軟體能力成熟度整合模式(CMMI)已成為全球普及的流程改善模式，僅管SEI網站所揭露的組織CMMI導入績效結果，顯示出導入CMMI軟體流程改善模式為企業所帶來的效益是正面的，但在公佈的導入效益資料並未說明這些效益指標是如何計算的，而是由CMMI導入廠商自行定義績效指標的計算方式，因此無法做為基準比較（benchmarking）的基礎。目前國內廠商亦正在積極導入CMMI，但尚未制定量化績效指標與其計算公式，以做為導入組織間之基準比較依據。因此，為了提供國內軟體產業有效且客觀量化CMMI導入效益資訊，制定出一套標準的多構面國內流程改善量化績效指標是當務之急。
本研究制定CMMI流程改善量化績效指標集，並採用目標導向軟體度量方法，依循SEI公布的績效構面，制定出成本、時程、品質、顧客滿意度、投資報酬率與生產力六個構面下共29個量化績效指標與其詳細的操作型定義。本研究亦利用問卷調查，先收集國內CMMI學者專家對量化績效指標架構可用性與適用性的意見，並透過專家會議的舉辦，雙向驗證量化績效指標集的完整性與實務之可用性，最後考慮度量指標計算公式內之基本度量值的可取得性（Availability）與易用性（Ease of Use），依組織的成熟度等級將度量指標做必要（Required）、期望（Expected）與有助益（Informative）的分級，以有效提升選用量化績效指標之實質效益。

Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) has become a widely-adopted model for improving software development or maintenance processes all over the world. Although the performance results of CMMI-based software process improvement (SPI) revealed by Software Engineering Institute (SEI) website are positively significant, SEI does not provide any performance indicator in its CMMI website and thus organizations that reported their performance results defined their own performance indicators and the associated calculation equations. Therefore, these revealed performance results cannot be used for the benchmark comparisons. Nowadays, many domestic organizations are adopting CMMI for their process improvement, but there are still no quantitative performance indicators for domestic organizations to compare their SPI performances with other organizations. In order to provide consistent and objective performance indicators for assessing the benefits of CMMI-based process improvement, it is urgently important to establish the standard quantitative performance indicators and the associated metrics sets for the domestic CMMI-adopted community.
This thesis has established the Quantitative Performance Indicators (QPI) for the CMMI-based process improvement. By referencing goal-driven software measurement (GDSM) methodology and six performance categories in CMMI website, the proposed QPI includes 29 software metrics which are grouped by cost, schedule, quality, customer satisfaction, return of invest, and productivity. The detailed operation definition including 30 data items for each of QPI is also provided in this thesis. This study has also performed questionnaire investigation from domestic scholars and experts and further held a group meeting to verify the completeness, feasibility and applicability of the proposed OPI. Finally, these 29 QPI are classified into three levels, namely required, expected and informative, in each of maturity levels (ML 2 to ML5) by taking account of the availability of base measures required in a performance indicator and the degree of its ease of use. This helps the use of the QPI for evaluating the benefits of the CMMI adoption more effectively.

中文部分
[1] 郭怡岑，「軟體流程改善量化績效指標分類之研究」，碩士論文，國立台灣科技大學，民國九十五年。
[2] 黃端祥，「台灣中小型軟體發展組織如何實施CMMI Level 2」，碩士論文，私立中原大學，民國九十三年。
[3] 紀國鐘等，「中華民國科學技術年鑑」，行政院國家科學委員會，民國九十三年。
英文部分
[4] Basili, Victor R. “Using Measurement for Quality Control and Process Improvement.” Second Annual SEPG Workshop, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa., June 21-22, 1989.
[5] Benno, S. & Frailey, D. “Software Process Improvement in DSEG: 1989-1995.” Texas Instruments Technical Journal 12, 2 (March-April 1995): 20-28.
[6] Brodman, J.G & Johnson, D.L. (1995). Return on investment from software process improvement measured by U.S. industry. Crosstalk , 9(4), 23-29.
[7] Butler, K. “The Economic Benefits of Software Process Improvement.” Crosstalk 8, 7 (July 1995): 14-17.
[8] Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1966.
[9] Clark, B. “The Effects of Software Process Maturity on Software Development Effort.” PhD Thesis, University of Southern California, April 1997.
[10] Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D.T. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis for Field Settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1979.
