English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 86061/114710 (75%)
Visitors : 23039065      Online Users : 228
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/48934


    Title: 創新作為:科研團隊的組織作為與知識創生
    Innovation organizing: how top-performing researcht eams organize for knowledge creation
    Authors: 歐素華
    Ou, Su Hua
    Contributors: 蕭瑞麟
    Hsiao, Ruey Lin
    歐素華
    Ou, Su Hua
    Keywords: 知識創生
    跨域創新
    集體能力
    工作實務
    組織作為
    knowledge creation
    cross-boundary innovation
    organizational knowledgeability
    work practice
    scientific community
    Date: 2010
    Issue Date: 2010-12-08 01:53:29 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 當代文獻對知識創生的討論,多集中在知識的有效移轉與管理,較少由組織集體能力的養成觀點,進行探討。然而,隨著全球化與網際網路的興起,跨組織疆界的研發創新,已不能僅單純由知識有效移轉的角度觀察,而必須由分散式組織的管理,由社群實務的觀點,進行討論。尤其,跨領域科學家的專業社群,不但深富高度的知識涵量,更經常能因應環境的動態變化,產生突破性創新成就,而具有重要研究價值。本研究以台灣著名科學社群─「無線奈米生醫團隊」為調查田野,並由這個科學社群特殊的知識能力養成(organizational knowledgeability)著手,分析社群成員的工作脈絡,以掌握社群組織如何持續有效創生知識。
    研究發現,科研知識養成的基本功、察覺使用者創新需求的敏銳度、巧妙橋接內外部資源的中介能力、以及持續參與專業社群運作的社群力,構成集體能力養成的重要內涵。從實踐社群(CoP)的觀點來看,這四種能力的養成過程,正是一個科學新手逐步蛻變為創新高手的能力累積;更是他由合法的社群周邊參與,逐步進階到核心社群決策的進程。
    創新不是天分,而是養分。當一個科研人才,一個科研團隊,能不斷取得來自專業學術社群的知識養分,他就能源源不絕,產生創新知識。而這也正是所謂頂級發表的內涵。一篇好的專業學術發表,他體現的價值不但是專業學術社群的肯定而已,更是個人或團隊能力累積的極致成就。本研究最後則探討本案例對社群實務的知識創生與研發創新文獻上的啟示,並點出對科學團隊與研發機構的實務意涵。
    Nowadays, product or service innovation often requires highly specialized experts to work closely, such as the design of computer server or performing a cardiovascular surgery. Studies of knowledge creation put more focus on knowledge management and knowledge transfer. However, we know relatively little about how distributed organizations, such as experts communities create knowledge. This study focuses on a top-performing scientific community—the Wireless Health Advanced Monitoring Bio-Diagnosis System (WHAM-BioS) in Taiwan. This team consists of leading scientists from nano-technology, bio-technology, information technology and network communications from different scientific disciplines. This study aims to examine their knowing practices of scientific invention. This research will contribute to theories on knowledge creation through the lens of practice. By analyzing the organizational knowledgeability, this paper suggests organizations reconsider the knowing of cross raining ( or learning by doing),sensitivity of users’ painpoints, brokering resources and participating in tier one academic communities as the collective capabilities of scientific community. These four elements as five organizing capabilities will contribute to the knowledge creation and community of practices literatures.
    壹、 緒論 4
    貳、文獻探討 9
    一、科研團隊的集體行動 12
    (一)科研機構 13
    (二)知識創生型組織 13
    (三)重量級團隊 15
    二、組織作為與知識創生 18
    (一)工作實務 18
    (二)組織作為 19
    (三)知識創生的支援體系 19
    (四)科學社群的知識創生 22
    三、研究缺口與推理架構 55
    參、研究方法 58
    一、方法論 58
    二、個案選擇考量 61
    三、資料收集方式 61
    (一)科學團隊的組織運作機制 65
    (二)創新產品之特殊作為 65
    四、資料分析 69
    (一)科研團隊的專業能力養成 69
    (二)對使用者創新需求的敏銳察覺 70
    (三)對知識中介的能力 71
    (四)經營國際學術社群的能力 72
    肆、個案背景 75
    一、團隊科學背景介紹 78
    二、核心技術發展歷程 80
    三、核心團隊計畫主持人背景介紹 85
    (一)凱斯神經實驗室 85
    (二)康乃爾次微米實驗室 91
    (三)IBM艾瑪登研發中心 95
    伍、研究發現 104
    組織作為一:科學專業基本功 104
    組織作為二:鍛鍊專家敏銳度 117
    組織作為三:磨鍊跨域中介能力 135
    組織作為四:經營專業學術社群 159
    伍、解讀集體能力 172
    陸、討論 176
    柒、結論 187
    參考文獻 188
    Reference: Allen, T.J., & Cohen, S.I.. 1969. Information flow in Research and Development laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1) 12 - 19.
