進階搜尋


下載電子全文  
系統識別號 U0026-1907201522281500
論文名稱(中文) 以交換記憶系統的觀點探討開放式創新團隊的跨領域學習
論文名稱(英文) Cross-Field Learning in Open Innovation Team: The Perspective of Transactive Memory Systems
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 企業管理學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Business Administration
學年度 103
學期 2
出版年 104
研究生(中文) 聶廷宇
研究生(英文) Ting-Yu Nueh
學號 R46024144
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 110頁
口試委員 指導教授-陳淑惠
口試委員-李榮顯
口試委員-黃瀞瑩
口試委員-余明助
中文關鍵字 跨領域學習  交換記憶系統  創新過程熟練程度  開放式創新團隊  組織學習 
英文關鍵字 Cross-Field Learning  Transactive Memory System  Innovation Process Proficiency  Open Innovation Team  Organizational Learning 
學科別分類
中文摘要   開放式創新團隊的研發能力不只來自於組織內部成員,更適時從外部獲取相關資源、技術與知識,利用各種不同領域的專長,共同完成創新研發的目標,然而不同領域人才的學習、溝通與合作,往往受限於不同領域的行話而導致整合過程的不順暢,本研究利用交換記憶系統的觀點,探討其如何影響個人的學習成效,以及如何影響團隊的執行成效。
  本研究樣本為科技部跨領域創意加值推動計畫,共44組團隊參與研究,並針對團隊執行階段與填答對象發放問卷,一共收取177份有效問卷,其中因學生樣本無法完整取得,僅使用122份教授樣本進行分析。
  本研究探討團隊層次與個人層次的關係,檢驗團隊交換記憶系統的建立如何影響個人跨領域學習自我效能與個人學習滿意度,研究結果顯示團隊交換記憶系統的建立,能夠透過中介變項個人跨領域學習自我效能,正向影響個人學習滿意度;本研究亦單純探討團隊層次,檢驗團隊交換記憶系統的建立如何影響創新過程熟練程度與團隊表現,研究結果顯示三者之間皆有正向影響關係,然而創新過程熟練程度對於團隊表現的影響仍低於團隊交換記憶系統的建立對於團隊表現的影響,因此創新過程熟練程度不為中介變項。
  分析結果支持本研究提出的假說,因此證實交換記憶系統的建立,可以有效協助開放式創新團隊的運作:在個人方面,建立交換記憶系統可以讓個人在溝通學習時,掌握專業資訊、信任他人知識與協調團隊合作,因而造成較高的學習滿意度;在團隊方面,建立交換記憶系統可以讓團隊整合過程順暢,因而達成較好的團隊表現。
英文摘要   Open innovation team not only generates capabilities within teams, but timely retrieves relevant resources, technology and knowledge from the outside. Making use of different expertise to integrate and complete the R&D goals is the core of an open innovation team. However, when it comes to learning, communicating and cooperating between people from different areas, integration processes are not always smooth due to jargon of different knowledge domains. Through the perspective of Transactive Memory System (TMS), this study discusses how it affects individual learning outcomes, and how it affects team implementation outcomes.
  The research samples are taken from Cross-Field Innovation Value-Added Promotion Plan, a plan from ministry of science and technology in Taiwan. There are 44 teams participated in the research, and we send questionnaires according to team implementation stages and respondent identities. A total of 177 valid questionnaires are collected. Because student samples are unable to completely acquire, we only use 122 professor samples for analysis.
  Between team level and individual level, this study examines how team TMS development influences individual cross-field learning self-efficacy and individual learning satisfaction. The results support the relationships between the three. In addition, the results show that team TMS development increases individual learning satisfaction through increasing the mediator, individual cross-field learning self-efficacy. In team level, this study examines how team TMS development influences innovation process proficiency and team performance. The results also support the relationships between the three. However, the influence innovation process proficiency brings to team performance is less than team TMS development does. Consequently, innovation process proficiency is not a mediator.
  Analysis results support hypotheses proposed in this study. It can be confirmed that the establishment of TMS can effectively assist in the operation of an open innovation team. In individual aspect, team TMS development allows individuals to communicate and learn well owing to the mastery of specialized information location, having credibility on knowledge from others, and having smooth coordination with others, which results in higher learning satisfaction. In team aspect, TMS allows a team to have smooth integration process, which results in better team performance.
