臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來企業已將資訊系統列為其競爭武器之一。資訊相關產業也變的越來越重要。面對越來越激烈的競爭洪流，企業必須藉助資訊系統產生更有效的競爭武器。企業建構資訊系統時，不管是自建或是外包，都需要良好的軟體閞發流程輔助專案的成功。近年來新興的敏捷式(Agile)軟體開發方法，專注提昇軟體專案的失敗率[Alshayeb & Li, 2005; Cockburn, 2001]。在眾多敏捷式軟體開發方法中，廣為大家應用的即為極致軟體製程方法XP(eXtreme Programming approach) [Armitage, 2004]。XP重新定義了使用者、經理及程式設計師的角色，給予每個角色特有的關鍵性權利與義務。雙人式編程(Pair-Programming)是XP的 12個應用原則之一。本研究欲探討不同的人格特質與雙人式編程績效之關係，及不同工作內容及工作複雜度下之績效影響。

Information-related industry has been the driving force of Taiwan’s national economy since the 1980s. Various industries have been using information systems as competitive weapons. Most software development organizations in Taiwan are small and cannot afford to spend large resources for improving their capability. eXtreme Programming(XP) is one of the light weight software development methodology. One of the major pracitce is Pair programming, which is two programmers work side-by-side at one computer, continuously collaborating on the same design, algorithm, code or test.
The purpose of this research is to develop a model that finds the best pair of team members in a pair-programming environment.
The companies will be from our EMBA students. The findings of this project could provide not only the optimal composite of pair-programming team, but also the best programming team assignment.

書名頁 ii
審定書 iii
授權書 iv
摘要 vi
誌謝 viii
目錄 ix
表目錄 xi
圖目錄 xii
附表目錄 xiii
第一章、 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機 2
第三節 研究目的 3
第四節 貢獻與重要性 3
第五節 範圍及對象 4
第六節 研究架構 4
第二章、 文獻探討 5
第一節 極致化編程相關研究 5
第二節 雙人式編程相關研究 7
第三節 編程人員個人特質相關研究 8
第三章、 研究方法與模型建立 11
第一節 研究觀念架構 11
第二節 研究流程 12
第三節 研究架構 13
一、 實驗設計 13
二、 實驗專案選擇 15
三、 公司背景 15
四、 專案背景 16
五、 實驗對象 19
六、 問卷內容設計 20
七、 研究分析 20
第四節 研究假說 21
第四章、 資料收集與分析 22
第一節 資料收集 22
第二節 結果分析 23
一、 總體編程績效影響分析 23
二、 研究變項分析 26
三、 個人工作滿意度分析 30
四、 假說檢定 31
第五章、 結論與建議 32
第一節 研究結論 32
一、 結論 32
二、 雙人式編程組合之實務上建議 34
第二節 研究限制 35
第三節 後續研究建議 35
參考文獻 37
附錄 40

