因應服務主導邏輯的興起，卡內基美隆大學軟體工程學院(SEI)在2009年公布適用於服務提供者的CMMI for Services(CMMI-SVC) 1.2版，針對服務系統的規劃、建置、維置以及服務交付等相關議題提供了一套最佳實務可供各產業的服務提供者進行流程改善，以有效掌控成本、時程並確保服務品質進而提高客戶滿意度。迄今，全球已有50個組織通過CMMI-SVC評鑑；而根據SEI的統計資料，截至100年3月國內廠商雖已有157家次通過CMMI-DEV各種不同等級的評鑑，但至今仍尚未有組織通過CMMI-SVC評鑑。
本研究探討國內CMMI-DEV廠商目前對於CMMI-SVC的需求和導入的評估。首先針對CMMI-DEV與CMMI-SVC的內容進行比對，再根據研究問題擬定訪談大綱並採用焦點訪談法廣泛收集國內各界專家的意見，最後獲得以下結論：
(1)由於軟體開發與服務提供是完全不同的概念，因此對CMMI-DEV廠商而言，若要再行導入CMMI-SVC，原本CMMII-DEV的流程能夠再利用的部分非常有限。
(2)目前廠商的服務流程歸屬在軟體專案之下，帶給組織的獲利極少，因而管理者不重視組織服務流程，故國內資訊軟體廠商與使用者的思維仍待改變。
(3)CMMI-SVC提供較為完整且詳細的內容，但ISO 20000導入過程較快速簡單，基於成本的考量，建議國內廠商初期可選擇先導入ISO 20000奠定基礎，並在導入過程中參考CMMI-SVC以獲得更詳細的資訊。

Software Engineering Institute (SEI) has released CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC) Version 1.2 in 2009 which aims to help improve the services processes like service system development and service delivery, and assure the service quality and customer satisfactions for service providers in various types of industries. According to the statistics from SEI, 50 organizations worldwide have obtained certification of CMMI-SVC. However, there is still no CMMI-SVC certified company even though there are already 157 CMMI-DEV certified organizations in Taiwan.
This study focuses on the feasibility evaluation of domestic Taiwanese CMMI-DEV organizations to implement CMMI-SVC. The differences between CMMI-SVC and CMMI-DEV in the core process areas are first analyzed. The method of focus group interview is adopted to gather the opinions from several experienced consultants and specialists in software service domain. The findings are presented as following:
(1)Few process assets built by CMMI-DEV are reusable when implementing CMMI-SVC because of the concept of software development and service delivery is different.
(2)Benefits gained from the service of software project for domestic software companies are very few. Therefore, their top managers place unimportance on software service process to date. The mindset of the managers and the customers should be changed.
(3)Compared to ISO 20000, CMMI-SVC is more detailed. On the other hand, it requires more efforts for implementation. For the concern of cost, we suggest that domestic software companies consider the implement of ISO 20000 first and find more details from CMMI-SVC documentation. The further evaluation of implementing CMMI-SVC could be conducted when the company has benefitted from the implementation of ISO 20000.

[英文文獻]
1.Christopher H. Lovelock (2000). Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy, 4th Edition.
2.Fitzsimmons, J.A., & Fitzsimmons, M.J. (2004). Service management: Operations, strategy, Information Technology.
3.Grover, V. and Goslar, M.D.(1993). The Initiation, Adoption and Implementation of Telecommunications Technologies in U.S. Organizations. Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 141-163
4.Hesan A. Quazi, Yee-Koon Khoob, Chin-Meng Tanc, Poh-Seng Wongd (2001). Motivation for ISO 14000 certification: development of a predictive model, Omega, Vol. 29, pp.525-542
5.Heskett, J.L. (1987). Lessons in the service sector. Harvard Business Review, 65(2), pp.118-26.
6.Heskett, J.L., Sasser, W.E., Jr., & Schlesinger, L.A. (1997). The service profit chain.
7.Kotler, P., (1994). Marketing management: Planning, implementation, and control. 8th ed.
8.Lai Lai Tung, Olaf Rieck (2005). Adoption of electronic government services among business organizations in Singapore. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 14, pp. 417-440
9.Murali Sambasivan, Ng Yun Fei (2008). Evaluation of critical success factors of implementation of ISO 14001 using analytic hierarchy process (AHP): a case study from Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, pp.1424-1433
10.Peter Drucker (1994). Post-capitalist Society
11.Paul P. Maglio, Savitha Srinivasan, Jeffery T. Kreulen, Jim Spohrer, (2006). Service Systems, Service Scientists, SSMN, and Innovation. Commnunication of the ACM, Vol. 79, No. 7, pp. 80-85.
12.Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations.
13.SEI. (2009). CMMI for Services: Best Practices for All Type of Service Providers
14.SEI. (2010). CMMI for Services, Version 1.3
15.SEI. (2010). CMMI for Development, Version 1.3
16.Stewart, D. S. & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice.
17.Vargo, S.L., & Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, pp.1-17.
18.Vargo, S.L., & Lusch, R.F. (2006). Service-dominant logic: What it is, what it is not, what it might be. In Lusch, R.F., & Vargo, S.L. (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate and directions, Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe Inc., pp.43-56.
19.Vargo, S.L. (2007). An Overview of Service-Dominant Logic. College of Business Administration, University of Hawaii, USA.
20.Vargo, S.L., & Lusch, R.F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 36, pp.1-10.
21.Zaltman G., Duncan R. and Holbek J. (1973). “Innovations and Organizations”

[中文文獻]
1.行政院主計處100年3月人力資源調查提要分析
2.經濟部統計處100年2月租賃、資訊及專業技術服務業動態調查概況
3.行政院主計處研究報告：由工商普查時間數列資料探討企業存活及產業變遷, 民國100年1月
4.吳濟聰、林經璨 (2008), 資訊科技基礎架構庫採用因素之研究, 2008知識社群與系統發展研討會
5.葉桂珍、王健全、黃吉村 (2002), 台灣廠商導入電子商務之影響因素及導入後績效變化初探, 臺灣管理學刊第1卷第2期
[網站資料]
1.ITIL.org (http://www.itil.org/)
2.SEI (http://www.sei.cmu.edu/)
3.行政院主計處 (http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=1)
4.經濟部統計處 (http://2k3dmz2.moea.gov.tw/gnweb/PublicService/wFrmMain.aspx)