歷經 Covid-19 疫情洗禮之後全球的軟體外包產業更加蓬勃發展，公司行號也開始重視軟體外包戰略的應用，並以此獲得更高的產品質量以及獲取新的產業知識。為達成客戶期待，軟體承包團隊必須在專案的利害關係人之間建立有效的溝通，並協助利害關係人實現的商業目標，進而確保往後軟體開發上的持續支持。然而在軟體開發前期軟體承包商能獲取的資訊有限，難以取得關鍵的商業資訊以及本身商業願景的不明確都是軟體承包商為客戶完成商業目標的阻礙，除此之外軟體承包商之客戶多半也不具有相關知識背景，難以精準使用專業術語描述所需的軟體需求。如何從最初客戶所闡述之模糊的需求語彙中萃取出其期望的商業價值以及應用場景，並且歸納出所需的軟體功能，讓欲開發之軟體有一明確雛形對於軟體承包商來說是一項非常艱鉅的挑戰。因此本研究欲透過個案研究之方法，探討軟體承包商如何洞察客戶對於外包專案的期望，並將其落實在軟體功能規劃之中，歸納出正確的軟體進行開發，並將該軟體開發正確。本研究以 Fable （寓意科技）所承攬之三項專案：知識社群品牌網站、混香香氛機 App、廣告自動投放系統 作為個案研究分析之對象。Fable （寓意科技）為新型 SI （System Integration）公司，本研究所選擇之三項專案皆為面向消費者之數位產品，並在的商業策略中扮演了市場拓展極為重要一環，在此三項專案中，寓意科技跳脫了過往軟體承包商以功能需求導向的軟體開發技術支援更進一步協助客戶探索產品的應用場景以及歸納該產品在商業上的目標。本研究結合雙鑽石設計模型以及設計科學模型對軟體承包商實踐軟體專案開發之過程進行分析探討，並歸納出一項數位產品開發前期的「軟體開發需求探查流程圖」輔助日後專案負責人以及產品規劃者。

After the Covid-19 pandemic, the global software outsourcing industry has become more prosperous, and companies are beginning to value the application of software outsourcing strategies, resulting in higher product quality and gaining new industry knowledge. To meet customer expectations, software contracting teams must establish effective communication among project stakeholders and assist them in achieving business goals, thus ensuring continued support for software development. However, in the early stages of software development, contractors might not have access to critical business information to clarify the client’s business vision, which is an obstacle for contractors to achieving customer business goals. Furthermore, most software contractors' customers do not have relevant knowledge backgrounds, making it difficult for them to use professional terminology to describe software requirements accurately. How to extract the business value and application scenarios that customers expect from the initial vague requirements language and deduce the required software functions so that the software to be developed as a specific prototype is a very challenging task for software contractors.
Therefore, through case study methods, this study aims to explore how software contractors can understand customers' expectations for outsourcing projects and implement them in software function planning, deducing the correct software development and correctly developing the software. The study takes three projects undertaken by Fable: Knowledge Community Official Website, Fragrance Blending Machine, and Facebook Ads Automation System, to explore the software contractors' insights into the customer's expectations and how they implement them in software development. This research combines the double diamond design model and the design science model to analyse the process of software contractors practising software project development. It sorts out “The Insights Obtainment Process Diagram of Software Development Requirement " to assist project managers, and product planners in obtaining valuable digital product insights.

中文文獻
1. 劉津, & 李月. (2020).破繭成蝶——用戶體驗設計師的成長之路. BEIJING BOOK CO. INC.
2. 潘淑滿. (2022). 質性研究: 理論與應用. 心理.
英文文獻
3. Abran, A., Moore, J. W., Bourque, P., Dupuis, R., & Tripp, L. (2004). Software engineering body of knowledge. IEEE Computer Society, Angela Burgess, 25.
4. Alhazmi, A., & Huang, S. (2020, May). Integrating design thinking into scrum framework in the context of requirements engineering management. In Proceedings of the 2020 3rd International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (pp. 33-45).
5. Alshamrani, A., & Bahattab, A. (2015). A comparison between three SDLC models waterfall model, spiral model, and Incremental/Iterative model. International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI), 12(1), 106.
6. Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. Routledge.
7. Balaji, S., & Murugaiyan, M. S. (2012). Waterfall vs. V-Model vs. Agile: A comparative study on SDLC. International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management, 2(1), 26-30.
8. Banathy, B. H. (2013). Designing social systems in a changing world. Springer Science & Business Media.
9. Baskerville, R. (2008). What design science is not. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5), 441-443.
10. Bassil, Y. (2012). A simulation model for the waterfall software development life cycle. arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.6904.
11. Beck, K. (1999). Embracing change with extreme programming. Computer, 32(10), 70-77.
12. Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: embrace change. addison-wesley professional.
13. Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., ... & Thomas, D. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development.
14. Boehm, B. W. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer, 21(5), 61-72.
15. Boehm B. and Turner R. (2003). Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
16. Bromley, D.B. (1986) The Case-Study Method in Psychology and Related Disciplines. (Chichester, England: Wiley)|ISBN-13=978-0471908531
17. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84.
18. Crotty, M. J. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. The foundations of social research, 1-256.
19. Cohen, D., Lindvall, M., & Costa, P. (2004). An introduction to agile methods. Adv. Comput., 62(03), 1-66.
20. Dobrigkeit, F., & de Paula, D. (2019, August). Design thinking in practice: understanding manifestations of design thinking in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 2019 27th ACM joint meeting on European software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of software engineering (pp. 1059-1069).
21. Dybå, T., Dingsøyr, T. (2008) ‘Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review’, Information and Software Technology, 50(9–10), 833–859.
22. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25-32.
23. Elliott, G. (2004). Global business information technology: an integrated systems approach. Pearson Education.
24. Ferreira Martins, H., Carvalho de Oliveira Junior, A., Dias Canedo, E., Dias Kosloski, R. A., Ávila Paldês, R., & Costa Oliveira, E. (2019). Design thinking: Challenges for software requirements elicitation. Information, 10(12), 371.
25. Fowler, M. (2004). UML distilled: a brief guide to the standard object modeling language. Addison-Wesley Professional.
26. Fowler M. (2005). The New Methodology, www.martinfowler.com.
27. George, Alexander L.; Bennett, Andrew (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press. pp. 74–76, 213. ISBN 978-0-262-30307-1. OCLC 944521872.
28. Gold, R. L. (2017). Roles in sociological field observations. In Sociological Methods (pp. 363-380). Routledge.
29. Gottschalk, P., & Solli‐Sæther, H. (2005). Critical success factors from IT outsourcing theories: an empirical study. Industrial Management & Data Systems.
30. Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 337-355.
31. Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2019). Universal methods of design expanded and revised: 125 Ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport publishers.
32. Iivari, Juhani. (2005). Information systems as a design science. In Information systems development (pp. 15-27). Springer, Boston, MA.
33. Iivari, Juhani. (2007). A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems. 19. 39-.
34. IEEE Standards Activites Departement 2011 ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148. 2011, System and Software Engineering –Life Cycle Processes–Requirements Engineering (New Jersey: Piscataway)
35. Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). The methodology of participant observation. 2003), Qualitative approaches to criminal justice: Perspectives from the field, 12-26.
36. Kappelman, L. A., McKeeman, R., & Zhang, L. (2006). Early warning signs of IT project failure: The dominant dozen. Information systems management, 23(4), 31-36.
37. Kiernan, L. (2017). Consensus in design: A study of interdisciplinary team conversation and consensus reaching during the early phases of design.
38. Larman, C., & Basili, V. R. (2003). Iterative and incremental developments. a brief history. Computer, 36(6), 47-56.
39. Lindberg, T., Meinel, C., & Wagner, R. (2011). Design thinking: A fruitful concept for it development? In Design Thinking (pp. 3-18). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
40. March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision support systems, 15(4), 251-266.
41. Maurer, F., & Martel, S. (2002). Extreme programming. Rapid development for Web-based applications. IEEE Internet Computing, 6(1), 86-90.
