\documentclass[journal]{IEEEtran}
\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage{blindtext}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{multicol}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{array}
usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage[latin9]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage[final]{graphicx}
\usepackage{natbib}
\setlength{\bibsep}{0.0pt}
\usepackage{geometry}
\geometry{verbose,margin=3cm}
\usepackage{caption}% <-- added
\captionsetup[table]{skip = 3pt}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage[para]{threeparttable}
\usepackage{array,booktabs,longtable,tabularx}
\newcolumntype{L}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}X}% <-- added
\usepackage{ltablex}% <-- added
\usepackage{siunitx}% <-- added
\usepackage{caption}% <-- added
\setlength{\LTcapwidth}{7in}
\usepackage[flushleft]{threeparttablex}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{filecontents}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{supertabular}
\usepackage{amsmath,mathtools,etoolbox}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{tabularx,colortbl}
\usepackage{adjustbox}\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{makecell}
\usepackage{stackengine}
\usepackage[table]{xcolor}
\usepackage{rotating}
\flushbottom
\begin{center}
\small
\setlength\tabcolsep{5pt}
\hyphenation{op-tical net-works semi-conduc-tor}
\begin{document}
\title{Monitoring and Controlling Software Project Scope using AgileEVM}
\begin{IEEEkeywords}
IEEE, IEEEtran, journal, \LaTeX, paper, template.
\end{IEEEkeywords}
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{O}{}ne of the most popular method for controlling and monitoring the progress of a project is Earned value Management (EVM) [1] [2]. EVM is a tool widely used in construction projects in order to evaluate project cost and schedule. However, it is infrequently used in software projects [3]. Earned Value Management gauges the performance of a project against initial plan, where budget and schedule information is provided upfront. It facilitates the project manager to take corrective actions by pinpointing the deviations in time and cost. The Project Management Institute (PMI) states that EVM is one of the most effective tool to monitor the progress of Information Technology (IT) projects. Using triple constrains, we can show the progress of IT projects more proficiently.
The triple constrains consists of cost, time and scope and can be used to show that how a project achieves its goals. For the success of any project it is crucial to balance these constraints [4]. However, for the success of software projects, scope is considered the most important constraint. The main reason for the failure of thousands of projects in the literature is the scope of the project [5] [6]. Though scope has been used to gauge the success criteria of a project, however, in literature, the scope of the software project has been ignored while determining the progress of the projects.
Several barriers have been highlighted in the literature which prevent project managers to properly manage and define project scope. For instance, some of the barriers are unsatisfactory effort from stakeholders, inadequate and poor scope, nonstop flow of requirements [6] , project scope not managed well, variation in requirements, inappropriate assumptions, system complexity not understood fully, unsuitable calculations and, uncertain goals and project vision [7] etc. These aforementioned problems causes the projects to over schedule and over budgeted [8], scope creep [9], de- scoping [10], over scoping [11], requirement volatility [8], wastage of effort [12], possible risks [13], bad quality software and eventually causes the failure of projects [6]. The main reason for the failure of many projects is the uncontrolled and unmanaged project scope [14].
Several tools and techniques are used to gauge the performance of software projects such as Function point (FP), Work-Breakdown Structure (WBS), Expert judgement, Feature Transition Charts (FTC), Story mapping, and Performance analysis and Control Scope Change System. The limitation of these methods is that they only consider the complete definition of project scope for project measurement.
\subsubsection{ Inclusion or Exclusion Criteria}
The identified factors were first collected in a spread sheet and afterwards these factors aggregated into a single unique effect to make an integrated list. After finding effects of scope changes, effects were grouped under a single unique effect i.e. f1, f2, f3 etc. Effects such as failure of software, shortage of labor, shifting of resources, and availability of resources, physical damage of hardware and supplier issues were taken under a single unique effect named change project resources. The procedure was repeated until distinctive effects were attained. A list of about 62 unique effect with their description that had an impact on project planning can be seen in table 5.
