碩士 / 國立臺灣科技大學 / 工業管理系 / 99 / The study is catalyzed by a Special Purpose Company (SPC) established by a
virtual company for carrying out a sewerage BOT project. A questionnaire survey via
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is carried out addressing the Project Management
Team (PMT) and the Client End, taking the 5 Process Groups listed in The Project
Management Body of Knowledge Guide (PMBOK Guide) issued by the Project
Management Institute (PMI) as the warp, the 9 Knowledge Areas as the woof, assisted
with 42 processes in the Knowledge Areas, focusing on differential services of
modern engineering services. Project Management Priority Indicators and Potential
Services Gaps attributing to a BOT Sewerage Project are weighted and ranked, and
analyzed with the 80/20 Principle and Scale Assessment Method for the reference of
interested parties.
The analysis shows that, from view points of the PMT, the priority indicator is
the Planning Group. For service gaps, the Initiating Group is emphasized more by the
PMT than by the client, but the client is emphasized more than the PMT on the
Executing Group.
Knowledge Area Priority Indicators and Potential Service Gaps of respective
Process Groups are as follows:
1. Knowledge Area Priority Indicators under the Planning Group are Integration
Management, Scope Management and Risk Management; for potential service
gaps, Communications Management, Integration Management, and Risk
Management are emphasized more by the PMT than by the client; but the client
is emphasized more than the PMT in Quality Management and Scope
Management.
2. Knowledge Area Priority Indicators under the Execution Group is Communications Management; for potential service gaps, Procurement
Management and Communications Management are emphasized more by the
PMT than by the client; but the client is emphasized more than the PMT in
Quality Management and Integration Management.
3. No distinct Knowledge Area Priority Indicator under the Monitoring &
Controlling Group are seen, they can be summarized into management categories
of Integration, Scope, Quality, Time, Cost, Risk, and Communications; for
potential service gaps, Risk Management and Communications Management are
emphasized more by the PMT than by the client; but the client is emphasized
more than the PMT in Scope Management.
4. Both Integration Management and Communications Management are the priority
indicators under the Initiating Group, and there is no existence of service gaps.
5. Integration Management is the priority indicator under the Closing Group. For
potential service gaps, the PMT does not emphasize the knowledge area more
than the client, but the client is emphasized more than the PMT in Integration
Management.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:TW/099NTUS5041022 |
| Date | January 2011 |
| Creators | Chih-chen Chung, 鍾志成 |
| Contributors | Kung-Jeng Wang, 王孔政 |
| Source Sets | National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan |
| Language | zh-TW |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | 學位論文 ; thesis |
| Format | 126 |
Page generated in 0.0135 seconds