論文目次 摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
誌謝 IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS V
LIST OF TABLES VIII
LIST OF FIGURES X
ABBREVIATION XI
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Research Motivation 4
1.3 Research Purpose 5
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Open Innovation Team 6
2.2 Cross-Field Learning 8
2.2.1 General Concepts of Learning 8
2.2.2 Group and Team Learning 10
2.2.3 Organizational Learning 11
2.2.4 Learning Organization 14
2.2.5 Cross-Field Learning 16
2.3 Transactive Memory System 18
2.3.1 Transactive Memory System and Cross-Field Learning Self-Efficacy 20
2.3.2 Transactive Memory System and Innovation Process Proficiency 20
2.4 Learning Satisfaction and Performance 22
2.4.1 Cross-Field Learning Self-Efficacy and Learning Satisfaction 23
2.4.2 Innovation Process Proficiency and Team Performance 24
2.5 Research Framework with Hypotheses 26
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 27
3.1 Research Framework 27
3.2 Research Design and Sampling 27
3.3 Questionnaire Design 32
3.3.1 Basic Information 32
3.3.2 Team TMS Development 33
3.3.3 Cross-Field Learning Self-Efficacy 34
3.3.4 Learning Satisfaction 35
3.3.5 Innovation Process Proficiency 36
3.3.6 Team Performance 38
3.4 Data Analysis Method 40
CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH RESULTS 41
4.1 Response of Surveys 41
4.2 Descriptive Statistics Analysis 44
4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis 52
4.3.1 Reliability and Validity Analysis 52
4.3.2 Model Fit of CFA 53
4.4 Exploratory Factor Analysis 55
4.4.1 EFA of Cross-Field Learning Self-Efficacy (SE) 55
4.4.2 EFA of Learning Satisfaction (LS) 56
4.4.3 EFA of Innovation Process Proficiency (IPP) 57
4.4.4 EFA of Team Performance (TP) 58
4.4.5 Independent T Test of Feasibility and Prototyping 60
4.5 Hierarchical Linear Model 61
4.5.1 Regression Model about SE Affecting LS (Model 1) 64
4.5.2 HLM about TMS Affecting LS (Model 2) 65
4.5.3 HLM about TMS Affecting SE and LS; SE Affecting LS (Model 3) 66
4.5.4 HLM about TMS Affecting SE; SE Affecting LS (Model 4) 67
4.5.5 HLM about TMS Affecting LS; SE Affecting LS (Model 5) 67
4.5.6 HLM about TMS Affecting SE (Model 6) 68
4.5.7 Deduction from Hierarchical Linear Model 68
4.6 Regression Model and Mediation Model 70
4.6.1 Regression Model 71
4.6.2 Deduction from Regression Model and Mediation Model 74
4.7 Hypotheses Test 76
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 79
5.1 Research Conclusion 79
5.1.1 TMS Can Positively Influence Cross-Field Learning Self-Efficacy 80
5.1.2 TMS Can Positively Influence Innovation Process Proficiency 80
5.1.3 Cross-Field Learning Self-Efficacy Can Positively Influence Learning Satisfaction, and TMS Also Can 81
5.1.4 Innovation Process Proficiency Can Positively Influence Team Performance, and TMS Also Can 81
5.2 Theoretical Implications 82
5.3 Practical Implications 83
5.4 Research Limitations and Further Research Directions 84
REFERENCES 86
APPENDICES 92
Appendix 1 92
Appendix 2 97
Appendix 3 101
Appendix 4 107
參考文獻 Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42(8), 1105-1120.
Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Lynn, G. S., & Keskin, H. (2007). Team stressors, management support, and project and process outcomes in new product development projects. Technovation, 27(10), 628-639.
Argote, L. (2011). Organizational learning research: Past, present and future. Management Learning, 42(4), 439-446.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258.
Caprara, G. V., Fida, R., Vecchione, M., Del Bove, G., Vecchio, G. M., Barbaranelli, C., & Bandura, A. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of the role of perceived self-efficacy for self-regulated learning in academic continuance and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 525-534.
Carson, P.P., P.A. Lanier, K.D. Carson and B.J. Birkenmeier (1999), ‘A historical perspective on fad adoption and abandonment’, Journal of Management History, 5 (6), 320-333.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35-41.
Chesbrough, H. W., & Garman, A. R. (2009). How open innovation can help you cope in lean times. Harvard Business Review, 87, 68-76.
Chesbrough, H. W., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529-555.
Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). The open innovation journey: How firms dynamically implement the emerging innovation management paradigm. Technovation, 31(1), 34-43.
Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14(3), 283-296.
Cooper, H., Carlisle, C., Gibbs, T., & Watkins, C. (2001). Developing an evidence base for interdisciplinary learning: A systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(2), 228-237.
Cordery, J. L., & Soo, C. (2008). Overcoming impediments to virtual team effectiveness. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 18(5), 487-500.
Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D. (2000). Organizational learning debates: Past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 783-796.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Edmondson, A., Dillon, J. R., & Roloff, K. S. (2007). Three perspectives on team learning. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 269-314.
Fichter, K. (2009). Innovation communities: The role of networks of promotors in open innovation. R&D Management, 39(4), 357-371.
