應用行動研究法探討組織成功導入CMMI 之個案研究

Toward a Better Understanding of CMMI Adoption and Success: Action Research Approach

10.30136/ZXYGLKX.201112.0002

范懿文；王文秀

CMMI ； 行動研究法 ； 軟體流程改善 ； CMMI ； action research ； software process improvement

資訊與管理科學

4卷2期（2011 / 12 / 30）

25 - 40

繁體中文

隨著企業電子化的應用越來越為廣泛，龐大的資訊需求、無效的軟體流程管理、IT 專案延遲成為許多資訊部門共同的問題，雖然為許多單位試圖採用能力成熟度整合模型（CMMI）以改善軟體開發流程，但仍不乏許多失敗或成效不彰的案例，為了深入瞭解CMMI 的成功導入過程與其中技術、流程、使用者間的互動關係，必須對於CMMI 導入用多元不同的角度與方法，進行不同層面的剖析與探索。為了對CMMI 的應用過程與脈絡有更深入之瞭解與現場實務探索，本研究採用行動研究法為分析方法，透過個案研究的方式探討個案組織（某大學）應用CMMI 改善系統開發流程的過程與經驗，並分析個案組織的實施計畫，因應導入問題之解決方法，與所建立之制度規範，以作為各大學與企業組織未來應用與改善參考。

Many Business face the problems of the deficient management processes, imperfect software processes, and IT projects fail to meet schedule and budget. Software process improvement is particularly important for business in enhancing their IS quality and competition. CMMI developed by Carnegie Mellon University is for improving the quality of software development process. Factors and advantages of CMMI adoption have largely been discussed in the literature, however there has been very little empirical work in the adoption processes and how these factors interrelate in gaining CMMI success. In this paper we present a case study of CMMI adoption process in a large university through the lenses of the action research perspective. We will show how the action research approach helped analyzing the process of CMMI adoption. By understanding the process of CMMI adoption and ways to overcome adoption problems, this paper provided useful insights for software process improvement on IT management.

1. Wadsworth, Y. (1998), “What is Participatory Action Research?”Action Research International, Paper No.2. (Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-ywadsworth98.html)
2. Lewin, K. (1946), “Action research and minority problems,”Journal of Social Issues, 2 (1), 34-36.
3. Altrichter, H.,Posch, P.,Somekh, B.(1993).Teachers investigate their work: A introduction to the methods of action research.London:Routledge.
4. Avison, D.,Baskerville, R.,Myers, M.(2001).Controlling action research projects.Information Technology and People,14(1),28-45.
5. Baskerville, R.(1999).Investigation Information Systems with Action Research.Communications of the Association for Information Systems,2(19)
6. Baskerville, R.,Myers, M. D.(2004).Special issue on action research in information systems: making IS research relevant to practice-Foreword.MIS Quarterly,28(3)
7. Baskerville, R.,Wood-Harper, A.T.(1998).Diversity in Information Systems Action Research Methods.European Journal of Information Systems,7(2),90-107.
8. Bostrom, R. P.,Heinen, J.(1977).MIS Problems and Failures: A Socio Technical Perspective: Part I: The Causes.MIS Quarterly,1(3),17-32.
9. Goldenson, D.R.,Gibson, D.L.(2003).Special ReportSpecial Report,Carnegie Mellon University.
10. Hyde, K.,Wilson, D.(2004).Intangible benefits of CMM-based software process improvemen.Software Process Improvement and Practice,9(4),217-228.
11. Iversen, J.H.,Mathiassen, L.,Nielsen, P.A.(2004).Managing Risk in Software Process Improvement: An Action Research Approach.MIS Quarterly,28(3),395-433.
12. Johnson, D. L.,Brodman, J.G.(2000).Applying CMM Project Planning Practices to Diverse Environments.IEEE Software,17(4),40-47.
13. Kaiser, K.M.,Bostrom, R.P.(1982).Personality characteristics of MIS project teams: An empirical study and action-research design.MIS Quarterly,6(4),43-60.
14. Kemmis, S.,Mctaggart, R.(1997).The Action Research Planner (3rd ed.).Victoria, Australia:Deakin University Press.
15. Larsen, T. J.(ed.),Levine, L.(ed.),DeGross, J. I.(ed.)(1998).Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes.International Federation of Information Processing.
16. Lee, A. S.(1999).Rigor and relevance in MIS research: Beyond the approach of positivism alone.MIS Quarterly,23(1),29-33.
17. Lin, T. C.(1994).An Integrated Model for User Resistance to Informatio System-the Taiwan Case.Journal of Information Technology Management (Focus on Asia issue),5(3),47.
18. March, J. G.(ed.)(1965).Handbook of Organizations.Chicago:Rand McNally.
19. Markus, M.L.(1997).The Qualitative Difference in Information Systems Research and Practice.Information Systems and Qualitative Research,Chapman and Hall:
20. McKernan, J.(1991).Curriculum Action Research.London:Kogan Page.
21. McNiff, J.,Whitehead, J.(2002).Action research: Principles and practice.London:Routledge-Falmer.
22. Nasir, M. H. N. M.,Ahmad, R.,Hassan, N. H.(2008).Resistance Factors in the Implementation of Software Process Improvement Project in Malaysia.Journal of Computer Science,4(3),211-219.
23. Näslund, D.,Kale, R.,Paulraj, A.(2010).Action Research in Supply Chain Management-A Framework for Relevant and Rigorous Research.Journal of Business Logistics,31(2),331-355.
24. Orlikowski, W.J.,Baroudi, J.J.(1991).Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions.Information Systems Research,2(1),1-28.
25. Rolfe, G.(1998).Expanding nursing knowledge understanding and researching your own practice.Boston:Butterworth-Heinemann.
26. Yin, R. K.(1994).Case Study Research: Design and Method.Sage Publications, Inc..