\subsubsection{ Factors Identification}
In order to find out occurrence of effect in research article. Effects are searched in each research article and then shown in a tables 5.
\begin{center}
\small
\setlength\tabcolsep{5pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.2}
\begin{longtable}{|p{.7cm}|p{8.3cm}|p{4cm}|}
\caption{Factors Description
} \label{Factors} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{1cm}{\textbf{\rotatebox[origin=c]{45}{Var}}} &\multirow{1}{1cm}{\textbf{Factors}} &\multirow{1}{1cm}{\textbf{References}}
\\ \hline
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{3}{c}%
{{\bfseries \tablename\ \thetable{} -- continued from previous page}} \\
\hline
\multirow{1}{1cm}{\textbf{\rotatebox[origin=c]{45}{Var}}} &\multirow{1}{1cm}{\textbf{Factors}} &\multirow{1}{1cm}{\textbf{References}}
\\ \hline
% \textbf{Inactive Modes} & \textbf{Description}\\
%\hhline{~--}
\endhead
\multicolumn{3}{|r|}{{Continued on next page}} \\ \hline
\endfoot
\hline
\endlastfoot
$f_{1}$& Priority Features & \cite{paetsch2003requirements}\cite{najafi2008two}
\\ \hline
$f_{2}$& Developers and customer’s discussion & \cite{paetsch2003requirements}\cite{geras2004prototype}
\\ \hline
$f_{3}$&Poor delivery Strategy & \cite{sutherland2001inventing}\cite{milanov2012analysis}
\\ \hline
$f_{4}$& Failing to fulfil competing Priorities & \cite{sutherland2001inventing}
\\ \hline
$f_{5}$& Effect of constant Revision & \cite{sutherland2001inventing}
\\ \hline
$f_{6}$& Productionized for customers & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile}
\\ \hline
$f_{7}$& User Reviews & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile}
\\ \hline
$f_{8}$&Short Progress Meeting & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile}
\\ \hline
$f_{9}$& Short release & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile}
\\ \hline
$f_{10}$& Effort estimation & \cite{khatri2014best}
\\ \hline
$f_{11}$& Project Nature &\cite{paetsch2003requirements}
\\ \hline
$f_{12}$& Project Schedule & \cite{paetsch2003requirements}
\\ \hline
$f_{13}$&less developer skill sets &\cite{soundararajan2009soft}
\\ \hline
$f_{14}$& Extremely Complex Techniques and Tools & \cite{babar2010managing}
\\ \hline
$f_{15}$&project plan document & \cite{sliger2006project}
\\ \hline
$f_{16}$& Strict security policies & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
\\ \hline
$f_{17}$& Strict organizational policiesl & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
\\ \hline
$f_{18}$& Minimum regulatory constraints & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
\\ \hline
$f_{19}$& Poor operational performance characteristics & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
\\ \hline
$f_{20}$& Completion time & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
\\ \hline
$f_{21}$& Unavailability of a business process & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
\\ \hline
$f_{22}$& Neglecting non-functional requirements & \cite{inayat2015systematic}
\\ \hline
$f_{23}$& Unclear objectives of project & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
\\ \hline
$f_{24}$& Requirement unclear to the team & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
\\ \hline
$f_{25}$& Requirement conflicts among multiple product owners & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
\\ \hline
$f_{26}$& In-adequate communication about end-user requirements & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
\\ \hline
$f_{27}$& In-adequate prioritization of requirements & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
\\ \hline
$f_{28}$&Frequent architectural changes & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
\\ \hline
$f_{29}$&Minimum client participation and collaboration in the process & \cite{racheva2010we}
\\ \hline
$f_{30}$& developer participation & \cite{racheva2010we}
\\ \hline
$f_{31}$& Important decisions not aligned & \cite{moe2012challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{32}$& Missing a clear prioritization & \cite{moe2012challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{33}$& Missing a definition of done & \cite{moe2012challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{34}$& Conflicting priorities within the company & \cite{moe2012challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{35}$& Low committing to the plan & \cite{moe2012challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{36}$& Distributed agile software development & \cite{kontio2004managing}
\\ \hline
$f_{37}$& Improper organization of daily work and meetings & \cite{kontio2004managing}
\\ \hline
$f_{38}$& Rare customer involvement&\cite{inayat2015systematic}
\\ \hline
$f_{39}$& Customer satisfaction & \cite{inayat2015systematic}\cite{misra2009identifying}
\\ \hline
