企業或組織對逆向工程一直帶有灰色調。在企業中，特別是設計業界和製造業界，對於逆向工程不願明確表態；在法律界中，對於逆向工程疲於抄襲或模仿學習的界定；在政府資助方面，許多逆向工程的科技項目很難得到政府專項資金的補助；在理論界中，對於逆向工程的戰略優勢、實施模式和相關政策的研究則未見深入。但處於全球化的時代，市場競爭激烈，產品週期趨短，而逆向工程的後發優勢，的確扮演全世界各種產品日新月異的推手，也是企業進步成長的重要角色。但實務上對逆向工程大多是原型產品之塑模或還原等技術性探討，鮮少著墨逆向工程之專案管理重點及對組織現在或未來發展的影響。為了使組織能透過專案管理，釐清逆向工程之限制及困難，落實組織目標之執行，且拋除過往專案管理績效僅以短期利益出發、侷限於工作是否能在期限內完成等這些著重眼前利益，故注入全球產業界應用相當普遍及廣泛之平衡計分卡績效評估模式，以強調企業持續學習成長，兼顧專案之完成及企業之價值與日俱進。
因此，本研究著眼於逆向工程之流程，以專案管理九大活動知識領域為基礎，配合平衡計分卡四大構面為績效發展的概念，建構出一個逆向工程專案管理之平衡計分卡研究的基礎架構，基於此一架構，將逆向工程、專案管理、平衡計分卡做一個更深入的探討與研究，結合發展出一套逆向工程專案管理之平衡計分卡。並透過專家問卷層級分析法(AHP)，實際探討平衡計分卡在逆向工程專案管理中施行之重要性；根據研究結果顯示，平衡計分卡施行於逆向工程專案管理類型中，以企業顧客構面為最主要的考量指標，其次為企業財務構面。此亦說明，企業在執行逆向工程專案同時，除考量平衡計分卡四構面各項績效指標外，必須特別注重滿足客戶需求及提升公司價值等標的，如此能大大增進公司執行逆向工程專案的成功性，以達成企業目標。

Competition has been intensifying due to globalization. Enterprises need to obtain the secrets inherent in advanced technologies as soon as possible in order to maintain their competitiveness. Thus, many enterprises have implemented reverse engineering projects to achieve this goal. In this study, a project management model was applied based on the characteristics of reverse engineering, and the performance for reverse engineering project management was analyzed based on a balanced scorecard. The purpose of this study was to build a balanced scorecard for reverse engineering project management and to examine project management performance from the viewpoint of the balanced scorecard so that the performances could truly reveal whether organizational goals were achieved. Also, an Analytic Hierarchy Process was applied to further discuss how the performance indicators from each perspective reflect the achievement of the goals of a reverse engineering project.

The research method of this study was intended to develop a research structure for a balanced scorecard for reverse engineering project management based on the hierarchical concepts of goals and projects. The quantitative indicators were constructed according to the project management performance indicators proposed by other studies as well as success factors suggested by scholars and then categorized based on the four perspectives of a balanced scorecard, to ensure that the balanced scorecard was consistent with the characteristics of reverse engineering project management. Lastly, an AHP was adopted to analyze questionnaires given to experts to identify the importance between the indicators and the reverse engineering projects under consideration in this study.

Questionnaires were issued from February to April of2015 to middle/high -level executives from companies in a manufacturing industry in Taiwan that had previously implemented a reverse engineering project. Expert Choice, a software package, was used to analyze the expert questionnaires. According to the analysis results, the importance percentage of the performance customer perspective and the financial perspective indicators was as high as 75.1%, meaning that when an enterprise implements a reverse engineering project, the main directions of performance management are the customer perspective and the financial perspective, followed by the learning/growth perspective and the internal process perspective. Among the indicators, satisfying customers’ demands and increasing company value were found to be the main performance evaluation indicators. Also, attention has to be paid to other related performance indicators, such as risk, cost, employee growth, and process smoothness.

In this study, a performance evaluation model was actually built for the purpose of reverse engineering project management, and it was determined how the four perspective performance indicators truth fully reflected the goals of a reverse engineering project through the use of the AHP. Thus, enterprises should, based on their goals, focus on developing niche markets to serve customers and increase their financial performance, supplemented by enhancement of internal processes, in order to develop of a learning organization. Practically, companies’ source of profits is orders from customers. Whether the achievement of a project is good or not can be directly seen from the performance of the customer perspective and financial perspective. The four perspectives are closely related. While pursuing increasing numbers of customers and financial performance growth, the internal processes of enterprises will gradually be improved, and experiences will be accumulated through continuous learning and growing. Thus, the performance of the four perspectives will tend to be improved simultaneously. The perspective goals and corresponding performance indicators proposed in this study can help companies to find the right focus to achieve comprehensiveness and balance when evaluating various performance data.

