博碩士論文 etd-0704109-230851 詳細資訊


[回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]

姓名 梁庭維(Ting-wei Liang) 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 97學年第2學期
論文名稱(中) 軟體開發問題之原因分析與解決
論文名稱(英) Causal analysis and resolution for software development problems
檔案
  • etd-0704109-230851.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

    電子論文:校內校外均不公開

    論文語文/頁數 中文/92
    統計 本論文已被瀏覽 5622 次,被下載 0 次
    摘要(中) 近年來由於 CMMI 之認證與導入皆要花費相當多的時間與心力,所以各界都在尋求可以加速導入的工具或方法,以求能夠達到加速通過CMMI的認證。在CMMI第五級中的原因分析與解決方案,是業界普遍重視的議題。在軟體開發的過程中,當缺失產生的時候,首先得找出造成缺失的原因,進而使用系統化的方法歸納出造成軟體缺失的必要原因,以幫助管理者作出更好的決策以及發展出行動方案,這在軟體開發上是相當重要的議題。
    本研究主要探討的議題,是針對軟體開發過程中,當缺失產生的時候,如何應用原因分析方法來解決。透過CAR 的實施,以判定缺失的根本原因,避免缺失導入產品。本研究內容重點在提出CAR之執行方法與步驟和管理表單,並且介紹Mill的因果推理方法應用在CAR的架構,輔助管理者以更好的方法來歸納出造成缺失的原因。
    研究方法是經由文獻彙整、個案研究與案例驗證的方法,首先針對個案公司進行特性要因圖相關資料的蒐集,結合Mill的因果推理方法來進行歸納與分析,並且與個案公司主管討論,確立出何者為造成缺失之必要原因,最後歸納整理出個案公司所發展出的行動解決方案,以求達到在軟體開發的過程中,問題之原因分析與解決。
    摘要(英) In recent years, it has to spend lots of time and effort to get the certification of CMMI. Therefore, everyone is looking to tools or methods for speeding up the CMMI certification. CMMI level five, causal analysis and resolution, is an important issues for all industries. In the process of software development, we have to identify the causes for defects at first. Then, it uses a systematic approach to sum up the necessary causes for software defects in order to help managers make better decisions and develop action items. With no doubt, it is a very important issue in the process of software development. 
    This study aims to explore the subject of using the methods of causal analysis and resolution to solve the problems of software defects. Through the implementation of CAR, we can determine the root causes of defects and avoid importing defects to products. This study focus on the implementations of CAR and it proposes the methods, procedures and management forms. Moreover, this study will introduce the Mill’s methods for causal reasoning used in the structure of CAR. Therefore it can help managers with a better way to sum up the causes for defects.
    The study uses case study method. Firstly, it connects the company for data collection of cause and effect diagram and combines the Mill’s methods to inductive causal and analysis. Then it arranges interviews with the company managers to identify the necessary causes of defects. Finally, it helps the company develop action items in order to achieve the causal analysis and resolutions in the process of software development.
    關鍵字(中)
  • 軟體開發
  • 原因分析與解決
  • 特性要因圖
  • 關鍵字(英)
  • causal analysis and resolution (CAR)
  • software development
  • cause and effect diagram
  • 論文目次 目 錄
    圖目錄............................................................................ii
    表目錄............................................................................iv
    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 研究流程..................................................4
    第四節 研究範圍與限制......................................5
    第五節 論文架構..................................................6
    第二章 文獻探討..................................................7
    第一節 能力成熟度整合模式..............................7
    第三節 原因分析................................................23
    第四節 因果分析法............................................34
    第五節 發展行動方案........................................37
    第三章 研究設計................................................40
    第一節 研究架構................................................40
    第二節 研究方法................................................41
    第三節 資料蒐集方法........................................42
    第四節 研究對象................................................43
    第四章 個案分析................................................44
    第一節 個案公司簡介........................................44
    第二節 個案公司所發展出的特性要因圖........46
    第三節 以Mill之因果分析法進行歸納..............55
    第五章 結論與建議 ...........................................76
    第一節 結論.........................................................76
    第二節 建議.........................................................77
    參考文獻.......................................................................78
    參考文獻 中文
    1.祝道松、林家五,企業研究方法 Research Methods for Business : A Skill Building Approach,智勝出版社,2003。
    2.林信惠、黃明祥、王文良著,軟體專案管理,2002。
    3.行政院,挑戰2008:國家發展重點計畫,2003。
    4.資策會,CMMI 導入指引,2003。
    5.尚榮安譯,Robert K. Yin 原著,個案研究(Case Study Research),弘智文化事業,2001。
    6.財團法人資訊工業策進會,CMMI - SE/SW/IPPD/SS V1.1 中文版,2005。
    7.財團法人資訊工業策進會資訊系統實驗室,能力成熟度整合模式 上/下冊,初版,台北市。
    8.黃台陽,我國軟體產業現況與趨勢分析,軟體世紀出版社,2000。
    9.顏春煌、卓政宏,軟體工程,國立空中大學,2003。
    10.朱慧德、蔡志雄,「軟體能力成熟度介紹」,軟體產業通訊,40 期,2001。
    11.經濟部工業局軟體產業服務團,「提升國內軟體產業國際競爭力資策會將引進軟體 CMM 技術」,軟體產業週刊,40 期,2001。
    12.資策會MIC,鍾依萍,「全球CMM/CMMI 應用發展現況」,2004.11.24。

