學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 思維落差：以使用者意會槓動銀行虛實整合服務
Mind the Gap: Leveraging User Sensemaking for O2O (Online to Offline) Banking Services作者 周玥彤
Chou, Yueh Tung貢獻者 蕭瑞麟
Hsiao, Ruey Lin
周玥彤
Chou, Yueh Tung關鍵詞 使用者創新
意會
人物誌
虛實整合
服務創新
設計原則
期望落差
user innovation.
sensemaking
persona
O2O integration
service innovation
design principles
expectation gap日期 2016 上傳時間 2-Sep-2016 01:29:46 (UTC+8) 摘要 數位經濟的起飛，讓BANK 3.0浪潮持續蔓延，對金融業造成衝擊。在網路與行動科技日新月異下，人們的生活及消費習慣逐漸改變。透過虛擬通路可以取代實體通路的服務，使用者能隨時隨地利用網際網路的連線取得資訊，也能即時掌握資訊，不再仰賴單一管道。本研究探討使用者如何意會這樣的複合的金融服務。本研究將以人物誌描繪使用者的行為特徵，解讀開源與節流的脈絡，理解使用者的理財行為與需求。本研究將提出一般性商業銀行的現行做法作為案例，點出設計者與使用者之間的期望落差。在理論貢獻上，本研究以科技意會之落差點出設計原則，補強使用者創新理論。在實務貢獻上，本研究建構一套方法來分析則銀行的服務設計，由開源節流脈絡理解使用者需求，提出虛實整合的服務模式。本研究指出，創新的來源的確源自使用者，但必須理解使用者對服務的意會，找出設計者與使用者之間的期望落差。如此，設計者便能夠找出虛實配套的服務體驗。
The financial industry has been impacted by the trend of BANK 3.0 and digital economy. People`s living patterns and consumption habits have been rapidly changed by technology innovations such as Internet and wearable devices. Users can access to information on the Internet at anytime and anywhere without relying on single source, especially when physical channels have been replaced by digital ones. This research employs persona to examine users’ behaviors in a context of income generation and expenditure control, and explore how users make sense of the existing financial services so as to understand how users’ needs in financial management. This study analyzes the expectation gap between the designer (bank) and the user. A leading banking service provider is used as a case study for this investigation. In the theoretical implication, this research enhances the user innovation theory by pointing out the design principles stemmed from the expectation gap. In the practical implication, this research suggests a mixed method to for offer O2O (Online to Offline) banking services, which provides various ways of service innovation. This study indicates that the source of innovation does come from users; but such an understanding must be grounded in expectation discrepancies between the designer and users. As such, the designer is able to identify the most suitable combination of O2O services for better user experience.參考文獻 一、中文部分李函俞，2012，「使用者的科技意會、矛盾與採納：以智慧型手機為例」，國立臺灣科技大學企業管理系碩士班。皇甫培倫，2015，「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」，國立政治大學商學院經營管理碩士學程。侯勝宗、樊學良，2011，「負面科技意會的前因與科技採用：臺灣大車隊實證研究」，管理評論，30卷3期：73~91。蕭瑞麟，2007，不用數字的研究：鍛鍊深度思考力的質性研究（二版）。新北市：臺灣培生教育。蕭瑞麟、侯勝宗、歐素華，2011，「演化科技意會—衛星派遣科技的人性軌」，資訊管理學報，18卷4期：91~118。二、英文部分Baldwin, C., & von Hippel, E. 2011. Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22(6): 1399-1417.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. 1987. The social construction of bakelite: Toward a theory of invention. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. F. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: 159-187. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.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.Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. 2008. Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3): 66-94.Bloomfield, B. P. 1986. Modelling the world: The social construction of system analysts. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Brown, T. 2009. Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Collins.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.Franke, N., & von Hippel, E. 2003. Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: The case of Apache security software. Research Policy, 32(7): 1199-1215.Fulk, J. 1993. Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5): 921-950.Gladwell, M. 2000. The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston: Little, Brown.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.Hienerth, C. 1987. The commercialization of user-innovation: The development of rodeo kayak industry. R&D Management, 36: 273-294.Hinsch, M. E., Stockstrom, C., & Lüthje, C. 2014. User innovation in techniques: A case study analysis in the field of medical devices. Creativity & Innovation Management, 23(4): 484-494.Hopkins, M. M., Tidd, J., Nightingale, P., & Miller, R. 2011. Generative and degenerative interactions: Positive and negative dynamics of open, user-centric innovation in technology and engineering consultancies. R&D Management, 41(1): 44-60.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.Idoughi, D., Seffah, A., & Kolski, C. 2012. Adding user experience into the interactive service design loop: A persona-based approach. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(3): 287-303.Lie, V., Van Slyke, C., & Green, G. 2005. Gender differences in perceptions and use of communication technologies: A diffusion of innovation approach. Information Resources Management Journal, 18(3): 13-31.Lilien, G. L., Morrison, P. D., Searls, K., Sonnack, M., & Von Hippel, E. 2002. Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product development. Management Science, 48(8): 1042-1059.Liu, K., Crum, G., & Dines, K. 1998. Design issues in a semiotic description of user responses to three interfaces. Behaviour & Information Technology, 17(3): 175-184.Ludwig, S., de Ruyter, K., Mahr, D., Wetzels, M., Brüggen, E., & de Ruyck, T. 2014. Take thier word for it: The symbolic role of linguistic style matches in user communites. MIS Quarterly, 38(4): 1201-1218.Luthje, C., Herstatt, C., & von Hippel, E. 2005. User-innovators and `local` information: The case of mountain bike. Research Policy, 34: 951-965.Mahr, D., & Lievens, A. 2012. Virtual lead user communities: Drivers of knowledge creation for innovation. Research Policy, 41(1): 167-177.Nambisan, S., Agarwal, R., & Tanniru, M. 1999. Organizational mechanisms for enhancing user innovation in information technology. MIS Quarterly, 23(3): 365-395.Newman, M., & Robey, D. 1992. A social process model of user-analyst relationships. MIS Quarterly, 16(2): 249-267.Orlikowski, W. J. 1993. Learning from notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation. Information Society,, 9(3): 237-251.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.Ornetzeder, M., & Rohracher, H. 2006. User-led innovations and participation processes: Lessons from sustainable energy technologies. Energy Policy, 34(2): 138-150.Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. 2003. How Users Matter: the Co-construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., & Stienstra, M. 2004. Configuring the user as everybody: Gender and design cultures in information and communication technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29(1): 30-63.Pinkley, R. L., & Northcraft, G. B. 1994. Conflict frames of reference: Implications for dispute processes and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1): 193-205.Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.Schweisfurth, T. G., & Herstatt, C. 2016. How internal users contribute to corporate product innovation: the case of embedded users. R&D Management, 46: 107-126.Shah, S. K. 2006. Motivation, governance, and the viability of hybrid forms in open source software development. Management Science, 52(7): 1000-1014.Silverman, B. G., Holmes, J., Kimmel, S., Branas, C., Ivins, D., Weaver, R., & Chen, Y. 2001. Modeling emotion and behavior in animated personas to facilitate human behavior change: The case of the HEART-SENSE Game. Health Care Management Science, 4(3): 213-228.van Oost, E. 2005. Material gender: How shavers configure the users’ femininity and masculinity. In N. Oudshoorn, & T. Pinch (Eds.), How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Boston: The MIT Press.van Oost, E., Verhaegh, S., & Oudshoorn, N. 2009. From innovation community to community innovation: User-initiated innovation in Wireless Leiden. Science, Technology & Human Values, 34(2): 182-205.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. 1994. `Sticky information` and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4): 429-439.von Hippel, E. 2001. Innovation by user communities: Learning from open-source software. Sloan Management Review, 42(4): 82-86.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.Wilson, M. 2004. A conceptual framework for studying gender in information systems research. Journal of Information Technology, 19(1): 81-92.Yin, R. K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, California: Sage.Zhang, K. Z. K., Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., & Chen, H. 2009. Understanding the role of gender in bloggers` switching behavior. Decision Support Systems, 47(4): 540-546. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
103364107資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103364107 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 蕭瑞麟 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Hsiao, Ruey Lin en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 周玥彤 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chou, Yueh Tung en_US dc.creator (作者) 周玥彤 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chou, Yueh Tung en_US dc.date (日期) 2016 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Sep-2016 01:29:46 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Sep-2016 01:29:46 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Sep-2016 01:29:46 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0103364107 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/101240 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 科技管理與智慧財產研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 103364107 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 數位經濟的起飛，讓BANK 3.0浪潮持續蔓延，對金融業造成衝擊。在網路與行動科技日新月異下，人們的生活及消費習慣逐漸改變。透過虛擬通路可以取代實體通路的服務，使用者能隨時隨地利用網際網路的連線取得資訊，也能即時掌握資訊，不再仰賴單一管道。本研究探討使用者如何意會這樣的複合的金融服務。本研究將以人物誌描繪使用者的行為特徵，解讀開源與節流的脈絡，理解使用者的理財行為與需求。本研究將提出一般性商業銀行的現行做法作為案例，點出設計者與使用者之間的期望落差。在理論貢獻上，本研究以科技意會之落差點出設計原則，補強使用者創新理論。在實務貢獻上，本研究建構一套方法來分析則銀行的服務設計，由開源節流脈絡理解使用者需求，提出虛實整合的服務模式。本研究指出，創新的來源的確源自使用者，但必須理解使用者對服務的意會，找出設計者與使用者之間的期望落差。