學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 團隊創造力發展：以X創業家設計思考工作坊為例探討團隊隨創行為
Team Creativity: Exploring Bricolage Behavior in Design Thinking Workshop作者 林子馨
Lin, Tzu-Hsin貢獻者 鄭至甫
Jeng, Jyh-Fu
林子馨
Lin, Tzu-Hsin關鍵詞 設計思考
團隊創造力
團隊隨創作為
團隊互動歷程
Design Thinking
Team Creativity
Team Bricolage Behavior
Team Interaction Processes日期 2024 上傳時間 1-Mar-2024 12:43:45 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究探討在四天設計思考的工作坊中團隊的創造力發展，主要的研究對象 是完全陌生的臨時性團隊，並分析他們在四天工作坊中的團隊互動歷程以及小組 成員是如何在沒有指定目標的狀況下發現身邊的資源進而發生隨創行為?並且更 近一步討論能夠抑制或是增強團隊隨創行為的關鍵機制，以及在設計思考的掙扎 區(groan zone)中，團隊如何突破困境並產出屬於自己組別的提案內容。研究發現：(1)在臨時性團隊中，建立心理安全感是重要的一環。透過破冰活動和互動，團隊成員可以透過成員對於臨時狀況的反應進一步了解彼此的個性和工作風格讓 成員建立彈性例規與內部規範。(2)團隊在挑選專案題目時就地取材，從成員周遭的場域或了解的議題出發，引導成員分享周遭資源有助於更有效地找到合適的專案主題。(3)在掙扎區時透過資訊重組，在一樣的主題中調整方向，有助於收斂團隊的方向並深入思考專案的可行性。(4)成員們根據自己的專業背景和技能進行分工、彈性的進行工作順序的調整，有助於更迅速地產出原型或搜尋資料。然而，分工同時也仰賴成員對於目標以及組內例規的了解。
This study investigates the development of creativity within teams during a four-day design thinking workshop, focusing on entirely unfamiliar ad-hoc teams. The research analyzes the team interaction processes during the four-day workshop and explores how group members, in the absence of specified goals, discover resources around them, leading to spontaneous creative behaviors. Furthermore, the study delves into discussing key mechanisms that can either inhibit or enhance the team's spontaneous creative behaviors. Additionally, the study also explores how teams overcome challenges in the design thinking "groan zone" and generate proposals that are unique to their group. The findings are as follows: (1) In ad-hoc teams, establishing a sense of psychological safety is crucial. Through ice-breaking activities and interactions, team members gain insights into each other's personalities and working styles, facilitating the establishment of flexible norms and internal regulations. (2) When selecting project topics, teams draw inspiration locally by exploring members' surroundings or understanding relevant issues. Encouraging members to share their surrounding resources facilitates more effective identification of suitable project themes. (3) During the struggle phase, teams utilize information recombination, adjusting the direction within the same theme. This aids in converging the team's focus and promotes in-depth consideration of project feasibility. (4) Members, based on their professional backgrounds and skills, engage in task allocation and flexible adjustment of work sequences. This contributes to the rapid generation of prototypes or information retrieval. However, effective task allocation relies on members' understanding of the goals and internal norms of the team.參考文獻 一、中文部分 陳蕙芬、梁煥煒 (2021)。團隊互動、資源疆界與隨創作為:密室逃脫所展現的團隊 創造力。人力資源管理學報，21(1)，83–113。 https://doi.org/10.6147/JHRM.202106_21(1).0004 黃家齊 (2007)。團隊人格特質組合與創新之多層次與跨層次分析:領導者與團隊成 員組合之影響 (E93041) [原始數據]。2023 年 12 月 26 日，取自中央研究院人 文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。 https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-E93041-1 李慶芳、游銘仁、吳靜吉、蔡敦浩(2023)。情急智生:探索口罩國家隊急興拼創的 歷程。管理學報，40(3)，245–276。 https://doi.org/10.6504/JMBR.202309_40(3).0001 劉世南、楊佳翰 (2021)。設計思考中的創意:釋義與造物的啟發。中華心理學刊， 63(2)，121–141。https://doi.org/10.6129/CJP.202106_63(2).0002 詹志禹 (2005 年 11 月)。人類的創造力 從何而來?科學人雜誌，45。2023 年 5 月 12 日，取自 https://sa.ylib.com/MagArticle.aspx?id=757 吳靜吉 (1994)。心理與生活。臺北市:遠流。 吳靜吉 (2020)。創造力的激發:吳靜吉的七十堂創造力短講。臺北市:遠流。 唐玄輝、別蓮蒂 (2019)。新服務設計的內涵。2019 年 1 月，取自 https://medium.com/ditl/%E6%96%B0%E6%9C%8D%E5%8B%99%E8%A8%AD %E8%A8%88%E7%9A%84%E5%85%A7%E6%B6%B5-31f2319588a4 蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬 (2014)。劣勢創新:梵谷策展中的隨創行為。中山管理評 論，22(2)，323–367。https://doi.org/10.6160/2014.06.04 張存真、游錦雲 (2020)。「兒童五大人格特質量表」之信效度及測量不變性:探索 性結構方程模式取向。測驗學刊，67(3)，191–214。