English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88613/118155 (75%)
Visitors : 23481707      Online Users : 151
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/140.119/58692

    Title: 以物意悟:疆界物件如何引發跨專業的調適性學習行為
    Learning from Objects:How may Boundary Objects Enact Adaptive Learning in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration
    Authors: 王培勛
    Wang, Pei Hsun
    Contributors: 蕭瑞麟
    Wang, Pei Hsun
    Keywords: 知識管理
    knowledge management
    boundary objects
    cross-disciplinary collaboration
    situated learning
    adaptive learning
    learning by doing
    Date: 2011
    Issue Date: 2013-07-01 17:29:56 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 近年來,許多企業希望透過不同領域的專家彼此合作,為組織解決日益複雜的難題。然而,跨專業團隊的合作過程充滿挑戰,過去文獻多專注於如何提升知識分享的效果,卻忽略了許多關鍵新知識必須由跨界團隊合作探索而來。在面對陌生情境下,這樣的探索尤其重要,例如:開發新產品、啟用新製程,但我們至今仍對跨專業社群如何合作探索的過程所知甚少。


    Recently, more and more companies are gathering different types of specialist in order to solve increasingly complex problems. But the efforts paid in the process of cooperation are challenging for enterprises. Previous researchers had focused on the transfer and share of cross-disciplinary knowledge. However, they neglected the fact that some critical knowledge must be learned by collaborative exploring in terms of particular situation.

    To understand this issue, an ethnography study was used to examine the process of trouble shooting undertaken by engineers who encountered complex problems in the fabrication of semiconductor wafers. This thesis addressed three primary challenges faced by engineers. First, the nature of the problem may not be defined appropriately at the beginning. Second, responsibility may not be clearly attributed by cross specialist team who is in charge of investigation. Third, without comprehensive contexts of the practice, communication between engineers is problematic itself.

    To overcome the problem, engineers must be able to go beyond standard operating procedures so that they can find a new path of solution. This thesis argues that the use of boundary objects is an effective trigger of problem solving. The use of a boundary object is then described as a means of decoding the contexts behind the objects, reforming the relationship of cooperation, and integrating knowledge systemically.

    These findings suggest that theories of knowledge management and boundary objects could be improved organically by considering what people do and how people learn in practice. Furthermore, these findings bring us practical implications of employee training and cross-disciplinary collaboration.
    壹、緒論 11
    貳、文獻回顧 17
    一、跨界合作的困境:患無詞 19
    (一)、創造共通語言的困難 19
    (二)、如何運用疆界物件重現知識 20
    二、跨界合作的困境:詞不達意 23
    (一)、分享語意的困難 23
    (二)、如何運用疆界物件分享語意 24
    (三)、社群間缺乏實務經驗所造成的困境 25
    (四)、如何運用疆界物件重現實務脈絡 27
    三、跨界合作的困境:見樹不見林 32
    (一)、系統性思考對跨界合作的重要性 32
    (二)、什麼樣的問題需要調適性學習 33
    (三)、調適性學習的四個基本功 33
    (四)、調適性學習對於跨界合作的意義 36
    四、理論缺口 38
    參、研究方法 40
    一、方法論 40
    二、個案背景說明 40
    三、個案選擇 42
    四、資料蒐集方式 43
    五、資料分析 48
    肆、研究發現 56
    一、第一天:消失的電路區塊 57
    (一)、模糊的問題情境 57
    (二)、解讀現象背後的因果 58
    (三)、改變合作關係 60
    (四)、整合跨界知識 61
    二、第二天:內嵌型雜質與外顯型雜質的數量比例 63
    (一)、模糊的問題情境 63
    (二)、解讀現象背後的因果 65
    (三)、改變合作關係 67
    (四)、整合跨界知識 68
    三、第五天:管線上的不明膠體 70
    (一)、模糊的問題情境 70
    (二)、解讀現象背後的因果 71
    (三)、改變合作關係 73
    (四)、整合跨界知識 74
    四、第二十天:雜質數的波動頻率 76
    (一)、模糊的問題情境 76
    (二)、解讀現象背後的因果 77
    (三)、改變合作關係 78
    (四)、整合跨界知識 79
    伍、討論 82
    一、工作實務之一:解讀現象背後的因果 83
    二、工作實務之二:改變合作關係 84
    三、工作實務之三:整合跨界知識 86
    四、理論貢獻 89
    五、實務貢獻 92
    六、研究限制 93
    陸、結論 95
    參考文獻 96
    Reference: Adler, P. S. 1995. Interdepartmental Interdependence and Coordination:The Case of the Design/Manufacturing Interface. Organization Science, 6(2), 147-167.

    Argote, L. 1999. Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Norwell, MA:Kluwer.

    Barley, S. R. 1996. Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41:404-441.

    Bechky, B. A. 2003. Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of knowledge on a production floor. Organization Science, 14, 312-330.

    Bogdewic, S. P. 1992. Participant observation. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (Vol. 3) (pp. 45-69). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Boland, & Tenkasi, 1995. Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing, Organization Science, 6(4), pp.350-372.

    Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge Cambridge university press.

    Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. 1998. Organizing Knowledge, California Management Review vol. 40, no.3.

    Carlile, P. 1997. Transforming knowledge in product development: Making knowledge manifest through boundary objects. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Michigan.

    Carlile, P. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13 (4).

    Carlile, P. R. 2004. Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555-568.

    Clark, K. B., & T. Fujimoto. 1991. Product Development Performance. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

    Wheelwright, S. C., & K. B. Clark. 1992. Revolutionizing New Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency and Quality. The Free Press, New York.

    Cohen, M., & P. Bacdayan. 1994. Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organ. Sci. 5 554-568.

    Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. 1998. Working Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Eisenhardt, K. M., & B. Tabrizi. 1995. Acceleratinga daptive processes: Producti nnovation in the global computer industry. Admin.S ci. Quart. 40 84-110.

    Galbraith, J. 1973. Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributingp ro- cesses and the literatures. Organ. Sci. 2 88-115.

    Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics, and Culture in Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. 1967. Organizations and Environments: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Leonard, D., & S. Sensiper. 1998. The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Rev. 40(3) 112-132.

    Levitt, B., & March, J. 1988. Organizational Learning. Annual Review of
    Sociology, Vol. 14, 31-40.

    Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. 1984. Analyzing social settings. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

    March, J., & Olsen, J. 1975. The Uncertainty of the Past:Organizational
    Learning under Ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 3, 147-

    March, J. G., H. Simon. 1958. Organizations. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Nonaka, I. 1991. The knowledge-creatingc ompany. Harvard Bus. Rev. 69(6)96-104.

    Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5: 14-37.

    Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in Practice:Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing. Organization Science 13(3): 249-273.

    Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge: Toward a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. Hutcheson, London, UK. Sch6n, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books, New York.

    Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communications. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Simon, H. 1981. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Star, S. L. 1989. The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In M. Huhns and L. Gasser (eds.), Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Menlo Park, CA:Morgan Kaufman.

    Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness:Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. StrategicM anagement J. 17 27-43.

    Tyre, M. J., & von Hippel, E. 1997. The Situated Nature of Adaptive Learning in Organizations. Organization Science, 8(1), 71-83.

    Weick, K. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading MA:Addison-Wesley.

    Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice:Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Winter, S. 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In D. Teece(ed.), The Competitive Challenge. Cambridge, MA:Ballinger.

    Hsiao, R.-L., Tsai, D.-H., & Lee, C.-F. 2012. Collaborative Knowing:The Adaptive Nature of Cross-Boundary Spanning. Journal of Management Studies, 49(3), 463-491.





    Description: 碩士
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098359020
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[科技管理研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat

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

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback