1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 落差的意會：理解工程師與使用者之間對智慧型手機的不調合期望
Sensemaking Divided: Making Sense of Incongruent Expectations Towards Intelligent Mobile Phone Between Engineers and Users
作者 皇甫培倫
貢獻者 蕭瑞麟
皇甫培倫
關鍵詞 工程師
使用者
意會
智慧型手機
品牌
日期 2015
上傳時間 2-May-2016 13:50:53 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究以華碩Zenfone(禪風)手機為案例，探討產品開發工程師與使用者雙方對於智慧型手機期望的落差。從智慧型手機的三大主要功能---主機、相機、人機介面切入，分析工程師與使用者之科技意會落差，藉以反思華碩之智慧型手機之策略，及其創新的挑戰。
關於創新理論的探討，本研究引用了使用者創新理論、思維框架理論及科技意會理論，試著用正反合來辯證。使用者創新理論認為，產品開發人員應該從「領先使用者」身上找尋創新的點子。該理論說明了創新的來源，但對於開發人員要用甚麼方法與使用者互動「汲取」創新的點子，著墨不多。思維框架理論突顯開發人員與使用者擁有不同的思維脈絡，而這些思維框架造成雙方雞同鴨講，導致創新失敗。此理論說明了創新的阻礙，但卻未探討可以採取什麼行動，可以破除框架而創新。本研究主張要找出開發人員與使用者科技意會的落差，才能從落差中創新。首先，開發人員必須認知與使用者間存在著意會的落差，並思考造成落差的原因；釐造成落差的原因，才有機會克服這些障礙，從落差中汲取出創新的點子。
實務上，面對日新月異的產業及市場，建議華碩必須認知工程師與使用者間科技意會的落差，才能真正掌握消費者而持續地創新。提出的建議包括：工程師要更能傾聽消費者的悲鳴之聲；研發主管要能夠理解造成意會落差的原因，進而在管理機制上，盡量破除思維框架的制約；行銷人員要能夠扮演工程師與消費者間的橋梁，協助工程師看透意會落差，進而解讀出創新的點子。意會落差的自覺亦可延伸到其他產業，任何產業的開發人員，通常都是該產業的「專家」，而他們的思維框架使他們對於消費者的痛點視而不見。期望意會落差的自覺，能夠幫助大多數代工思維的台灣產業，提升創造價值的能力。
參考文獻 Alder, P., & Goldoftas, B. L., D. 1999. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeover in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10: 43-68.
Argyris, C. 1977. Double-loop Learning in Organizations. Harvard Business Review, September-October: 115-125.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ariely, D. 2008. Predictably Irrational: the Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. New York: HarperCollins.
Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., & von Hippel, E. 2006. How User Innovations Become Commercial Products: a Theoretical Investigation and Case Study. Research Policy, 35(9): 1291-1313.
Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. 2001. Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12(1): 76–95.
Bartel, C. A., & Garud, R. 2009. The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation. Organization Science, 20(1): 107-117.
Beath, C. M., & Orlikowski, W. J. 1994. The contradictory structure of systems development methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-user relationship in Information Engineering. Information Systems Research, 5(4): 350-378.
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. 2005. Understanding user response to information technology: a Coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3): 493-526.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.). 1987. The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Bloomfield, B. P., & Vurdubakis, T. 1997. Paper traces: Inscribing organizations and information technology. In B. P. Bloomfield, R. Coombs, D. Knights, & D. Littler (Eds.), Information Technology and Organisations: Strategies, Networks and Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brunsson, N. 1982. The Irrationality of Action and Action Rationality: Decisions, Ideologies and Organisational Action. Journal of Management Studies, 19(1): 29-44.
Davidson, E. J. 2002. Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quarterly, 26(4): 329-358.
Dougherty, D. 1992. A Practice-Centered Model of Organizational Renewal Through Product Innovation. Strategic Management Journal., 13: 77, 16 pgs.
Dunbar, R., & Garud, R. 2009. Distributed knowledge and indeterminate meaning: the Case of the Columbia Shuttle Flight. Organization Studies, 30(4): 397-421.
