博碩士論文 etd-0019114-223535 詳細資訊


[回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]

姓名 吳東憲(Tung-Hsien Wu) 電子郵件信箱 E-mail 資料不公開
畢業系所 資訊管理學系研究所(Information Management)
畢業學位 碩士(Master) 畢業時期 102學年第1學期
論文名稱(中) 使用者與資訊人員之知識整合對於建廠資訊專案之績效影響–以某半導體公司為例
論文名稱(英) The Impact of Knowledge Integration between Users and
Information-System Staff on New Manufacturing-line Information-System Project Performance– Case of A Semiconductor Company
檔案
  • etd-0019114-223535.pdf
  • 本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
    請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
    論文使用權限

    紙本論文:3 年後公開 (2017-01-19 公開)

    電子論文:使用者自訂權限:校內 3 年後、校外 5 年後公開

    論文語文/頁數 中文/87
    統計 本論文已被瀏覽 5619 次,被下載 89 次
    摘要(中) 個案公司因應特定市場需求量增加,為了強化重點客戶的服務,因此成立新的製造廠,以獨立的資源來滿足客戶的需求。專案進行必須考量新的流程、新的材料與商業模式需求的不確定性等風險因素。
    建廠資訊專案和一般資訊專案不同點,在於強調符合新商業運作模式與跳脫傳統舊系統思維;新廠組織初期不完整,因此決策流程與需求溝通困難度高;商業模式頻繁變化需求會不斷變更等因素。客觀條件上已有這些挑戰,加上主觀要求專案如期、如質、如目標完成,要能成功需要更多專案條件之配合。
    依據軟體專案開發風險六個構面,透過訪談將個案相較於一般資訊專案更須注意之高風險項目列出。分析結果了解需求風險為個案最需要採取風險應對的項目,且需求確認階段是最關鍵之知識整合流程。進一步針對高風險項目研究,個案共執行十六項風險應對措施,歸類為四大主軸,分別為「共創型溝通模式」、「搶灘式專案進行方式」、「建廠資訊系統建置標準化」、「系統開發專案管理」。其中「共創型溝通模式」對於專案績效具有高影響程度,證明資訊人員在於使用者作業層級的知識能力對於團隊的溝通是有正向影響。個案人員資本與結構資本對於知識整合與專案績效有正向的影響,關係資本則不顯著。是因為個案參與人員過往曾共同參與過資訊開發專案,因此關係資本上的需求並不顯著。個案規劃階段是最重要的專案階段,此階段必須有人員資本與結構資本的協助確保順利。
    個案研究提供建廠資訊開發專案的經驗,包含專案限制、困難與風險。建立「建廠資訊專案績效提升金三角模式」,在智慧資本與知識整合提供具體的建議。依據研究結果,建議企業進行類似專案時調高結構資本與人員資本的成本比例,並因應專案目的與企業環境調整專案導入或需求確認方式(結構資本),如此更能確保專案的成功。
    摘要(英) In response to the increasing demand from specific markets and providing service to major customers, the company in this study set up a new manufacturing-line that used independent resources to support customers’ needs. The core challenges and risks in the project included new processes implemented, new materials applied, and uncertain demand resulting from new business model.
    The major difference between a manufacturing-line IS (Information System) project and a general IS one was that the former emphasizes fulfilling new business requirements and required nontraditional thinking in system design. In the beginning of this project when the organization was incomplete, the decision-making process took long time, and requirement survey was difficult. Changes in business demand occurred frequently throughout the project development process. Given the challenges mentioned above, the new manufacturing-line IS project was expected to be delivered on schedule, with good quality and full coverage. To achieve the goal, it required several conditions to make the project a successful one.
    Based on the six dimensions of risk in software development project from the literature, interviews were conducted to assess and identify high-risk items which required more attention than other general IS projects. The results indicated that “Requirement Risk” was the primary risk that needed to be responded to. The requirement survey stage can be regarded as the knowledge-integration process and was the most critical stage during project development. In dealing with the high-risk
    items, a total of sixteen risk resolution activities were carried out in this project and were classified into four categories, namely “Co-creative Communication Model”, “Landing-style Project Approach”, “Standardized New manufacturing-line IS Construction Procedure”, and “System Development Project Management”. Among which, “Co-creative Communication Model” cast significant influence on project performance, which showed that the IT staff’s learning about user's domain knowledge had positive impact on the communication performance and further enhanced project performance. Human capital and structural capital positively affected knowledge-integration and project performance while relationship capital’s influence was not significant because most of the project participants have previously been involved in similar IS projects. Therefore, there was no significant demand for relationship capital. The planning process was the most critical stage in this project,during which structural capital and human capital should both be in place to ensure project success.
    This research provides the new manufacturing-line IS development experiences, including project constraints, difficulties and risks. It establishes a model based on the case study and offers specific recommendations in intellectual-capital and knowledge-integration. Based on the results, enterprises with a similar project should increase the investment in structural capital and human capital and adjust the project implementation method or requirement survey method (structural capital) according to project objectives and business needs to ensure the success of the project.
