簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 張筱青
Chang, Hsiao-Ching
論文名稱： 設計過程中角色知覺對跨領域合作行為影響之研究
The Impact of the Role Perception on Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Design Process
指導教授： 王明揚
Wang, Min-Yang
口試委員: 盧俊銘
Lu, Jun-Ming
周金枚
Chou, Chin-Mei
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 工學院 - 工業工程與工程管理學系
Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management
論文出版年： 2018
畢業學年度： 106
語文別： 中文
論文頁數： 111
中文關鍵詞： 跨領域合作 、溝通能力 、團隊角色定位 、設計過程 、團隊氣氛與表現
外文關鍵詞： Interdisciplinary Collaboration, Communication Capability, Role Understanding, Design Process, Team Atmosphere and Performance
相關次數： 點閱：2  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 隨著科技的進步與生活品質的提升，產品的研發與設計也變得越趨複雜。同時，由於知識的爆炸性成長與專業分工，公司期望能獲得來自不同領域的知識與觀點，跨領域合作變得日趨重要。然而，由於專業知識、訓練方式、專業術語、核心價值等不同，比起同質性的團隊，跨領域團隊在溝通與合作上所面臨的困難與阻礙也更多。如何提升跨領域溝通與合作的品質，對於企業發展將會是一大關鍵。本研究中，角色知覺的定義包含溝通能力與團隊角色定位，並針對在設計過程中，角色知覺對於不具跨領域合作經驗成員的影響進行探討，以瞭解這些不具經驗的成員在意識到角色知覺於跨領域合作中的重要性後，對於他們在團隊中的角色、溝通、與產出結果所產生的影響。
    本研究分成兩階段進行，第一階段為半小時的文獻與經驗分享，採一對一進行；第二階段則實際讓兩位參與者進行為時一小時的跨領域合作。在第一階段中，將藉由具跨領域合作經驗的人員透過與實驗參與者分享自身經驗的方式，協助參與者瞭解跨領域合作中各個領域在本質上的差異，以及在跨領域合作中改變自身角色與行為的重要性。在這之後，兩位參與者將共同合作，完成以創新與問題為導向的任務。團隊包含一位來自高一致性學科（high consensus disciplines）的成員，像是傳統工程與科學等科系的學生；以及一位來自低一致性學科（low consensus disciplines）的學生，像是人文與社會科系等的學生。本研究將結合質性與量化的方法，透過實際觀察實驗參與者於合作情境中的角色與行為，並以團隊氣氛與表現作為衡量跨領域團隊合作品質的兩項指標。
    從研究結果得知，角色知覺對於不具經驗的跨領域團隊成員在初次跨領域合作在客觀評估及問卷分數上等合作品質並無顯著影響，然而在觀察及訪談上的確可以發現一些行為上的改變。結果顯示，角色知覺的確能幫助跨領域團隊成員產生對於合作有益的相關行為，有助於其往後在合作溝通能力與團隊角色定位等能力與經驗的培養。

    With the complexity of the product design problems, and with the knowledge explosion and specialization, interdisciplinary collaboration is essential to companies gathering more than one kind of knowledge and perspectives. This study defines communication capability and role understanding as role perception. Furthermore, it investigates the impact of role perception for the people with no interdisciplinary experience, focusing particularly on design process. Whether there is a difference in roles, communication and outcomes after the novices being aware of the importance of role perception in interdisciplinary collaboration.
    A half-hour sharing and one-hour interdisciplinary collaboration would be administered. Through the sharing, participants would be assisted to realize they need to change their roles and behaviors in communicating because of the difference between disciplines. After that, participants in a team need to collaboratively complete an innovative, problem-solving task. The interdisciplinary team consists of one participant from high consensus disciplines, like traditional engineering and the sciences, and one participant from low consensus disciplines, like the humanities and social sciences. Data would be collected through qualitative and quantitative methods. Participants’ roles and behaviors would be observed during the collaboration. The outcomes would be evaluated by team atmosphere and performance.
    Kruskal-Wallis Test results show that difference between groups in objective evaluation and questionnaire scores was not significant. The results mean all of the groups have the similar scores in objective evaluation, performance and team atmosphere. That is, they all have great performance and pleasant team atmosphere in the collaboration. Based on the observation and interview data, this study found that role perception have a good effect on the interdisciplinary collaboration. Results show that the role perception could really help the interdisciplinary team members for beneficial behavior in collaboration. Through the sharing, the participants could be aware of the importance of role perception in interdisciplinary collaboration. This study confirm that the sharing of role perception, communication capability and role understanding, could help participants to prepare themselves before collaboration and act more flexible. This study expects to take the results as reference for novices how to increase collaborative practice skills in an interdisciplinary team.

    摘要 i Abstract iii 目錄 iv 圖目錄 ix 表目錄 x 第一章 緒論 1 1.1 研究背景與動機 1 1.2 研究目的 5 1.3 研究架構 5 第二章 文獻探討 8 2.1 跨領域合作 8 2.1.1 團隊的互動與溝通模式 8 2.1.2 跨領域合作的定義 11 2.1.3 跨領域合作中的抑制因素 14 2.1.4 小結 20 2.2 角色知覺 20 2.2.1 角色知覺的定義 21 2.2.2 影響角色知覺的因素 22 2.2.3 小結 22 2.3 合作品質的衡量指標 22 2.3.1 信任 23 2.3.2 知識轉移與整合 25 2.3.3 小結 26 2.4 總結 26 第三章 研究方法 28 3.1 研究流程 28 3.2 實驗設計 31 3.3 實驗參與者訓練 35 3.3.1 訓練的目的 35 3.3.2 訓練的內容 35 3.3.3 訓練者 38 3.4 合作情境 39 3.4.1 合作情境的目的與選擇 39 3.4.2 角色扮演（scenario-based role playing） 39 3.4.3 合作情境的內容 40 3.4.4 設計過程的四個階段與任務 42 3.5 觀察法 45 3.6 客觀評估 48 3.7 問卷調查 48 3.7.1 團隊氣氛量表 49 3.7.2 團隊表現自評量表 53 3.8 訪談法 57 3.8.1 訪談目的 57 3.8.2 訪談形式 57 3.8.3 訪談大綱 58 3.9 正式實驗 60 3.9.1 正式實驗參與者與來源 60 3.9.2 正式實驗材料、設備與場域 61 3.9.3 正式實驗流程 61 3.10 觀察、客觀評估、問卷與訪談內容分析 62 3.10.1 角色知覺中提升合作品質的因素 63 3.10.2 角色知覺中各因素對於跨領域團隊的影響與幫助 63 第四章 研究結果與分析 64 4.1 實驗參與者 64 4.2 正式實驗 68 4.2.1 觀察 68 4.2.2 客觀評估 84 4.2.3 問卷 87 4.2.4 訪談 88 第五章 研究結果討論 89 5.1 角色知覺 89 5.1.1 第一階段：探索 90 5.1.2 第二階段：定義 90 5.1.3 第三階段：腦力激盪 98 5.1.4 第四階段：原型 99 5.2 高共識領域與低共識領域 102 第六章 結論、研究限制與未來研究方向 106 6.1 結論 106 6.1.1 角色知覺中提升合作品質的因素 106 6.1.2 角色知覺中各因素對於跨領域團隊的影響與幫助 106 6.2 研究限制 108 6.3 未來研究方向 109 中文參考文獻 110 英文參考文獻 111 附件一 合作情境設定 114 附件二 設計過程與各階段任務 116 附件三 觀察檢核表 119 附件四 團隊氣氛量表 127 附件五 團隊表現自評量表 130 附件六 訪談大綱 132

    1. 情境故事法對跨領域合作設計的影響-以使用者導向創新設計課程為例. 2009. PhD Thesis.
    2. Alavi, M., & Tiwana, A. (2002). Knowledge integration in virtual teams: The potential role of KMS. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), 1029-1037.
    3. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of applied psychology, 57(3), 195.
    4. Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. K. (2008). Characteristics of successful Cross‐disciplinary engineering education collaborations. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 123-134.
