跨地域與領域合作的狀況，是目前和未來專案運作模式的趨勢。如何在專案中，讓科技工具協助提高工作效率，是Web架構下專案管理系統的重要價值。本研究的目的在於探討專案管理系統的使用需求與使用時機，並在人機互動的範圍內，研究影響操作效率及使用性(易用性)等項目的關鍵因素。

本研究包含兩個階段，第一階段為前導性研究，為了解目前的專案管理系統使用概況，進行使用者深度訪談，以人物誌及顧客旅程地圖呈現訪談結果。並請有使用經驗的受測者對現有系統進行前導性測試，找出現有系統問題點。第二階段是整合前階段的研究發現，以改善後的資訊架構為基礎，設計三款模擬系統，再進行驗證實驗。

研究主要討論資訊呈現方式與使用者背景(包含有無使用經驗及職業別)的關聯性，期望資訊呈現方式皆能符合不同的使用者背景需求。故驗證實驗以2組雙因子混合設計進行統計探討，3(資訊呈現：資訊完整呈現、資訊部分呈現、資訊簡單呈現) X 2(使用者背景：有使用經驗、無使用經驗 & 管理職、專業職)。

最終研究結果為：(1)專案管理系統的使用時機為，在專案中的規劃、監控、執行、結束及回顧共五個階段。(2)管理職的使用者，最希望能快速掌握專案概況。(3)專業職的使用者，幾乎每天都會查詢自己所擁有的工作。(4)專案管理系統最常被使用的功能為：查看全專案狀況、查看單一工作內容，包含夾帶檔案及回覆內容、查看專案中的附加檔案、查看所有屬於自己的工作。(5)使用專案管理的使用者不怕資訊太多，但怕資訊不足夠。(6)在查詢單一工作內容細節及附加檔案時，資訊部分呈現的操作績效表現最好。(7)在全專案概況的顯示時，使用者較滿意卡片式的資訊呈現方式。(8)在所有自己的工作列表中，使用者較喜歡條列式的資訊呈現方式。(9)大多數使用者希望每種情境下，都可以自訂自己喜歡的資訊呈現方式。(10)不論檔案類型，附加檔案有縮圖顯示可以協助使用者查詢或辨識檔案的效率。

Collaboration across regions and fields is a trend pertinent to how a project is executed and will be executed in the future. The way of efficiency improvement assisted by technology during performing a project is significant and crucial to web-framed project management system. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the requirements and timing of the use of project management system. Meanwhile, this study focused on key factors to those dimensions including but not limited to operational efficiency and usability within the range of human-machine interaction.

This study includes two phases. The first phase is a pilot study, and the purpose is to understand general usage of project management system insofar by the in-depth interview with users. All results were presented by persona and customer journey map. The participants who experienced in using similar systems were also invited to conduct the pilot study on current system to identify questionable weakness of system. The second phase is to integrate the findings generated from the previous phase, wherein the improved information architecture was the basis for further three simulation systems designed for validation experiment.

This study addressed the relationships between information visualization and user background as the axle (included experience of using similar system and occupation), with an expectation to meet versified background and needs of users. In view of this, the validation experiment was investigated by a two-way mixed factorial design, i.e., 3 (information visualization: entire format, partial format and simple format) X 2 (user background: experience, non-experience and manager, specialist).

Finally, the generated results suggest that: (1) the availability of project management system shall be applied to a total of five phases in a project, i.e., planning, monitoring and concluding, executing, closing, and reviewing. (2) Users who are the managers like to master general condition of project rapidly. (3) Users who are the specialists like to search the tasks assigned to them daily. (4) The common features of special management system are: to check entire condition of project and single assignment including attachments and correspondence, to check the files attached to a project and all tasks assigned already. (5) Users of project management system have no fear on large amount of information except insufficiency. (6) The operational performance of information visualization in a query to details of single task and attachments shows the best. (7) Users prefer card-based information visualization in the display of entire project. (8) Users prefer list-based information visualization among all of the task lists. (9) Most of user desire customized information visualization as per each scene. (10) No matter the file type is, attached files with thumbnails display the efficiency of assisting users in searching or identifying files.

中文文獻
1. 方裕民，(2003)，人與物的對話─互動介面設計理論與實務，台北：田園城市文化。
2. 王思如，(2017)，代言人方法論，人因工程workshop上課講義。
3. 何霖譯，(2012)，Heagney著，我懂了！專案管理，台北市 : 經濟新潮社。
4. 余文德，(2015)，實用專案管理 = Project Management in Practice，新竹：余文德。
5. 宋同正，(2014)，序—服務設計的本質內涵和流程工具，設計學報，19(2) 。
6. 李玉琇、蔣文祁譯，(2005)，Robert J. Sternberg著，認知心理學，臺北：雙葉書廊。
7. 胡瑋珊譯，(2005) 湯姆·畢德士 & 華特曼著，追求卓越：探索成功企業的特質，台北：天下遠見出版股份有限公司。
8. 張介英、徐子超譯，(1999)，提姆・柏納李(Tim Berners-Lee)著，一千零一網 : WWW發明人的思想構圖(Weaving the Web)，台北：台灣商務。
9. 張紹勳，(2007)，研究方法，第三版，台中：滄海。
10. 許勝雄、吳水丕、彭游譯，Mark S. and Ermenst J著，(2005)，人因工程-工程與設計之人性因素(Human Factors in Engineering and Design)，台北：滄海書局。
11. 郭學武譯，(2009)，Benyon, D., Turner, P. and Turner, S.著，人機介面：互動式系統設計，台北：臺灣培生教育。
12. 陳宜秀譯，(2014)，Norman, D. A.著，設計的心理學：人性化的產品設計如何改變世界，台北市：遠流。
13. 陳俊宏、楊東民，(1998)，視覺傳達設計概論，台北：全華圖書股份有限公司。
14. 陳建雄譯，(2010)，Preece, J., Rogers, Y., &; Sharp, H.著，互動設計:跨越人電腦互動，台北：全華。
15. 陳建勳譯，(2004)，L. Rosenfeld & P. Morville著，資訊架構學：網站應用，臺北：歐萊禮。
16. PMI國際專案管理學會，(2013)，專案管理知識體指南，台北：國際專案管理學會臺灣分會代理。
17. 曾俊儒、張世敏編譯，(2008)，Soren Lauesen著，人機介面設計，台北：學貫行銷。
18. 游恆山譯，(1989)，Philip G. Zimbardo著，心理學，五南圖書出版有限公司，台北市。
19. 湯宗泰、劉文良，(2011)，資訊管理槪論Web 2.0思維，台北： 旗標。
20. 經理人月刊編輯群，(2009.9)，一次讀懂專案管理，經理人月刊，第58 期，58-117頁。
21. 廖建容、楊美齡、周宜芳譯，(2007)，蓋瑞.哈默爾，管理大未來：新管理正在淘汰舊商業，台北：天下遠見出版股份有限公司。
22. 廖偉成、林占山、姜國輝，(2010)，Web 2.0科技投資競合策略之研究—運用賽局選擇權理論的新思維，電子商務研究，2010年6月，8卷2期， 163 – 182頁。
23. 管倖生等編著，(2010)，設計研究方法(第三版)，台北：全華。
24. 劉毓玲譯，(2000)，彼得·杜拉克著，21世紀的管理挑戰 ，台北：天下遠見出版股份有限公司。
25. 蔡學鏞譯，(2007)，P. Morville著，隨意搜尋，臺北：歐萊禮 。
26. 鄭麗玉，(1993)，認知心理學，五南圖書出版公司。
27. 蘇健華，(2007.7)，WEB 2.0發展介紹，資訊社會研究，第13期，1-124頁。
28. 互聯網周刊譯，(2005.11.22)，T. O'Reilly著，甚麼是Web 2.0 ，取自2016.10.20
http://www.enet.com.cn/article/2005/1122/A20051122474593.shtml。
29. 社團法人中華專案管理學會，專案的名詞定義，取自2016.10.20
http://www.npma.org.tw/download/%E5%B0%88%E6%9C%89%E5%90%8D%E8%A9%9E201104071734.pdf。