    英文
    1.Boehm, "Software Engineering Economics", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1984, pp.4-21.
    2.Brad Clark and Dave Zubrow (2001), "How Good Is the Software: A Review of Defect Prediction Techniques", Software Engineering Symposium 2001.
    3.Boehm and Bacilli, "Software Defect Reduction Top 10 List", Computer, Vol. 34, No.1, 2001, 135-137.
    4.Card, "Learning from Our Mistakes with Defect Causal Analysis", IEEE Software, January 1998.
    5.Copi, Irving; Carl Cohen (2001). Introduction to Logic. Prentice Hall.
    6.CMMI Product Team(2002), "Capability Maturity Model Integration", version 1.1, CMMI-SW/SE/IPPD/SS, Staged Representation, MU/SEI-2002-TR-011, Oregon, USA.
    7.Ducheyne, Steffen (2008). J.S. Mill’s Canons of Induction: From true causes to provisional ones. History and Philosophy of Logic, volume 29, number 4, 2008, pp. 361-376. 
    8.Doggett (2004), "A statistical comparison of three root cause analysis tools", Journal of industrial technology , 20(2), 1-9.
    9.Dangerfield et al., "Defect Causal Analysis - A Report from the Field", ASQC International Conference on Software Quality, October 1992.
    10.Florac and Carleton, "Measuring the Software Process: Statistical Process Control for Software Process Improvement", Addison-Wesley, 1999.
    11.Furnham, A., and Yazdanpanahi, T. (1995). Personality differences and group versus individual brainstorming. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 73-80.
    12.Goldenson and Gibson, "Demonstrating the Impact and Benefits of CMMI: An Update and Preliminary Results", CMU/SEI-2003-SR-009; 2003.
    13.Glazer(2003), "Commentary: Two key challenges to implementing the CMMI" The Daily Record, Sep 12.
    14.Geoff Draper, Rickhefner Ph.D.:"Applying CMMI Generic Practices with Good Judgment", SEPG Conference Tutorial, March 2004.
    15.Hefner, Rick: "Accelerating CMMI Adoption Using Six Sigma: Northrop Grumman Case Study ", CMMI Technology Conference and User Group, pp.15-18, November 2004.
    16.IEEE Standard Classification for Software Anomalies, IEEE Standard 1044-1993.
    17.Ishikawa, K., Guide to Quality Control, Asian Productivity Organization Press, 1986.
    18.Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: a meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 12, 3-23.
    19.Osborn, A.F. (1963) Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (Third Revised Edition). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
    20.Paulk, M.C., Weber, C., Garcia, S., Chrissis, M. and Bush, M. (1993b). “Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model , Version 1.1.,” Technical Report,
    CMU/SEI-93-TR-025, Pittsburgh.
    21.Sanders, Joc and Eugene Curran, Software Quality: A Framework for Success in Software Development and Support, Addison-Wesley, 1994.
    22.SEI, CMMI-SW-Staged v1.1(2002). Carnegie Mellon University.
    23.Santanen, E., Briggs, R. O., and de Vreede, G-J. (2004). Causal Relationships in Creative Problem Solving: Comparing Facilitation Interventions for Ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems. 20(4), 167-198.
    24.Walker Royce (1998), "Software Project Management: A Unified Framework", New York: Addison-Wesley.
    25.Yu, W., A Software Fault Prevention Approach in Coding and Root Cause Analysis, Bell Labs Technical Journal, April 1998.
    口試委員
  • 吳仁和 - 召集委員
  • 徐士傑 - 委員
  • 林信惠 - 指導教授
  • 口試日期 2009-06-23 繳交日期 2009-07-04

    [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