    5. Blackwell, A. F., Wilson, L., Boulton, C., & Knell, J. (2009). Radical innovation: crossing knowledge boundaries with interdisciplinary teams (No. UCAM-CL-TR-760). University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory.
    6. Cheng, X., Fu, S., & Druckenmiller, D. (2016). Trust development in globally distributed collaboration: A case of US and Chinese mixed teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(4), 978-1007.
    7. Cheng, X., Fu, S., Sun, J., Han, Y., Shen, J., & Zarifis, A. (2016). Investigating individual trust in semi-virtual collaboration of multicultural and unicultural teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 267-276.
    8. Clapper, T. C. (2010). Role play and simulation. The Education Digest, 75(8), 39.
    9. Cooper, A. (2004). The inmates are running the asylum:[Why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity]. Indianapolis, IN, USA:: Sams.
    10. Cross, N., & Cross, A. C. (1995). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Design studies, 16(2), 143-170.
    11. Cugini, J., Damianos, L., Hirschman, L., Kozierok, R., Kurtz, J., Laskowski, S., & Scholtz, J. (1997). Methodology for evaluation of collaboration systems. The evaluation working group of the DARPA intelligent collaboration and visualization program, Rev, 3.
    12. Daudi, M., Hauge, J. B., & Thoben, K. D. (2016). Behavioral factors influencing partner trust in logistics collaboration: a review. Logistics Research, 9(1), 19.
    13. Hall, P. (2005). Interprofessional teamwork: Professional cultures as barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(Suppl. 1), 188–196.
    14. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. 1985. Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63: 967-985.
    15. Lodahl, J. B., & Gordon, G. (1972). The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments. American sociological review, 57-72.
    16. Maton, K. I., Perkins, D. D., & Saegert, S. (2006). Community psychology at the crossroads: Prospects for interdisciplinary research. American journal of community psychology, 38(1-2), 35-49.
    17. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.
    18. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 38(1), 24-59.
    19. O’Brien, W., Soibelman, L., & Elvin, G. (2003). Collaborative design processes: an active-and reflective-learning course in multidisciplinary collaboration. Journal of Construction Education, 8(2), 78-93.
    20. Paulin, D., & Suneson, K. (2012). Knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing and knowledge barriers–three blurry terms in KM. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 81-91.
    21. Petri, L. (2010, April). Concept analysis of interdisciplinary collaboration. In Nursing forum (Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 73-82). Blackwell Publishing Inc.
    22. Rosenfield, P. L. (1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science and Medicine, 35, 1343–1357.
    23. Rons, N. (2011). Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations: Evaluation of a Funding Program. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 5(1), 17-32.
    24. Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of personality, 35(4), 651-665.
    25. Rungtusanatham, M., Wallin, C., & Eckerd, S. (2011). The vignette in a scenario‐based role‐playing experiment. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(3), 9-16.
    26. Sfetsos, P., Stamelos, I., Angelis, L., & Deligiannis, I. (2006, June). Investigating the impact of personality types on communication and collaboration-viability in pair programming–an empirical study. In International Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering (pp. 43-52). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Sheehan, D., Robertson, L., & Ormond, T. (2007). Comparison of language used and patterns of communication in interprofessional and multidisciplinary teams. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 21(1), 17-30.
    27. Suter, E., Arndt, J., Arthur, N., Parboosingh, J., Taylor, E., & Deutschlander, S. (2009). Role understanding and effective communication as core competencies for collaborative practice. Journal of interprofessional care, 23(1), 41-51.
    28. Siedlok, F., & Hibbert, P. (2014). The organization of interdisciplinary research: Modes, drivers and barriers. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(2), 194-210.
    29. Saripalle, R., & Kaufman, P. (2016). Interdisciplinary Collaboration between Marketing and Software Engineering Students: Opportunities and Limitations.
    30. Zarraga, C., & Bonache, J. (2005). The impact of team atmosphere on knowledge outcomes in self-managed teams. Organization Studies, 26(5), 661-681.

    QR CODE