[11] Curtis, B., 2000. The global pursuit of process maturity. IEEE Software (July–August), 76–78.
[12] Diane L. Gibson, Dennis R. Goldenson, Keith Kost, 2006. Performance Results of CMMI-Based Process Improvement. CMU/SEI-2006-TR-004.
[13] Diaz, M., Sligo, J., 1997. How software process improvement helped motorola. IEEE Software 14 (5), 75–81.
[14] Dyba, T., 2000. An instrument for measuring the key factors of success in SPI. Empirical Software Engineering (5), 357–390.
[15] Deephouse, C.; Goldenson, D.; Kellner, M.; & Mukhopadhyay, T. “The Effects of Software Processes on Meeting Targets and Quality,” 710-719. Proceedings of the Hawaiian International Conference on Systems Sciences. Wailea, HI, Jan. 3-6, 1995. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1995.
[16] Denne, M. & Cleland-Huang, J. “The New ROI in Software Development.” Software by Numbers: Low-Risk, High-Return Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2004.
[17] Dion, R. “Elements of a Process Improvement Program.” IEEE Software 9, 4 (July 1992): 83-85.
[18] Dion, R. “Process Improvement and the Corporate Balance Sheet.” IEEE Software 10, 4 (July 1993): 28-35.
[19] El Emam, K. & Goldenson, D. “An Empirical Review of Software Process Assessments.” Advances in Computers 53 (2000): 319-423.
[20] El Emam, K. The ROI from Software Quality. Boca Raton, Florida: Auerbach Publications, 2005.
[21] El-Emam, K., Fusaro, P., Smith, B., 1999. Success factors and barriers for software process improvement. Better software practice for business benefit: principles and experience. IEEE Computer Society.
[22] Emam, K & Briand, L. (1997). Costs and benefits of software process improvement. Institute for Experimental Software Engineering (IESE) Report No 047.97/E.
[23] Goldenson, D. & Herbsleb, J. After the Appraisal: A Systematic Survey of Process Improvement, Its Benefits, and Factors that Influence Success (CMU/SEI-95-TR-009, ADA 302225). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 1995. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/95.reports/95.tr.009.html
[24] Goldenson, D.R. & Gibson, D.L. (2003). Demonstrating the impact and benefits of CMMI : an update and preliminary results. Special Report, CMU/SEI-2003-SR-009
[25] Goldenson, D.; El Emam, K.; Herbsleb, J.; & Deephouse, C. “Empirical Studies of Software Process Assessment Methods.” in K. El Emam and N. H. Madhavji (eds.): Elements of Software Process Assessment and Improvement. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1999.
[26] Gray A., and MacDonell S. G., “GQM++ A Full Life Cycle Framework for the Development and Implementation of Software Metric Programs,” Proceedings of ACOSM’97 Fourth Australian Conference on Software Metrics, pp. 22-35, Canberra, Australia, ASMA, 1997.
[27] Harter,D.E. ,Laughter,S.A. “Quality Improvement and Infrastructure Avtivity Costs in Software Development: A Longitudinal Analysis“. Management Science Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2003, pp. 784–800
[28] Herbsleb, J. & Goldenson, D.R. (1996). A systematic survey of CMM experience and results. 18th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 323-330.
[29] Harter, D. E.; Krishnan, M. S.; & Slaughter, S. A. “Effects of Process Maturity on Quality, Cycle Time, and Effort in Software Product Development.” Management Science 46, 4 (April 2000): 451-466.
[30] Herbsleb, J.; Carleton, A.; Rozum, J.; Siegel, J.; & Zubrow, D. Benefits of CMM-Based Software Process Improvement: Initial Results (CMU-SEI-94-TR-013, ADA 283848) Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 1994. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/94.reports/94.tr.013.html
[31] Herbsleb, J.; Zubrow, D.; Goldenson, D.; Hayes, W.; & Paulk, M. “Software Quality and the Capability Maturity Model.” Communications of the ACM 40, 6 (June 1997): 30-40.
[32] Humphrey, W.; Snyder, T.; & Willis, R. “Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft.” IEEE Software 8, 4 (July 1991): 11-23.
[33] IEEE Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology, IEEE Std 1061-1998, 31 Dec. 1998.
[34] International Standard Organization, “ISO/IEC 15939 Software Measurement Process Model”, 2002
[35] International Standard Organization, “ISO/IEC 9126- 1: 2001, Software Engineering –Product Quality – Part 1: Quality Model ”, 2001.
[36] International Standard Organization, “ISO/IEC TR 9126-2: 2003, Software Engineering –Product Quality – Part 2: External Metrics”, 2003.
[37] International Standard Organization, “ISO/IEC TR 9126-3: 2003, Software Engineering –Product Quality – Part 3: Internal Metrics”, 2003.
[38] International Standard Organization, “ISO/IEC TR 9126-4: 2004, Software Engineering –Product Quality – Part 4: Quality in use metrics”, 2004.
[39] Jones, C. Software Assessments, Benchmarks, and Best Practices. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2000.
[40] Jung, H. & Goldenson, D. CMM-Based Process Improvement and Schedule Deviation in Software Maintenance (CMU/SEI-2003-TN-015, ADA 416418) Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2003. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/03.reports/03tn015.html
[41] Kautz, K., Nielsen, P.A., 2000. Implementing software process improvement: two cases of technology transfer. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii Conference on System Sciences.
[42] Klocwork. Klocwork: The Proven Leader. http://www.klocwork.com/. (2006).
[43] Komuro, M. “Experiences of Conducting SCAMPI Appraisals in a Software Development Company,” SEPG. Boston, MA, 2003.
[44] Krasner, H. “The Payoff for Software Process Improvement: What It Is and How to Get It.” In K. El Emam and N. H. Madhavji (eds.): Elements of Software Process Assessment and Improvement, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1999.
[45] Krishnan, M.S. & Kellner, M. I. “Measuring Process Consistency: Implications for Reducing Software Defects.” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25, 6 (November/December 1999): 800-815.
[46] Krishnan, M.S. Kekre, C. H. Kriebel, T. Mukhopadhyay. 2000. Management Science. 46(6) 745–759.
[47] Lawlis, P.; Flowe, R.; & Thordahl, J. “A Correlational Study of the CMM and Software Development Performance.” CrossTalk 8, 9 (September 1995): 21-2
[48] Lebsanft, L. “Bootstrap: Experiences with Europe’s Software Process Assessment and Improvement Method.” Software Process Newsletter 5 (Winter 1996): 6-10.
[49] Lipke, W. & Butler, K. “Software Process Improvement: A Success Story.” Crosstalk 5, 9 (September 1992): 29-39.
[50] McGarry, F.; Burke, S.; & Decker, B. “Measuring the Impacts Individual Process Maturity Attributes Have on Software Projects” 52-60. Proceedings of the 5th International Software Metrics Symposium, Bethesda, Maryland, November 20-21, 1998. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998.
[51] McGibbon, T. (1999). A business case for software process improvement revised. DoD Data Analysis Center for Software (DACS).
[52] Mehner, T., Messer, T., Paul, P., Paulisch, F, Schless, P. & Volker, A. (1998). Siemens process assessment and improvement approaches: experiences and benefits. 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 186-195.
[53] Pitterman, B. (2000). Telcordia Technologies: the journey to high maturity. IEEE Software 17(4), 89-96.
[54] QuEST Forum. TL 9000 Quality Management System. http://www.questforum.org/tl9000/tl9000.htm (2006).
[55] Robert E. Park, Wolfhart B. Goethert, William A. Florac, 1996. Goal-Driven Software Measurement - A Guidebook. CMU/SEI-96-HB-002.
[56] SEI, 2002. Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD, V1.1, Staged). CMU/SEI-2002-TR-004.
[57] Sweeney, A., Bustard, D.W., 1997. Software process improvement: making it happen in practice. Software Quality Journal (6), 265–273.
[58] Suryn Witold, Abran Alain, April Alain, ” ISO/IEC Square. The second generation of standards for software product quality”, Software Engineering and Applications, 2003.
[59] Tassey, G. ed. The Economic Impacts of Inadequate Infrastructure for Software Testing: Final Report. Collingdale, PA: Diane Pub. Co., 2003.
[60] Telelogic. Telelogic DOORS: Increase quality with Requirements Management and traceability.
http://www.telelogic.com/corp/products/doors/index.cfm (2006)
[61] Wohlwend, H. & Rosenbaum, S. “Software Improvements in an International Company” 212-220. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, Baltimore, Maryland, May 17-21, 1993. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1993.