1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 於區塊鏈數位生態系統的設計中透過賦權促進利害關係人的集體貢獻度
Applying Empowerment Strategy to Facilitate Collective Commitment toward Shared Goal of Stakeholders within a Blockchain-based Digital Ecosystem Design
作者 郭閎中
貢獻者 苑守慈
郭閎中
關鍵詞 區塊鏈
數位生態系統
賦權
效能理論
集體承諾
Blockchain
Digital ecosystem
Empowerment
Efficacy
Collective commitment
日期 2017
上傳時間 28-Aug-2017 11:26:23 (UTC+8)
摘要 區塊鏈原為支援比特幣交易所提出的一項分散式演算法，然而，近期各個產業開始對其感到興趣，並在各領域催生出了許多破壞式創新的應用服務。然而其去中心化的特質，使得利害關係人的溝通和資源管理在區塊鏈生態系統中更具挑戰性，並且也興起了許多相關議題。
本研究以賦權理論的觀點去檢視這些議題，並提出方法論來解決改善這些議題，期望能夠加速輔助創業家或服務設計者建立去中心化生態系統的過程，並且讓每位利害關係人認知整個生態系統的共同的目標，進一步的為之作出貢獻，達到能力和資源的綜效。
Blockchain, a de-centralized infrastructure which can breed many kinds of disruptive applications, is a promising platform for next generation digital ecosystems. All applications built upon blockchain benefits multiple advantages, including transactions manageability, scalability, security, visibility, affordability, high availability, etc.
However, stakeholder management in blockchain-based businesses will become a very challenging issue for entrepreneurs to deal with their de-centralize characteristics. Without the management and enforcement of a central party, creating collective efficacy and achieving collective commitment among all stakeholders will be crucial for these entrepreneurs.
This research adopts the empowerment perspective to propose a method to solve this issue and facilitate the design of a blockchain ecosystem toward collective efficacy. The method can be divided into three parts. The first is to analyze and collect necessary data from the source of business logic in the context of blockchain smart contract. The second is to utilize these data and liquefy the resources available in the current ecosystem so that the stakeholders can empower each other without the support of central party. The third is to measure the degree of collective efficacy and collective commitment in the ecosystem design in order to identify the effectiveness of our empowerment method.
參考文獻 Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, Self‐Efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned Behavior1. Journal of applied social psychology, 32(4), 665-683.
Alsop, R., Bertelsen, M. F., & Holland, J. (2006). Empowerment in practice: From analysis to implementation. World Bank Publications.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy.Current directions in psychological science, 9(3), 75-78.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. Self-efficacy in changing societies, 15, 334.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 154-196.
Bailey, D. (1992). Using participatory research in community consortia development and evaluation: Lessons from the beginning of a story. The American Sociologist, 23(4), 71-82.
Buterin, V. (2014). A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. white paper.
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of consumer research, 15(4), 473-481.
Brito, J., & Castillo, A. (2013). Bitcoin: A primer for policymakers. Published by Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
COOPER, C., GILBERT, D., & WANHILL, S. (1998). John FLETCHER a Rebecca SHEPHERD. Tourism: principles and practice, 2.
Chou, C. Y., & Yuan, S. T. (2015). Service-driven social community and its relation to well-being. The Service Industries Journal, 35(7-8), 368-387.
Eyben, R., Kabeer, N., & Cornwall, A. (2008). Conceptualising empowerment and the implications for pro-poor growth: a paper for the DAC Poverty Network.
Grusky, O. (1966). Career mobility and organzational commitment.Administrative Science Quarterly, 488-503.
Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., & Voima, P. (2013). Customer dominant value formation in service. European Business Review, 25(2), 104-123.
Jentzsch, C. Decentralized autonomous organization to automate governance.
Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. American sociological review, 499-517.
Kabeer, N., United Nations, & United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. (1999). The conditions and consequences of choice: reflections on the measurement of women`s empowerment (Vol. 108, pp. 1-58). Geneva: UNRISD.
Khwaja, A. I. (2005). Measuring empowerment at the community level: An economist’s perspective. Measuring Empowerment: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (W ashington DC, The W orld Bank), 267-284.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational linkage: the psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York, NY.: Academic Press. NHS Information centre (2008). Statistics/Data Collections-Prescriptions, available from www. ic. nhs. uk. Accessed, 10(3), 2008.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of vocational behavior, 14(2), 224-247.
Fecher, B. (2016). Blockchain for science and knowledge.
Narayan-Parker, D. (Ed.). (2002). Empowerment and poverty reduction: A sourcebook. World Bank Publications.
Page, N., & Czuba, C. E. (1999). Empowerment: What is it. Journal of extension, 37(5), 1-5.
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American journal of community psychology,15(2), 121-148.
Rosenthal, E. C. (2006). The era of choice: the ability to choose and its transformation of contemporary life. Mit Press.