Edmondson, A. C. 2002. The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level. Organization Science, 13(2): 128-146.
Faraj, S., Kwon, D., & Watts, S. 2004. Contested artifact: Technology sensemaking, actor networks, and the shaping of the Web browser. Information Technology & People, 17(2): 186-209.
Forrester, J. W. 1994. System Dynamics, System Thinking, and Soft OR. System Dynamics Review, 10(2-3): 245-256.
Fulk, J. 1993. Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5): 921-950.
Garud, R., & Rappa, M. A. 1994. A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants. Organization Science, 5(3): 344-362.
Gopal, A., & Prasad, P. 2000. Understanding GDSS in symbolic context: Shifiting the focus from technology to interaction. MIS Quarterly, 24(3): 509-546.
Griffith, T. 1999. Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 472-488.
Harhoff, D., Henkel, J., & von Hippel, E. 2003. Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: How users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Research Policy, 32(10): 1753-1769.
Hienerth, C. 1987. The commercialization of user-innovation: The development of rodeo kayak industry. R&D Management, 36: 273-294.
Hsiao, R.-L., Wu, S. W., & Hou, S. T. 2008. Sensitive cabbies: Ongoing sense-making within technology structuring. Information and Organization, 18(4): 251–279.
Hsiao, R. L., Tsai, D. H., & Lee, C. F. 2006. The problem of knowledge embeddedness: Knowledge transfer, coordination and reuse in information systems. Organization Studies, 27(9): 1289–1317.
Jeppesen, L. B., & Frederiksen, L. 2006. Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user communities? the Case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organization Science, 17(1): 45-63.
Lee, Z., & Lee, J. 2000. An ERP implementation case study from knowledge transfer perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 15(4): 281-288.
Lin, A., & Silva, L. 2005. The social and political construction of technological frames. European Journal of Information Systems, 14: 49-59.
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.
March, J. G. 1978. Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice. Bell Journal of Economics, 9: 587-608.
Mitev, N. N. 1996. More than a Failure? The Computerized Reservation Systems at French Railways. Information Technology & People, 9(4): 8-19.
Morecroft, J. D. W. 1988. System Dynamics and Microworlds for Policymakers. European Journal of Operational Research, 35: 301-320.
Newell, S., Swan, J. A., & Galliers, R. D. 2000. A knowledge-focused perspective on the diffusion and adoption of complex information technologies: the BPR example. Information Systems Journal, 10(3): 239-259.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. 1994. Technology frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2): 174-207.
Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. 2003. How Users Matter: the Co-construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. 1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.
Schreier, M., Oberhauser, S., & Prugl, R. 2007. Lead users and the adoption and diffusion of new products: Insights from two extreme sports communities. Marketing Letters, 18(1/2): 15-30.
Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. In J. S. Ott (Ed.), Classic readings in organizational behavior, 1996 ed., Vol. 44: 506-513. Belmont: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
Simon, H. A. 1990. Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 125-134.
Spicer, A. 2005. The political process of inscribing a new technology. Human Relations, 58(7): 867-890.
Suchman, L. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
von Hippel, E. 1986. Lead users: a Source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7): 791-805.
von Hippel, E. 1988. The Sources of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
von Hippel, E. 2007. Horizontal innovation networks: by and for users. Industrial & Corporate Change, 16(2): 293-315.
von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. 2002. Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management Science, 48(7): 821-833.
