進階搜尋


下載電子全文  
系統識別號 U0026-3108201116224400
論文名稱(中文) 創新歷程中智識中心及協同心向影響跨領域團隊合作之研究
論文名稱(英文) How intellectual centrism and collaborative mindset influence the collaboration of cross-functional teams during the innovation process
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 創意產業設計研究所
系所名稱(英) Institute of Creative Industry Design
學年度 99
學期 2
出版年 100
研究生(中文) 郭銘揚
研究生(英文) Ming-Yang Kuo
電子信箱 pa6981071@mail.ncku.edu.tw
學號 pa6981071
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 82頁
口試委員 指導教授-劉世南
指導教授-簡聖芬
口試委員-鄧怡莘
中文關鍵字 創新歷程  跨領域團隊  專業認定  對經驗開放  多元文化性格  團隊績效 
英文關鍵字 Innovation Process  Cross-Functional Team  Professional Identity  Openness to Experience  Multicultural Personality  Team Performance 
學科別分類
中文摘要 在許多團體和組織當中,創新設計流程經常被視為影響整體運作的一項重要成功因素,而在創新設計的過程中,如何增進團隊之間的相互合作以及避免不必要的衝突更是建立一個成功創新團隊之關鍵。此外,隨著時代快速地變遷,個人單打獨鬥的運作模式已漸漸地不再被採用,取而代之的是具備不同背景及專長的跨領域團隊。

一般而言,跨領域團隊擁有許多相同領域團隊所沒有的優點,而跨領域研究更希望能夠整合多方面的專業知識,產生較具創意的想法; 然而,由於牽涉到不同領域專家之間的合作,各專業領域有其領域獨特之思考模式,與其他領域合作有一定的難度,所以經常造成跨領域團隊在溝通及合作上的障礙,甚至可能會影響往後整個創新流程之時程,進而導致無法順利達成團隊所設定之預期目標。

本研究之目的在探討跨領域團隊中,團隊成員對於彼此專業領域差異的察覺與合作態度的不同如何影響合作行為,並觀察專業認定差異之察覺對於合作行為的影響以及對經驗開放和多元文化性格這兩種團隊成員的合作態度在合作過程之調節效果,探討若是在不同的專業認定中有認知差異時,正面的合作態度是否能幫助提升團隊績效。因此,我們假設當專業認定差異越大時,團隊的績效將隨之降低,而當團隊成員與其他專業領域專家合作時,具備高度正面合作態度的成員能促進團隊績效的提升。接著,本研究以成功大學的學生為研究對象,組成30組具備不同專業背景成員之跨領域團隊,進行以新產品或服務之創新設計為主題的跨領域團隊合作,並在團體任務執行開始前以及團體任務結束後各分別實施一次的問卷調查,問卷之調查內容包含了代表個人認知的專業認定,代表合作態度的對經驗開放、多元文化性格及結案需求,代表團隊績效的合作效能及團隊效率。最後,資料分析結果指出,在跨領域團隊當中,當團隊成員與其他來自不同領域專家合作時,具備高度正面合作態度的成員確實能夠增進該團隊之團隊績效,而此研究發現亦支持本研究所提出之研究假設。
英文摘要 The innovation process has been regarded as a critical one of the successful factors that determine organizational functioning. To enhance the cooperation and avoid destructive conflicts in the cross-functional teams should be a central issue for building up a successful innovation team.

A cross-functional team has advantages for the diversity in domain knowledge and expertise which enhance to produce more creative ideas. However, because different experts in different fields have their own unique way of thinking as disciplinary specific, the diversity also raises the obstacle for communication and then develops shared understanding and coherent actions to achieve team goals.

The purpose of this research is to address how the perception of the disciplinary difference and attitude toward the difference may influence their collaborative behaviors when working in a cross-functional team. In particular, the research examines the effect of perceiving professional identity difference on team collaborative behaviors and then to examine the moderation effect of team members’ attitudes which are the open to new experience and multicultural personality to see whether a positive attitude will contribute team performance when there is a perception difference in diverse professional identities. So, we hypothesize that the greater the professional identity difference, the team performance will decrease, and team members with high positive attitudes may facilitate team performance while collaborating with others in a team. The research used real group process as subject as well as two waves of questionnaire survey; moreover, one survey is implemented at the beginning of group formation and the second one is conducted after the group project completed. The participants are students of National Cheng Kung University from different disciplines, they form 30 cross-functional teams and the group task is about innovation design of a new product or service.

