探討敏捷開發中負面因素對專案績效的影響及優先管理策略—以D公司專案為案例分析

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：15

、訪客IP：18.97.14.91

姓名

曾姵瑜(PEI-YU ZENG) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊管理學系在職專班

論文名稱

探討敏捷開發中負面因素對專案績效的影響及優先管理策略—以D公司專案為案例分析
(Exploring the Impact of Negative Factors in Agile Development on Project Performance and Prioritized Management Strategies: A Case Study of D Company Project)

相關論文

★ 影響ERP導入過程及成效因素之研究 - 單一公司兩次導入SAP系統之比較分析	★ 運用資料倉儲技術建置物力動員資訊系統之開發
★ 買方採用自有電子市集之個案研究─以台塑企業為例	★ DEA模型評估經營效率之研究—以某綜合證券商為例
★ 尋求卓越：中小企業資訊部門的管理之個案研究	★ 「證券商共同網路交易平台」之可行性分析
★ 產業競合模式策略探討－以自行車產業為例	★ RFID導入航空貨運站出口作業流程應用之研究
★ 綠色供應鏈活動建構之個案研究-以筆記型電腦製造業為例	★ 導入資訊科技服務管理之評估-以遠東銀行為例
★ 資訊系統導入歷程中專案團隊決策衝突之探討	★ 應用資源基礎理論探討持久競爭優勢-以智慧型手機H公司為例
★ 服務導向架構為基礎的企業流程管理之探討 - 以瀚宇博德股份有限公司為例	★ 沙賓法案實施與企業遵循個案研究--以K公司為例
★ 資訊服務委外之個案分析－以銀行簡訊為例	★ 有線電視業者經營IPTV之競爭優勢分析—以個案公司為例

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)

摘要(中)

近年來，敏捷開發方法 (Agile Development) 因具備靈活性與快速回應變化的特性，已成為企業推動數位轉型的主流。然而實務導入中常遭遇溝通不良、資源失衡與需求變更頻繁等挑戰，影響專案績效並增加失敗風險。本研究以 D 公司內部命名為「AMS 系統改版專案」的稽核系統升級工程為案例，探討敏捷導入後的制度落差與負面因素對專案時程、品質與團隊運作的影響。研究採混合方法，結合 Jira Sprint 數據與 5-10 位專案成員訪談資料，深入剖析制度與角色執行落差對團隊運作的影響。研究結果指出，溝通不良、角色不明與資源失衡為三大關鍵負面因素；其中，團隊信任可緩解溝通障礙，敏捷成熟度與組織規模則可調節資源失衡的影響。根據研究發現，本研究提出以下優先管理策略以降低負面影響並提升敏捷專案管理績效：
•改善溝通機制：提升資訊透明度、優化 Scrum 流程與需求澄清機制，確保團隊清楚掌握專案進度並即時應對變更。
•強化專案管理制度：明確角色與職責，建立權責對應的決策架構。加強決策透明度，以提升專案執行效率與團隊合作品質，降低責任模糊所帶來的合作障礙。
•優化資源分配與人力彈性：強化跨部門合作與人力補位制度，避免過度依賴個別人員的彈性調度，提升資源配置的穩定性與團隊承載力，以因應變更頻繁的開發需求並降低開發風險。
本研究不僅補足現有文獻中對敏捷負面因素缺乏量化分析之不足，亦提出具體可行的優先管理策略，為企業實施敏捷專案管理提供實務參考。未來可進一步延伸探討探討不同產業在敏捷開發中的挑戰，並結合人工智慧、大數據分析與低程式碼技術於敏捷流程中的應用，持續優化專案預警與風險控制能力。

摘要(英)

Agile Development has become a mainstream approach for digital transformation due to its flexibility and responsiveness. However, in practice, teams often face challenges such as poor communication, resource imbalance, frequent changes, and technical debt, which can undermine project schedule, quality, and cost. This study examines the "AMS System Revamp Project" at Company D to explore institutional gaps and negative factors following Agile adoption, and their impact on timeline, quality, and team operations. A mixed-methods approach combines Jira Sprint data with interviews from 5-10 team members to analyze how role and system misalignments affect performance. The study identifies poor communication, unclear roles, and resource imbalance as key negative factors. Team trust helps ease communication issues, while Agile maturity and company scale mitigate resource-related risks. Based on these findings, the study proposes priority strategies to reduce negative impacts and enhance Agile performance.
•Improve communication: Increase transparency, streamline Scrum, and clarify requirements to keep teams aligned.
•Clarify roles and governance: Define responsibilities and decision structures to reduce ambiguity and strengthen collaboration.
•Enhance resource flexibility: Support cross-team cooperation and backup planning to reduce single-role dependency and improve stability.
The study offers data-driven strategies for Agile issues, with future potential in AI and low-code integration.