    關鍵字(中)
  • 人員資本
  • 專案風險
  • 智慧資本
  • 知識整合
  • 建廠資訊專案
  • 關鍵字(英)
  • Knowledge Integration
  • Project Risk
  • Intellectual Capital
  • Human Capital
  • New Manufacturing-line IS Project
  • 論文目次 誌 謝 詞 II
    摘要 III
    Abstract IV
    目 錄 VI
    表目錄 VIII
    圖目錄 IX
    第一章 緒論 1
    第一節 研究背景 1
    第二節 研究動機 2
    第三節 研究目的 4
    第二章 文獻探討 7
    第一節 需求定義階段為知識整合的流程 7
    第二節 使用者與資訊人員知識整合的能力 9
    第一項 人員資本 12
    第二項 關係資本 13
    第三項 結構資本 13
    第三節 專案績效為知識整合的結果 14
    第四節 專案風險模式 15
    第五節 個案研究方法 20
    第三章 研究方法 22
    第一節 研究架構 22
    第一項 理論模式 22
    第二項 個案研究 24
    第二節 研究步驟 25
    第三節 研究限制 26
    第四節 個案描述 27
    第一項 個案介紹 27
    第二項 建廠資訊專案風險管理 33
    第四章 資料蒐集 38
    第一節 資料蒐集方式 38
    第一項 資料來源 38
    第二項 訪談對象 39
    第二節 個案風險應對 41
    第三節 個案風險應對對於專案績效之影響 55
    第一項 對於專案影響程度之量化分析 55
    第二項 對於專案績效影響之質性分析 59
    第四節 與智慧資本之鑽石模式比對 60
    第五節 建立「建廠資訊專案績效提升金三角模式」 63
    第五章 結論與建議 65
    第一節 研究結論 66
    第二節 研究貢獻 68
    第三節 未來研究方向 69
    參考文獻 70
    英文部分 70
    中文部分 75
    附錄 76
    附錄一: 風險應對措施對於專案績效影響之評鑑結果 76
    參考文獻 英文部分
    1.Adelson, B. and Soloway, E. (1985). The role of domain experience in software design, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 11(11).
    2.Barki, H., Rivard, S., Talbot, J. (1993). Toward an assessment of software development risk, Journal of Management Information Systems 10 (2), pp. 203-225.
    3.Bassi, L. J. and M. E. Van Buren (1999). Valuing investment in intellectual capital, International Journal of Technology Management, 18, 5/6/7/8/, pp. 414-432.
    4.Boehm, B. W. (1989). Software Risk Management, Los Alamitors, IEEE Computer Society Press.
    5.Bontis, N. (1999). Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital: Framing and advancing the state of the field, International Journal of Technology Management, 18(5), pp. 433-462.
    6.Brooking, A. (1996). Intellectual capital, London: International Thomson Business Press.
    7.Cannon-Bowers, J. and Salas, E. (1997). A framework for development team performance measures in training, LEA London.
    8.Charette, R. (1989). Software engineering risk analysis and management, McGraw-Hill, New York.
    9.Cleland, David I., and William R. King (1975). Systems Analysis and Project Management (Second Edition), New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.
    10.Curtis, B. Krasner, H. and Iscoe, N. (1988).A field study of the software design process for large systems, Communications of the ACM, 31(11), pp. 1268-1287.
    11.Deephouse, C.,Mukhopadhyay,T., Goldenson, D. R. and Kellner, M. I. (1995).Software processes and project performance, Journal of Management Information System, 12(3).
    12.Demsetz, H. (1991). The theory of the firm revisited, in O. E. Williamson and S. Winter (Eds.), The Nature of the Firm, London: Oxford University Press.
    13.Dzinkowski, R. (2000). The measurement and management of intellectual capital:An introduction, Management Accounting, 78, 2, pp. 32-36.
    14.Earl, M. (1997).Knowledge as strategy, Knowledge in Organizations, Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 1-15.
    15.Edvinsson, L. and Sullivan, P. (1996). Development a model for management intellectual capital, European Management Journal, 14(4), pp. 356-364.
    16.Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theory from case study research, Academy of Management Review, 14(4),pp. 532-550.
    17.Faraj, S. and Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams, Management Science, 46(12), pp. 1554-1568.
    18.Fink, L. and Neumann, S. (2009). Exploring the perceived business value of the flexibility enabled by information technology infrastructure, Information & Management, 46(2),pp. 90-99.
    19.Gefen, D. and Ridings, C. M. (2002). Implementation team responsiveness and user evaluation of customer relationship management: A quasi-experimental design study of social exchange theory, Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), pp. 47-69.
    20.Grant, R. M. (1996).Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Special Issue), pp. 109-122.
    21.Harter, D.E., Krishnan, M.S., Slaughter, S.A. (2000). Effects of process maturity on quality, cycle time, and effort in software product development, Management Science, 46(4), pp. 451.
    22.Hickey, A. and Davis, A. (2004).A unified model of requirement elicitation, Journal of Management Information System, 20(4), pp. 65-84.
    23.Hofmann, H. and Lehner, F. (2001).Requirements engineering as a success factor in software projects, IEEE Software, 18(4), pp. 58-66.
    24.Huang, J. and Newell, S. (2003). Knowledge integration process and dynamics within the context of cross-functional projects, International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), pp. 167-176.