2023 年 12 月 26 日，取自 https://tpl.ncl.edu.tw/NclService/pdfdownload?filePath=lV8OirTfsslWcCxIpLbUfh QHstx_oOBLxvpjkbCdnGjbuEk3JKm- umCiokqpURMz&imgType=Bn5sH4BGpJw=&key=jyjri2h2WQQl5BVccDVDG3z g1uAdTprD_QStZnTLOD8eVVU9OyINO4qBZJhLTxWd&xmlId=0007049192 二、外文部分 Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128 Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329 Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2011). Expecting the unexpected? How swat officers and film crews handle surprises. The Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 239– 261. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23045079 Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 94-017-9085-7 Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 461–493). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10227-017 Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487 John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Retrieved December 26, 2023, from https://pages.uoregon.edu/sanjay/pubs/bigfive.pdf Rubin, J. H., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing (2nd ed.): The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226651 Kaner, S. (2007). Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 285– 294. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_06 Mootee, I. (2013). Design thinking for strategic innovation: What they can’t teach you at business or design school. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Norman, D. (2010, November 26). Why design education must change. Core77. Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://www.core77.com/posts/17993/Why-Design- Education-Must-Change Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606061850 Simon, H. A. (2008). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved December 26, 2023, from https://monoskop.org/images/9/9c/Simon_Herbert_A_The_Sciences_of_the_Artifici al_3rd_ed.pdf Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. London, England: Watts & Co. Retrieved December 26, 2023, from https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-502468959 Torrance, E. (1968). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. January, 1968, from https://doi.org/10.1037/t05532-000 Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Stead-Dorval, K. B. (2010). Creative Problem Solving (CPS Version 6.1TM) a contemporary framework for managing change. Sarasota, FL, Center for Creative Learning; Orchard Park, NY: Creative Problem Solving Group. Retrieved December 26, 2023, from https://www.creativelearning.com/~clearning/images/freePDFs/CPSVersion61.pdf Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1307–1314. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.360 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
110364133資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110364133 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 鄭至甫 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Jeng, Jyh-Fu en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 林子馨 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lin, Tzu-Hsin en_US dc.creator (作者) 林子馨 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lin, Tzu-Hsin en_US dc.date (日期) 2024 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Mar-2024 12:43:45 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Mar-2024 12:43:45 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Mar-2024 12:43:45 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0110364133 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/150142 - 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) 110364133 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究探討在四天設計思考的工作坊中團隊的創造力發展，主要的研究對象 是完全陌生的臨時性團隊，並分析他們在四天工作坊中的團隊互動歷程以及小組 成員是如何在沒有指定目標的狀況下發現身邊的資源進而發生隨創行為?並且更 近一步討論能夠抑制或是增強團隊隨創行為的關鍵機制，以及在設計思考的掙扎 區(groan zone)中，團隊如何突破困境並產出屬於自己組別的提案內容。研究發現：(1)在臨時性團隊中，建立心理安全感是重要的一環。透過破冰活動和互動，團隊成員可以透過成員對於臨時狀況的反應進一步了解彼此的個性和工作風格讓 成員建立彈性例規與內部規範。