第五章 結論與建議
第三節、 研究限制與未來研究建議
第一、在研究樣本數量上，僅回收10 分，有效 8 份，儘管可滿足灰關聯分析法不需要 大樣本數的要求條件，並且具有普遍性，平均涵蓋了不同團隊類型、團隊創新經驗與產業經 驗，但是更多的有效問卷仍有助於增加研究訊息，幫忙更廣泛了解團隊關鍵成員對團隊合作 能耐動態性的看法。倘若能將樣本數達100 份以上，每個團隊類型、團隊創新經驗與產業經 驗都平均有至少10 份以上有效樣本，除了讓研究更值得參考，也可以進行更複雜的交叉比 較。
第二、在研究對象上，此次有效問卷回收多以作者有關係的研究所同學、大學同學、工 作上客戶與朋友，發送給較陌生對象的回收率相當低，由於與作者熟識的對象，由於彼此關 係上的信任、願意回答，是能夠獲得較可靠資訊，但缺點會造成共變量偏高。要是將來能夠 透過不同的關係跟不同對象收集，應該在這部份做出加強。
第三、本研究將團隊創新歷程區分為團隊創意和思考與團隊創新實現二個階段，實際上 是二個情境階段，到底這二個情境是否也是不同時間階段還需要進一步求證。故除了使用灰 關聯分析法進行不同情境比較外，未來研究也建議加入時間軸研究，來跟團隊關鍵成員的團 隊經驗加以比較。或是，可以問卷上以更有時間先後順序的問題來詢問受測者的團隊經驗變 化。
第四、本研究所探討的團隊能耐因素，因為考量受測者回答問題的集中度、意願，僅挑 選團隊信心等六大因素，其它因素則尚未檢驗，這些其它因素也是未來研究者可以考慮增修 的研究範圍。
第五、團隊創新已被證實與跨團隊活動與經驗有密切關係，本研究受限篇幅，無法對此 加以著墨，若可，也建議後續研究者考慮將跨團隊的團隊合作能耐列入研究探究主題。此外，
隨著網際網路新興的網路虛擬團隊，也是很值得研究的團隊創新子題之一。
61
第六、本研究問卷設計採用二個二個一組的比較方式來計算個別因素的重要性，而非傳 統Likert 量表尺度，此方法故然讓受測者更易比較，提高問卷信度，也更符合灰關聯分析方 法的精神，但此問卷設計方式缺乏數理驗證基礎，此亦有待後進研究者協助改善。
參考文獻
與系統，9(1)：29-60。
黃敏萍，2000，跨功能任務團隊之結構與效能—任務特性與社會系絡之影響，台北：國立台灣大學
商學研究所博士論文。
黃敏萍、鄭伯壎，和王建忠，2003。轉型領導、團隊內互動、及團隊與成員效能：IPO 模式之驗證。
管理學報，20(3)：397-427。
Amabile, T. M., 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations, Research in organizational behavior, 10(1): 123-167.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M., 1996. Assessing the working environment for Creativity, Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1154-1184.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F., Beyond Task and Maintenance: Defining External Functions in Groups, Group & Organization Studies, 13(4), 468-494.
Ancona, D. G. & Caldwell, D. F., 1992a. Bridging the boundary: External activity & performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4): 634-665.
Ancona, D. G. & Caldwell, D. F., 1992b. Demography &design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3): 321-341.
Andrew, K.R. (1971), The Concept of Corporate Strategy: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. IL: Irwin Homewood.
Austin, J. R., 2003. Transactive memory in organizational groups: The effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 866-878.
Bandura, A., Social Foundations of Through and Action : A social Cognitive Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall(1986).
Brown, S., & Eisenhardt, K., 1995. Product development: Past research, present findings and future direction. Academy of Management Review, 20:343-378.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C., 1993. Relations between work group characteristics &
effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46: 823-825.
63
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., Medsker, G. J., 1996. Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: a replication and extension. Personnel Psychology. 49: 429-452.
Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, eds. 1998. Making Decisions Under Stress: Implications for Individual and Team Training. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Tannenbaum, S.I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C.E., 1995. Defining team competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 333–380.
Carron, A.V., 1982. Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123–138.
Cartwright, D. and A. Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics, (3rd Ed.), Row, Peterson, Evanston, IL, 1968.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E., 1997. What makes teams work? Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239-290.
DiMasi J. A., Hansen, R. W. & Grabowski, H. G., 2003. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. Journal of Health Economics, 22, 151–185
Drucker, P. F., 1985, Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.
Festinger,L.,Schachter,S.,Back,K.W.,1950.Social Pressures in Informal Groups:A Study of Human Factors in Housing. Harper,NewYork.