    Al-Hawamdeh, S. 2002 , Knowledge Management :Cultivating knowledge professionals. Chandos Publishing, Oxford, UK.
    Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. & Herron, M. 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1154-1184.
    Ancona, D. G. 1990. Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2): 334-365.
    Ancona, D. G., & Bresman, H. 2007. X-teams: How to Build Teams that Lead, Innovate, and Succeed. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
    Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992a. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4): 634-661.
    Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992b. Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3): 321-341.
    Ancona, D., Bresman, H., & Kaeufer, K. 2002. The Comparative Advantage of X-Teams. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3): 33-39.
    Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. 2003. Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4): 571-582.
    Arora, Ashish, and Alfonso Gambardella. 1990. Complementarity and external linkages: the    strategies of large firms in biotechnology. Journal of Industrial Economies, 38, 361-379.
    Association of University Tecgnology Managers, Autum Licensing Survey Summary Fy 2008 at 19. 2010.
    new product. California Management Review, 32( 2): 24-44.
    Hackman, J. R. 1987. The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior: 315-342. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Hargadon, A. 1998. Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. California Management Review.
    Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4): 716-750.
    Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. 2006. When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4): 484-500.
    Harryson, S. J., Dudkowski, R., & Stern, A. 2008. Transformation networks in innovation alliances: the Development of Volvo C70. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4): 745-773.
    Harvey, J., Pettigrew, A., & Ferlie, E. 2002. The determinants of research group performacne: Towards Mode2? Journal of Management Studies, 39(6): 747-774.
    Henderson, K. 1991. Flexible sketches and inflexible databases: Visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in de-sign engineering. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16(4) 448-473.
    Henkel, J. 2006. Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux. Research Policy, 35(7): 953-969.
    Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. 2001. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a Theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4): 435-449.
    Orlikowski, W. J. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations Organization Science, 11(4): 404–428.
    Hsiao, Ruey-Lin, & Sheng-Tsung Hou. 2009. Sensing Innovation: Ongoing sense-making and structuring of GPS-dispatched systems in an Asian city. Organizational Studies, (R&R).
    Hsiao, Ruey-Lin, D H Tsai, & C. F. Lee. 2006. The problem of embeddedness: Knowledge transfer, coordination, and reuse in information systems. Organization Studies, 27(9): 1289–1317.
    Imai, K., Ikujiro, N., & Takeuchi, H. 1985. Managing the new product development process: How Japanese companies learn and unlearn. 307-373 in R.H. Hayes, K.B. Clark, & C. Lorenz (Eds.), The uneasy alliance: Managing the productivity technology dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
    James, W. 1963. Pragmatism and Other Essays, New York: Washing-ton Square Press.
    James V. Lacy et al., 1991Technology Transfer Laws Governing Federally Funded Research and Development,19 Pepp. L. Rev. 1, 4.
    Jarvenpaa, S., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. 1998. Is anyone out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4): 29-64.
    Katz, J. Sylvan, & Martin, Ben R. 1997. What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1): 1-18.
    Keller, R. T. 1994. Technology-information processing fit and the performance of R&D project groups: A test of contingency theory. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1): 167-179.
    Keller, R. T., & Holland, W. E. 1975. Boundary-spanning roles in a research and development organization: An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 18(2): 388-393.
    Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. 2006. Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17(1): 22-47.
    Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3): 249-273.
    Knorr Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Knorr-Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
    Kogut, B., U. Zander. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 5: 383- 397.
    Kratzer, J., Leenders, R. T. A. J., & Van Engelen, J. M. L. 2006. Managing creative team performance in virtual environments: an empirical study in 44 R&D teams. Technovation, 26(1): 42-49.
    Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 691-710.
    Latour, B. 1987. Science In Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    Lave, J., & Wenger, E. C. 1990. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Lee, G. K., & Cole, R. E. 2003. From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: The case of the Linux Kernel Development. Organization Science, 14(6): 633-649.
    Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Orlikowski, W. J. 2006. Material knowing: The scaffolding of human knowledgeability. European Journal of Information Systems. 15: 460-466.
    MacKenzie, Donald & Wajcman, Judy (eds.) (1985) The Social Shaping of Technology: How the Refrigerator Got Its Hum Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
    Maguire, S. 2004. The co-evolution of technology and discourse: A study of substitution processes for the insecticide DDT. Organization Studies, 25(1), 113-134.
    Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S. 2000. Technology adaptation: The case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly, 24(4): 569-601.
    Markus, M. L., Manville, B., & Agres, C. E. 2000. What makes a virtual organization work? Sloan Management Review, 42(1): 13-26.
    Maturana, H. R., F. J. Varela. 1998. The tree of knowledge: The bio-logical roots of human understanding, revised ed. Shambhala Publications, Boston, MA.
    McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. 2003. Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14(1): 91-103.
    Nelson, R., & Winter, S. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change, Bellhop Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
    Nicolini, D. 2007. Stretching out and expanding medical practices: The case of telemedicine. Human Relations, 60: 889-920.
    Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1): 14–38.
    Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. 1998. The concept of 'Ba': Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3): 40-54.
    Orr, J. E. 1996. Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. 2003. The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1): 2-10.
    O'Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A. 2008. Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 422-459.
    O'Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., Roche, F., 2005.Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities, Research Policy, 34( 7): 994-1009.
    Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. 1999. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1): 1.
    Perrow, C. 1970. Departmental power and perspectives in industrial firms. In Mayer N. Zald (ed.), Power in Organizations: 59-89. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
    Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. 2005. Organizational supports for innovative R&D. In L. Mann (Ed.), Leadership, Management, and Innovation in R&D Project Teams: 211-230. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers.
    Polanyi, Michael. 1958. Personal Knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996), Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 16-145.
    Barley, S. R. 2001.Technicians in the workplace: ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3): 404–441.
    Prahalad, C. K. and G. Hamel. 1990. The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review, 79-91.
    Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. 2001. Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4): 502-517.
    Rothwell, R. 1972. Factors for success in industrial innovations. Project SAPPHO-A
    Comparative Study of Success and Failure in Industrial Innovation, S.P.R.U., 19.
    Reid, T. R., 2001. How two Americans invented the microchip and launched a revolution. Nueva York, EUA : Random House.
    Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. Hutcheson, London, UK.
    Sarah Kaplan & Mary Tripsas (2008) Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change, Research Policy, 37, 790–805.
    Schon, Donald A. 1983. The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. Nueva York, EUA : Basic Books.
    Siegel, Donald. S., Waldman David, Link Albert. 2003. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study, Research Policy, 29: 627-655.
    Singh, J. 2008. Distributed R&D, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of innovative output. Research Policy, 37(1): 77-96.
    Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. 2001. Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12(1): 76–95.
    Spender, J. C., 1996. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic
    Management Journal, 17: 45-62.
    Stam, W. 2009. When does community participation enhance the performance of open source software companies? Research Policy, 38(8): 1288-1299.
    Star, S. L. 1989. The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. M. Huhns and L. Gasser, eds. Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufman, Menlo Park, CA.
    Suchman, L. A. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge, U.K.
    Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. 1996. Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): 685-718.
    Szulanski, G. 2000. The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1): 9-27.
    Teece, D. J. 1998. Capturing value from knowledge assets. California Management Review, 40(3): 55-76.
    Tsoukas, H . 1996. The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 11-25.
    Tyre, M.J., & Eric von Hippel. 1997. The situated nature of adaptive learning in organizations. Organization Science, 8(1): 71-83.
    Bartel, C., & R. Garud. 2002. Narrative Knowledge in Action: Adaptive Abduction as a Mechanism for Knowledge Creation and Exchange in Organizations. M. Easterby-Smith, M. Lyles, eds. Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Blackwell, UK.
    Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. 1999. The Innovation Journey. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Van Maanen, J. & Barley, S. R. 1984. Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6: 287-365.
    von Hippel, E.1994. Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation, Management Science., 40:429–439.
    von Krogh, G. 1998. Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3): 133-153.
    von Krogh, G., Spaeth, S., & Lakhani, K. R. 2003. Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: a case study. Research Policy, 32(7): 1217-1241.
    Weick, Karl E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
    Weick, Karl E., 1987, Organizational culture as a source of high-reliability, California Management Review, 29(2):112-127.
    Weick, Karl E., & Roberts, Karlene H. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38( 3): 357-381.
    Wells, W. P., & Pelz, D. C. 1966. Scientists in Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
    Wenger, E. C. 2000. Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2): 225-246.
    Bechky, B. A. 2003. Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14(3): 312–330.
    Williams R., & Edge D. 1996. The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25: 856-899.
    Zirger, B. J, & Maidique, M. A. 1990. A model of new product development: An empirical test. Management Science, 36(7): 867-883.
    王偉霖,劉江彬(2010),國際技術移轉制度理論與實務: 兼論台灣立法與產學因應之策略,台北市:華泰文化。
    Bijker, W. & Law, J. (eds.) 1992. Shaping Technology/Building Society: studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge/MA, London: MIT Press.
    Blaikie, P., Brown, K., Stocking, M., Dixon. P., & Sillitoe, P., 1997, Knowledge in action: Local knowledge as a development resource and barriers to its incorporation in natural resource research and development, Agricultural Systems, 55(2):217-237.
    Bourdieu, P. 1990. The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity (Original work published 1980).
    Bozeman B., 2000.Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and Theory. Research Policy, 29: 627-655.
    Braam, R. F., Moed, H. F., & van Raan. A. F. J. 1991. Mapping of Science by Combined Co-Citation and Word Analysis. I. Structural Aspects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(4):233-251.
    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.
    Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. 1998. Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3): 90-111.
    Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. 2001. Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2): 198-213.
    Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1995. Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 343-378.
    Burt, R. S., 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Campbell, D. T. 1969. Variation and Selective Retention in Socio-cultural Evolution. The foundations of evolutionary economics: 1890-1973. 2: 354-370. Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass.
    Carlile, P. R. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4): 442–455.
    Carlile, P. R. 2004. Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries, Organization Science, 15: 555-568: INFORMS: Institute for Operations Research.
    Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
    Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. 1991. Product Development Performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
    Collins, H. M. 1974. The TEA Set: tacit knowledge and scientific networks. Science Studies, 4: 165-186.
    Collins, H. M. 1990. Artificial experts: Social knowledge and intelligent machines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Collins, H. M. 1991. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. 2nd edn. (first published 1985). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Collins, H. M., & Kusch, M. 1998. The shape of actions: what humans and machines can do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. 1999. Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10: 381–400.
    Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. 1987. New products: What separates winners from
    losers? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4(3): 169-184.
    Cramton, C. D. 2001. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3): 346-371.
    Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. 2005. Collaborative Research across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5): 703-722.
    den Hond, F. 1998. On the structuring of variation in innovation processes: a case of new product development in the crop protection industry. Research Policy, 27(4): 349-367.
    Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: the Theory of Inquity, New York: Holt and Company.
    Donald S. Siegel, David Waldman& Albert Link (2003), Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study, Research Policy, 32(1):27-48.
    Dougherty, D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3: 179-202.
    Duque, R. B.,Ynalvez, M., Sooryamoorthy, R.,Mbatia, P.,Dzorgbo, Dan-Bright S.& Shrum, W. 2005. Collaboration Paradox: Scientific Productivity, the Internet, and Problems of Research in Developing Areas. Social Studies of Science, 35(5): 755-785.
    Dutton, J. E., C. V. Harquail. 1994. Organizational images and member identification, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239-263.
    Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M.& Pisano, G. P., 2001, Disrupted routines: team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 685-716.
    Edmondson, A. C. 2003. Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6): 1419-1452.
    Ellen van Oost. 2005. Material Gender: How Shavers Configure the Users’ Femininity and Masculinity. How Users Matter-The Co-Construction of Users and Technology, edited by Nelly Oudshoorn and Trevor Pinch. The MIT Press.
    Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. 2007. Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18(2): 165-180.
    Foster, K. R., & Huber, P. W. 1997. Judging Science: science knowledge and the Federal Courts. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
    Garud, R., & Rappa, M. A. 1994. A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants. Organization Science, 5(3): 344-362.
    Gassmann, O., & von Zedtwitz, M. 2003. Trends and determinants of managing virtual R&D teams. R&D Management, 33: 243-262.
    Gerwin, D., & Ferris, J. S. 2004. Organizing new product development projects in strategic alliances. Organization Science, 15(1): 22-37.
    Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structure. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
    Glaser, B.G. 1965. Differential Association" and the Institutional Motivation of Scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(1): 82-97.
    Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. 1996. Seeing as situated activity: Formulating planes, Y. Engestrom, D. Middleton, eds. Cognition and Communication at Work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 61–95.
    Gupta, A. K., & Wilemon, D. L. 1990. Accelerating the development of technology-based
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    科技管理研究所
    95359502
    99
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095359502
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[科技管理研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML354View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback