學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 “新一代”軟體開發者選擇敏捷式系統發展方法論之傾向：學習後之效應探討
The intention of selecting agile system development methodology among new generation of software developer: the effects of post-learning作者 湯金翰
Tang, Chinhan貢獻者 管郁君
Eugenia Y. Huang
湯金翰
Tang, Chinhan關鍵詞 軟體開發人員
敏捷式系統發展方法
使用時機
自我效能
使用意圖
部分最小平方法
德菲法
層級分析法
software developers
agile system development methodology
self-efficacy
social cognitive theory
PLS analysis
Delphi test
analytic hierarchy process日期 2009 上傳時間 4-Sep-2013 16:56:59 (UTC+8) 摘要 90年代的後期，敏捷式系統發展方法開始被倡導。相對於傳統的系統發展方法，敏捷式系統發展方法著重於回饋機制而非事前的計畫、以人為中心而非以流程為中心。這樣的方法希望能助於提高組織對回應市場、客戶的效率，進而提高效益。目前在商場中使用此方法做為開發工具的企業仍是少數，本研究希望透過探討敏捷式系統發展方法論的使用時機來進行教學，進而得知系統開發人員對於接受敏捷式系統發展方法的關鍵因素，並藉此了解該如何在企業中導入此方法。本研究發現除了使用此方法的能力會影響影響使用意圖之外，在內在因素方面也包含了公司結構與團隊因素，外部因素則包含了顧客與成功案例因素，這些都是接受敏捷式系統發展方法的關鍵因素。本研究希望根據以上的分析結果，提出敏捷式系統發展方法導入之建議，提供組織做為參考用。
Awareness of agile system development methodologies (SDM) has grown among information systems development community in recent years. Many of their advocates consider the agile and the plan-driven SDMs polar opposites. Indeed there are circumstances where agile SDMs are more suitable than plan-driven SDMs. Yet, there have been few studies on understanding developers’ adoption intention. This paper takes an initial attempt to gauge new generation of software developers’ intention to select agile SDMs. To many of these developers, agile SDMs are relatively new if not unheard of, in order to assess their intention to choose such category of methodologies, this research first introduced the methodologies to a group of 21 IS-major graduate students and discussed how and when to use agile SDMs. Then a survey was conducted, which was comprised of two parts of questions: agile SDM self-efficacy and intention to use. PLS analysis results showed that agile SDM self-efficacy influence the intention to use through performance outcome expectation, personal outcome expectation, and affect. Although the relationship between self-efficacy and anxiety was not confirmed, anxiety does affect intention to use. The fact that direct relationships between all four emotive variables and the intention to use are established implies that in order to encourage the use of agile SDMs, the focus should be emotive variables, and that self efficacy may be just one of various ways to promote the favorable emotional states. In addition, these participates were invited to a three-round Delphi test and analytic hierarchy process to retrieved their concerns about accepting or rejecting agile SDMs. Ten key factors were extracted and categorized. Adding up the pros and cons, team dimension is the most important dimension, which explains individual first concerns about how the collaboration when using agile SDMs. Other than team dimension, customer, corporate structure, project, success cases and methodology dimensions were consistent with the literatures. Thus our study provides a critical understanding of the factors that affect new generation of software developers’ intention to select agile SDM.參考文獻 Avison, D. B., & Fitzgerald, G. (1999). Rethinking Management Information Systems: An Interdisciplinary Perspective: Oxford University Press.Avison, D. B., & Fitzgerald, G. (2003). Where Now for Development Methodologies? Communications of the Acm, 46(1), 78-82.Avison, D. E., & Fitzgerald, G. (1998). Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Bailyn, L. (1984). Autonomy in the industrial R&D lab. Human Resource Management, 24, 129–146.Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63-105.Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy - toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory: Prentice-Hall (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.) Baskerville, R., Levine, L., Pries-Heje, J., Ramesh, B., & Slaughter, S. (2001). How Internet Software Companies Negotiate Quality. Computer, 34(5), 51-57.Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (2004). Short cycle time systems development. [Article]. Information Systems Journal, 14(3), 237-264.Beck, K. (1999). Embracing Change with Extreme Programming. Computer, 32(10), 70-77.Bentley, L. D., Whitten, J. L., & Randolph, G. (2007). Systems analysis and design for the global enterprise. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.Boehm, B. (2002). Get Ready for Agile Methods, with Care. Computer, 35, 6.Boynton, A. C., Zmud, R. W., & Jacobs, G. C. (1994). THE INFLUENCE OF IT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE ON IT USE IN LARGE ORGANIZATIONS. Mis Quarterly, 18(3), 299-318.Brancheau, J. C., Janz, B. D., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1996). Key issues in information systems management: 1994-95 SIM delphi results. [Article]. Mis Quarterly, 20(2), 225-242.Brancheau, J. C., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1987). KEY ISSUES IN INFORMATION-SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT. [Article]. Mis Quarterly, 11(1), 23-45.Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38(4), 275-280.Burke, M. J., & Day, R. R. (1986). A cumulative study of the effectiveness of managerial training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 232-245.Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural Equation Modeling Analysis with Small Samples Using Partial Least Squares. , . : Sage Publications.Cockburn, A. (2002). Agile software development: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study. Mis Quarterly, 23(2), 145-158.Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995a). Application of Social Cognitive Theory to Training for Computer Skills. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 118-143.Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995b). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from First Principles: Reconstructing the Concept of Agility in Information Systems Development. INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH, 20(3), 329-354.Dalkey, N. C. (1969). The Delphi method An experimental study of group opinion (RM-5888-PR ed.). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Daniel Couger, J. (1988). Key human resource issues in IS in the 1990s: Views of IS executives versus human resource executives. Information & Management, 14(4), 161-174.Daniels, A., & Yeates, D. (1971). Basic training in systems analysis (2nd ed.). Pitman London.Dickson, G. W., Leitheiser, R. L., Wetherbe, J. C., & Nechis, M. (1984). Key Information Systems Issues for the 1980`s. MIS Quarterly, 8(3), 135-159.Fitzgerald, B. (1998). Am empirical investigation into the adoption of systems development methodologies. Information & Management, 34(6), 317-328.Fitzgerald, B. (2000). Systems development methodologies: the problem of tenses. Information Technology & People, 13(3), 174.Fitzgerald, B., Hartnett, G., & Conboy, K. (2006). Customising agile methods to software practices at Intel Shannon. Eur. J. Inf. Syst., 15(2), 200-213.Fuller, D. M. U. V. A. (2006). Information Technology and Innovation at Shinsei Bank. [Case]. Harvard Business School Publishing, No. 9-607-010, 10.Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability. The Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.Harris, M. L., Collins, R. W., & Hevner, A. R. (2009). Control of Flexible Software Development Under Uncertainty. Info. Sys. Research, 20(3), 400-419.Hays, R. T. (1992). Systems concepts for training systems development. IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, 22(2), 258-266.Henderson, J. C., & Lee, S. (1992). Managing I/S Design Teams: A Control Theories Perspective. Management Science, 38(6), 757-777.Highsmith, J., & Cockburn, A. (2001). Agile Software Development: The Business of Innovation. Computer, 34, 3.Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1991). EXECUTIVE INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN THE MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. Mis Quarterly, 15(2), 205-227.KG Jöreskog, R. L., CE Werts (1974). Intraclass Reliability Estimates: Testing Structural Assumptions. Journal of Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 25-33.Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1967). Training and Development Handbook. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R. (2001). Effects of Training Goals and Goal Orientation Traits on Multidimensional Training Outcomes and Performance Adaptability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 1-31.Larcker, C. F. D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research 18(3), 382-388.Larman, C., & Basili, V. R. (2003). Iterative and Incremental Development: A Brief History. Computer, 36, 10.Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1979). Importance of supportive relationships in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(2), 151-156.Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2002). Management information systems : managing the digital firm. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Mahmood, M. A., Bagchi, K., & Ford, T. C. (2004). On-line Shopping Behavior: Cross-Country Empirical Research. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 9(1), 9-30.Mann, R. B., & Decker, P. J. (1984). The Effect of Key Behavior Distinctiveness on Generalization and Recall in Behavior Modeling Training. The Academy of Management Journal, 27(4), 900-910.Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1986). Beyond imitation: Complex behavioral and affective linkages resulting from exposure to leadership training models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 571-578.Martocchio, J. J. (1994). Effects of conceptions of ability on anxiety, self-efficacy, and learning in training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 819-825.Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., & Agarwal, R. (2009). A Control Theory Perspective on Agile Methodology Use and Changing User Requirements. Info. Sys. Research, 20(3), 377-399.Meyer, H. H., & Raich, M. S. (Writer) (1983). AN OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF A BEHAVIOR MODELING TRAINING PROGRAM [Article], Personnel Psychology: Blackwell Publishing Limited.Miller, N. E., & Dollar, d. J. (1944). Social Learning and Imitation. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 99(2), 221-222.Mills, H. D. (1999). The management of software engineering Part I: Principles of software engineering. IBM Systems Journal, 38(2/3), 289.Necco, C. R., Gordon, C. L., & Tsai, N. W. (1987). Systems Analysis and Design: Current Practices. Mis Quarterly, 11(4), 461-476.Niederman, F., Brancheau, J. C., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1991). Information Systems Management Issues for the 1990s. MIS Quarterly, 15(4), 475-500.Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw- Hill.Premkumar, G., & King, W. R. (1994). ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND INFORMATION-SYSTEMS PLANNING - AN EMPIRICAL-STUDY. Information Systems Research, 5(2), 75-109.Raghunathan, B., & Raghunathan, T. S. (1990). Planning Implications of the Information Systems Strategic Grid: An Empirical Investigation. Decision Sciences, 21(2), 287-300.Randell, B., & Zurcher, F. W. (1968). Iterative Multi-LevelModeling: A Methodology for Computer SystemDesign: IEEE CS Press.Roberts, T. L., Gibson, M. L., Fields, K. T., & Rainer, R. K. (1998). Factors that impact implementing a system development methodology. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(8), 640-649.Royce, W. W. (1987). Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process New York: McGraw-Hill.Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26.Sabherwal, R. (Writer) (1999). The Relationship Between Information System Planning Sophistication and Information System Success: An Empirical Assessment [Article], Decision Sciences.Schmidt, R. C. (1997). Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 763-774.Schmidt., R. C. (1997). Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 763-774.Sommerville, I. (1996). Software process models. ACM Comput. Surv., 28(1), 269-271.Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.Venaik, S., Midgley, D. F., & Devinney, T. M. (2005). Dual Paths to Performance: The Impact of Global Pressures on MNC Subsidiary Conduct and Performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6), 655-675.Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.Yourdon, I. C. (1993). Yourdon systems method: model-driven systems development: Yourdon Press.黃政傑 (1987). 課程評鑑. 台北市: 師大書苑. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
資訊管理研究所
97356017
98資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097356017 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 管郁君 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Eugenia Y. Huang en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 湯金翰 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Tang, Chinhan en_US dc.creator (作者) 湯金翰 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Tang, Chinhan en_US dc.date (日期) 2009 en_US dc.date.accessioned 4-Sep-2013 16:56:59 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 4-Sep-2013 16:56:59 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 4-Sep-2013 16:56:59 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0097356017 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/60205 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 資訊管理研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 97356017 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 98 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 90年代的後期，敏捷式系統發展方法開始被倡導。相對於傳統的系統發展方法，敏捷式系統發展方法著重於回饋機制而非事前的計畫、以人為中心而非以流程為中心。這樣的方法希望能助於提高組織對回應市場、客戶的效率，進而提高效益。目前在商場中使用此方法做為開發工具的企業仍是少數，本研究希望透過探討敏捷式系統發展方法論的使用時機來進行教學，進而得知系統開發人員對於接受敏捷式系統發展方法的關鍵因素，並藉此了解該如何在企業中導入此方法。本研究發現除了使用此方法的能力會影響影響使用意圖之外，在內在因素方面也包含了公司結構與團隊因素，外部因素則包含了顧客與成功案例因素，這些都是接受敏捷式系統發展方法的關鍵因素。本研究希望根據以上的分析結果，提出敏捷式系統發展方法導入之建議，提供組織做為參考用。