軟體專案開發或維護的流程經常被描述為一個魔術黑箱，因此流程的績效、產品的品質、服務的品質、專案的成本、交期與生產力等都是不可見的（invisible），使得專案無法執行有效的監控（Monitor and Control）、評估與預估；又往往在需求的頻繁變動與急迫的時程壓力下，造成無法確保交付給客戶的軟體系統品質。現今國內資訊軟體公司或其他企業之資訊管理部門正在積極的導入能力成熟度整合模式（Capability Maturity Model Integration, CMMI），以改善與制度化軟體開發與維護的流程，目前已經約有三十家通過成熟度等級（Maturity Level, ML）第二級與第三級的評鑑。如果這些組織欲達到成熟度第四級或第五級的評鑑，軟體開發流程的績效就必須達到量化管理級與最佳化級的要求，因此如何達到其「績效管理透明化」的目標，也就成為一個很重要的研究課題。

本論文為了達到績效管理透明化的目標，提出了整合「能力成熟度整合模式」之「驗證」、「組織流程績效」、「量化專案管理」與「原因分析與解決方案」流程領域與「六標準差（Six Sigma, 6σ）」之定義、度量、分析、改善與管制（DMAIC）的持續改善步驟，並且結合「統計製程管制」之圖表工具，針對專案品質、成本、交期與生產力的四個構面，採用目標、問題與度量指標（Goal-Question-Metric, GQM）的方法論，並廣泛的提出軟體度量指標（Software Metrics）、關鍵績效指標（Key Performance Indicator, KPI）與看板管理（Dashboard management）。本論文亦將研究的架構、方法與步驟實際的應用在專案開發，經由審驗（Inspection）與驗證流程的執行，收集軟體度量值資料，導入所提出的績效量化度量指標，並以各種度量管制圖表與看板管理工具，呈現出透明化之專案績效管理的決策資訊，以協助國內軟體組織快步達到量化管理級與最佳化級之要求，並實現專案品質、成本、交期與生產力等績效管理透明化典範的目標。

Software project development and maintenance processes are usually characterized as a black magic box. Consequently, all of process performance, product quality, service quality, project cost, delivery, and productivity are invisible. Meanwhile, most software projects are under the pressure of the frequent requirement change and tight schedule; thus, the quality of the delivered software products to users can not be ensured. Currently domestic software organizations are adopting Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) to improve their software development process and around 30 organizations has obtained the appraisal of Maturity Level (ML) 2 or 3. If these organizations plan to continuously move their software process maturity to ML 4 or ML5, their process needs to be institutionalized as a Quantitatively Managed or Optimizing process. Therefore, how to achieve the goal of “performance management visibility” is a very important research issue.

This thesis aims to achieve the goal of “performance management visibility” and proposes an integration model of the CMMI “Verification”, “Organizational Process Performance“, “Quantitative Project Management”, “Causal Analysis and Resolution” process areas with the continuous improvement procedure of the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control (DAMIC) of Six Sigma (6σ). Based on the methodology of Goal-Question-Metrics (GQM), this thesis defines numerous of software metrics, Key Performance Indicators (KPI), statistical control charts and dashboard management for the four important aspects of a software project: quality, cost, delivery and productivity. To demonstrate and verify the usability of the proposed integration model, an empirical study was conducted by collecting the measurement data from executing the inspection and verification activities, computing the values of those software metrics and KPI, and presenting the final results by using the statistical control charts. It is thus concluded that the proposed works in this thesis can assist domestic software organizations in achieving the goal of performance management visibility in project quality, cost, delivery and productivity, meanwhile institutionalizing a quantifiable, visible, manageable, and sustainable process and further satisfying the requirements of the high level of quantitatively managed or optimizing process.

1. CMMI產品團隊 (2002)：「能力成熟度整合模式(CMMISM)」1.1 版，階段式表述CMU/SEI-2002-TR-012, ESC-TR-2002-012。
2. 朱慧德、王摒非 (2002)：「六標準差的威力」，品質月刊，7月號。
3. 林裕章、周昭宇 (2004)：「適應性管制圖變動管制參數之評估」，管理學報，21卷，3期，375-389。
4. 郭進隆譯 (2003)：彼得聖吉(Peter M. Senge)「第五項修練」，第二版。
5. 張正賢譯 (1992)：「統計品質管制」,國立編譯館。
6. 陳憲章 (2004)：「六標準差觀念與定義」，中華六標準差應用學會。
7. 蘇朝墩 (2004)：「六標準差簡介」，清華大學工業工程與工程管理系。
8. Brad Clark and Dave Zubrow (2001), "How Good Is the Software: A Review of Defect Prediction Techniques", Software Engineering Symposium 2001.
9. Don O'Neill (2001), "Software Inspections", Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
10. Hakan Peterssona, Thomas Thelin, Per Runeson, Claes Wohlin (2004), "Capture–recapture in software inspections after 10 years research–theory, evaluation and application", Journal of Systems and Software, pp: 249-264, Vol: 72 Issue: 2.
11. Jack Barnard, Art Price (1994), AT&T Bell Laboratories, "Managing code inspection information", IEEE Software.
12. Joan Weszka, Lockheed Martin (2004), “Special Intelligence from the Women In Black”, SEPG 2004.
13. Jones, Capers (1996), "Range of Effectiveness Values, Software Challenges: Software Defect-removal Efficiency", Computer, Volume 29, Issue 4, Page(s): 94 – 95.
14. Michael. E. Fagan (1986), "Advances in Software Inspections, IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering", Vol. SE-12, No7.
15. Michael. E. Fagan (1999), "Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development", IBM SYSTEMS JOURNAL, VOL38, NOS 2&3.
16. Noopur Davis, Julia Mullaney (2003), "The Team Software ProcessSM(TSPSM)in Practice", CMU/SEI-2003-TR-014.
17. Ray Madachy (2003), ""MBASE and CMMI II", Center for Software Engineering", University of Southern California.
18. Robert B. Grady, Tom Van Slack (1994), "Key lessons in achieving widespread inspection use", Hewlett-Packard.
19. Robert Musson (2005), "Stochastic Modeling of the Defect Removal Process", Microsoft Corporation, SEPG 2005.
20. R. van Solingen, Rini and Berghout, Egon (1999), “The Goal/Question/Metric Method: A Practical Guide for Quality Improvement of Software Development”, McGraw Hill.
21. Sunil Srivastav, Arathi.G, Kishore K.K, Padmanabh Naidu (2004), "Metric Baselines Phase 4" - Bangalore SPIN.
22. Timothy G. Olson (2003), "Staged or Continuous: Which Model Should I Choose?" NDIA CMMISM Conference.
23. Tom Gilb (1997), "Optimizing Software Inspections, for Quality Week ", San Francisco Tutorial.
24. Tom Gilb, Graham Dorothy (1993), "Software Inspections", Addison-Wesley Longman.
25. Tom Gilb (1999), "Software Inspections are not for Quality, but for Engineering Economics", Software-Engineer.org.
26. Walker Royce (1998), "Software Project Management: A Unified Framework", New York: Addison-Wesley.