Gladstein, D. L., 1984. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 499-517.
Goodwin, G. F., Burke, C. S., Wildman, J. L. y Salas, E., 2008. Team effectiveness in complex organizations:
An overview. En E. Salas, G.F. Goodwin y C.S. Burke (Eds.), Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations.
Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches, New York: Psychology Press, 3-16.
Gregorich, S. E., Helmreich, R. L., & Wilhelm, J. A., 1990. The structure of cockpit management attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 682-690.
Guzzo, R.A. & Dickson, M.W., 1996. Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance &
effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47: 307-338.
Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P., 1992. Group performance & Intergroup relations in organizations. In Handbook of Industrial &Organizational Psychology, ed. Dunnette, M. D., & Hough, L. M., 3:269–313. Palo Alto, CA:
Consult Psychology Press.
Hackman, J. R., 1990, Groups That Work (And Those That Do not): Creating Conditions for EVective Teamwork, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R., 1987. The design of work team. In J. W. Lorsh (Ed.) Handbook of organizational behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hareli, S., & Rafaeli, A., 2008. Emotion cycles: On the social influence of emotion in organizations.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 35-59.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., and Bell, M. P., 1998. Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion. The Academy of
Management Journal. 41(1), 96-107.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., Jundt, D., 2005. TEAMS IN ORGANIZATIONS: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56:517-543.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there?: The implications of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14 (4), 29-64.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., Neale, M. A., 1999. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 741-763 Jelinek, M. & Wilson, J. 2005. Macro Influences on Multicultural Teams. In: Shapiro, D.L., von Glionow, M.A. & Cheng, J.L.C (editors), Managing Multinational Teams: Global Perspectives, Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier: 209-231.
Jelinek, M. & Wilson, J. 2005. Macro Influences on Multicultural Teams. In: Shapiro, D.L., von Glionow, M.A. & Cheng, J.L.C (editors), Managing Multinational Teams: Global Perspectives, Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier: 209-231.
Jung, D. I., Sosik, J. J., 1999. Effects of group characteristics on work group performance: a longitudinal investigation. Group Dynamics. 3: 279-290.
Katz, R., 1982. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly. 27 (1), 81-104.
Katzenbach, J. R. & Smith, D. K., 1995. The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, March-April:
111-120.
Keller, R.T., 2001. Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44:547-555.
Kirton, M. J., 1989. A theory of cognitive style. In M. J. Kirton (Ed.). Adaptors and innovators.
Styles of creativity and problem-solving, London: Routledge, 1-36.
Kleinman, D. L. and Serfaty, D., 1989, Team performance assessment in distributed decisionmaking, Proceedings of the Symposium on Interactive Networked Simulation for Training , Orlando, 22-27.
Knight, D., Durham, C., & Locke, E. 2001. The relationship of team goals, incentives, and efficacy to strategic risk, tactical implementation, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 320-338.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., 1998. Training and developing adaptive teams: theory, principles, and research. See Cannon-Bowers & Salas 1998, pp. 115–153.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., Smith, E. M., 1999. Developing adaptive teams: a theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In The Changing Nature of Performance, ed. DR Ilgen, ED Pulakos, pp. 240–92. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Klein, K. J., 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations:
Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90).
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R., 2006. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3): 77-124.
Leonard, D. and Sensiper, S., 1998. The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation, California Management Review, 40(3), 112-132.
Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A., 2002, The Antecedents and Consequences of Group Potency: A Longitudinal Investigation of Newly Formed Work Groups, Academy of Management, 45(2),
65
352-368.
Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J., 1997. Virtual teams. In: Reaching Across Space, Time, and Organizations with Technology, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Little, B., & Madigan, R., 1997. The relationship between collective efficacy and performance in manufacturing work teams. Small Group Research, 28, 517-534.
Lynn, G.S. & Akgun, A.E., 1998. Innovation Strategies Under uncertainty: A Contingency Approach for New Product Development, Engineering management Journal, 10(3), 11-17.
Mansfield, E., 1991. Academic research and industrial innovation, Research Policy, 20, 1-12.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., &Zaccaro, S. J., 2001. A temporally based framework & taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26:356-765.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A., 2000. The influence of shared mental models on team process & performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2): 273-283.
McGrath, J.E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
McGrath, J. E., 1984. Groups: Interaction &performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Moreland, R. L., 1996. Lewin’s legacy for small groups research, Systems Practice, 9, 7–26.
Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration, Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.