In addition, the scale items of questionnaires consist of professional identity, openness to experience, multicultural personality, need for closure, collective efficacy, and team efficiency; on the other hand, the results of data analysis also support the hypothesis that team members who have high positive attitudes can increase the team performance when they are working with other professionals from different disciplines in the cross-functional teams.
論文目次 Abstract iii
中文摘要 iv
Acknowledgement v
Table of Contents x
List of Tables xii
List of Figures xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Research Objective 1
1.3 Research Subject 2
1.4 Research Process 2
Chapter 2 Literature Review 4
2.1 Cross-Functional Team 4
2.2 Professional Culture 5
2.3 Barriers to Communication and Cooperation between Marketing and R&D 6
2.4 Openness to Experience 8
2.5 Multicultural Personality 9
2.6 Need for Closure 10
2.7 Intellectual Centrism vs. Collaborative Mindset 11
2.8 Collective Efficacy 13
2.9 Team Performance 14
Chapter 3 Research Design & Method 15
3.1 Introduction 15
3.2 Research Design Process 15
3.3 Research Hypothesis 16
3.4 Measures & Definitions of Variables 22
3.5 Questionnaire Design 27
3.6 Statistical Data Analysis Methods 28
Chapter 4 Data Analysis & Results 29
4.1 Descriptive Statistical Data Analysis of Respondents 29
4.2 Reliability Analysis of Constructs 30
4.3 Analysis of Correlation 30
4.4 Analysis of Regression 32
Chapter 5 Conclusion & Suggestion 51
5.1 Conclusions 51
5.2 Research Contributions 53
5.3 Implications & Suggestions 55
References 57
Appendix – Research Survey 63
參考文獻 1. Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior, vol. 10: 123-167. Greenwich. CT; JAI Press.

2. Ancona, D.G., (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal 33, 334–365.

3. Arthur, W., & Bennett, W. (1995). The international assignee: The relative importance of factors perceived to contribute to success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 99–114.

4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

5. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78.

6. Banerjee, P. M., & Chiu, C-y. (2008). Professional biculturalism enculturation training: A new perspective on managing R&D and marketing interface. In M. A. Rahim (Ed.), Current topics in management (Vol. 13, pp. 145-159). New Brunswick, NY: Transaction Publishers.

7. Barth, F. G. (2002). A spider’s world: Senses and behavior. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.

8. Block. J. (1977), "Recognizing the Coherence of Personality," In D. Magnusson and N.S. Endler Eds., Interactional Psychology: Current Issues and Future Prospects, Wiley, New York.

9. Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., Higgs, A.C., (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work
groups. Personal Psychology 46, 823–850.

10. Chen, S.J., Lin, L., (2004). Modeling team member characteristics for the formation of a multifunctional team in concurrent engineering. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 51, 111–124.

11. Chiu, C-y, & Kwan, Y.-Y. (2010). Culture and creativity: A process model. Management & Organization Review, 6(3), 447-461.

12. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

13. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

14. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

15. Dougherty, Deborah (1990), "Understanding New Markets for New Products," Strategic Management Journal, 11, 59-78.

16. Dougherty, Deborah (1992), "Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms," Organization Science, 3:2 (May), 179-202.

17. Douglas, M. (1987), How Institutions Think, London: Rutledge and Kegan Paul.

18. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

19. Federico, C., Golec, A., & Dial, J. (2005). The relationship between need for closure and support for military action against Iraq: Moderating effects of national attachment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 621-632.

20. Fitzpatrick, E.L., Askin, R.G., (2005). Forming effective worker teams with multifunctional skill requirements. Computers and Industrial Engineering 48 (3),
593–608.

21. Ford, R.C., Randolph, W.A., (1992). Cross-functional structures: A review and integration of matrix organization and project management. Journal of Management 18, 267–294.

22. George, J., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513–524.

23. Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.

24. Gloor, P.A., Paasivaara, M., Schoder, D., Willems, P., (2008). Finding collaborative innovation networks through correlating performance with social network structure. International Journal of Product Research 46 (5), 1357–1371.

25. Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. ( 1992). Patterns of communication among marketing, engineering and manufacturing: A comparison between two new product teams. Management Science, 38(3), 360-373.

26. Griffin, Abbie and John R. Hauser (1993), "The Voice of the Customer," Marketing Science, 12, 1, (Winter), 1-27.

27. Gupta, Ashok K., Raj, S. P. and Wilemon, David (1986), "R&D and Marketing Managers in High-Tech Companies: Are They Different?" IEEE Transactionson EngineeringManagement, EM-33(1), 25-32, (February).

28. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. Dans J. W. Lorsch (ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

29. Hammer, M. R., Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382–393.

30. Haque, B., Pawar, K.S., Barson, R.J., (2000). Analysing organizational issues in concurrent new product development. International Journal of Production Economics 67, 169–182.

31. Hawes, F., & Kealy, D. (1981). An empirical study of Canadian technical assistance: Adaptation and effectiveness on overseas assignment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 4, 239–258.

32. Hodge, L., & Carron, A.L. (1992). Collective-efficacy and group performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 48-59.

33. Hoffman, L.R. (1979). Applying experimental research on group problem solving to organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 21, 375-391.

34. Howkins, John (2001). The creative economy: How people make money from ideas, Penguin

35. Jex, S.M., & Gudanowski, D.M. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An exploratory study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 509-517.

36. John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and practice (pp. 66–96). New York: Guilford Press.

37. Kealey DJ, Ruben BD. (1983). Cross-cultural personnel selection criteria, issues and methods. Handbook of Intercultural Training: issues in theory and design, Vol 1, Landis D, Brislin RW (eds). Pergamon: New York; 155-175.

38. Kealey DJ, Protheroe DR. (1996). The effectiveness of cross-cultural training for expatriates: an assessment of the literature on the issue. International Journal of Intercultural Relationships 20: 141-165.

39. Keller, R.T., (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 44, 547–555.

40. Kets de Vries, M., & Mead, C. (1991). Identifying management talent for a pan-European environment. In S. Makridakas (Ed.), Single market Europe (pp. 215–235). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.

41. Kruglanski, A.W., Webster, D.M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance
and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 861-865.

42. Kruglanski, A., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: _seizing_ and _freezing_. Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283.

43. Kruglanski, A.W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L. & DeGrada, E. (2006). Groups as epistemic providers: Need for closure and the unfolding of group centrism. Psychological Review, 113, 84-100.

44. Lorsch, Jay W., and Paul R. Lawrence (1965), "Organizing for Product Innovation," Harvard Business Review, 109-120, (January-February).

45. Madhavan, R., & Grover, R. (1998). From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: Newproduct development as knowledge management. Journal of Marketing, 62, 1-12.

46. McCall, M. (1994). Identifying leadership potential in future international executives: Developing a concept. Consulting Psychology Journal, Winter, 49–63.

47. McCrae, R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258–1265.

48. McCrae, R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323–337.

49. Mischel, L. J., and Northcraft, G. B. (1997). “I think we can, I think we can...”: The role of efficacy beliefs in group and team effectiveness. Advances in Group Processes, 14, 177-197.

50. Parker, L.E. (1994). Working together: Perceived self and collective efficacy at the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(1), 43-59.

51. Ruben, B. (1976). Assessing communication competence for intercultural adaptation. Group and Organization Studies, 1, 334–354.

52. Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martinez, I. M., & Schaufeli, W. B.(2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being, and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Group Research, 34, 43–73.

53. Saxberg, B. and J. W. Slocum (1968), "The Management of Scientific Manpower," Management Science, 14, 8, B473-B489.

54. Schrader, S., & Goepfert, J. (1996). Structuring manufacturer-supplier interaction in new product development teams: An empirical analysis. In H. G. Gemuenden, T. Ritter,&A. Walter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th international conference on industrial marketing and purchasing (Vol. 1, pp. 557-598). Karlsruhe, Germany: Universitat Karlsruhe.

55. Seijts, G.H., Latham, G.P., & Whyte, G. (2000). Effects of self- and group efficacy on group performance in a mixed-motive situation. Human Performance, 13(3), 279-298.

56. Shah, J.Y., Kruglanski, A.W., Thompson, E.P. (1998). Membership has its epistemic rewards: need for closure effects on in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 383-393.

57. Spink, K.S. (1990). Collective efficacy in the sport setting. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 380-395.

58. Stevens, M. J. and Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20, 503-530.

59. Tung, R. L. (1981). Selection and training of personnel for overseas assignments. Columbia Journal of World Business, 16, 68–78.

60. Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 291–309.

61. Wang, Z., Yan, H.S., Ma, X.D., (2003). A quantitative approach to the organisation of cross-functional teams in concurrent engineering. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 21, 879–888.

62. Webster, D., & Kruglanski, A. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049–1062.

63. White RW. (1959). Motivation considered: the concept of competence. Psychological Review 66: 297-333.

64. Whitney, K. (1994). Improving group task performance: The role of group goals and group efficacy. Human Performance, 7(1), 55-78.

65. Woodman, R. W.. Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18: 293-321.
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2014-09-06起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2016-09-06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