Riggs, M. L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. (1994). Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications. Educational and psychological measurement, 54(3), 793-802.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.
Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment is too easy!. Organizational Dynamics,6(1), 62-80.
Swan, M. (2015). Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. " O`Reilly Media, Inc.".
Strong, K. C., Ringer, R. C., & Taylor, S. A. (2001). THE* rules of stakeholder satisfaction (* Timeliness, honesty, empathy). Journal of Business Ethics, 32(3), 219-230.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization science,4(4), 577-594.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates` attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors` appraisals of leader performance. Academy of management journal, 41(4), 387-409.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological reports, 51(2), 663-671.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). From goods to service (s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254-259.
Wright, A., & De Filippi, P. (2015). Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of lex cryptographia. Available at SSRN 2580664.
Wiener, Y., & Gechman, A. S. (1977). Commitment: A behavioral approach to job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10(1), 47-52.
Yusuf, M. (2011). The impact of self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and self-regulated learning strategies on students’ academic achievement.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2623-2626.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn.Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
資訊管理學系
104356024
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104356024
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 苑守慈zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 郭閎中zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 郭閎中zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2017en_US
dc.date.accessioned 28-Aug-2017 11:26:23 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 28-Aug-2017 11:26:23 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 28-Aug-2017 11:26:23 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0104356024en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112157-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 資訊管理學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 104356024zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 區塊鏈原為支援比特幣交易所提出的一項分散式演算法，然而，近期各個產業開始對其感到興趣，並在各領域催生出了許多破壞式創新的應用服務。然而其去中心化的特質，使得利害關係人的溝通和資源管理在區塊鏈生態系統中更具挑戰性，並且也興起了許多相關議題。
本研究以賦權理論的觀點去檢視這些議題，並提出方法論來解決改善這些議題，期望能夠加速輔助創業家或服務設計者建立去中心化生態系統的過程，並且讓每位利害關係人認知整個生態系統的共同的目標，進一步的為之作出貢獻，達到能力和資源的綜效。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Blockchain, a de-centralized infrastructure which can breed many kinds of disruptive applications, is a promising platform for next generation digital ecosystems. All applications built upon blockchain benefits multiple advantages, including transactions manageability, scalability, security, visibility, affordability, high availability, etc.
However, stakeholder management in blockchain-based businesses will become a very challenging issue for entrepreneurs to deal with their de-centralize characteristics. Without the management and enforcement of a central party, creating collective efficacy and achieving collective commitment among all stakeholders will be crucial for these entrepreneurs.
This research adopts the empowerment perspective to propose a method to solve this issue and facilitate the design of a blockchain ecosystem toward collective efficacy. The method can be divided into three parts. The first is to analyze and collect necessary data from the source of business logic in the context of blockchain smart contract. The second is to utilize these data and liquefy the resources available in the current ecosystem so that the stakeholders can empower each other without the support of central party. The third is to measure the degree of collective efficacy and collective commitment in the ecosystem design in order to identify the effectiveness of our empowerment method.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Chapter 1 Introduction 9
1.1 Background and Motivation 9
1.2 Research Question 11
1.3 Research Method 14
1.4 Purpose and Contribution 16
1.5 Content Organization 16
Chapter 2 Literature Review 18
2.1 Empowerment 18
2.2 Blockchain 20
2.3 Efficacy 24
2.4 Commitment 27
Chapter 3 D3 Accelerator Project 30
3.1 Conceptual Framework of D3 Accelerator 30
3.2 System Architecture of D3 Accelerator 32
3.3 The System Flow of D3 Accelerator 33
Chapter 4 Methodology 37
4.1 Conceptual Framework 37
4.2 System Architecture 44
4.3 Data gathering stage 47
4.3.1 Smart properties analysis module 49
4.3.2 Value activities analysis module 53
4.4 Empowerment stage 57
4.4.1 Empowerment module 57
4.5 Evaluation stage 60
4.5.1 Index measurement module 60
Chapter 5 Application and Scenario 65
5.1 Background and Motivation of BlockFarm 65
5.2 Introduction of BlockFarm 66
5.3 User Application Scenario 67
First Encounter Point: Wallet Address Registration 67
Second Encounter Point: Alignment Selection 68
Third Encounter Point: Planting Crops 68
Forth Encounter Point: Crop Trades 70
Fifth Encounter Point: Questionnaires 74
5.4 Designer implementation scenario 75
5.4.1 Designing stage 75
5.4.2 Data gathering stage 76
5.4.3 Empowerment stage 77
5.4.4 Implementation stage 78
Chapter 6 Evaluation 80
6.1 Propositions 80
6.1.1 Assumptions 81
6.2 Experiments 81
6.2.1 Resource Evaluation 83
6.2.2 Influence Evaluation 85
6.2.3 Self-efficacy 89
6.2.4 Collective efficacy 91
6.5 Discussion of Findings 94
Chapter 7 Conclusion 98
7.1 Research contributions 98
7.1.1 Academic Implications 98
7.1.2 Managerial Implications 98
7.2 Limitations and future work 99
Appendix A - Questionnaire 101
Appendix B - Empowerment questionnaire result 104
Stage 1 104
Stage 2 105
Appendix C - Influence questionnaire result 107
Stage 1 107
Stage 2 108
Appendix D - Self-efficacy questionnaire result 110
Stage 1 110
Stage 2 111
Appendix E - Collective efficacy questionnaire result 113
Stage 1 113
Stage 2 114
Appendix F – User gaming data (partial) 116
Appendix G – Property rating data (partial) 118
Appendix H – Transaction data (partial) 121
References 123		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1741603 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104356024en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 區塊鏈zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 數位生態系統zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 賦權zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 效能理論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 集體承諾zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Blockchainen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Digital ecosystemen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Empowermenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Efficacyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Collective commitmenten_US
dc.title (題名) 於區塊鏈數位生態系統的設計中透過賦權促進利害關係人的集體貢獻度zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Applying Empowerment Strategy to Facilitate Collective Commitment toward Shared Goal of Stakeholders within a Blockchain-based Digital Ecosystem Designen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, Self‐Efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned Behavior1. Journal of applied social psychology, 32(4), 665-683.
