整合田口損失函數與層級分析法於軟體產品使用者品質評估之應用

Integration of Taguchi Loss Function and Analytic Hierarchy Process in Software Product User Quality Evaluation

10.6220/joq.2012.19(2).01

韓文銘(Wen-Ming Han)；廖珮妏(Pei-Wen Liao)

ISO／IEC 9126 ； 田口損失函數 ； 軟體品質評估 ； 軟體產品品質 ； 層級分析法 ； ISO/IEC 9126 ； Taguchi loss function ； software quality assessment ； software product quality ； analytical hierarchy process

品質學報

19卷2期（2012 / 04 / 30）

97 - 116

繁體中文

過與不及的品質管控與改善活動都會導致企業競爭力下降。因為如果產品品質超過目標值，則代表企業投入過多的有限資源以致使利潤降低或資源排擠；反之若產品品質未達到目標值，則代表企業投入的資源不足以致使產品無法符合客戶期望且無法驗收。有鑒於此，本研究提出一個整合田口損失函數與層級分析法的軟體產品品質評估方法，以使用者品質觀點為主軸來量化表示過與不及的產品品質管控資訊。此外，我們亦透過個案情節模擬的方式來引導讀者瞭解本評估方法的應用步驟以及該如何處理實務上的應用挑戰：（1）品質指標的適用性及裁適準則與（2）田口損失值的分析觀點與管理意含。最後，建立在本研究的產出基礎上，本研究亦指出3個值得後續探討延伸的未來研究方向。

Excess or deficient quality control and improvement activities cause a decrease in enterprise competitiveness. The quality of a product surpassing the target value indicates that the enterprise has invested too many resources, resulting in lower profits and crowding out resources; whereas the quality of a product falling short of the target value indicates that the enterprise did not invest enough resources, leading to failure in meeting customer expectation and incapability of acceptance. In view of this, this study proposed a quality evaluation method for software products using integration of Taguchi’s loss function and analytic hierarchy process. Information on excess and deficient quality control was quantified and expressed mainly from user quality perspectives. In addition, we guided readers through the evaluation method and application process using case scenario simulation, as well as discussing how to handle application challenges in practice including: (1) the proper guidelines and appropriateness of the quality indicators, and (2) the analytic perspective and management implications of the Taguchi's loss values. Finally, based on the output of this study, we also proposed three future research directions worthy of further investigation.

1. The Standish Group, (accessed April, 2009), Chaos summary 2009. .
2. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2001, ISO/IEC 9126-1: software engineering -product quality - part 1: quality model, Technical Report, ISO..
3. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2003a, ISO/IEC TR 9126-2: software engineering - product quality - part 2: external metrics, Technical Report, ISO..
4. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2003b, ISO/IEC TR 9126-3: software engineering - product quality - part 3: internal metrics, Technical Report, ISO..
5. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2004, ISO/IEC TR 9126-4: software engineering - product quality - part 4: quality in use metrics, Technical Report, ISO..
6. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2008a, ISO/IEC 12207: systems and software engineering - software life cycle processes, Technical Report, ISO..
7. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2008b, ISO/IEC 15288: systems and software engineering - system life cycle processes, Technical Report, ISO..
8. Software Engineering Institute (SEI), 2006, CMMI for Development, Version 1.2, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008, Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University..
9. Behkamal, B.,Kahani, M.,Akbari, M. K.(2009).Customizing ISO 9126 quality model for evaluation of B2B applications.Information and Software Technology,51(3),599-609.
10. Boehm, B. W.(1978).Characteristics of Software Quality.Amsterdam:North Holland.
11. Boehm, B. W.,Brown, J. R.,Lipow, M.(1976).Quantitative evaluation of software quality.Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering
12. Charette, B.(2010).Why Do Software Projects Fail?.2010 Software Best Practices Conference,Hampton, VA.:
13. Ganeshan, R.,Kulkarni, S.,Boone, T.(2001).Production economics and process quality: a Taguchi perspective.International Journal of Production Economics,71(1-3),343-350.
14. Grady, R. B.(1992).Practical Software Metrics for Project Management and Process Improvement.Upper Saddle River, NJ.:Prentice Hall.
15. Jung, H.-W.,Kim, S.-G.,Chung, C.-S.(2004).Measuring software product quality: a survey of ISO/IEC 9126.IEEE Software,21(5),88-92.
16. Lewis, W. G.,Pun, K. F.,Lalla, T. R. M.(2006).Empirical investigation of the hard and soft criteria of TQM in ISO 9001 certified small and medium-sized enterprises.International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,23(8),964-985.
17. Liao, C.-N.,Kao, H.-P.(2010).Supplier selection model using Taguchi loss function, analytical hierarchy process and multi-choice goal programming.Computers & Industrial Engineering,58(4),571-577.
18. McCall, J. A.,Richards, P. K.,Walters, G. F.(1977).Technical ReportTechnical Report,General Electric Company.
19. Mustafa, M. A.,Al-Bahar, J. F.(1991).Project risk assessment using the analytic hierarchy process.IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,38(1),46-52.
20. Neemuchwala, A. A.(2008).,Tata Consultancy Services.
21. Project Management Institute=PMI(2008).A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide).Newton Square, PA:PMI.
22. Rosqvist, T.,Koskela, M.,Harju, H.(2003).Software quality evaluation based on expert judgement.Software Quality Journal,11(1),39-55.
23. Sauro, J.,Kindlund, E.(2005).A method to standardize usability metrics into a single score.Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
24. Taguchi, G.,Clausing, D.(1990).Robust quality.Harvard Business Review,68(1),65-75.
25. Taguchi, G.,Elsayed, E. A.,Hsiang, T. C.(1989).Quality Engineering in Production Systems.New York:McGraw-Hill.
26. 周文斌(2003)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北，臺灣，國立臺灣科技大學資訊管理研究所。
27. 林禎彬(2008)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北，臺灣，華梵大學資訊管理研究所。
28. 畢威寧、余豐榮(2004)。結合田口損失函數與層級分析法於婚姻仲介服務之應用研究。品質學報，11(1)，73-83。
29. 鄧振源、曾國雄(1989)。層級分析法（AHP）的內涵特性與應用（上）。中國統計學報，27(6)，5-22。
30. 賴秀樺(2009)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北，臺灣，國立臺灣科技大學工業管理研究所。

1. 蔡錦明、陳鼎周、郭財明、呂文堯(2019)。專業經理人之評選－以室內設計裝修業為例。建築學報，108，1-17。
2. 李東明(2021)。多準則群體決策法在評選室內設計師之應用。設計學報，26(1)，39-57。
3. 劉庭芳、陳殷哲(2018)。領導生命週期理論建構科技業人力資源管理職能之權重。品質學報，25(2)，120-140。