Weick, K. E. 1990. Technology as equivoque: Sensemaking in new technologies. In P. S. Goodman, & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Technology and Organizations: 1-44. San Francisco.: Jossey-Bass.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)
101932082
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101932082
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 蕭瑞麟zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 皇甫培倫zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 皇甫培倫zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2015en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2-May-2016 13:50:53 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-May-2016 13:50:53 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-May-2016 13:50:53 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0101932082en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/89056-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 101932082zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究以華碩Zenfone(禪風)手機為案例，探討產品開發工程師與使用者雙方對於智慧型手機期望的落差。從智慧型手機的三大主要功能---主機、相機、人機介面切入，分析工程師與使用者之科技意會落差，藉以反思華碩之智慧型手機之策略，及其創新的挑戰。
關於創新理論的探討，本研究引用了使用者創新理論、思維框架理論及科技意會理論，試著用正反合來辯證。使用者創新理論認為，產品開發人員應該從「領先使用者」身上找尋創新的點子。該理論說明了創新的來源，但對於開發人員要用甚麼方法與使用者互動「汲取」創新的點子，著墨不多。思維框架理論突顯開發人員與使用者擁有不同的思維脈絡，而這些思維框架造成雙方雞同鴨講，導致創新失敗。此理論說明了創新的阻礙，但卻未探討可以採取什麼行動，可以破除框架而創新。本研究主張要找出開發人員與使用者科技意會的落差，才能從落差中創新。首先，開發人員必須認知與使用者間存在著意會的落差，並思考造成落差的原因；釐造成落差的原因，才有機會克服這些障礙，從落差中汲取出創新的點子。
實務上，面對日新月異的產業及市場，建議華碩必須認知工程師與使用者間科技意會的落差，才能真正掌握消費者而持續地創新。提出的建議包括：工程師要更能傾聽消費者的悲鳴之聲；研發主管要能夠理解造成意會落差的原因，進而在管理機制上，盡量破除思維框架的制約；行銷人員要能夠扮演工程師與消費者間的橋梁，協助工程師看透意會落差，進而解讀出創新的點子。意會落差的自覺亦可延伸到其他產業，任何產業的開發人員，通常都是該產業的「專家」，而他們的思維框架使他們對於消費者的痛點視而不見。期望意會落差的自覺，能夠幫助大多數代工思維的台灣產業，提升創造價值的能力。		zh_TW
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機 1
1.1.1實務動機 1
1.1.2理論動機 3
1.2 研究問題與目的 3
1.3 預期貢獻 6
第二章 文獻探討 9
2.1 使用者創新理論 9
2.2 使用者與設計者的互動 12
2.3 思維框架與意會落差 14
第三章 研究方法 19
3.1 方法論 19
3.2 案例選擇原則 20
3.3 分析架構與資料分析 22
3.4 資料收集 23
第四章 研究發現 29
4.1案例背景：禪風對上小米 29
4.2 「主機效能」為智慧型手機的基本條件 54
4.3 「相機功能」為智慧型手機的次要條件 61
4.4 「人機介面與外觀設計」為智慧型手機的第一印象 69
4.5造成意會落差的原因 77
第五章 討論 85
5.1 學術意涵 85
5.2實務啟示 88
5.3 研究限制與未來方向 92
第六章 結論 97
參考文獻 102		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2217647 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101932082en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 工程師zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 使用者zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 意會zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 智慧型手機zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 品牌zh_TW
dc.title (題名) 落差的意會：理解工程師與使用者之間對智慧型手機的不調合期望zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Sensemaking Divided: Making Sense of Incongruent Expectations Towards Intelligent Mobile Phone Between Engineers and Usersen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Alder, P., & Goldoftas, B. L., D. 1999. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeover in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10: 43-68.
Argyris, C. 1977. Double-loop Learning in Organizations. Harvard Business Review, September-October: 115-125.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ariely, D. 2008. Predictably Irrational: the Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. New York: HarperCollins.
Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., & von Hippel, E. 2006. How User Innovations Become Commercial Products: a Theoretical Investigation and Case Study. Research Policy, 35(9): 1291-1313.
Barley, S. R., & Kunda, G. 2001. Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12(1): 76–95.
Bartel, C. A., & Garud, R. 2009. The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation. Organization Science, 20(1): 107-117.
Beath, C. M., & Orlikowski, W. J. 1994. The contradictory structure of systems development methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-user relationship in Information Engineering. Information Systems Research, 5(4): 350-378.
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. 2005. Understanding user response to information technology: a Coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3): 493-526.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.). 1987. The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Bloomfield, B. P., & Vurdubakis, T. 1997. Paper traces: Inscribing organizations and information technology. In B. P. Bloomfield, R. Coombs, D. Knights, & D. Littler (Eds.), Information Technology and Organisations: Strategies, Networks and Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brunsson, N. 1982. The Irrationality of Action and Action Rationality: Decisions, Ideologies and Organisational Action. Journal of Management Studies, 19(1): 29-44.