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Gambardella, A., & Panico, C. (2014). On the management of open innovation. Research Policy, 43(5), 903-913.
Garratt, Bob (1987), The Learning Organization, London: Harper Collins.
Garvin, D.A. (1993), ‘Building a learning organization’, Harvard Business Review, 71 (4), 78-91.
Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 213-221.
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 472-485.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.
Grunwald, R., & Kieser, A. (2007). Learning to reduce interorganizational learning: An analysis of architectural product innovation in strategic alliances. The Journal of product innovation management, 24(4), 369-391.
Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis: Prentice Hall.
Heck, R. H., & Thomas, S. L. (2009). An Introduction to Multilevel Modeling Techniques: Routledge.
Hill, N. S., Seo, M.-G., Kang, J. H., & Taylor, M. S. (2012). Building employee commitment to change across organizational levels: The influence of hierarchical distance and direct managers' transformational leadership. Organization Science, 23(3), 758-777.
Hirunyawipada, T., Beyerlein, M., & Blankson, C. (2010). Cross-functional integration as a knowledge transformation mechanism: Implications for new product development. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(4), 650-660.
Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1), 38-55.
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723-744.
Hostetter, C., & Busch, M. (2006). Measuring up online: The relationship between social presence and student learning satisfaction. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1-12.
Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Huang, H.-C. (2011). Technological innovation capability creation potential of open innovation: A cross-level analysis in the biotechnology industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(1), 49-63.
König, B., Diehl, K., Tscherning, K., & Helming, K. (2013). A framework for structuring interdisciplinary research management. Research Policy, 42(1), 261-272.
Kezar, A., & Elrod, S. (2012). Facilitating interdisciplinary learning: Lessons from project Kaleidoscope. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(1), 16-25.
Kieser, A., & Koch, U. (2008). Bounded rationality and organizational learning based on rule changes. Management Learning, 39(3), 329-347.
Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 5-23.
Lee, J.-Y., Bachrach, D. G., & Lewis, K. (2014). Social network ties, transactive memory, and performance in groups. Organization Science, 25(3), 951-967.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Reviews, 14, 319-340.
Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587-604.
Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gillis, L. (2005). Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science, 16(6), 581-598.
Liu, Y., Keller, R. T., & Shih, H.-A. (2011). The impact of team-member exchange, differentiation, team commitment, and knowledge sharing on R&D project team performance. R&D Management, 41(3), 274-287.
Love, J. H., Roper, S., & Bryson, J. R. (2011). Openness, knowledge, innovation and growth in UK business services. Research Policy, 40(10), 1438-1452.
Lynn, G. S., Reilly, R. R., & Akgün, A. E. (2000). Knowledge management in new product teams: Practices and outcomes. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(2), 221-231.
Madhavan, R., & Grover, R. (1998). From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: New product development as knowledge management. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 1-12.
Marquardt, Michael J. and Angus Reynolds (1994), Global Learning Organization: Gaining Advantage Through Continuous Learning, New York: Irwin.
Miner, A. S., & Mezias, S. J. (1996). Ugly duckling no more: Pasts and futures of organizational learning research. Organization Science, 7(1), 88-99.
Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 89-106.
Niedergassel, B., & Leker, J. (2011). Different dimensions of knowledge in cooperative R&D projects of university scientists. Technovation, 31(4), 142-150.
Örtenblad, A. (2004), ‘The learning organization: towards an integrated model’, Learning Organization, 11 (2), 129-144.
Pedler, Mike, John Burgoyne and Tom Boydell (1991), The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development, London: McGraw-Hill.
Quigley, N. R., Tesluk, P. E., Locke, E. A., & Bartol, K. M. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance. Organization Science, 18(1), 71-88.
Ren, Y., & Argote, L. (2011). Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 189-229.
Schmickl, C., & Kieser, A. (2008). How much do specialists have to learn from each other when they jointly develop radical product innovations? Research Policy, 37(6-7), 1148-1163.
Schulz, M. (2001). The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 661-681.
Sherwood, A. L., & Covin, J. G. (2008). Knowledge acquisition in university–industry alliances: An empirical investigation from a learning theory perspective. The Journal of product innovation management, 25(2), 162-179.
Siedlok, F., Hibbert, P., & Sillince, J. (2015). From practice to collaborative community in interdisciplinary research contexts. Research Policy, 44(1), 96-107.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics: Allyn and Bacon.
van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463-472.
Watkins, Karen E. and Victoria J. Marsick (1993), Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wegner, D. M., Raymond, P., & Erber, R. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 923-929.
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. The Journal of product innovation management, 31(4), 814-831.
West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. (2014). Open innovation: The next decade. Research Policy, 43(5), 805-811.
Yoo, Y., & Kanawattanachai, P. (2001). Developments of transactive memory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. The Internal Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(2), 187-208.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2020-07-22起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2020-07-22起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw