透過您的圖書館登入
IP:18.218.101.36
  • 期刊

以賽局觀點探討軟體外包延宕類型

Escalation Patterns of Software Outsourcing: A Game Perspective

摘要


所謂專案延宕,就是繼續投入資源以挽救一個時程嚴重延誤而瀕臨失敗的專案,研究顯示約有30%至40%的軟體專案呈現延宕現象。內部延宕研究著重於代理人之過度承諾的決策錯誤,然而在外包專案普及的今日,顧客與外包商對專案有絕對的影響力,但相關研究卻付之闕如,無法提供外包延宕的解決方案。本研究以賽局理論為理論背景,以先導個案釐清研究方向,接著訪談六個典型的軟體外包延宕專案。透過資料分析,將外包延宕歸納為承諾型、嚇阻型、以及避免損失型三類。本研究發現,顧客的可信嚇阻、外包商的可信承諾會影響對方避免損失的意圖,形成外包延宕僵局。外包延宕除了是一種決策錯誤,顧客與外包商會傾向利己的理性決策,但卻造成外包延宕的困境。

並列摘要


Project escalation means that a failing project is permitted to continue and good money is thrown after bad. According to survey reports, about 30% to 40% of software projects emerge this phenomenon. Most escalation studies in the past focused on over-committed behaviors of in-housing project agents. Being very popular now, outsourcing projects can be mainly influenced by its powerful stakeholders, such as customers and top managers, and remain few escalation studies. First of all, this study redefines outsourcing escalation based on a pilot case. Then, six escalation cases were in progresses and three patterns of outsourcing escalation were abstracted. The results indicate that credible deterrence of customer and credible commitment of vendor will influence each other in condition of loss aversion. Past opinions regarded project escalation as the result of decision errors. From the perspective of game theory, this study points out that rational decision between customer and vender lead to decision dilemmas.

參考文獻


張維迎(1999)。賽局理論與信息經濟學。台北:茂晶。
Abdel-Hamid, T.,Madnick, S. E.(1991).Software Project Dynamics: An Integrated Approach.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
Aubert, B. A.,Dussault, S.,Patry, M.,Rivard, S.(1999).Managing the Risk of IT Outsourcing.Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.(Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences).
Becker, H. S.(1960).Notes on the concept of commitment.American Journal of Sociology.66,32-42.
Bowen, M. G.(1987).The Escalation Phenomenon Reconsidered: Decision Dilemmas or Decision Errors?.Academy of Management Review.12(1),52-66.

延伸閱讀