Davidson, E. J. 2002. Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quarterly, 26(4): 329-358.
Dougherty, D. 1992. A Practice-Centered Model of Organizational Renewal Through Product Innovation. Strategic Management Journal., 13: 77, 16 pgs.
Dunbar, R., & Garud, R. 2009. Distributed knowledge and indeterminate meaning: the Case of the Columbia Shuttle Flight. Organization Studies, 30(4): 397-421.
Edmondson, A. C. 2002. The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level. Organization Science, 13(2): 128-146.
Faraj, S., Kwon, D., & Watts, S. 2004. Contested artifact: Technology sensemaking, actor networks, and the shaping of the Web browser. Information Technology & People, 17(2): 186-209.
Forrester, J. W. 1994. System Dynamics, System Thinking, and Soft OR. System Dynamics Review, 10(2-3): 245-256.
Fulk, J. 1993. Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5): 921-950.
Garud, R., & Rappa, M. A. 1994. A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants. Organization Science, 5(3): 344-362.
Gopal, A., & Prasad, P. 2000. Understanding GDSS in symbolic context: Shifiting the focus from technology to interaction. MIS Quarterly, 24(3): 509-546.
Griffith, T. 1999. Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 472-488.
Harhoff, D., Henkel, J., & von Hippel, E. 2003. Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: How users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Research Policy, 32(10): 1753-1769.
Hienerth, C. 1987. The commercialization of user-innovation: The development of rodeo kayak industry. R&D Management, 36: 273-294.
Hsiao, R.-L., Wu, S. W., & Hou, S. T. 2008. Sensitive cabbies: Ongoing sense-making within technology structuring. Information and Organization, 18(4): 251–279.
Hsiao, R. L., Tsai, D. H., & Lee, C. F. 2006. The problem of knowledge embeddedness: Knowledge transfer, coordination and reuse in information systems. Organization Studies, 27(9): 1289–1317.
Jeppesen, L. B., & Frederiksen, L. 2006. Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user communities? the Case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organization Science, 17(1): 45-63.
Lee, Z., & Lee, J. 2000. An ERP implementation case study from knowledge transfer perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 15(4): 281-288.
Lin, A., & Silva, L. 2005. The social and political construction of technological frames. European Journal of Information Systems, 14: 49-59.
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.
March, J. G. 1978. Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice. Bell Journal of Economics, 9: 587-608.
Mitev, N. N. 1996. More than a Failure? The Computerized Reservation Systems at French Railways. Information Technology & People, 9(4): 8-19.
Morecroft, J. D. W. 1988. System Dynamics and Microworlds for Policymakers. European Journal of Operational Research, 35: 301-320.
Newell, S., Swan, J. A., & Galliers, R. D. 2000. A knowledge-focused perspective on the diffusion and adoption of complex information technologies: the BPR example. Information Systems Journal, 10(3): 239-259.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. 1994. Technology frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2): 174-207.
Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. 2003. How Users Matter: the Co-construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. 1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.
Schreier, M., Oberhauser, S., & Prugl, R. 2007. Lead users and the adoption and diffusion of new products: Insights from two extreme sports communities. Marketing Letters, 18(1/2): 15-30.
Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. In J. S. Ott (Ed.), Classic readings in organizational behavior, 1996 ed., Vol. 44: 506-513. Belmont: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
Simon, H. A. 1990. Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 125-134.
Spicer, A. 2005. The political process of inscribing a new technology. Human Relations, 58(7): 867-890.
Suchman, L. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
von Hippel, E. 1986. Lead users: a Source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7): 791-805.
von Hippel, E. 1988. The Sources of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
von Hippel, E. 2007. Horizontal innovation networks: by and for users. Industrial & Corporate Change, 16(2): 293-315.
von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. 2002. Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management Science, 48(7): 821-833.
Weick, K. E. 1990. Technology as equivoque: Sensemaking in new technologies. In P. S. Goodman, & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Technology and Organizations: 1-44. San Francisco.: Jossey-Bass.		zh_TW