Nieva, V.F., Fleishman, E.A., & Reick, A., 1978. Team dimensions: Their identity, their measurement, and their relationships. Washington, DC: ARRO.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge-creating company, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Paris, C. R., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J. A., 2000. Teamwork in multi-person systems: a review and analysis. Ergonomics, 43(8), 1052–1075.
Prahalad, C. K. & Hamel G., 1990, The Core Competence of the Corporation, Harvard Business Review, May-June: 79-91.
Prussia, G.E., & Kinicki, A.J. (1996). A motivational investigation of group effectiveness using social-cognitive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 187–198.
Ruffell-Smith, H. P., 1979, A Simulator Study of the Interaction of Pilot Workload with Errors. NASA technical report no. TM-78482 (MoVett Field: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Centre).
Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J. A., 2000, The anatomy of team training, in L. Tobias and D. Fletcher (eds), Handbook on Research in Training (New York: Macmillan).
Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I., 1992. Toward an understanding of team performance & training. In R. W. Swezy & E. Salas (Eds.), Team: Their training & performance, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Salas E, Rosen MA, Burke CS, Goodwin GF., 2008. The wisdom of collective in organizations: An Update of the Teamwork Competencies. In: Salas E, Goodwin GF, Burke CS, editors. Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches.
Salk, J. E., and Arya, B. 2005. Social performance learning in Multinational Corporations: Multicultural
Teams, their Social Capital and Use of Cross-Sector Alliances, Advances in International Management, 18, 189-207.
Scott, S.,&Bruce, R. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior:Apath model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580-607.
Selznick, P., 1957, Leadership in administration
Tuckman, 1965. Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6):384 -399.
Walter, F. and Bruch, H., 2008. The positive group affect spiral: a dynamic model of the emergence of positive affective similarity in work groups, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 239-261.
Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. E. ,Roberts, K. H., 1993. Collective mind in organizations : heedful interrelating on flight decks.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38,357–381.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355 – 387.
West, M.A., 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51:355-386.
West, M. A. and Farr, J. L., 1990. Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies
67
附錄一
團隊創新研究問卷
親愛的朋友，您好：
謝謝您百忙之中協助填寫團隊創新研究的問卷。本問卷有若干與您參與團 隊有關的問題組成，所有問題都沒有標准答案，無所謂「對、錯」和「好、
壞」，所以請您依照自己的意見仔細回答，您真實的回答才能保證本次調查結 果的真實性，也有助于本研究的順利進行。
此問卷純粹僅供學術研究之用，不會做為其它任何用途，您填答的所有資 料和答案絕對保密，而且我們只針對資料進行團體性的分析，並不對個別問卷 處理，請您放心據實填寫。
我們誠懇地邀請您協助探討團隊創新的相關意提，您的每項回答都會影響 到本研究的可信度。由於沒有回答完全或是隨意反應的問卷都會形成廢卷，將 平白浪費您寶貴的時間，故請您務必仔細回答所有的題目。所有回答所需時間 約 10 分鐘，並請您在填寫完後儘速將問卷交還給聯絡人。
衷心感謝您的合作，並祝您順利成功！
政治大學 創新與創造力研究中心 研究員 徐聯恩 博士 政治大學 管理碩士學程(AMBA)
研究生 高長瑞
聯絡電話：0930-729-046
電子郵件：iicray@gmail.com
第一部分：團隊創意和思考
第二部分：團隊創新實現
第三部分：團隊創新經驗
團隊經驗資料
1. 曾參與的團隊性質屬於：□新產品開發 □研發 □業務推展 □產品行銷 □虛擬團隊
□其它______________ (可複選)
2. 曾參與的團隊創新類型：□產品和服務創新 □管理創新 □製程創新 □基礎研究
□策略創新 □其它______________ (可複選)
3. 團隊所處組織的產業是：□電子電機科技 □資訊科技 □傳統製造 □行銷廣告
□電信服務 □多媒體相關(例如：戲劇、電影) □傳統服務 □教育機構 □政府機構
□其它行業______________ (可複選)
4. 在團隊中您曾擔任團隊領導者或具影響力之角色：□是 □否
個人基本資料
1. 您的性別是 □男 □女
2. 您的年齡是 □25 歲以下 □26~35 歲 □36~45 歲 □46~55 歲 □55 歲以上
3. 您的工作資歷是 □2 年以下 □3~5 年 □6~10 年 □11~20 年 □21 年以上
4. 曾經擔任的最高職務 □學生 □現場作業員 □一般職員 □基層主管或同級專業人員
□中階主管或同級專業人員 □高階主管或同級專業人員 □企業負責人
（問卷到此全部結束，再次感謝您協助填答!!）
71