本研究的目的為了解學校數位課程的數位轉型成效。起因是在目前劇烈變動的環境下，數位轉型已經成為不可抵擋的浪潮，而經盤點數位學課程的資源後，指出缺少能夠有效評估其數位成效的工具。因此，透過本次研究建構出適合學校數位課程的數位成熟度成效工具，藉以了解數位轉型的成效，達成持續改善的數位能力。
本模型建構於兩個理論：CMM與SPICE。取能力成熟度模型CMM當中的分級概念與SPICE之中的流程持續改善的概念結合，將學校的數位課程運作情景拆成多個工作流程，評估每群工作流程在支援實際應用場景的整體成效。
本研究半結構化的方式進行，透過發放問卷與訪談的方式並行。邀請學校的行政人員做為評估對象，藉由先填寫問卷，再進行訪問，最終產出成果報告書，供行政單位參考。
得出以下之結論:
第一、目前的評估工具多是以傳統的課程績效做為評估構面，未考慮數位環境，因此，藉由建立能評估數位轉型成效的工具，更可有效盤點數位資源的使用是否有浪費，找出改善的策略。
第二、讓行政人員更清楚的知道數位資源可如何分類。行政人員在進行數位課程的成效評估時，藉由將數位資源分類成五個主要的分群，在日後組織引入新的數位資源時，更能清楚地知道如何依照特性分群，加速評估的成效。
第三、該工具可長期且穩定的評估成效。面對變化迅速的數位環境，組織需要的是能夠隨時回顧成效的評估工具，而本研究所建立出的數位學習成熟度工具可根據需要供組織定期的回顧與檢視，進而使數位成熟度維持在一定水準之上。

The purpose of this study is to understand the effectiveness of digital transformation in schools' digital course. The reason is that digital transformation has become an irresistible wave in the current environment of drastic changes, and after taking stock of the resources of the digital course, it is pointed out that there is a lack of tools that can effectively assess its digital effectiveness. Therefore, through this study, we will build a digital maturity effectiveness tool suitable for school digital course, to understand the effectiveness of digital transformation and achieve continuous improvement of digital capabilities. This model is based on two theories: CMM and SPICE. Combining the concept of grading in the Capability Maturity Model CMM with the concept of continuous process improvement in SPICE, the school's digital curriculum operation scenario is broken down into multiple workflows, and the overall effectiveness of each workflow in supporting the actual application scenario is evaluated. This study is conducted in a semi-structured manner, parallel to questionnaires and interviews. The school's administrative was invited to answer the questionnaire by herself. After that, an interview was conducted. The research findings are as follows. First, most of the current evaluation tools are based on the traditional course performance without considering the digital environment, so by establishing tools that can evaluate the effectiveness of digital transformation, it is more effective to take stock of whether the use of digital resources is wasted and find out strategies for improvement. Second, administrators know more clearly how digital resources can be classified. When evaluating the effectiveness of digital courses, administrators can classify digital resources into five main groups, and when organizing the introduction of new digital resources in the future, they will have a clearer idea of how to accelerate the effectiveness of the evaluation according to the characteristics of the group. Third, the tool is stable and can be used to evaluate the online program as a regular evaluation. In a rapidly changing digital environment, teaching organizations need evaluation tools that can consistently review digital learning maturity as needed, so as to maintain the quality of online courses and learning.

論文審定書 i
誌 謝 ii
摘 要 iii
Abstract iv
圖次 viii
表次 viii
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究問題 2
1.3 研究目的 3
第二章 文獻探討 5
2.1 數位學習成熟度 5
2.1.1 CMM與SPICE: 6
2.1.2 CMM 7
2.1.3 SPICE 8
2.1.4 從線上學習觀點探討 E-Learning Maturity Model: 9
2.1.5 從資訊系統觀點探討 E- Learning Maturity Model: 11
2.1.6 綜合整理 12
2.2 數位轉型與數位成熟度 20
第三章 研究方法 23
3.1 研究內容與模式 23
3.2 研究流程 23
第四章 研究結果 29
4.1 數據研究成果 29
4.2其他研究發現 38
第五章 結論 40
5.1 研究結論 40
5.2研究貢獻 40
5.3研究限制 41
參考文獻 42
附錄 47

1. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of consumer research, 20(4), 644-656.
2. Baloyi, G. P. (2014). Learner support in the open distance learning and e-learning context using the community of inquiry model. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(20), 1251-1251.
3. Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P., Westerman, G., & McAfee, A. (2012). Talking’bout a Revolution. Digital Transformation Review, 2(1), 17-33.
4. Breidbach, C. F., Brodie, R., & Hollebeek, L. (2014). Beyond virtuality: from engagement platforms to engagement ecosystems. Managing Service Quality.
5. Bresciani, S., Ferraris, A., & Del Giudice, M. (2018). The management of organizational ambidexterity through alliances in a new context of analysis: Internet of Things (IoT) smart city projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 331-338.
6. Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of service research, 14(3), 252-271.
7. Chawinga, W. D., & Zozie, P. A. (2016). Increasing access to higher education through open and distance learning: Empirical findings from Mzuzu University, Malawi. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(4), 1-20.
8. David Patón-Romero, J., Baldassarre, M. T., Rodríguez, M., & Piattini, M. (2019). Maturity model based on CMMI for governance and management of Green IT. IET Software, 13(6), 555-563.
9. Doneva, R., Gaftandzhieva, S., & Totkov, G. (2019). Digital maturity model for Bulgarian higher education institutions. EDULEARN19 Proceedings, IATED.
10. El-Emam, K. (2002). Object-oriented metrics: A review of theory and practice. Advances in software engineering, 23-50.
11. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2003). Managing user trust in B2C e-services. e-Service, 2(2), 7-24.
12. Goerzig, D., & Bauernhansl, T. (2018). Enterprise architectures for the digital transformation in small and medium-sized enterprises. Procedia Cirp, 67, 540-545.
13. Gu, D., Chen, J., & Pu, W. (2011, May). Online course quality maturity model based on evening university and correspondence education (OCQMM). In 2011 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Communication Software and Networks (pp. 5-9). IEEE.
14. Hadullo, K., Oboko, R., & Omwenga, E. (2017). A model for evaluating e-learning systems quality in higher education in developing countries. International Journal of Education and Development using ict, 13(2).
15. Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., & Phillips, A. N. (2017). Achieving digital maturity. MIT Sloan Management Review.
16. Khan, B. H. (2004). Comprehensive approach to program evaluation in open and distributed learning (CAPEODL) model. Introduced in the Program Evaluation course. George Washington University.
17. Makokha, G. L., & Mutisya, D. N. (2016). Status of e-learning in public universities in Kenya. International review of research in open and distributed learning, 17(3), 341-359.
18. Manjula, R., & Vaideeswaran, J. (2012). A new CMM-Quality Education (CMM-QE) framework using SEI-CMM approach and calibrating for its process quality and maturity using structural equation modeling-PLS approach. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 6(4), 117-130.
19. Marshall, S. (2012). Improving the quality of e‐learning: lessons from the eMM. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(1), 65-78.
20. Marshall, S., & Mitchell, G. (2002, December). An e-learning maturity model. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Auckland, New Zealand (pp. 8-11).
21. Mettler, T., & Rohner, P. (2009, May). Situational maturity models as instrumental artifacts for organizational design. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (pp. 1-9).
22. Mikropoulos, T. A. (Ed.). (2018). Research on e-learning and ICT in education: technological, pedagogical and instructional perspectives. Springer.
23. Omwenga, E. I., & Rodrigues, A. (2009). Towards an education evaluation framework: synchronous and asynchronous e-learning cases. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 2(1), 46-59.
24. Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., Garcia, S. M., Chrissis, M. B., & Bush, M. (1993). Key practices of the capability maturity model, Version 1.1. Carnegie-Mellon Univ Pittsburgh Pa Software Engineering Inst.
25. Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2011). Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision sciences, 42(1), 239-273.
26. Pihir, I., Tomičić-Pupek, K., & Furjan, M. T. (2018). Digital transformation insights and trends. In Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems (pp. 141-149). Faculty of Organization and Informatics Varazdin.
27. Queiros, D., & de Villiers, M. (2016). Online learning in a South African higher education institution: Determining the right connections for the student. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning: IRRODL, 17(5), 165-185.
28. Rowley, J. (2008). Understanding digital content marketing. Journal of marketing management, 24(5-6), 517-540.
29. Solar, M., Sabattin, J., & Parada, V. (2013). A maturity model for assessing the use of ICT in school education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 206-218.
30. Ssekakubo, G., Suleman, H., & Marsden, G. (2011, October). Issues of adoption: have e-learning management systems fulfilled their potential in developing countries?. In Proceedings of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists conference on knowledge, innovation and leadership in a diverse, multidisciplinary environment (pp. 231-238).
31. Teece, D. J., & Linden, G. (2017). Business models, value capture, and the digital enterprise. Journal of organization design, 6(1), 1-14.
32. Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889-901.
33. Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2009). Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics and management strategies. Journal of retailing, 85(1), 31-41.
34. Warner, K. S., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long range planning, 52(3), 326-349.
35. Westerman, G., Tannou, M., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P., & McAfee, A. (2012). The Digital Advantage: How digital leaders outperform their peers in every industry. MITSloan Management and Capgemini Consulting, MA, 2, 2-23.
36. Woronowicz, T., Rout, T., O’Connor, R. V., & Dorling, A. (2013). Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 349.
37. Zhang, W., & Cheng, Y. L. (2012). Quality assurance in e-learning: PDPP evaluation model and its application. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 66-82.