如此，設計者便能夠找出虛實配套的服務體驗。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The financial industry has been impacted by the trend of BANK 3.0 and digital economy. People`s living patterns and consumption habits have been rapidly changed by technology innovations such as Internet and wearable devices. Users can access to information on the Internet at anytime and anywhere without relying on single source, especially when physical channels have been replaced by digital ones. This research employs persona to examine users’ behaviors in a context of income generation and expenditure control, and explore how users make sense of the existing financial services so as to understand how users’ needs in financial management. This study analyzes the expectation gap between the designer (bank) and the user. A leading banking service provider is used as a case study for this investigation. In the theoretical implication, this research enhances the user innovation theory by pointing out the design principles stemmed from the expectation gap. In the practical implication, this research suggests a mixed method to for offer O2O (Online to Offline) banking services, which provides various ways of service innovation. This study indicates that the source of innovation does come from users; but such an understanding must be grounded in expectation discrepancies between the designer and users. As such, the designer is able to identify the most suitable combination of O2O services for better user experience. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 壹、緒論 1一、研究動機 1（一）外行變內行：非金融業者分食金融大餅 1（二）差異化體驗：線上到線下整合服務 2（三）以使用者為導向來創新 4二、研究目的 5三、預期成效 6貳、文獻回顧 8一、定義使用者創新 8二、使用者創新：功能面 9二、使用者創新：文化面 11三、理論缺口：認知面的意會 15參、研究方法 19一、方法論：個案研究法 19二、案例選擇與說明 20（一）目標客群選擇 21（二）個案公司選擇 24三、分析架構 25四、資料蒐集 27五、資料分析 33肆、研究發現 37一、服優銀行：虛實整合先趨者 37（一）實體服務背後的設計原則 38（二）虛擬服務背後的設計原則 41二、人物誌分析：明日之星 43（一）錢立谷的行為特徵 44（二）錢立谷的節流與開源 47三、節流脈絡：金融卡、信用卡、數位支付 49（一）以金融卡節流（辦公事務） 50（二）以信用卡節流（生活娛樂） 52（三）以數位支付節流（便利消費） 56（四）節流脈絡：明日之星的痛點分析 58四、開源脈絡：定存、外匯、基金 60(一) 以定存開源（結婚基金） 61(二) 以外匯開源（出國出差） 63(三) 以基金開源（買房買車） 66(四) 開源脈絡：明日之星的痛點分析 68五、落差的意會 70(一) 節流意會的落差 71(二) 開源意會的落差 75陸、討論 80一、理論貢獻 80(一) 科技意會的貢獻 80(二) 對比落差的重要性 82(三) 設計原則的重要性 82二、實務貢獻 83(一) 以開源節流脈絡理解需求 83(二) 以期望落差思考服務設計 84(三) 以虛實整合創新銀行服務 85三、研究限制 92陸、結論 94參考文獻 95(一) 中文參考文獻 95(二) 英文參考文獻 95附件：論文口試答辯稿 100 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1660178 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103364107 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 使用者創新 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 意會 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 人物誌 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 虛實整合 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 服務創新 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 設計原則 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 期望落差 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) user innovation. en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) sensemaking en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) persona en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) O2O integration en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) service innovation en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) design principles en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) expectation gap en_US dc.title (題名) 思維落差：以使用者意會槓動銀行虛實整合服務 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Mind the Gap: Leveraging User Sensemaking for O2O (Online to Offline) Banking Services en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文部分李函俞，2012，「使用者的科技意會、矛盾與採納：以智慧型手機為例」，國立臺灣科技大學企業管理系碩士班。皇甫培倫，2015，「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」，國立政治大學商學院經營管理碩士學程。侯勝宗、樊學良，2011，「負面科技意會的前因與科技採用：臺灣大車隊實證研究」，管理評論，30卷3期：73~91。蕭瑞麟，2007，不用數字的研究：鍛鍊深度思考力的質性研究（二版）。新北市：臺灣培生教育。蕭瑞麟、侯勝宗、歐素華，2011，「演化科技意會—衛星派遣科技的人性軌」，資訊管理學報，18卷4期：91~118。二、英文部分Baldwin, C., & von Hippel, E. 2011. Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22(6): 1399-1417.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. 1987. The social construction of bakelite: Toward a theory of invention. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. F. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: 159-187. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.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.Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. 2008. Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3): 66-94.Bloomfield, B. P. 1986. Modelling the world: The social construction of system analysts. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Brown, T. 2009. Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Collins.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.Franke, N., & von Hippel, E. 2003. Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: The case of Apache security software. Research Policy, 32(7): 1199-1215.Fulk, J. 1993. Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5): 921-950.Gladwell, M. 2000. The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston: Little, Brown.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.Hienerth, C. 1987. The commercialization of user-innovation: The development of rodeo kayak industry. R&D Management, 36: 273-294.Hinsch, M. E., Stockstrom, C., & Lüthje, C. 2014. User innovation in techniques: A case study analysis in the field of medical devices. Creativity & Innovation Management, 23(4): 484-494.Hopkins, M. M., Tidd, J., Nightingale, P., & Miller, R. 2011. Generative and degenerative interactions: Positive and negative dynamics of open, user-centric innovation in technology and engineering consultancies. R&D Management, 41(1): 44-60.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.Idoughi, D., Seffah, A., & Kolski, C. 2012. Adding user experience into the interactive service design loop: A persona-based approach. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(3): 287-303.Lie, V., Van Slyke, C., & Green, G. 2005. Gender differences in perceptions and use of communication technologies: A diffusion of innovation approach. Information Resources Management Journal, 18(3): 13-31.Lilien, G. L., Morrison, P. D., Searls, K., Sonnack, M., & Von Hippel, E. 2002. Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product development. Management Science, 48(8): 1042-1059.Liu, K., Crum, G., & Dines, K. 1998. Design issues in a semiotic description of user responses to three interfaces. Behaviour & Information Technology, 17(3): 175-184.Ludwig, S., de Ruyter, K., Mahr, D., Wetzels, M., Brüggen, E., & de Ruyck, T. 2014. Take thier word for it: The symbolic role of linguistic style matches in user communites. MIS Quarterly, 38(4): 1201-1218.Luthje, C., Herstatt, C., & von Hippel, E. 2005. User-innovators and `local` information: The case of mountain bike. Research Policy, 34: 951-965.Mahr, D., & Lievens, A. 2012. Virtual lead user communities: Drivers of knowledge creation for innovation. Research Policy, 41(1): 167-177.Nambisan, S., Agarwal, R., & Tanniru, M. 1999. Organizational mechanisms for enhancing user innovation in information technology. MIS Quarterly, 23(3): 365-395.Newman, M., & Robey, D. 1992. A social process model of user-analyst relationships. MIS Quarterly, 16(2): 249-267.Orlikowski, W. J. 1993. Learning from notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation. Information Society,, 9(3): 237-251.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.Ornetzeder, M., & Rohracher, H. 2006. User-led innovations and participation processes: Lessons from sustainable energy technologies. Energy Policy, 34(2): 138-150.Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. 2003. How Users Matter: the Co-construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., & Stienstra, M. 2004. Configuring the user as everybody: Gender and design cultures in information and communication technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29(1): 30-63.Pinkley, R. L., & Northcraft, G. B. 1994. Conflict frames of reference: Implications for dispute processes and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1): 193-205.Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.Schweisfurth, T. G., & Herstatt, C. 2016. How internal users contribute to corporate product innovation: the case of embedded users. R&D Management, 46: 107-126.Shah, S. K. 2006. Motivation, governance, and the viability of hybrid forms in open source software development. Management Science, 52(7): 1000-1014.Silverman, B. G., Holmes, J., Kimmel, S., Branas, C., Ivins, D., Weaver, R., & Chen, Y. 2001. Modeling emotion and behavior in animated personas to facilitate human behavior change: The case of the HEART-SENSE Game. Health Care Management Science, 4(3): 213-228.van Oost, E. 2005. Material gender: How shavers configure the users’ femininity and masculinity. In N. Oudshoorn, & T. Pinch (Eds.), How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Boston: The MIT Press.van Oost, E., Verhaegh, S., & Oudshoorn, N. 2009. From innovation community to community innovation: User-initiated innovation in Wireless Leiden. Science, Technology & Human Values, 34(2): 182-205.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. 1994. `Sticky information` and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4): 429-439.von Hippel, E. 2001. Innovation by user communities: Learning from open-source software. Sloan Management Review, 42(4): 82-86.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.Wilson, M. 2004. A conceptual framework for studying gender in information systems research. Journal of Information Technology, 19(1): 81-92.Yin, R. K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, California: Sage.Zhang, K. Z. K., Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., & Chen, H. 2009. Understanding the role of gender in bloggers` switching behavior. Decision Support Systems, 47(4): 540-546. zh_TW