    25.Hudson, W. (1993). Intellectual capital: How to build it, enhance it, use it, New York: John Wiley.
    26.Hsu, J. S.-C., Chan, C,-L., Liu, J. Y.-C. and Chen, H.-G. (2008).The impacts of user review on software responsiveness: Moderation requirements uncertainty, Information & Management, 45(4), pp. 203-210.
    27.Kale, P., Singh, H. and Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), pp. 217-237.
    28.Kerzner, Harold. (1998). Project Management: A System Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.6th edition.
    29.Kitchenham. B. and Linkman, S. (1997). Estimates, uncertainty, and risk, IEEE Software, 14(3), pp. 69-74.
    30.Masoulas, V. (1998). Organizational requirements definition for intellectual capital management, International Journal of Technology Management, 16, 1/2/3, pp.126-143.
    31.Na, K.-S., Li, X., Simpson, J. T. and Kim, K.-Y. (2004). Uncertainty profile and software project performance: a cross-national comparison, The Journal of Systems and Software, 70(1-2), pp. 155-163.
    32.Nakatsu, R. T. and Iacovou, C. L. (2009). A comparative study of important risk factors involved in offshore and domestic outsourcing of software development projects: A two-panel Delphi study, Information & Management, 46(1), pp. 57-68.
    33.Newman, M. and Robey, D. (1992). A social process model of user-analyst relationships, MIS Quarterly, 16(2), pp. 249-266.
    34.Nidumolu, S. R. (1996). Standardization, requirements uncertainty and software project performance, Information & Management, 31(3) , pp. 135-150.
    35.Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995).The Knowledge Creating Company, NY : Oxford University Press.
    36.Patnayakuni, R. Rai, A. and Tiwana, A. (2007). Systems development process improvement: acknowledge integration perspective, IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management, 54(2), pp. 286-300.
    37.Project Management Institute (2004).The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK).
    38.Rindfleisch, A. and Moorman, C. (2001). The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances: A Strength-Of-Ties Perspective, Journal of Marketing, 65(2), pp. 1-18.
    39.Roos, J. Edvinsson, L. and Roos, G. (1998). Intellectual Capital: Navigating in The New Business Landscape, New York University Press.
    40.Roy, S., Sivakumar, K. and Wilkinson, I. (2004). Innovation generation in supply chain relationships: a conceptual model and research propositions, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), pp. 61-79.
    41.Sage, A. P. and Rouse, W. B. (2009). Handbook of systems engineering and management, Wiley-Interscience.
    42.SCSI Consultancy, Risk Assessment and Analysis, http://www.scsind.in/?page_id=823
    43.Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: the new wealth of organizations, Doubleday.
    44.Subramanian, G. H., Jiang, J. J. and Klein, G. (2007).Software quality and IS project performance improvements from software development process maturity and IS implementation strategies, Journal of System and Software, 80(4), pp. 616-627.
    45.Swanson, E. (1974). Management information systems: Appreciation and involvement Management Science, 21(2), pp. 178-188.
    46.Tiwana, A. and Keil, M. (2006). Functionality risk in information systems development: An empirical investigation, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(3), pp. 412-425.
    47.Wallace, L., Keil, M. and Rai, A. (2004). How software project risk affects project performance: an investigation of the dimensions of risk and an exploratory model, Decision Science, 35(2), pp. 289-321.
    48.Wang, W. Y. and Chang, C. (2005). Intellectual capital and performance in causal models, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(2), pp. 222-236.
    49.Yin, Robert. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.
    中文部分
    1.宋明娥(2002)。專案經理人資訊能力與資訊系統開發專案績效之研究。台灣大學國際企業學研究所碩士論文。
    2.吳仁和(2010)。物件導向系統分析與設計—結合MDA與UML(三版)。
    3.林東清(2012)。e化企業的核心競爭能力。台北:智勝文化。
    4.吳仁和、林信惠(2010)。系統分析與設計:理論與實務應用-第五版,智勝文化事業有限公司。
    5.陳明乾(2008)。使用者和資訊人員的共通知識程度對資訊系統專案績效的影響之研究。中正大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
    6.陳書瑜(2003)。影響專案團隊運作績效因素之探討。實踐大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
    7.蔡文輝(2002)。社會學,台北:三民。
    8.羅喬芳(2010)。以智慧資本觀點探討:使用者與開發者之間知識整合對資訊系統開發的影響。中山大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
    口試委員
  • 鄭義 - 召集委員
  • 林芬慧 - 委員
  • 林信惠 - 指導教授
  • 口試日期 2014-01-15 繳交日期 2014-01-19

    [回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]


    如有任何問題請與論文審查小組聯繫