Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/95174
|
| Title: | 影響資訊系統開發團隊集體創意效能之關鍵因素 |
| Authors: | 鄭秀華 |
| Contributors: | 楊亨利
鄭秀華 |
| Keywords: | 資訊系統開發
集體創意效能
知識整合能力
成就動機
專案複雜度
information systems development
collective creative efficacy
knowledge integration capability
achievement motivation
project complexity |
| Date: | 2009 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-05-09 15:18:39 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 近年來，許多公司面臨需要透過資訊科技來獲取競爭優勢。各產業對於資訊系統的要求越來愈多，促使資訊系統的開發工作越加複雜，而使得成功完成資訊系統的開發變的日益困難。
軟體工程協會指出軟體能力成熟度整合模式(Capability Maturity Model Integration, CMMI)強調軟體開發需要追求開發程序的改善與程序的最佳化。透過程序的改善以降低軟體開發專案失敗的機率。根據創意的定義，資訊系統開發程序的改善是團隊創意的表現。
目前少有研究從創意的觀點探討資訊系統開發程序的改善。根據社會認知理論指出效能信念是解釋行為/產出的關鍵元素。學者們也證明創意自我效能對於創意的重要性。到目前為止，效能與創意的連結僅限於個人層次的研究。因此，本研究將以資訊系統開發程序改善為研究情境，進行集體效能與創意文獻的連結，提出資訊系統開發團隊集體創意效能之概念，並探討集體創意效能的前置因素與了解干擾集體創意效能形成的因素。
本研究採用部分最小平方法 (Partial Least Squares)，分析98組開發資訊系統的學生團隊與61組開發資訊系統的業界團隊資料，以驗證研究模型。結果指出在學生團隊方面，團隊知識程度、成就動機、團隊知識整合能力會正向影響集體創意效能的形成；團隊互動程度會干擾團隊知識程度與集體創意效能的關係、專案複雜度會干擾團隊知識程度與集體創意效能的關係以及干擾團隊知識整合能力與集體創意效能的關係。在業界團隊方面，團隊知識程度、成就動機、團隊知識整合能力會正向影響集體創意效能的形成；團隊互動程度會干擾團隊知識程度與集體創意效能的關係、專案複雜度會干擾團隊知識程度與集體創意效能的關係、成就動機與集體創意效能的關係以及團隊知識整合能力與集體創意效能的關係。此外，本研究亦探討在不同專案複雜度的情境中，影響集體創意效能之前置因素。
Numerous companies have recently employed information systems to obtain a competitive edge. The demand for many new and different information system (IS) applications has increased the scope and complexity of IS developing. Developing successful IS projects became difficult. Software Engineering Institute proposed Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) that emphasized process optimization of software development. The improvement in software process can reduce the probability failure in development software. According to the definition of creativity, the improvement in software process is team creativity. However, there are few studies which discuss the issues about systems development process improvement from creative perspective. According to the social cognitive theory, efficacy is a key factor for interpreting behavior/products. Scholars demonstrated that creative self-efficacy is important to creativity. Previous researchers which studied the potential link between efficacy and creativity are focus on individual level. Thus, this study combined the literatures of collective efficacy and team creativity to propose a new construct (Collective creative efficacy, CCE) for information systems development teams, and explore the influences and moderators for CCE. 98 student project teams and 61 industry project teams are surveyed. Partial least squares (PLS) results demonstrate that team knowledge, achievement motivation and knowledge integration ability positively influenced CCE, team interaction positively moderated the relationships between team knowledge and CCE, and project complexity negatively moderated the relationships between team knowledge and CCE, and the relationships between knowledge integration capability and CCE in both samples. Project complexity positively moderated the relationships between achievement motivation and CCE in the model of industry project teams. An attempt is also made to understand the antecedents of CCE in different project complexity. |
| Reference: | 1. Adler, T.R., Leonard, J.G., and Nordgren, R.K. (1999), “Improving risk management: moving from risk elimination to risk avoidance,” Information and Software Technology, 41, pp. 29–34
2. Ahuja, M., Galletta, D., and Carley, K. (2003), “Individual centrality and performance in virtual R&D groups: An empirical study,” Management Science 49(1), pp. 21-38.
3. Akgun, A.E., Keskin, H., Byren, J., and Imamoglu, S.Z. (2007), “Antecedents and consequences of team potency in software development projects,” Information and managaement, 44, pp. 646-656.
4. Alavi, M. and Taiwan, A. (2002), “Knowledge integration in virtual teams: The potential role of KMS,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), pp. 1029-1037.
5. Amabile, T. (1983), “The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, pp. 357-377.
6. Amabile, T. M. (1987), The motivation to be creative. In S. Isaksen (Eds.), Frontiers in creativity: Beyond the basics: 223–254. Buffalo, NY: Bearly.
7. Amabile, T.M. (1988), A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vo1. 10: 123-167. Greenwich, CT: JAI, Press.
8. Amabile, T.M. (1997), “Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do,” California Management Review, 40(1), pp. 39-58.
9. Amason, A.C. (1996), “Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams,” Academy of Management Journal, 39, pp. 123-148.
10. Ames, C. and Archer, J. (1987), “Mothers’ beliefs about the role of ability and effort in school learning,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, pp. 409-414.
11. Andersen, P.H. and Kumar, R. (2006), “Emotions, trust and relationship development in business relationships: A conceptual model for buyer–seller dyads,” Industrial Marketing Management, 35, pp. 522–535.
12. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach,” Psychological Bulletin, 1988, 103(3), pp. 411-423.
13. Atkinson, J.W. (1957), “Motivation determinats of risk-taking behavior,” Psychological Review, 64, pp. 359-372.
14. Baccarini, D. (1996), “The concept of project complexity-A review,” International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), pp. 201-204.
15. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models,” Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), pp. 74-94.
16. Bandura, A. (1977), Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17. Bandura, A. (1978), “The self system in reciprocal determinism,” American Psychologist, 33, pp. 344-358.
18. Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency,” American Psychologist, 37, pp. 122-147.
19. Bandura, A. (1986), Social foundations of thought and action: a social-cognitive theory. Elgwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Press.
20. Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: the exercise control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
21. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., and Thomson, R. (1995), “The partial least squares approach to causal modeling, personal computer adoption and use as an illustration,” Technol. Studies, 2(2), pp. 285–309.
22. Barki, H., Rivard, S., and Talbot, J. (1993), “Toward an assessment of software development risk,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(2), pp. 202-223.
23. Barki, H., Rivard, S., and Talbot, J. (2001), “An integrative contingency model of software project risk management,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), pp 37-69.
24. Barling, J. and Beattie, R. (1983), “Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance,” Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, (5), pp. 41-51.
25. Barney, J. B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage,” Journal of Management, 17(1), pp. 99–120, 1991.
26. Beghetto, R.A. (2006), “Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students,” Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), pp. 447-457.
27. Bhandar, M. Pan, S.L. and Tan, B.C.Y. (2007), “Towards Understanding the roles of social capital in knowledge integration: A case studey of a collaborative information systems project,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), pp. 263-274.
28. Bubshait, A. and Farooq, G. (1999), “Team building and project success,” Cost Engineering, 41, pp. 34-38.
29. Burt, R.S. (1997), “The contingent value of social capital,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), pp. 339-365.
30. Campbell, D.J. (1988), “Task complexity: A review and analysis,” Academy of Management Review, 13(1), pp. 40-52.
31. Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., and Higg, A.C. (1993), “Relationships between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups,” Personnel Psycholgy, 46, pp. 823-850.
32. Cannon-Bowers, J.A. and Salas, E. (2001), “Reflections on shared cognition,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, pp. 195–202.
33. Carmeli, A. and Schaubroeck, J. (2007), “The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work,” The Leadership Quarterly, 35, pp. 35-48.
34. Cervone, D. and Peake, P.K. (1986), “Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmental heuristic on self-efficacy judegments and behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, pp. 492-501
35. Chan, D. (1998), “Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, pp. 234-246.
36. Chen, G., Gully, S. M., and Eden, D. (2001), “Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale,” Organizational Research Methods, 4, pp. 62-83.
37. Chen, G., Webber, S.S., Bliese, P.D., Mathieu, J.E., Payne, S.C., Born, D.H. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2002), “Simultaneous examination of the antecedents and consequences of efficacy beliefs at multiple levels of analysis,” Human Performance, 15(4), pp. 381-409.
38. Chen, L.H. (2008), “Job satisfaction among information system (IS) personal,” Computers in Human Behavior, 24, pp 105-118.
39. Chen, M.H., Chang, Y.C., and Hung, S.C. (2008), “Social capital and creativity in R&D project teams,” R&D Management, 38(1), pp. 21-34.
40. Chin, W.W. (1998), “Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling,” MIS Quarterly, 22(1), pp. vii-xvi.
41. Chin, W.W. and Todd, P.A. (1995) “On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research: A note of caution,” MIS Quarterly 19(2), pp. 237-246.
42. Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., and Newsted, P.R. (2003), “A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic mail adoption study,” Information Systems Research, 14(2), pp. 189-217.
43. Choi, J.N. (2004), “Individual contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating role of psychological processes,” Creativity Research Journal, 16(2), pp.187-199.
44. Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
45. Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 128-152.
46. Coleman, J.S. (1988), “Social capital in the creation of human capital,” American Journal of Sociology, 94, pp 95-120.
47. Compeau, D. R. and Higgins, C. A. (1995), “Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test, MIS Quarterly, 19(2), pp. 189-211.
48. Cooprider, J.G. and Henderson, J.C (1990), “Technology-process fit: Perspectives on achieving prototyping effectiveness,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), pp. 67-87.
49. Coste, T.G. (1996), “Group creativity: Divergence and convergence in technological design,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan Technological University, Michigan.
50. Coser, R. (1975), The complexity of roles as a seedbed of individual autonomy. In K. Robert, R.K. Merton, & L. Coser (Eds.), The idea of social structure. New York: Harcourt Brace.
51. Cross, R. (2001), A relational view of information seeking: Tapping people and inanimate sources in intentional search. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, D.C.
52. Curtis, B., Krasner, H., and Iscoe, N., (1988), “A field study of the software design process for large systems,” Communication of the ACM, 31(11), pp. 1268-1287.
53. De Boer, M., Bosch, F.A.J., and Volberda, H.W. (1999), “Managing organizational knowledge integration in the emerging multimedia complex,” Journal of Management Studies, 36(3), pp. 379-398.
54. DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (1992), “Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable,” Informalion Systems Research, 3(1), pp. 60-95.
55. Dunbar, K. (1995), How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. Dunbar, K. (1997), How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. In T.B. Ward, S.M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 461-493). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
57. Durham, C.C., Knight, D. and Locke, E.A. (1997), “Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty, efficacy and tactics on team effectiveness,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, pp. 203–231.
58. Dweck, C.S. (1986), “Motivational processes affecting learning,” American Psychologist, 41, pp. 1040-1048.
59. Early, P. C. (1993), “East meet west meets mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups,” Academy of management Journal, 36, pp. 319-348.
60. Elliot, A.J. and Church, M. (1997), “A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), pp. 218-232.
61. Fang, X., Lee, S., and Koh, S. (2005), “Transition of knowledge/skills requirements for entry-level IS professionals: An exploratory study based on recruiters’ perception,” Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(1), pp. 58-70.
62. Feltz, D.L., and Lirgg, C.D. (1998), “Perceived team and player efficacy in hockey,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, pp. 557-564.
63. Ford, C. (1996), “A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains,” Academy of Management Review, 21, pp. 1112-1142.
64. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18, pp. 39-50.
65. George, J., (1990), “Personality, Affect, and Behavior in Groups,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, pp. 107-116.
66. George-Falvey, J., Daniels, D., Hopper, H., and Erez, M. (1996), “Influencing group efficacy and group performance: The effects of interpersonal relationship and cognitive enhancing interventions,” Academy of Management Conference, Cincinnati, OH
67. Gibbss, W.W. (1994), “Software’ Chronic crisis,” Scientific American, September, pp. 86-95.
68. Gibson, C. B. (2003), “The efficacy advantage: Factors related to the formation of group efficacy,” Journal Applied Social Psychology, 33(10), pp. 2153-2186.
