根據過去對於個人主義與集體主義在團隊合作與發想上的影響研究，皆顯示集體主義的人比較以團隊利益作為考量，而個人主義者則比較重視個人利益，瞭解到這將是影響個人在團隊價值觀上的差異以及造成團隊或個人在思考方式上的不同，所以本研究採用這兩種文化差異維度當作是實驗很重要的個體差異觀察因素，再來，因為通信技術的進步與全球化的影響，現代社會非常重視跨領域虛擬團隊的合作，而合作的過程中，團隊發想這個階段非常重要，於是本研究決定設計一個團隊發想流程，總共有四個階段，個人發想階段、兩次的角色輪替階段與團隊發想產出結果階段，而跨領域團隊組員的部分，我們將採用設計、科技與管理領域的實驗參與者來組成跨領域團隊。接下來本研究給予一道行為改變的題目，並要求跨領域團隊，須遵照我們所設計的團隊發想流程來發想概念。而各階段發想的結果，將會根據IDEO所使用的創新模型裡的三個面向: 可行性(feasibility)、存續性(viability)與用戶渴望性(desirability)，來評斷概念發想的創新性(innovation)。本研究初期結果發現: 1) 角色輪替機制介入的階段，概念發想的創新性相較於還沒有機制介入的個人發想階段有所提升2) 團隊發想階段所產出的概念發想創新性比任何階段的個人概念發想創新性高，從結果可以看出這套發想流程，是可以幫助參與者提升概念發想的品質，接下來本研究將探討造成概念發想創新性改變的因素，以作為日後跨領域虛擬團隊在團隊合作發想上，找出改善跨領域團隊合作發想中可能遇到問題的解決辦法，以促進概念發想的品質提升和團隊合作上更加順暢。

According to the past research on the influence of individualism and collectivism in teamwork, shows that collectivist is more concerned with team interests, while individualists pay more attention to personal interests, on the understanding that this differences will affect the individual's differences in team values and the way of thinking in teamwork and individual. Therefore, our study uses these two cultural differences dimensions as an important observation factor for individual differences in experiments. And because of the improvement in communication technology and the impact of globalization, modern society consider cross-disciplinary teams as a very important issue, and team brainstorming plays a very important role in the teamwork process, so we decided to design a team brainstorming process, there are four stages in total, the personal brainstorming stage, two role rotation stage, the team brainstorming and outcome stage. For the cross-disciplinary team members, we will choose the experimental participants that are in the fields of design, technology, and management to form a cross-disciplinary team. Next, our study gives a behavioral change topic and requires cross-disciplinary teams to follow the team brainstorming process we designed to produce solutions. The results in each stage will be based on the three aspects of the innovation model used by IDEO: feasibility, viability, and desirability to judge the innovation of the concept. The initial results of this study found that: 1) the innovation of concept is improved compared with the personal brainstorming stage during the role rotation stage 2) The innovation of the concept produced by team brainstorming stage is more innovative than the concept of any stage. From the results, we can see that this team brainstorming process that we design can improve the quality of the participant’s brainstorming result. Finally, our study will explore the factors that lead to the concept of innovative changes during the experimental procedure. In the future, as a cross-disciplinary virtual team, the factors will help to find out the problems in cross-disciplinary teamwork, and improve the solutions, this will improve the quality of the personal brainstorming result and make the teamwork process smoother.

Anon 2003. Group creativity and collective choice. Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration, pp. 85–109.
Bechtoldt, M.N., Choi, H.-S. and Nijstad, B.A. 2012. Individuals in mind, mates by heart: Individualistic self-construal and collective value orientation as predictors of group creativity. Journal of experimental social psychology 48(4), pp. 838–844.
Bhagwatwar, A., Massey, A. and Dennis, A.R. 2013. Creative virtual environments: effect of supraliminal priming on team brainstorming. In: 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, pp. 215–224.
Bhavnani, S.H. and Aldridge, M.D. 2000. Teamwork across Disciplinary Borders: A Bridge between College and the Work Place. Journal of Engineering Education 89(1), pp. 13–16.
Cagiltay, K., Bichelmeyer, B. and Kaplan Akilli, G. 2015. Working with multicultural virtual teams: critical factors for facilitation, satisfaction and success. Smart Learning Environments 2(1), p. 11.
Dennis, A.R., Minas, R.K. and Bhagwatwar, A.P. 2013b. Sparking Creativity: Improving Electronic Brainstorming with Individual Cognitive Priming. Journal of Management Information Systems 29(4), pp. 195–216.
Diamant, E.I., Fussell, S.R. and Lo, F. 2008. Where did we turn wrong? Unpacking the effect of culture and technology on attributions of team performance. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW ’08. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 383.