中文部分
陳澤義&陳啟斌(2011)，企業診斷與績效評估-華泰文化事業股份有限公司。
王雪利&和金生(2006)，論反向工程的技術獲取和後發優勢。Joumal of UESTC(Social
Sciences Edition), 8(4).
韓國祥(2000)，完成實值管理系統(EVMS)在專案管理應用之研究-以高雄捷運某服務合約為例。國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，2000。
金濤&童水光(2005)，Reverse Engineering。新文京開發出版股份有限公司。
鄧振源(2005)，計畫評估：方法與應用 第二版。海洋大學運籌規劃與管理中心。

英文部分
Aladwani, A.M. (2002). An intergratde performance model of information system projcets. Journal of Management Information System, 19(1), 185-210.
Azuma, M. (1996). Software products evaluation system: quality models, metrics and processes-international standards and Japanese practice. Information and Software Technology, 145-154.
Baloi, D., & Price,A.D.F. (2003). Modeling global risk factors affecting construction cost performance. International Journal of Projcet Management, 21, 261-269.
Barua et al. (1996). The calculus of reengineering. Information Systems Research, 7(4), 409-428.
Boyd, A. (2001). The five maxims of project satisfaction. Aslib Proceeding, 53(10).
Choudhury, V., & Sabherwal, R. (2003). Portfolios of control in outsourced software development projects. Information Systems Research, 14(4).
Durbach, I., Lahdelma, R. & Salminen, P. (2014). The analytic hierarchy process with stochastic judgements. European Journal of Operational Research, 238(2), 552-559.
Fairchild, A.M. (2000). Discussion of metrics for distributed project management. Preliminary Findings, IEEE
Halpern, W., & Richman, C. (2002). Balanced scorecard tool drives performance. Association Management, 54(2), 26-27.
Hameri, A., & Heikkila, J. (2002). Improving efficiency time-critical interfacing of project tasks. International Journal of Projcet Management, 134-153.
Hartel, I. et al. (2002). Virtual organization of after-sales service in the one-of-a-kind industry. Camarinha-Matos:Collaborative Business Ecosystems and Virtual Enterprises, 405-420.
Hughes, S. (2010). Five critical success factors for project managers. NC State University Industrial Extension Service, 1-2.
Issac et al. (2004). Significance of quality certification: the case of the software industry in Indian. The Quality Management Journal, 2004.
James, J., Gray, K. & Joseph, B. (1996). Ranking of system implementation success factors. Project Management Journal, 49-53.
Jiang, J.J., & Klein, G.(1999). Project selection criteria by strategic orientation. Information&Management 36, 63-75.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1992). The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 71-79.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). The balance scorecard translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). Using the balance scorecard as a strategy management system- Harvard Business Review, 75-85.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2001). The strategy-focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Business school Press, Boston, Mass.
Keller, R. T. (1986). Predictors of the performance of project groups in R&D organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 129(4), 715-726.
Kerzner, H. (1995). Predictors management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling and controlling-Van Nostrand Reinhold 4th .
Kog, Y.C., Chua, D.K.H. & Jaselskis, E.J.(2000). Key determinants for construction schedule performance. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 351-359.
Libbs, C.W., & Kwak, Y.H. (2000). Assessing projcet management maturity. Project Management Journal, 2(3), 54-76.
Lin, H.F. (2015). Linking knowledge management orientation to balanced scorecard outcomes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(6).
Lipe, M., & Salterio, S. (2000). The balanced scorecard: judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures. The Accounting Review, 75(3), 283-298.
Manning, S. (2008). Embedding projects in multiple contexts. A Structuration Perspective.International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 30-37.
McElroy, W. (1995). Strategic change through project management-APM.
Mcdermott, C., & Handfield, R.(2000). Concurrent development and strategic outsourcing: do the rules change in breakthrough innovation. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol.11.
Morris & Hugh. (1987). Morris and Hough, the anatomy of major projects.
Niven, P.R. (2002). Balanced scorecard step by step-ISBN: 978-0-471-26916-8, 82-85.
Rashid, Y. & Naeem, B. (2013). Developments on balanced scorecard: A historical review. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21 (1), 134-141.
Satty, T.L. (2003). Decision-marking with the AHP：why is the principal eigenvector necessary? European Journal of Operational Research, 146, 85-91.
Satty, T.L. (2006). Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/net work processes. European Journal of Operational Research, 168, 557-570.
Silvius, A.J.G. & Schipper, R.P.J. (2014). Sustainability in project management competencies: analyzing the competence gap of project managers. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 2, 40-58.
Song, X., & Parry, M. (1996). What separates Japanese new product winners from losers. Journal of product Innovation Management 13(5), 422-439.
Xia, Z. (2014). Application of reverse engineering based on computer in product design. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 9(5), 343-354.
Yates, J.k., & Eskander, A. (2002). Construction total project management planning issues. Projcet Management Journal , Mar2002.
Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research : design and methods. SAGE Publications 3rd edition.