 
英文文獻
1. ACM SIGCHI. (1992). Curricula for human-computer interaction. New York: Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction Curriculum Development Group.
2. Adlin, T., & Pruitt, J. (2010). The essential persona lifecycle: Your guide to building and using personas. New York: Morgan Kaufmann.
3. Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Chapter: Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W., & Spence, J. T. The psychology of learning and motivation (Volume 2). New York, NY: Academic Press.
5. Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of usability studies, 4(3), 114-123.
6. Bartlett, F. C. (1932), Remembering : A study in experimental and social psychology, Cambridge University Press, London.
7. Branham, R. (1989). Cognitive Design. Proceeding of the 1989 IDSA Conference on Design Educating the 90´s, 20-28.
8. Broadbent, D. E. (1954). The role of auditory localization in attention and memory span. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(3), 191-196.
9. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS - A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, London: Taylor and Francis, 189-194.
10. Chin, J. P., Diehl, V. A., & Norman, K. L. (1988). Development of an Instrument Measuring User Satisfaction of the Human-Computer Interface. ACM CHI'88 Proceedings, 213-218.
11. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
12. Dijck, P. V. (2003). Information Architecture for Designers: Structuring Websites for Business Success. RotoVision SA.
13. Dijk, G., Raijmakers, B., & Kelly, L. (2011). Customer journey maps. In M. Stickdorn & J. Schneider (Eds.), This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases. (pp. 158-159). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: BIS Publishers.
14. Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management Challenges for the 21st Century, New York, NY: Harper Business.
15. Fontana, A., & Frey J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzn (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
16. Garrett, J. J. (2010). The Elements of User Experience: User-centered design for the web and beyond, Second Edition. San Francisco, CA: New Riders.
17. Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York: Academic Press.
18. ISO. (2003). ISO 10006：Quality management systems-Guidelines for quality management in project, 2nd edition.
19. Kahn, R., & Cannell, C. (1957). The Dynamics of Interviewing. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
20. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21. Lund, A. M. (2001). Measuring Usability with the USE Questionnaire. STC Usability SIG Newsletter, 8(2), 3-6.
22. Lund, A. M. (2016).Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230786746_Measuring_usability_with_the_USE_questionnaire
23. Miller, G. A. (1956) .The magical number seven plus or minus two﹕Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-87.
24. Molich, R., & Nielsen, J. (1990). Improving a human-computer dialogue, Communications of the ACM, 33, 338-348.
25. Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. W. (1989). Organizational behavior (2nd ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
26. Nielsen, J. (1994a). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. Proc. ACM CHI'94 Conf. (Boston, MA, April 24-28), 152-158.
27. Nielsen, J. (1994b). Heuristic evaluation. In Nielsen, J., and Mack, R.L. (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
28. Nielsen, J. (1995.1.1). 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. Retrieved October 10, 2016, from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/
29. Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces, Proc. ACM CHI'90 Conf. (Seattle, WA, 1-5 April), 249-256.
30. Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of future things: Author of the design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
31. Peter, T. J. & Waterman, R. H. Jr. (1982), In search of excellence:Lessons from American’s best-run companies, New York: Harper ＆ Row.
32. Sanders, M. S. & McCormick, E. J. (1991). Human Factors in Engineering and Design, International Editions, McGraw-Hill, Inc.
33. Tim O'Reilly. (2005.9.30). What Is Web 2.0, Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved Octorber 10, 2016, from http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
34. Treisman, A. M., & Geffen, G. （1967）. Selective attention: perception or response? The
Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 19 (1), 1-17.
35. Wickens, C. (1984). Engineering psychology and human performance. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
36. Wurman, R. S. (1997). Information Architects. New York, NY: Graphis.