1.Adler, L., “Systems Approach to Marketing,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1967, pp. 105-118.
2.Alshayeb M. and Li W., “An empirical study of system design instability metric and design evolution in an agile software process”, The Journal of System and Software, issue 74, 2005, pp. 269-274.
3.Anderson, A., Beattie, R., Beck, K. et al., “The C3 Team, Chrysler Goes to "Extremes"”. Distributed Computing. October 1998, pp.24-28.
4.Armitage J., “Are agile methods good for design? ” ACM Press, pp. 14-23, Volume 11, Issue 1 January + February 2004.
5.Beck, K. and Andres, C., Extreme Programming Explained : Embrace Change (2nd Edition), Boston, Addison-Wesley, 2005.
6.Beck, K., Extreme Programming Explained, Addison Wesley Longman, 2000.
7.Berry, D., “How Marketers Use Microcomputers - Now and in the Future,” Business Marketing, 68, December 1983, pp. 44, 48-49, 52-53.
8.Bevan, J., Werner, L., McDowell, C., “Guidelines for the Use of Pair Programming in a Freshman Programming Class,” presented at the Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, Kentucky, 2002.
9.Bradley, J. H., Hebert, F. J., “The effect of personality type on team performance,” Journal of Management Development, 16:5, 1997, pp. 337–353.
10.Cockburn, A., Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley, 2001.
11.Cockburn, A. and Williams, L., ”The Costs and Benefits of Pair Programming,” in Giancarlo Succi and Michele Marchesi (eds.) Extreme Programming Examined. Boston: Addison Wesley, 2001, pp. 223-243.
12.Constantine L.L., Constantine on Peopleware, Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1995.
13.Fagan, M. E., “Advances in Software Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development,” IBM Systems Journal, vol. 15, 1976, pp. 182-191.
14.Faraj, S. and Sproull, L., “Coordinating expertise in software development teams.” Management Science, 46, 12 (Dec) 2000, pp. 1554-1568.
15.Frederick P. Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, 20th Anniversary Edition, Addison-Wesley, 1995.
16.Frederick P. Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, 20th Anniversary Edition, Addison-Wesley, 1995.
17.Gehringer, E.F., “A pair-programming experiment in a non-programming course.” ACM Press, pp. 187-190, 2003.
18.Gorla, N. and Lam, Y. W., “Who should work with whom?: building effective software project teams,“ Communications of the ACM, vol. 47, No. 6, June 2004, pp. 79-82.
19.Hedin, G., Bendix, L., and Magnusson, B., “Teaching extreme programming to large groups of studemts,” The Journal of Systems and Software, pp. 133-146, 74 (2005).
20.Kircher, M., Jain, P., Corsaro, A., and Levine, D., “Distributed Extreme Programming.” Proceedings of XP2001 - eXtreme Programming and Flexible Processes in Software Engineering, Villasimius, Sardinia, Italy, May 21-23, 2001. pp. 66-71.
21.Jeffries, R. et al., Extreme Programming Installed, Addison Wesley Longman, 2001.
22.Lindstrom, L., and Jeffries R., “Extreme Programming and Agile software development methodologies.” Information Systems Management, pp. 41-52, Summer 2004.
23.McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., and Fernald, J., “The Effects of Pair Programming on Performance in an Introductory Programming Course,” Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2002), ACM Press, 2002.
24.Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L., MBTI® manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: CPP, Inc., 1998.
25.Nagappan, N., Williams, L., Ferzli, M., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Miller, C., and Balik, S., “Improving the CS1 Experience with Pair Programming,” Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2003), ACM Press, 2003.
26.Nosek, J.T., “The Case for Collaborative Programming,” Communications of ACM, Vol. 41, No. 3, 1998, pp. 105–108.
27.Quenk, N. L., Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Assessment. New York: Wiley, 2000.
28.Rasch, R.H., Tosi H. L., “Factors Affecting Software Developers Performance: An Integrated Approach.” MIS Quarterly, September 1992, pp. 395-413
29.Russell, G. W., “Experience with Inspection in Ultralarge-Scale Developments,” IEEE Software, vol. 8, no. 1, 1991, pp. 25 -31.
30.Sawyer S., “Software Development Teams-Considering three software development team archetypes and their implications.” Communications of the ACM, December 2004/ Volumn47. No 12, pp. 95-99.
31.Schneider, J.G., Johnston, L., “eXtreme Programming – helpful or harmful in educating undergraduates?“ The Journal of Systems and Software, pp. 121-132, 74 (2005).
32.Thomas, L., Ratcliffe, M., and Robertson, A., “Code Warriors and Code-a-Phobes: A Study in Attitude and Pair Programming,” Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2003), ACM Press, 2003.
33.Weinberg, G. M., The Psychology of Computer Programming Silver, Anniversary Edition. Dorset House Publishing, 1998.
34.Weller, E. F., “Lessons from Three Years of Inspection Data,” IEEE Software, vol. 10, no. 5, 1993, pp. 38-45.
35.Williams, L., Pair Programming Questionnaire,
http:// limes.cs.utah.edu/questionnaire/questionnaire.htm, 1999.
36.Williams, L., Kessler, R., Pair Programming Illustrated. Boston, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley, 2003.
37.Williams, L., and Kessler, R. R., "All I Really Need to Know about Pair Programming I Learned In Kindergarten," Communications of the ACM, May 2000, pp. 20-25.
38.Williams, L., Kessler, R.R., Cunningham, W., and Jeffries, R., “Strengthening the Case for Pair Programming,” IEEE Software, July/August 2000, pp. 20-25.
39.Williams, L., Upchurch, R., “Extreme programming in software engineering education.”, Proceedings of ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education, Reno, Nevada, October 2001. IEEE.
40.Williams, L., Yang, K., Wiebe, E., Ferzli, M., and Miller, C., “Pair Programming in an Introductory Computer Science Course: Initial Results and Recommendations,” presented at the OOPSLA Educator’s Symposium, Seattle, Washington, 2002.
41.Zhang Y., “Test-Driven Modeling for Model-Driven Development,” IEEE Software, September/October 2004, pp. 80-86.