42. McCormick, M. (2012). Waterfall vs. Agile methodology. MPCS, N/A, 3.
43. McKim, R. H. (1972). Experiences in visual thinking.
44. Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., & Hays, T. N. (2008). In-depth interviewing: Principles, techniques, analysis. Pearson Education Australia.
45. Monden, Y. (2011). Toyota production system: an integrated approach to just-in-time. CRC Press.
46. Neuman, W. L. (2006) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches 6th Edition, Pearson International Edition, USA.
47. Nidiffer, K. E., & Dolan, D. (2005). Evolving distributed project management. IEEE Software, 22(5), 63-72.Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information systems research, 12(2), 121-134.
48. Paulk, M. C. (2001). Extreme programming from a CMM perspective. IEEE Software, 18(6), 19-26.
49. Pereira, J. C., & de FSM Russo, R. (2018). Design thinking integrated in agile software development: A systematic literature review. Procedia computer science, 138, 775-782.
50. Pfleeeger, S.L. & Atlee, J.M. (2006). Software Engineering: Theory and Practice, 3rd Edition. US: Prentice Hall.
51. Poppendieck, M., & Poppendieck, T. (2003). Lean software development: an agile toolkit. Addison-Wesley.
52. Prasad, W. R., Perera, G. I. U. S., Padmini, K. J., & Bandara, H. D. (2018, May). Adopting design thinking practices to satisfy customer expectations in agile practices: a case from Sri Lankan software development industry. In 2018 Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (Mercon) (pp. 471-476). IEEE.
53. Pressman, R. S. (2005). Software engineering: a practitioner's approach. Palgrave Macmillan.
54. Recker, J. (2021). Information Systems Research as a Science. In Scientific Research in Information Systems (pp. 17-30). Springer, Cham.
55. Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Currency.
56. Rising, L., & Janoff, N. S. (2000). The Scrum software development process for small teams. IEEE Software, 17(4), 26-32.
57. Royce, W. W. (1987, March). Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering (pp. 328-338).
58. Sacolick, I. (2017). Driving Digital: The Leader's Guide to Business Transformation Through Technology. Amacom.
59. Schwaber, K. (1997). Scrum development process. In Business object design and implementation (pp. 117-134). Springer, London.
60. Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2011). The scrum guide. Scrum Alliance, 21(19), 1.
61. Simon, H. A. (2019). The Sciences of the Artificial, reissue of the third edition with a new introduction by John Laird. MIT Press.
62. Spradley, J. P. (2016). Participant observation. Waveland Press.
63. Verganti, R. (1997). Leveraging on systemic learning to manage the early phases of product innovation projects. R&D Management, 27(4), 377-392.
64. Winter, R. (2008). Design science research in Europe. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5), 470-475.
65. Williams, L., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., & Jeffries, R. (2000). Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Software, 17(4), 19-25.
66. Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (2007). The machine that changed the world: The story of lean production--Toyota's secret weapon in the global car wars that is now revolutionizing world industry. Simon and Schuster.
67. Yin, R. K. (2003). Designing case studies. Qualitative research methods, 5(14), 359-386
68. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.
網頁部分
1. IDEO 設計思考官方網站：
https://designthinking.ideo.com/
2. Gartner 研究報告—企業架構師結合設計思考、精實創業和敏捷推動數位創新：
https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/3941917
3. Dan Nessler How to apply a design thinking, HCD, UX or any creative process from scratch — Revised & New Version：https://uxdesign.cc/how-to-solve-problems-applying-a-uxdesign-designthinking-hcd-or-any-design-process-from-scratch-v2-aa16e2dd550b
4. Zendesk 三鑽石設計模型 Medium：https://medium.com/zendesk-creative-blog/the-zendesk-triple-diamond-process-fd857a11c179
5. Fable 官方 Medium：https://medium.com/Fablem%E5%AF%93%E6%84%8F%E7%A7%91%E6%8A%80/Fable%E8%87%AA%E6%88%91%E4%BB%8B%E7%B4%B9-ed394a5497bb
6. 智能香氛品牌 Moodo 官方網站：
https://moodo.co/
7. Autoturn 官方網站：
https://www.autoturn.net/index.php/index/view#