69. Gibson, C. B. and Earley, P. C. (2007), “Collective cognition in action: Accumulation, interaction, examination, and accommodation in the development and operation of group efficacy beliefs in the workplace,” Academy of Management Review, 32(2), pp. 438-458.
70. Gibson, C.B. (1996),” They do what they believe they can? Group efficacy beliefs and group performance across tasks and cultures,” Working paper, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
71. Gibson, C.B. (1999), “Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures,” Academy of Management Journal, 42, pp. 138–152.
72. Gibson, C.B. (2001), “Me and us: Differential relationships among goal setting, training, efficacy, and effectiveness at the individual and team level,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, pp. 789–808.
73. Gilson, L.L. and Shalley, C.E. (2004), “A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of team’s engagement in creative processes,” Journal of Management, 30(4), pp. 453-470.
74. Gist, M. E. and Mitchell, T. R. (1992), “Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability,” The academy of Management Review, 17(2), pp. 183-211.
75. Gist, M.E. (1987), “Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management,” Academy of Management Review, 12, pp. 472-485.
76. Gladstein D.L. (1984), “Group in context: A model of task group effectiveness,” Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 29, pp. 499-417.
77. Goodman P.S., Ravlin E.C., and Schminke M. (1990), Understanding groups in organizations. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds), Leadership, Participation, and Group Behavior, (pp. 323-385). CT:Greenwich, JAI Press
78. Granovetter, M. (1982), The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited.” In P. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis: 103-130. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
79. Granovetter, M.S. (1973), “The strength of weak ties,” American Journal of Sociology, 78, pp. 1360-1380.
80. Grant, R.M. (1996) “Prospering in Dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration,” Organization Science, 7(4), pp. 375-387.
81. Guilford, J. P. (1984), “Varieties of divergent production,” Journal of creative Behavior, 18, pp. 1-10.
82. Gully, S.M., Incalcaterra, K.A., Joshi, A., and Beaubien, J.M., (2002) “A metaanalysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships,” Journal of Applied Psychology , 87, pp. 819–832
83. Guzzo, R. A. and Shea, G.P. (1992), Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 269-313. Palo Alto, GA: Gonsulting Psychologists Press.
84. Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Compbell, R. J., and Shea, G. P. (1993), “Potency in groups: Articulating a construct,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, pp. 87-106.
85. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E. Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.), New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
86. Hansen, H. (2002), “Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies,” Organization Science, 13(3), pp. 232-348.
87. Hansen, M.T. (1999), “The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), pp. 82-111.
88. Hargadon, A.B. (1999), “Group cognition and creativity in organizations,” Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 2, pp. 137-155.
89. Hargadon, A.B., and Sutton, R.I. (1997), “Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), pp. 716-749.
90. Heap, J. (1989), The Management of Innovation and Design. London: Cassell.
91. Helmreich, R. L., and Spence, J. T. (1978), “Achievement motivation and scientific attainment,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, pp. 222-226.
92. Henderson, J.C. and Lee, S. (1992), “Managing I/S design teams: A control theories perspective,” Management Science, 38(6), pp 757-776.
93. Howell J.M. and Higgins, C.A. (1990), “Champions of technological innovation,” Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), pp. 317–341.
94. Huang, J.C., Newell S., and Pan, S.L. (2001), “The process of global knowledge integration: A case study of a multinational investment bank’s Y2K program,” European Journal of Information Systems, 10(3), pp. 161–174.
95. Ibarra, H. (1992), “Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), pp. 422-447.
96. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., and Wolf, G. (1984), “Estimating within-group Interrater Reliability with and without response bias,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, pp. 85-98.
97. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., and Wolf, G. (1993), “rwg: An Assessment of within-group interrater agreement,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, pp. 306-309.
98. Jarvis, C.B., Mackenzie, S.B., and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003), “A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), pp. 199-218.
99. Jiang, J. J., and Klein, G. (2000), “Software development risks to project effectiveness,” Journal of Systems and Software, 52, pp. 3-10.
100. Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., Van Slyke, C., and Cheney, G. (2003), “A note on interpersonal and communication skills for IS professionals: Evidence of positive influence,” Decision Sciences, 34(4), pp. 1-15.
101. Jiang, J., Klein, G., and Wang E.T.G. (2007), “Lack of skill risks to organization technology learning and software project performance,” Information Resources Mangement Journal, 20(3), pp.32-45.
102. Jones, C. (1996), Applied software measurement, New York: McGraw-Hill.
103. Joreskog, K.G. and Wold, H. (1982), The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with latent variables: Historical and comparative aspects. In H. Wold & K. Joreskog (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, I. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
104. Joreskog, KG. and Sorbom, D. (1989), Lisel 7: A guide to the program and application, Chicago: SPSS Inc.
105. King, N. and Anderson, N. (1990), Innovation in working groups. In M.A. West & J.L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at word: 81-100. Chichester, England: Wiley.
106. Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Klein, K. J. (2000), A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes. In K.J. Klein & S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions: 3–90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
107. Krackhardt, D. (1992), The strength of strong ties: the importance of philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R.C. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: structure, form, and action. MA: Harvard University Press.
108. Kurtzberg, T.R. (2005), “Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams,” Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), pp. 51-65.
109. Kurtzberg, T.R. and Amabile, T.M. (2001), “From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team level creativity,” Creativity Research Journal, 13, pp. 285–294.
110. Lee, D.M.S., Trauth, E.M., and Farwell, D. (1995), “Critical skill and knowledge requirements of IS professionals: A joint academic/industry investigation,” MIS Quarterly, 19(3), pp. 313-340.
111. Leenders, R.Th.A.J., van Engelen, J.M.L., and Kratzer, J. (2003), “Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: A social network perspective,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20, pp. 69-92.
112. Lester, S.W., Meglino, B.M., and Korsgaard, M.A. (2002), “The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups,” Academy of Management Journal, 45, pp. 352–368.
113. Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R. (2004), “The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer,” Management Science, 50(11), pp. 1477-1490.
114. Levin, D.Z., Cross, R., and Abrams, L.C. (2002), “The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer,” Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. D1-D6.
115. Lin, B.W. and Chen, C.J. (2006), “Fostering product innovation in industry networks: the mediating role of knowledge integration,” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(1), pp. 155-173.
116. Linberg, K.R. (1999), “Software development perceptions about software project failure: a case,” The Journal of Systems and Software, 49(12), pp. 177-192.
117. Lindsley, D.H., Brass, D.J., and Thomas, J.B. (1995), “Efficacy-performance spirals: a multilevel perspective,” Academy of Management Review, 20, pp. 645–678.
118. Little, B.L. and Madigan, R.M. (1997), “Motivation in work teams: A qualitative and quantitative exploration of the construct of collective efficacy,” Small Group Research, 28, pp. 517–534.
119. MacCrimmon, K., and Wagner, C. (1994), “Stimulating ideas through software,” Management Science, 40(11), pp. 1514-1532.
120. Maechr, M.L. (1989), Thoughts about motivation. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 299-315). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
121. Marakas, G. and Elam, J. (1997) Creativity enhancement in problem solving: Through software or process?” Management Science, 43(8), pp. 1136-1146.
122. Massetti, B. (1996), “An empirical examination of the value of creativity support systems on idea generation,” MIS Quarterly, 20(1), pp. 83-97.
123. McClelland, D. Atkinson, J.W. Clark, R.A. and Lowell (1953), The Achievement Motive, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
124. McClelland, D.C. (1961), The achievement society. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
125. McFletcher, D (1996), Teaming by design: Real teams for real people. Chicago, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing.
126. McKeen, J,D, Guimaraes, T, and Wetherbe, J,C. (1994), “The relationship between user participationand user satisfaction: An investigation of four contingency factors,” MIS Quarterly, 18(4), pp. 427-451.
127. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutional organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony,” American Journal of Sociology, 80, pp. 340-363.
128. Milliken, F., and Martins, L. (1996), “Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups,” Academy of Management Review, 21, pp. 402–433.