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Awareness of agile system development methodologies (SDM) has grown among information systems development community in recent years. Many of their advocates consider the agile and the plan-driven SDMs polar opposites. Indeed there are circumstances where agile SDMs are more suitable than plan-driven SDMs. Yet, there have been few studies on understanding developers’ adoption intention. This paper takes an initial attempt to gauge new generation of software developers’ intention to select agile SDMs. To many of these developers, agile SDMs are relatively new if not unheard of, in order to assess their intention to choose such category of methodologies, this research first introduced the methodologies to a group of 21 IS-major graduate students and discussed how and when to use agile SDMs. Then a survey was conducted, which was comprised of two parts of questions: agile SDM self-efficacy and intention to use. PLS analysis results showed that agile SDM self-efficacy influence the intention to use through performance outcome expectation, personal outcome expectation, and affect. Although the relationship between self-efficacy and anxiety was not confirmed, anxiety does affect intention to use. The fact that direct relationships between all four emotive variables and the intention to use are established implies that in order to encourage the use of agile SDMs, the focus should be emotive variables, and that self efficacy may be just one of various ways to promote the favorable emotional states. In addition, these participates were invited to a three-round Delphi test and analytic hierarchy process to retrieved their concerns about accepting or rejecting agile SDMs. Ten key factors were extracted and categorized. Adding up the pros and cons, team dimension is the most important dimension, which explains individual first concerns about how the collaboration when using agile SDMs. Other than team dimension, customer, corporate structure, project, success cases and methodology dimensions were consistent with the literatures. Thus our study provides a critical understanding of the factors that affect new generation of software developers’ intention to select agile SDM. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 摘要 iABSTRACT ii致謝 iii目錄 1表目錄 3圖目錄 5第壹章 緒論 7第一節 研究動機與背景 7第二節 研究目的 8第三節 預期貢獻 8第四節 論文架構與研究程序 9第貳章 文獻探討 11第一節 系統發展方法論演進 11第二節 敏捷式系統發展方法論探討 19第三節 社會學習理論 25第叁章 研究設計 30第一節 概念性步驟 30第二節 實驗法研究架構 31第三節 研究假說建立 33第四節 實驗設計 34第五節 資料分析方法 41第肆章 資料分析 47第一節 樣本基本資料 47第二節 測量模式分析 49第三節 結構模型分析 52第四節 德菲法資料分析 56第一回合德菲法問卷調查結果分析與討論 56第二回合德菲法問卷調查結果分析與討論 62第三回合德菲法問卷調查結果分析與討論 65第四回合德菲法問卷調查結果分析與討論 73第五節 層級分析法分析 74第伍章 結論與建議 80第一節研究結論 80第二節研究貢獻 83第三節研究限制與未來研究建議 83參考文獻 85附錄1：第一回合關鍵因素清單…………………………………………………………………………. 90附錄2：關鍵因素同意度調查表…………………………………………………………………………. 92附錄3：實驗設計前測問卷…………………………………………………………………………………. 93附錄4：實驗設計後測問卷…………………………………………………………………………………. 97附錄5：德菲法第1回合問卷……………………………………………………………………………... 98附錄6：德菲法第2回合問卷…………………………………………………………………………..…. 99附錄7：德菲法第3-1回合問卷…………………………………………………………………………..103附錄8：德菲法第3-2回合問卷……………………………………………………………………….….105附錄9：德菲法第3-3回合問卷…………………………………………………………………………. 108附錄10：德菲法第4回合問卷…………………………………………………………………………. 111 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3188572 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097356017 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 軟體開發人員 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 敏捷式系統發展方法 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 使用時機 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 自我效能 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 使用意圖 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 部分最小平方法 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 德菲法 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 層級分析法 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) software developers en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) agile system development methodology en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) self-efficacy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) social cognitive theory en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) PLS analysis en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Delphi test en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) analytic hierarchy process en_US dc.title (題名) “新一代”軟體開發者選擇敏捷式系統發展方法論之傾向：學習後之效應探討 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The intention of selecting agile system development methodology among new generation of software developer: the effects of post-learning en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Avison, D. B., & Fitzgerald, G. (1999). Rethinking Management Information Systems: An Interdisciplinary Perspective: Oxford University Press.Avison, D. B., & Fitzgerald, G. (2003). Where Now for Development Methodologies? Communications of the Acm, 46(1), 78-82.Avison, D. E., & Fitzgerald, G. (1998). Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Bailyn, L. (1984). Autonomy in the industrial R&D lab. Human Resource Management, 24, 129–146.Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63-105.Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy - toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory: Prentice-Hall (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.) Baskerville, R., Levine, L., Pries-Heje, J., Ramesh, B., & Slaughter, S. (2001). How Internet Software Companies Negotiate Quality. Computer, 34(5), 51-57.Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (2004). Short cycle time systems development. [Article]. Information Systems Journal, 14(3), 237-264.Beck, K. (1999). Embracing Change with Extreme Programming. Computer, 32(10), 70-77.Bentley, L. D., Whitten, J. L., & Randolph, G. (2007). Systems analysis and design for the global enterprise. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.Boehm, B. (2002). Get Ready for Agile Methods, with Care. Computer, 35, 6.Boynton, A. C., Zmud, R. W., & Jacobs, G. C. (1994). THE INFLUENCE OF IT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE ON IT USE IN LARGE ORGANIZATIONS. Mis Quarterly, 18(3), 299-318.Brancheau, J. C., Janz, B. D., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1996). Key issues in information systems management: 1994-95 SIM delphi results. [Article]. Mis Quarterly, 20(2), 225-242.Brancheau, J. C., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1987). KEY ISSUES IN INFORMATION-SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT. [Article]. Mis Quarterly, 11(1), 23-45.Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38(4), 275-280.Burke, M. J., & Day, R. R. (1986). A cumulative study of the effectiveness of managerial training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 232-245.Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural Equation Modeling Analysis with Small Samples Using Partial Least Squares. , . : Sage Publications.Cockburn, A. (2002). Agile software development: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study. Mis Quarterly, 23(2), 145-158.Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995a). Application of Social Cognitive Theory to Training for Computer Skills. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 118-143.Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995b). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from First Principles: Reconstructing the Concept of Agility in Information Systems Development. INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH, 20(3), 329-354.Dalkey, N. C. (1969). The Delphi method An experimental study of group opinion (RM-5888-PR ed.). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Daniel Couger, J. (1988). Key human resource issues in IS in the 1990s: Views of IS executives versus human resource executives. Information & Management, 14(4), 161-174.Daniels, A., & Yeates, D. (1971). Basic training in systems analysis (2nd ed.). Pitman London.Dickson, G. W., Leitheiser, R. L., Wetherbe, J. C., & Nechis, M. (1984). Key Information Systems Issues for the 1980`s. MIS Quarterly, 8(3), 135-159.Fitzgerald, B. (1998). Am empirical investigation into the adoption of systems development methodologies. Information & Management, 34(6), 317-328.Fitzgerald, B. (2000). Systems development methodologies: the problem of tenses. Information Technology & People, 13(3), 174.Fitzgerald, B., Hartnett, G., & Conboy, K. (2006). Customising agile methods to software practices at Intel Shannon. Eur. J. Inf. Syst., 15(2), 200-213.Fuller, D. M. U. V. A. (2006). Information Technology and Innovation at Shinsei Bank. [Case]. Harvard Business School Publishing, No. 9-607-010, 10.Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability. The Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.Harris, M. L., Collins, R. W., & Hevner, A. R. (2009). Control of Flexible Software Development Under Uncertainty. Info. Sys. Research, 20(3), 400-419.Hays, R. T. (1992). Systems concepts for training systems development. IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, 22(2), 258-266.Henderson, J. C., & Lee, S. (1992). Managing I/S Design Teams: A Control Theories Perspective. Management Science, 38(6), 757-777.Highsmith, J., & Cockburn, A. (2001). Agile Software Development: The Business of Innovation. Computer, 34, 3.Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1991). EXECUTIVE INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN THE MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. Mis Quarterly, 15(2), 205-227.KG Jöreskog, R. L., CE Werts (1974). Intraclass Reliability Estimates: Testing Structural Assumptions. Journal of Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 25-33.Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1967). Training and Development Handbook. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R. (2001). Effects of Training Goals and Goal Orientation Traits on Multidimensional Training Outcomes and Performance Adaptability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 1-31.Larcker, C. F. D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research 18(3), 382-388.Larman, C., & Basili, V. R. (2003). Iterative and Incremental Development: A Brief History. Computer, 36, 10.Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1979). Importance of supportive relationships in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(2), 151-156.Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2002). Management information systems : managing the digital firm. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Mahmood, M. A., Bagchi, K., & Ford, T. C. (2004). On-line Shopping Behavior: Cross-Country Empirical Research. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 9(1), 9-30.Mann, R. B., & Decker, P. J. (1984). The Effect of Key Behavior Distinctiveness on Generalization and Recall in Behavior Modeling Training. The Academy of Management Journal, 27(4), 900-910.Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1986). Beyond imitation: Complex behavioral and affective linkages resulting from exposure to leadership training models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 571-578.Martocchio, J. J. (1994). Effects of conceptions of ability on anxiety, self-efficacy, and learning in training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 819-825.Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., & Agarwal, R. (2009). A Control Theory Perspective on Agile Methodology Use and Changing User Requirements. Info. Sys. Research, 20(3), 377-399.Meyer, H. H., & Raich, M. S. (Writer) (1983). AN OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF A BEHAVIOR MODELING TRAINING PROGRAM [Article], Personnel Psychology: Blackwell Publishing Limited.Miller, N. E., & Dollar, d. J. (1944). Social Learning and Imitation. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 99(2), 221-222.Mills, H. D. (1999). The management of software engineering Part I: Principles of software engineering. IBM Systems Journal, 38(2/3), 289.Necco, C. R., Gordon, C. L., & Tsai, N. W. (1987). Systems Analysis and Design: Current Practices. Mis Quarterly, 11(4), 461-476.Niederman, F., Brancheau, J. C., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1991). Information Systems Management Issues for the 1990s. MIS Quarterly, 15(4), 475-500.Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw- Hill.Premkumar, G., & King, W. R. (1994). ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND INFORMATION-SYSTEMS PLANNING - AN EMPIRICAL-STUDY. Information Systems Research, 5(2), 75-109.Raghunathan, B., & Raghunathan, T. S. (1990). Planning Implications of the Information Systems Strategic Grid: An Empirical Investigation. Decision Sciences, 21(2), 287-300.Randell, B., & Zurcher, F. W. (1968). Iterative Multi-LevelModeling: A Methodology for Computer SystemDesign: IEEE CS Press.Roberts, T. L., Gibson, M. L., Fields, K. T., & Rainer, R. K. (1998). Factors that impact implementing a system development methodology. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(8), 640-649.Royce, W. W. (1987). Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process New York: McGraw-Hill.Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26.Sabherwal, R. (Writer) (1999). The Relationship Between Information System Planning Sophistication and Information System Success: An Empirical Assessment [Article], Decision Sciences.Schmidt, R. C. (1997). Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 763-774.Schmidt., R. C. (1997). Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 763-774.Sommerville, I. (1996). Software process models. ACM Comput. Surv., 28(1), 269-271.Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.Venaik, S., Midgley, D. F., & Devinney, T. M. (2005). Dual Paths to Performance: The Impact of Global Pressures on MNC Subsidiary Conduct and Performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6), 655-675.Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.Yourdon, I. C. (1993). Yourdon systems method: model-driven systems development: Yourdon Press.黃政傑 (1987). 課程評鑑. 台北市: 師大書苑. zh_TW