$f_{40}$&Customer collaboration & \cite{misra2009identifying}
\\ \hline
$f_{41}$& Customer commitment & \cite{misra2009identifying}\cite{inayat2015systematic}
\\ \hline
$f_{42}$& Allow Teams to self-organize &\cite{dikert2016challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{43}$& Lack of training & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{44}$& Too high workload & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{45}$& Global distribution challenges & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{46}$& Achieving technical consistency & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{47}$& Lack of necessary skill set & \cite{stankovic2013survey}
\\ \hline
$f_{48}$& Lack of project management competence & \cite{stankovic2013survey}
\\ \hline
$f_{49}$& Lack of team work & \cite{stankovic2013survey}
\\ \hline
$f_{50}$& Resistance from groups and individuals & \cite{stankovic2013survey}
\\ \hline
$f_{51}$& Recognition the importance of product owner role & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{52}$& Management in waterfall mode & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{53}$& Keeping the old bureaucracy & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{54}$& Customer inability and agreement & \cite{inayat2015systematic}
\\ \hline
$f_{55}$& Contractual limitations & \cite{inayat2015systematic}
\\ \hline
$f_{56}$&Lack of complete set of correct agile practices & \cite{chow2008survey}
\\ \hline
$f_{57}$& Inappropriateness of technology and tools & \cite{chow2008survey}
\\ \hline
$f_{58}$& General resistance to change & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{59}$& Skepticism towards the new way of working & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{60}$&Challenges in rearranging physical spaces & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
\\ \hline
$f_{61}$& Developer Fear of Skill-Deficiency Exposure & \cite{conboy2011people}
\\ \hline
$f_{62}$& Efficiency in finding potential risk &\cite{khatri2014best}
\\ \hline
\end{longtable}
\end{center}
答案1
longtable在双列文档中不起作用。- 将文档更改为一列，然后将表格改回两列，会引入空白，因为这些命令会启动新页面
- 在这种情况下使用
afterpage包并没有起到预期的作用
由于不知道您的文档背景，我想知道，您真的需要这个表格吗？是否可以用一些列表替换它，例如：
无关：
文档示例中的序言可能存在缺陷（虚假代码、包之间的冲突）。您真的需要所有这些包吗？
由于到目前为止您还没有回复评论，对于上图以及您表格中列出的列表，我构建了自己的最低限度的工作示例，其中序言中只包含其工作所需的包：
\documentclass[journal]{IEEEtran}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{lipsum} % for dummy text, not needed in real document
\begin{document}
\lipsum[1]
\begin{enumerate}[label*=f\textsubscript{\arabic*},
leftmargin=1.75em,
align=right, parsep=1pt, itemsep=1pt]
\item Priority Features \hfill\cite{paetsch2003requirements,najafi2008two}
\item Developers and customer’s discussion \hfill\cite{paetsch2003requirements,geras2004prototype}
\item Poor delivery Strategy \hfill\cite{sutherland2001inventing,milanov2012analysis}
\item Failing to fulfil competing Priorities \hfill\cite{sutherland2001inventing}
\item Effect of constant Revision \hfill\cite{sutherland2001inventing}
\item Productionized for customers \hfill\cite{abrahamsson2017agile}
\item User Reviews \hfill\cite{abrahamsson2017agile}
\item Short Progress Meeting \hfill\cite{abrahamsson2017agile}
\item Short release \hfill\cite{abrahamsson2017agile}
\item Effort estimation \hfill\cite{khatri2014best}
\item Project Nature \hfill\cite{paetsch2003requirements}
\item Project Schedule \hfill\cite{paetsch2003requirements}
\item less developer skill sets \hfill\cite{soundararajan2009soft}
\item Extremely Complex Techniques and Tools \hfill\cite{babar2010managing}
\item project plan document \hfill\cite{sliger2006project}
\item Strict security policies \hfill\cite{pavlovski2008non}
\item Strict organizational policies \hfill\cite{pavlovski2008non}
\item Minimum regulatory constraints \hfill\cite{pavlovski2008non}
\item Poor operational performance characteristics \hfill\cite{pavlovski2008non}
\item Completion time \hfill\cite{pavlovski2008non}
\item Unavailability of a business process \hfill\cite{pavlovski2008non}
\item Neglecting non-functional requirements \hfill\cite{inayat2015systematic}
\item Unclear objectives of project \hfill\cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
\item Requirement unclear to the team \hfill\cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
\item Requirement conflicts among multiple product owners \hfill\cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
\item In-adequate communication about end-user requirements \hfill\cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
\item In-adequate prioritization of requirements \hfill\cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
\item Frequent architectural changes \hfill\cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
\item Minimum client participation and collaboration in the process \hfill\cite{racheva2010we}
\item developer participation \hfill\cite{racheva2010we}
\item Important decisions not aligned \hfill\cite{moe2012challenges}
\item Missing a clear prioritization \hfill\cite{moe2012challenges}
\item Missing a definition of done \hfill\cite{moe2012challenges}
\item Conflicting priorities within the company \hfill\cite{moe2012challenges}
\item Low committing to the plan \hfill\cite{moe2012challenges}
\item Distributed agile software development \hfill\cite{kontio2004managing}
\item Improper organization of daily work and meetings \hfill\cite{kontio2004managing}
\item Rare customer involvement \hfill\cite{inayat2015systematic}
\item Customer satisfaction \hfill\cite{inayat2015systematic,misra2009identifying}
\item Customer collaboration \hfill\cite{misra2009identifying}
\item Customer commitment \hfill\cite{misra2009identifying,inayat2015systematic}
\item Allow Teams to self-organize \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}
\item Lack of training \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}
\item Too high workload \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}
\item Global distribution challenges \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}
\item Achieving technical consistency \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}
\item Lack of necessary skill set \hfill\cite{stankovic2013survey}
\item Lack of project management competence \hfill\cite{stankovic2013survey}
\item Lack of team work \hfill\cite{stankovic2013survey}
\item Resistance from groups and individuals \hfill\cite{stankovic2013survey}
\item Recognition the importance of product owner role \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}
\item Management in waterfall mode \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}
\item Keeping the old bureaucracy \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}
\item Customer inability and agreement \hfill\cite{inayat2015systematic}
\item Contractual limitations \hfill\cite{inayat2015systematic}
\item Lack of complete set of correct agile practices \hfill\cite{chow2008survey}
\item Inappropriateness of technology and tools \hfill\cite{chow2008survey}
\item General resistance to change \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}
\item Skepticism towards the new way of working \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}
\item Challenges in rearranging physical spaces \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}
\item Developer Fear of Skill-Deficiency Exposure \hfill\cite{conboy2011people}
\item Efficiency in finding potential risk \hfill\cite{khatri2014best}
\end{enumerate}
\end{document}
附录：
如果您仍然坚持要拥有（长）表，您可以执行以下操作：
- 手动将表格拆分为两部分（每部分都小于页面）
- 每个部分都封闭在
table*环境中 - 在第二部分中使用
\ContinuedFloat`\begin{table*} - 重新定义页面上浮点数的比例
使用
stfloats包将第一部分定位在插入的同一页上，这样就\dblfloatpagefraction可以了\documentclass[journal]{IEEEtran} \usepackage{makecell, longtable} \renewcommand\theadfont{\bfseries\small} \renewcommand\theadgape{} \usepackage{stfloats} \renewcommand{\dblfloatpagefraction}{.9} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage[skip=1ex]{caption} \usepackage{lipsum} \begin{document} \lipsum[66] \begin{table*}[hb] \caption{Table caption} \label{tab=long table} \setlength\tabcolsep{3pt} \setcellgapes{3pt} \makegapedcells \begin{tabular}{| >{$}p{\dimexpr0.10\linewidth-2\tabcolsep-1.33\arrayrulewidth}<{$}| p{\dimexpr0.76\linewidth-2\tabcolsep-1.33\arrayrulewidth}| p{\dimexpr0.14\linewidth-2\tabcolsep-1.33\arrayrulewidth}|} \hline \thead{\text{Var}} &\thead{Factors} &\thead{Ref.} \\ \hline %%%% table body f_{1} & Priority Features & \cite{paetsch2003requirements,najafi2008two} \\ \hline f_{2} & Developers and customer’s discussion & \cite{paetsch2003requirements}\cite{geras2004prototype} \\ \hline f_{3} & Poor delivery Strategy & \cite{sutherland2001inventing}\cite{milanov2012analysis} \\ \hline f_{4} & Failing to fulfil competing Priorities & \cite{sutherland2001inventing} \\ \hline f_{5} & Effect of constant Revision & \cite{sutherland2001inventing} \\ \hline f_{6} & Productionized for customers & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile} \\ \hline f_{7} & User Reviews & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile} \\ \hline f_{8} & Short Progress Meeting & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile} \\ \hline f_{9} & Short release & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile} \\ \hline f_{10} & Effort estimation & \cite{khatri2014best} \\ \hline f_{11} & Project Nature & \cite{paetsch2003requirements} \\ \hline f_{12} & Project Schedule & \cite{paetsch2003requirements} \\ \hline f_{13} & less developer skill sets & \cite{soundararajan2009soft} \\ \hline f_{14} & Extremely Complex Techniques and Tools & \cite{babar2010managing} \\ \hline f_{15} & project plan document & \cite{sliger2006project} \\ \hline f_{16} & Strict security policies & \cite{pavlovski2008non} \\ \hline f_{17} & Strict organizational policies & \cite{pavlovski2008non} \\ \hline f_{18} & Minimum regulatory constraints & \cite{pavlovski2008non} \\ \hline f_{19} & Poor operational performance characteristics & \cite{pavlovski2008non} \\ \hline f_{20} & Completion time & \cite{pavlovski2008non} \\ \hline f_{21} & Unavailability of a business process & \cite{pavlovski2008non} \\ \hline f_{22} & Neglecting non-functional requirements & \cite{inayat2015systematic} \\ \hline f_{23} & Unclear objectives of project & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization} \\ \hline f_{24} & Requirement unclear to the team & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization} \\ \hline f_{25} & Requirement conflicts among multiple product owners & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization} \\ \hline f_{26} & In-adequate communication about end-user requirements & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization} \\ \hline f_{27} & In-adequate prioritization of requirements & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization} \\ \hline f_{28} & Frequent architectural changes & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization} \\ \hline f_{29} & Minimum client participation and collaboration in the process & \cite{racheva2010we} \\ \hline f_{30} & developer participation & \cite{racheva2010we} \\ \hline f_{31} & Important decisions not aligned & \cite{moe2012challenges} \\ \hline f_{32} & Missing a clear prioritization & \cite{moe2012challenges} \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{r}{\footnotesize\textit{continued on the next page}} \end{tabular} \end{table*} \begin{table*}[ht] \ContinuedFloat \caption{Table caption -- continued from previous page} \label{tab=supertabular} \small \setlength\tabcolsep{3pt} \setcellgapes{3pt} \makegapedcells \begin{tabular}{| >{$}p{\dimexpr0.10\linewidth-2\tabcolsep-1.33\arrayrulewidth}<{$}| p{\dimexpr0.76\linewidth-2\tabcolsep-1.33\arrayrulewidth}| p{\dimexpr0.14\linewidth-2\tabcolsep-1.33\arrayrulewidth}|} \hline \thead{\text{Var}} &\thead{Factors} &\thead{Ref.} \\ \hline %%%% table body f_{33} & Missing a definition of done & \cite{moe2012challenges} \\ \hline f_{34} & Conflicting priorities within the company & \cite{moe2012challenges} \\ \hline f_{35} & Low committing to the plan & \cite{moe2012challenges} \\ \hline f_{36} & Distributed agile software development & \cite{kontio2004managing} \\ \hline f_{37} & Improper organization of daily work and meetings & \cite{kontio2004managing} \\ \hline f_{38} & Rare customer involvement & \cite{inayat2015systematic} \\ \hline f_{39} & Customer satisfaction & \cite{inayat2015systematic}\cite{misra2009identifying} \\ \hline f_{40} & Customer collaboration & \cite{misra2009identifying} \\ \hline f_{41} & Customer commitment & \cite{misra2009identifying}\cite{inayat2015systematic} \\ \hline f_{42} & Allow Teams to self-organize & \cite{dikert2016challenges} \\ \hline f_{43} & Lack of training & \cite{dikert2016challenges} \\ \hline f_{44} & Too high workload & \cite{dikert2016challenges} \\ \hline f_{45} & Global distribution challenges & \cite{dikert2016challenges} \\ \hline f_{46} & Achieving technical consistency & \cite{dikert2016challenges} \\ \hline f_{47} & Lack of necessary skill set & \cite{stankovic2013survey} \\ \hline f_{48} & Lack of project management competence & \cite{stankovic2013survey} \\ \hline f_{49} & Lack of team work & \cite{stankovic2013survey} \\ \hline f_{50} & Resistance from groups and individuals & \cite{stankovic2013survey} \\ \hline f_{51} & Recognition the importance of product owner role & \cite{dikert2016challenges} \\ \hline f_{52} & Management in waterfall mode & \cite{dikert2016challenges} \\ \hline f_{53} & Keeping the old bureaucracy & \cite{dikert2016challenges} \\ \hline f_{54} & Customer inability and agreement & \cite{inayat2015systematic} \\ \hline f_{55} & Contractual limitations & \cite{inayat2015systematic} \\ \hline f_{56} & Lack of complete set of correct agile practices & \cite{chow2008survey} \\ \hline f_{57} & Inappropriateness of technology and tools & \cite{chow2008survey} \\ \hline f_{58} & General resistance to change & \cite{dikert2016challenges} \\ \hline f_{59} & Skepticism towards the new way of working & \cite{dikert2016challenges} \\ \hline f_{60} & Challenges in rearranging physical spaces & \cite{dikert2016challenges} \\ \hline f_{61} & Developer Fear of Skill-Deficiency Exposure & \cite{conboy2011people} \\ \hline f_{62} & Efficiency in finding potential risk & \cite{khatri2014best} \\ \hline \end{tabular} \end{table*} \lipsum\lipsum \end{document}
表格第一部分：
表格的第二部分：