129. Mitchell, L.V. (2006), “Knowledge integration and information technology project performance,” MIS Quarterly, 30(4), pp. 919-938.
130. Molm, L., Peterson, G., and Takashaki, N. (1999), “Power in negotiated and reciprocal exchange,” American Sociological Review, 64(6), pp. 876-890.
131. Moritz, S.E. and Watson, C.B. (1998), “Levels of analysis issues in group psychology: Using efficacy as an example of a multilevel model,” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, pp. 285–298.
132. Murray, H.A. (1938), Exploration in Personality, Oxford University Press, New York, 1938.
133. Nicholls, J.G. (1984), “Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance,” Psychological Review, 91(3), pp. 328-346.
134. Nidumolu, S. (1995)“The effect of coordination and uncertainty on software project performance: Residual performance risk as an intervening variable,” Information Systems Research, 6(3), pp 191-219.
135. Nidumolu, S.R. (1996), “A comparison of the structural contingency and risj-based perspectives on coordination in software-development projects,” Journal of Management Information System, 13(2), pp. 77-113.
136. Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
137. OKhuysen, G. and Eisenhardt, K. (2002), “Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility,” Organization Science, 13(4), pp. 370-386.
138. Oldham, G.R. and Cummings, A. (1996), “Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work,” Academy of Management Journal, 39, pp. 607–634.
139. Parolia, N., Goodman, S., Li, Y., and Jiang, J.J. (2007), “Mediators between coordination and IS project performance,” Information and Management, 44, pp. 635-645.
140. Patnayakuni, R., Rai, A., and Tiwana, A. (2007), “Systems development process improvement: A knowledge integration perspective” IEEE Transactions on Enginering Managementm, 54(2), pp. 286-300.
141. Paulus, P.B. (2000), “Groups, teams and creativity: The creative potential of ideagenerating groups,” Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, pp. 237-262.
142. Paulus, P.B., Larey, T. S., and Dzindolet, M. T. (2001), Creativity in groups and teams. In M.E. Turner (Eds.), Groups at work: Theory and research. Applied social research series: 319–338. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
143. Perry-Smith, J.E. and Shalley, C.E. (2003), “The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective,” Academy of Management Review, 28, pp. 89–106.
144. Petroni, A. (1996), “The analysis of dynamic capabilities in competence-oriented organization,” Technovation, 18(1), pp. 179-189.
145. Rai, A. and Al-Hindi, (2000), “The effects of development process modeling and task uncertainty on development quality performance,” Information and Management, 37, pp. 335-346.
146. Ravichandran, T. and Rai, A. (2000), “Quality management in systems development: An organizational systems perspective,” MIS Quarterly, 24(3), pp. 381-415.
147. Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., and McEvily, B. (2004), “How to make the team: Social network vs. demography as criteria for designing effective team,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, pp. 101-133.
148. Ribbers, P.M. and Schoo, K.C. (2002), “Program management and complexity of ERP implementation,” Engineering Management Journal, 14(2), pp. 45-52.
149. Rousseau, D.M. (1985), Issues of Level in Organizational Research. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 1-37), Greenwich, JAI Press
150. Rowley, T.M. (1997), “Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences,” Academy of Management Review, 22(4), pp. 887-910.
151. Satzinger, J.W., Garfield, M.J., and Nagasundaram, M. (1999), “The creative process: The effects of group memory on individual idea generation,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), pp. 143-160.
152. SEI, (2002), Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD, V1.1, Staged).
153. Senge, P.M. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday, 1990.
154. Shalley, C.E. (1991), “Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, pp. 179–185.
155. Shalley, C.E. and Gilson, L.L. (2004), “What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity,” The Leadership Quarterly, 15, pp. 33-53.
156. Shalley, C.E. and Oldham, G.R. (1997), “Competition and creative performance: Effects of competitor presence and visibility,” Creativity Research Journal, 10, pp. 337–345.
157. Shenhar, A. and Dvir, J.D. (1996), “Toward a typological theory of project management,” Research Policy, 25(4), pp. 607-632.
158. Simons, T., Pelled, L.H., and Smith, K.A. (1999), “Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams,” Academy of Management Journal, 42, pp. 662-673.