關鍵字(中)

★ 敏捷開發
★ 負面因素
★ 專案績效
★ 管理策略

關鍵字(英)

★ Agile Project Management
★ Product Certification Testing
★ Team Communication
★ Accelerated Problem Resolution

論文目次

中文摘要 I
Abstract II
目錄 IV
圖目錄 VI
表目錄 VII
第一章緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 3
1.3 研究目的 4
1.4 論文架構 5
第二章文獻探討 7
2.1 敏捷開發專案中的負面影響因素 7
2.2 專案績效衡量指標 11
2.3 文獻小結 13
第三章研究方法 15
3.1 研究基礎 15
3.2 採用方法 15
3.3 研究對象 16
3.4 資料蒐集來源與方法 17
3.4.1 初級資料 17
3.4.2 半結構化訪談 18
3.4.3 次級資料 19
3.4.4 三角驗證法 20
3.5 研究架構 21
第四章個案分析 22
4.1 個案公司概述 22
4.2 個案公司專案導入背景 26
4.2.1 專案發展歷程與挑戰 27
4.2.2 專案團隊角色制度設計與實務落差 30
4.2.3 敏捷開發導入後之影響 34
4.3 訪談與分析 35
4.3.1 訪談程序 36
4.3.2 訪談問題與分析 37
4.3.3 訪談總結 43
4.3.4 優先管理策略 49
4.4 補充資料分析：Sprint 工時與資源投入觀察 51
第五章結論 53
5.1 研究結論 53
5.2 研究管理意涵及建議 54
5.3 研究限制 55
5.4 未來研究方向 56
參考文獻 58
中文文獻 58
英文文獻 58
附錄 61

參考文獻

中文文獻
1.胡幼慧 (1996)，質性研究：理論，方法及本土女性研究實例，台北：巨流。
2.林崇熙 (2001)。《質的研究方法》（四版）。五南圖書出版公司。

英文文獻
1.Agile Pain Relief. (n.d.). Scrummerfall. Glossary. Retrieved April 30, 2025, from https://agilepainrelief.com/glossary/scrummerfall/
2.Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R. C., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., & Thomas, D. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Agile Alliance. https://agilemanifesto.org.
3.Boeg, J. (2014). The agile dilemma. Whitepaper, IT University of Copenhagen.
4.Cohn, M. (2005). Agile Estimating and Planning. Prentice Hall.
5.CollabNet VersionOne. (2020). 14th Annual State of Agile Report 2020. Retrieved from https://stateofagile.com/.
6.Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Information Systems Research, 20 (3), 329–354.
7.Conboy, K. (2010). Project failure enablers: An analysis of traditional and agile software development projects. Project Management Journal, 41 (2), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20178
8.Cunningham, W. (1992). The WyCash portfolio management system. ACM SIGPLAN OOPS Messenger, 4 (2), 29–30.
9.Denning, S. (2018). The age of agile: How Smart Companies are Transforming the Way Work Gets Done. AMACOM.
10.Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M., & Lassenius, C. (2016). Challenges and success factors for large-scale agile transformations: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 119, 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.013.
11.Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85 (6), 1213–1221.
12.Fowler, M. (2006). Continuous integration. Retrieved from https://martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html.
13.Highsmith, J. (2009). Agile Project Management: Creating Innovative Products (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
14.Hinshlewood, M. (2023). Scrum Team Scrummerfall. Agile Pain Relief. Retrieved from https://agilepainrelief.com/blog/scrum-team-scrummerfall/
15.Kruchten, P., Nord, R. L., & Ozkaya, I. (2012). Technical debt: From metaphor to theory and practice. IEEE Software, 29 (6), 18–21.
16.Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., & Agarwal, R. (2009). A control theory perspective on agile methodology use and changing user requirements. Information Systems Research, 20 (3), 377–399.
17.Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2009). Incorporating social networks into the development of agile software teams: A transactive memory perspective. Information Systems Research, 20 (4), 527-546.
18.Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., & Thatcher, S. M. (2009). The effects of team design, team environment, and team virtuality on perceived team performance. Information Systems Research, 20 (4), 490-507.
19.Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., & Agarwal, R. (2009). A control theory perspective on agile methodology use and changing user requirements. Information Systems Research, 20 (3), 377–399.
20.Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2010). A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project. Information and Software Technology, 52 (5), 480-491.
21.Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2017). The Scrum Guide: The Definitive Guide to Scrum: The Rules of the Game. Scrum.org. https://scrumguides.org.
22.Serrador, P., & Pinto, J. K. (2015). Does agile work? A quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal of Project Management, 33 (5), 1040–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.006.
23.Sharp, H., Robinson, H., & Woodman, M. (2009). Software engineering: Community and culture. Proceedings of the ICSE Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects on Software Engineering, 10–13.
24.Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. SAGE Publications.
25.Stettina, C. J., & Hörz, J. (2015). Agile portfolio management: An empirical perspective on the practice in use. International Journal of Project Management, 33 (1), 140–152.
26.Portman, H. (2021). CHAOS Report 2020 – Standish Group Summary. Henny Portman’s Blog. Retrieved from https://hennyportman.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/project-success-qrc-standish-group-chaos-report-2020.pdf.
27.West, D., Gilpin, M., Grant, T., & Anderson, A. (2011). Agile Development: Mainstream Adoption Has Changed Agility. Forrester Research. https://www.forrester.com.
28.Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
29.Zucker, D. M. (2016). How to do case study research. In Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/nursing_faculty_pubs/2.

指導教授

王存國

審核日期

2025-7-9

推文