Gangi, P.D. and Wasko, M.M. 2010. GETTING CUSTOMERS’IDEAS TO WORK FOR YOU: LEARNING FROM DELL HOW TO SUCCEED WITH ONLINE USER INNOVATION COMMUNITIES. MIS Quarterly Executive 9(4).
Gilson, L.L., Lim, H.S., Luciano, M.M. and Choi, J.N. 2013. Unpacking the cross-level effects of tenure diversity, explicit knowledge, and knowledge sharing on individual creativity. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology 86(2), pp. 203–222.
Hui, C.H., Yee, C. and Eastman, K.L. 1995. The Relationship between Individualism—Collectivism and Job Satisfaction. Applied Psychology 44(3), pp. 276–282.
IDEO.org | Home. (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2015
Jablokow, K., Teerlink, W., Yilmaz, S., Daly, S., Silk, E. and Wehr, C. 2015. Ideation variety in mechanical design: examining the effects of cognitive style and design heuristics. In: Volume 3: 17th International Conference on Advanced Vehicle Technologies; 12th International Conference on Design Education; 8th Frontiers in Biomedical Devices. ASME, p. V003T04A025.
Janssen, O. and Xu Huang 2008. Us and me: team identification and individual differentiation as complementary drivers of team members’ citizenship and creative behaviors. Journal of management 34(1), pp. 69–88.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Leidner, D.E. 1999. Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science 10(6), pp. 791–815.
Kahai, S.S., Carroll, E. and Jestice, R. 2007. Team collaboration in virtual worlds. ACM SIGMIS Database 38(4), p. 61.
Kersten, G.E., Koszegi, S.T. and Vetschera, R. 2002. The effects of culture in anonymous negotiations: experiment in four countries. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Comput. Soc, pp. 418–427.
Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B. and Gibson, C.B. 2006. A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies 37(3), pp. 285–320.
Leenders, R.T.A.., van Engelen, J.M.. and Kratzer, J. 2003. Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: a social network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 20(1–2), pp. 69–92.
Lincoln, J.R., Hanada, M. and McBride, K. 1986. Organizational structures in Japanese and US manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 338–364.
Magnini, V.P. 2010b. The influence of collectivism in restaurant selection: A sentence completion experiment. International journal of hospitality management 29(1), pp. 191–193.
Menold, J., Simpson, T.W. and Jablokow, K.W. 2016. The prototype for X (PFX) framework: assessing the impact of PFX on desirability, feasibility, and viability of end designs. In: Volume 7: 28th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. ASME, p. V007T06A040.
Nayir, D.Z. and Herzig, C. 2012. Value orientations as determinants of preference for external and anonymous whistleblowing. Journal of business ethics : JBE 107(2), pp. 197–213.
Preuss, B. 2017. Text mining and machine learning to capture cultural data. Text mining and machine learning to capture cultural data.
Rafols, I. and Meyer, M. 2006. Knowledge-sourcing strategies for cross-disciplinarity in bionanotechnology. 2006 Annual Conference, Technology Transfer Society: Next Generation Innovation: New Approaches and Policy Designs.
Schaffer, S.P., Lei, K. and Reyes Paulino, L. 2008. A framework for cross-disciplinary team learning and performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly 21(3), pp. 7–21.
Sosik, J.J. and Jung, D.I. 2002. Work-group characteristics and performance in collectivistic and individualistic cultures. The Journal of social psychology 142(1), pp. 5–23.
Triandis, H.C. 1994. Culture and social behavior.
Triandis, H.C. 1989. The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological review 96(3).
Wagner, J.A. 1995. Studies of Individualism-Collectivism: Effects on Cooperation in Groups. Australasian Medical Journal 38(1), pp. 152–173.
Wagner, J.A., Humphrey, S.E., Meyer, C.J. and Hollenbeck, J.R. 2012. Individualism-collectivism and team member performance: Another look. Journal of organizational behavior 33(7), pp. 946–963.
Wang, H.-C., Fussell, S.F. and Setlock, L.D. 2009. Cultural difference and adaptation of communication styles in computer-mediated group brainstorming. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI 09. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 669.
Wang, H.-C., Fussell, S.R. and Cosley, D. 2011. From diversity to creativity: Stimulating group brainstorming with cultural differences and conversationally-retrieved pictures. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW ’11. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press, p. 265.
Zhu, D.H., Ye, Z.Q. and Chang, Y.P. 2017. Understanding the textual content of online customer reviews in B2C websites: A cross-cultural comparison between the U.S. and China. Computers in human behavior 76, pp. 483–493.
張力介 2017. 意圖設計對個人在行為改變設計概念發想之影響. 意圖設計對個人在行為改變設計概念發想之影響.