159. Smith, K.G., Collins, C.J., and Clark, K.D. (2005), “Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms,” Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), pp, 346-357.
160. Spink, K.S. (1990), “Collective efficacy in the sport setting,” International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, pp. 380–395.
161. Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1991) Motivation and work behavior. Hightstown, NJ: McGraw-Hill.
162. Szulanski, G. (1996), “Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm,” Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), pp. 27-43.
163. Tagger, S. (2002), “Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model.” Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), pp. 315-330.
164. Tait, P., and Vessey, I. (1988), “The effect of user involvement on system success: A contingency approach,” MIS Quarterly, 12(1), pp. 91-108
165. Tesluk, P.E., Farr, J. L., and Klein, S.R. (1997), “Influences of organizational culture and climate on individual creativity,” Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, pp. 27–41.
166. Tierney, P. T. and Farmer, S. M. (2002), “Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance,” Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), pp. 1137-1148.
167. Tiwana, A. Bharadwaj, A., and Sambamurthy, V. (2003), “The antecedents of information systems development capability in firms: A knowledge integration perspective,” Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Information Systems.
168. Tiwana, A. and McLean, E. (2005), “Expertise integration and creativity information systems development,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), pp. 13-43.
169. Todd, P.A., McKeen, J.D., and Gallupe, R.B. (1995), “The evolution of IS job skills: a content analysis of IS job advertisements from 1970 to 1990,” MIS Quarterly, 19(1), pp. 1-27.
170. Turner, J.R., and Cochrane, R.A. (1993), “Goals-and-methods matrix: Coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them,” International Journal of Project Management, 11(2), pp. 93-102.
171. Wallance, L., Keil, M., and Rai, A. (2004), “How software project risk affects project performance: An investigation of the dimensions of risk and an exploratory model,” Decision Sciences, 35(2), pp.289-321.
172. Wang, E.T.G., Ju, P.H., Jiang, J.J., and Klein, G. (2008), “The effects of change control and management review on software and project performance,” Information & Management, 45, pp 438-443.
173. Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2005), “Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice,” MIS Quarterly, 29(1), pp. 35-57.
174. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994), Social network analysis: Methods and applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
175. Wierenga, B. and van Bruggen, G.H. (1998), “The dependent variable in research into the effects of creativity support systems: Quality and quantity of ideas,” MIS Quarterly, 22(1), pp. 81-87.
176. Williams, T.M. (1999), “The need for new paradigms for complex projects,” International Journal of Project Management, 17(5), pp. 269-273.
177. Wold, H. (1982), Systems Under Indirect Observation Using PLS. In C. Fornell (Eds.), A second generation of multivariate analysis: 325-347. Praeger.
178. Wood, R. E. (1986), “Task complexity: Definition of the construct,” Organization Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 37, pp. 60–82.
179. Woodman, R., Sawyer, J., and Griffin, R. (1993), “Toward a theory of organizational creativity,” Academy of Management Review, 18, pp. 293–321.
180. Xia, W. and Lee G. (2005), “Complexity of information systems development projects: Conceptualization and measurement development,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), pp.45-83.
181. Yang, H.L. (1999), “Adoption and implementation of CASE tools in Taiwan,” Information and Management, 35, pp. 89-112.
182. Yang, H.L. and Cheng, H.H. (2009), “Creative self-efficacy and its factors: An empirical study of information system analysts and programmers,” Computers in Humber Behavior, 25, pp.429-438.
183. Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., and Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J.E. Maddux (Eds.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application: 305–328. New York: Plenum.
184. Zander, A. and Forward, J. (1968), “Position in group, achievement motivation, and group aspirations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, pp. 282–288.
185. Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2001), “When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice,” Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), pp. 682-696.
186. 李欣津，2008，工作特性及創造性自我效能與創造力間的關係，中山大學人力資管所，碩士論文。
187. 曾淑芬、翟本瑞與張維安(民89)，電腦中介溝通對學術專業社群之影響研究，教育部大學學術追求卓越發展計畫89-E-FA04-1-4。 |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
資訊管理學系
92356507 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0923565071 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [資訊管理學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML2 | 168 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
