[[alternative]]An Experimental Comparison of Structured Analysis and Object-Oriented Analysis

[[abstract]]目前系統分析方法論可分成兩大類:結構化分析(Structured Analysis)及物件導向分析(Object-Oriented Analysis)。兩類方法論各有其優缺點﹐亦有些研究提出整合性方法論的模式﹐但對於比較兩種方法論的實證研究還是很少。因此﹐本研究以實驗室實驗法(Laboratory Experiment)比較結構化分析與物件導向分析兩種方法，主要的研究目的在探討(1)何者具有較高的學習績效，以模式化過程中的一致性及最後結果的語法完整性及正確性作為衡量標準﹔(2)何者具有較高的系統需求表達效能，以模式化過程的語意一致性及最後結果的語意正確性與完整性作為衡量標準。實驗是以資訊管理學系二年級學生為實驗對象﹐隨機分成兩組，一組學習結構化分析方法論﹔另一組學習物件導向分析方法論﹐經過十週訓練之後，兩週時間讓學生實際分析電話選課系統，然後請二位熟知系統分析方法方面的專家及一位熟知業務領域的專家進行評分工作。研究結果顯示新手學習兩種系統分析方法的學習績效並沒有顯著差異，但是在語法完整性上結構化分析組的學習績效比較好。在需求表達效能上﹐結構化分析較優於物件導向方法﹐尤其在模式的語意完整性構面上。本研究結果在學術上可以提供系統分析與設計課程參考﹐對初學者而言﹐結構化分析語法比較容易學得完整﹔而在實務上可以提供從事系統分析工作者在選擇分析工具之參考﹐結構化分析工具還是比較成熟及完備﹐而且比較容易表達完整的語意。[[abstract]]There are two major classification of system analysis: structured analysis and objected oriented analysis. Each methodology has its advantages and disadvantages. Integrated methodology model was suggested in some studies, however, there're few empirical studies about comparison with the two methodologies. Therefore, this study uses Laboratory Experiment to make comparison of two system analysis methodology. The two major purposes of this study are: (1) Which is better on learning performance? (2) Which is better on system requirement representation effectiveness? Results of this experiment indicate that structured analysis is easier to achieve syntactical consistency on the learning performance, and there's- no difference in learning performance between the two methodologies. On the requirement representation performance, structured analysis is better than object-oriented analysis, especially on the semantic completeness of modeling. This research result could provide the principles of course designing of system analysis and system design. For novice, structured analysis is easier to learn completely. In addition, it could provide suggestion for analysts in practices when they select the system analysis tool. For tool selection; -the structured analysis is still better maturely and completely, and is easier to present semantic completely.[[notice]]補正完畢[[booktype]]紙