Alsop, R., Bertelsen, M. F., & Holland, J. (2006). Empowerment in practice: From analysis to implementation. World Bank Publications.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy.Current directions in psychological science, 9(3), 75-78.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. Self-efficacy in changing societies, 15, 334.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 154-196.
Bailey, D. (1992). Using participatory research in community consortia development and evaluation: Lessons from the beginning of a story. The American Sociologist, 23(4), 71-82.
Buterin, V. (2014). A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. white paper.
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of consumer research, 15(4), 473-481.
Brito, J., & Castillo, A. (2013). Bitcoin: A primer for policymakers. Published by Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
COOPER, C., GILBERT, D., & WANHILL, S. (1998). John FLETCHER a Rebecca SHEPHERD. Tourism: principles and practice, 2.
Chou, C. Y., & Yuan, S. T. (2015). Service-driven social community and its relation to well-being. The Service Industries Journal, 35(7-8), 368-387.
Eyben, R., Kabeer, N., & Cornwall, A. (2008). Conceptualising empowerment and the implications for pro-poor growth: a paper for the DAC Poverty Network.
Grusky, O. (1966). Career mobility and organzational commitment.Administrative Science Quarterly, 488-503.
Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., & Voima, P. (2013). Customer dominant value formation in service. European Business Review, 25(2), 104-123.
Jentzsch, C. Decentralized autonomous organization to automate governance.
Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. American sociological review, 499-517.
Kabeer, N., United Nations, & United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. (1999). The conditions and consequences of choice: reflections on the measurement of women`s empowerment (Vol. 108, pp. 1-58). Geneva: UNRISD.
Khwaja, A. I. (2005). Measuring empowerment at the community level: An economist’s perspective. Measuring Empowerment: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (W ashington DC, The W orld Bank), 267-284.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational linkage: the psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York, NY.: Academic Press. NHS Information centre (2008). Statistics/Data Collections-Prescriptions, available from www. ic. nhs. uk. Accessed, 10(3), 2008.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of vocational behavior, 14(2), 224-247.
Fecher, B. (2016). Blockchain for science and knowledge.
Narayan-Parker, D. (Ed.). (2002). Empowerment and poverty reduction: A sourcebook. World Bank Publications.
Page, N., & Czuba, C. E. (1999). Empowerment: What is it. Journal of extension, 37(5), 1-5.
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American journal of community psychology,15(2), 121-148.
Rosenthal, E. C. (2006). The era of choice: the ability to choose and its transformation of contemporary life. Mit Press.
Riggs, M. L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. (1994). Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications. Educational and psychological measurement, 54(3), 793-802.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.
Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment is too easy!. Organizational Dynamics,6(1), 62-80.
Swan, M. (2015). Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. " O`Reilly Media, Inc.".
Strong, K. C., Ringer, R. C., & Taylor, S. A. (2001). THE* rules of stakeholder satisfaction (* Timeliness, honesty, empathy). Journal of Business Ethics, 32(3), 219-230.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization science,4(4), 577-594.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates` attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors` appraisals of leader performance. Academy of management journal, 41(4), 387-409.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological reports, 51(2), 663-671.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). From goods to service (s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254-259.
Wright, A., & De Filippi, P. (2015). Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of lex cryptographia. Available at SSRN 2580664.
Wiener, Y., & Gechman, A. S. (1977). Commitment: A behavioral approach to job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10(1), 47-52.
Yusuf, M. (2011). The impact of self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and self-regulated learning strategies on students’ academic achievement.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2623-2626.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn.Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 82-91.		zh_TW