
研究分析得知80%的問題來自「人力資源」、「系統需求」、「流程管理」及「文件品質」構面,且最嚴重的前三名問題因素依序為「人力資源不足,沒有充分的時間將工作做好」、「成員欠缺足夠的技術與經驗」及「成員的流動性高,經常在遞補人員」,此前三名問題因素皆屬人力資源構面佔48.55%。
本研究將前述80%的問題,再依問題屬性歸類為五項關鍵問題,分別為「專案規劃階段估算誤差過大」、「未考量各方人力溝通所需的人力與時間」、「領域知識了解不夠」、「專案管理及軟體發展素質不夠」及「軟體發展重工率高」,並針對發現的關鍵問題進行原因探討,提出建議解決方案,供後續其它大型軟體專案參考。
英文摘要 According to the 2013 Standish Group CHAOS report, 61% of projects face problems such as inferior quality, over-budget or failure; this is even more so in large-scale projects. Consequently, the study examines the problems encountered by large-scale projects during implementation, where main factors are analyzed to propose suggestions for improvements.
The study adopts the case analysis method to study a certain government large-scale outsourced system project, where the problems encountered during the implementation phase between 2010 and 2012 (duration of 2 years and 8 months) are examined. The problems are divided into 5 dimensions, 25 factors, 3 impact levels and 7 software development life cycles for research purposes.
According to analysis results, 80% of the problems originate from personnel resources, system requirements, process management and documentation quality dimensions. The top three problem factors are “lack of resources and time”, “insufficient skills or experience” and “frequent turnover within the project team” in that order. The three major problems constitute 48.55% of the personnel resources dimension.
The research categorizes 80% of the aforementioned problems into five key problems based on their respective attributes. They are: “error margin too large during the project planning phase”, “failure to consider the manpower and time needed for communicating with all parties involved”, “lack of understanding about the industry”, “inadequate project management and software development training” and “software development rework rate too high”. The study further examines the reasons behind these key problems and proposes solutions in order to provide reference for other large-scale software development projects in the future.
論文目次 目次
致謝 II
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 2
第三節 論文架構 3
第二章 文獻探討 4
第一節 軟體專案之定義與規模 4
第二節 軟體發展生命週期模型 8
第三節 問題定義與解決方法 11
第四節 專案建置階段問題分類 13
第五節 問題鑑別機制處理程序 19
第三章 研究設計 21
第一節 研究方法 21
第二節 研究對象與範圍 22
第三節 研究流程 25
第四章 個案研究與分析 29
第一節 個案描述 29
第二節 資料基本分析 33
第三節 資料交叉分析 40
第四節 問題因素深入分析 49
第五章 結論與建議 64
第一節 結論 64
第二節 建議 66
參考文獻 68
表目錄
表2-1 問題的定義 11
表2-2 專案建置階段問題構面與問題因素 13
表3-1 專案投入人力表 22
表4-1 研究資料來源與說明表 31
表4-2 專案產品明細表 31
表4-3 專案建置各階段郵件統計表 34
表4-4 專案建置各階段問題嚴重等級統計表 35
表4-5 專案建置階段問題類別清表 36
表4-6 問題大類與嚴重等級統計表 37
表4-7 問題因素與嚴重等級統計表 39
表4-8 建置階段與問題構面統計表 40
表4-9 平行測試及驗證階段所遭與問題因素統計表 41
表4-10 系統整合測試階段所遭與問題因素統計表 42
表4-11 程式開發及單元測試階段所遭與問題因素統計表 44
表4-12 系統測試階段所遭與問題統因素計表 45
表4-13 系統設計階段所遭與問題因素統計表 46
表4-14 系統分析階段所遭與問題因素統計表 47
表4-15 系統移轉上線階段所遭與問題因素統計表 48
表4-16 問題因素統計排名表 53
表4-17 專案建置階段產出追溯關係表 55
表4-18 關鍵問題的建議解決方案 62
圖目錄
圖2-1 各類軟體發展生命週期模型 8
圖2-2 瀑布模式示意圖 9
圖2-3 資訊系統分類分級與鑑別機制處理程序圖 20
圖3-1 P專案投入人力狀況圖 24
圖3-2 研究流程圖 25
圖3-3 本研究郵件鑑別處理程序流程圖 28
圖4-1 P專案時程圖 29
圖4-2 P專案整體工作範圍 30
圖4-3 本個案專案建置階段專案生命週期 34
圖4-4 專案建置階段預計與實際投入人力圖 52
圖4-5 測試階段文件追溯示意圖 56
圖4-6 變更管理作業流程圖 59
參考文獻 [1] 中華民國軟體資訊協會,2001,軟體技術文件指引手冊。
[2] 王晃三、顧志遠,2000,問題解決學,台北:東華書局。
[3] 行政院國家資通安全會報,2010,資訊系統分類分級與鑑別機制參考手冊。
[4] 余千智,1994,超媒體專家決策支援系統在軟體專案管理領域之應用,亞太工業工程暨中國工業工程學會八十三年度年會論文集,172-175頁。
[5] 林信惠、黃明祥、王文良,2005,軟體專案管理,台北:智勝文化。
[6] 國際專案管理學會台灣分會 譯,美國專案管理學會(PMI) 編,2013,專案管理知識體指南第五版,台北:博旭科技。
[7] 張光耀,2012,大型專案之實務規劃與管理課程講義。
[8] 陳義欽,2003,KT問題管理模式之研究,中原大學工業工程學系碩士論文。
[9] 黃惇勝 譯,佐籐允一 著,1991,問題解決方法與應用,台北:超越企管。
[10] 資訊工業策進會 譯,CMMI產品團隊 編,2010,適用於發展的能力成熟度整合模式(CMMI-DEV)1.3版。
[11] 管孟忠,2009,APMP專案管理師特訓教材,桃園:臥龍資訊股份有限公司。
[12] 戴鼎澤 譯,Kepner、Tregoe 著,1967,The Rational Manager-A Systematic Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making 問題分析與決策,台北:中國生力及貿易中心。
[13] 顏貽楨,2001,創意式問題管理一般化模式之研究,中原大學工業工程系所碩士論文。
[14] Apfelbaum, L., Doyle, J., 1997. Model based testing. In: 10th International Software Quality Week Conference, San Francisco.
[15] Berczuk, S.P., Appleton, B., 2003. Software Configuration Management Patterns: Effective Teamwork, Practical Integration. Addison-Wesley Professional
[16] De Bono, E., 1983, Opportunities: A Handbook of Business Opportunity Search, Penguin Books.
[17] Dekleva, S., 1992. Delphi study of software maintenance problems. In: Proceedings of the 1992 Conference on Software Maintenance. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 10–17.
[18] Dethomas, Anthony, 1987. Technology requirements of integrated, critical digital flight systems. In: AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Monterey, CA, Technical Papers, vol. 2. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, New York, pp. 1579–1583.
[19] Dewey, J., 1910. How we think. MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
[20] Etzkorn, L.H., Huges Jr., W.E., Davis, C.G., 2001. Automated reusability quality analysis of OO legacy software. Information and Software Technology 43 (5), pp. 295–308.
[21] Galin, D., 2004. Software Quality Assurance: From Theory to Implementation. Addison Wesley.
[22] Gellerich, W., Plodereder, E., 2001. Parameter-induced Aliasing in Ada. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg.
[23] Ghods, M., Nelson, K.M., 1998. Contributors to quality during software maintenance. Decision Support Systems 23, pp. 361–369.
[24] Gill, G.K., Kemerer, C.F., 1991. Cyclomatic complexity density and software maintenance productivity. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 17 (12), pp. 1284–1288.
[25] Han, W.M., Huang, S.J., 2007. An empirical analysis of risk components and performance on software projects. The Journal of Systems and Software 80 (1), pp. 42–50.
[26] Hayes, J.H., Dekhtyar, A., Sundaram, S.K., Holbrook, E.A., Vadlamudi, S., April, A., 2007. Requirements Tracing On target (RETRO): improving software maintenance through traceability recovery. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering 3 (3), pp. 193–202
[27] Hofmann, H.F., Lehner, F., 2001. Requirements engineering as a success factor in software projects. IEEE Software 18 (4), pp. 58–66.
[28] Hsu, J. S.-C., Chang, J. Y. T., G., Jiang, J. J., 2011. Exploring the impact of team mental models on information utilization and project performance in system development, International Journal of Project Management, 29 (1), pp. 1-12.
[29] Chen, J.C., Huang, S.J. (2009). An empirical analysis of the impact of software development problem factors on software maintainability. Journal of Systems and Software 8(6), pp. 981–992.
[30] Jiang, J.J., Klein, G., Balloun, J., 1998. Perceptions of system development failures. Information and Software Technology 39 (14–15), pp. 933–937.
[31] Jiang, J.J., Klein, G., 1999. Risks to different aspects of system success. Information and Management, 36 (5), pp. 263–272.
[32] Jiang, J.J., Klein, G., 2000. Software development risks to project effectiveness. The Journal of Systems and Software 52 (1), pp. 3–10.
[33] Jones, C., 2004. Software project management practices: failure versus success. CrossTalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, pp. 5–9.
[34] Juristo, N., Moreno, A., Silva, A., 2002. Is the European industry moving toward solving requirements engineering problem. IEEE Software 19 (6), pp. 70–77.
[35] Kernighan, B.W., Plauger, P.J., 1982. The Elements of Programming Style, second ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, USA.
[36] Leblang, D.B., McLean, D.G., 1985. Configuration management for large-scale software development efforts. In: GTE Workshop on Software Engineering Environments for Programming in the Large, pp. 122–127.
[37] Lethbridge, T.C., Singer, J., Forward, A., 2003. How software engineers use documentation: the state of the practice. IEEE Software 20 (6), pp. 35–39.
[38] Lientz, B.P., Swanson, E.B., 1981. Problems in application software maintenance. Communications of the ACM 24 (11), pp. 763–769.
[39] Maier, N. R. F., 1970. Problem solving and creativity in individuals and groups. Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole.
[40] Martin, J., McClure, C., 1983. Software Maintenance: The Problem and its Solutions. Prentice-Hall.
[41] McDonough, E.F., 2000. Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross-functional teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management 17 (3), pp. 221–235.
[42] Mogyorodi, G., 2001. Requirements-based testing: an overview. In: 39th International Conference and Exhibition on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems (TOOLS39), p. 286.
[43] Monkevich, O., 1999. SDL-based specification and testing strategy for communication network protocols. In: Proceedings of the 9th SDL Forum, Montreal, Canada.
[44] Nidumolu, S.R., 1996. Standardization, requirements uncertainty and software project performance. Information and Management 31, pp. 135–150.
[45] Pigoski, T.M., 1996. Practical Software Maintenance: Best Practices for Managing Your Software Investment.
[46] Schneidewind, N.F., 1987. The State of Software Maintenance. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 13 (3), pp. 303–310.
[47] Schulmeyer, G.G., 2007. Handbook of Software Quality Assurance, fourth ed. Artech House Publishers.
[48] Standish Group International, Inc. 2013. CHAOS Manifesto 2013: Think Big, Act Small. report. from: https://secure.standishgroup.com/reports/reports.php#reports. Retrieved January 11, 2013.
[49] Sumner, M., 1999. Critical success factors in enterprise wide information management systems projects. In: Proceedings of the 1999 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research. SIGCPR: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Personnel Research, pp. 297–303.
[50] Visconti, M., Cook, C., 1993. Software system documentation process maturity model. In: Proceedings of the 1993 ACM Conference on Computer Science, pp. 352–357.
[51] Wallace, L., Keil, M., Rai, A., 2004. Understanding software project risk: a cluster analysis. Information and Management 42, pp. 115–125.
[52] Wilson, D.N., Hall, T., 1998. Perceptions of software quality: a pilot study. Software Quality Journal 7 (1), pp. 67–75.
[53] Woodfield, S.N., Dunsmore, H.E., Shen, V.Y., 1981. The effect of modularization and comments on program comprehension. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 215–223.
[54] Yin, R. K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Fourth Edition, Thousand oaks. CA: Sage.
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2014-07-02公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2014-07-02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