(2)團隊在挑選專案題目時就地取材，從成員周遭的場域或了解的議題出發，引導成員分享周遭資源有助於更有效地找到合適的專案主題。(3)在掙扎區時透過資訊重組，在一樣的主題中調整方向，有助於收斂團隊的方向並深入思考專案的可行性。(4)成員們根據自己的專業背景和技能進行分工、彈性的進行工作順序的調整，有助於更迅速地產出原型或搜尋資料。然而，分工同時也仰賴成員對於目標以及組內例規的了解。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study investigates the development of creativity within teams during a four-day design thinking workshop, focusing on entirely unfamiliar ad-hoc teams. The research analyzes the team interaction processes during the four-day workshop and explores how group members, in the absence of specified goals, discover resources around them, leading to spontaneous creative behaviors. Furthermore, the study delves into discussing key mechanisms that can either inhibit or enhance the team's spontaneous creative behaviors. Additionally, the study also explores how teams overcome challenges in the design thinking "groan zone" and generate proposals that are unique to their group. The findings are as follows: (1) In ad-hoc teams, establishing a sense of psychological safety is crucial. Through ice-breaking activities and interactions, team members gain insights into each other's personalities and working styles, facilitating the establishment of flexible norms and internal regulations. (2) When selecting project topics, teams draw inspiration locally by exploring members' surroundings or understanding relevant issues. Encouraging members to share their surrounding resources facilitates more effective identification of suitable project themes. (3) During the struggle phase, teams utilize information recombination, adjusting the direction within the same theme. This aids in converging the team's focus and promotes in-depth consideration of project feasibility. (4) Members, based on their professional backgrounds and skills, engage in task allocation and flexible adjustment of work sequences. This contributes to the rapid generation of prototypes or information retrieval. However, effective task allocation relies on members' understanding of the goals and internal norms of the team. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 壹、緒論 1 第一節、研究背景 1 第二節、研究動機 2 第三節、研究目的與問題 3 貳、文獻探討 5 第一節、創造力相關理論 5 第二節、設計思考 10 參、研究方法 15 第一節、分析架構與設計 15 第二節、個案研究法與資料蒐集 16 第三節、案例選擇與受訪者挑選 17 肆、個案分析 19 第一節、個案介紹 19 第二節、團隊互動歷程 23 第三節、團隊普遍困境與蜜境 43 伍、結論與建議 50 第一節、研究討論 50 第二節、實務意涵 55 第三節、研究貢獻 56 第四節、研究限制 57 第五節、未來建議 58 參考文獻 61 附錄一、訪談大綱 66 附錄二、四天課程詳細安排 68 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1761493 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110364133 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 設計思考 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 團隊創造力 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 團隊隨創作為 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 團隊互動歷程 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Design Thinking en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Team Creativity en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Team Bricolage Behavior en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Team Interaction Processes en_US dc.title (題名) 團隊創造力發展：以X創業家設計思考工作坊為例探討團隊隨創行為 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Team Creativity: Exploring Bricolage Behavior in Design Thinking Workshop en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文部分 陳蕙芬、梁煥煒 (2021)。團隊互動、資源疆界與隨創作為:密室逃脫所展現的團隊 創造力。人力資源管理學報，21(1)，83–113。 https://doi.org/10.6147/JHRM.202106_21(1).0004 黃家齊 (2007)。團隊人格特質組合與創新之多層次與跨層次分析:領導者與團隊成 員組合之影響 (E93041) [原始數據]。2023 年 12 月 26 日，取自中央研究院人 文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。 https://doi.org/10.6141/TW-SRDA-E93041-1 李慶芳、游銘仁、吳靜吉、蔡敦浩(2023)。情急智生:探索口罩國家隊急興拼創的 歷程。管理學報，40(3)，245–276。 https://doi.org/10.6504/JMBR.202309_40(3).0001 劉世南、楊佳翰 (2021)。設計思考中的創意:釋義與造物的啟發。中華心理學刊， 63(2)，121–141。https://doi.org/10.6129/CJP.202106_63(2).0002 詹志禹 (2005 年 11 月)。人類的創造力 從何而來?科學人雜誌，45。2023 年 5 月 12 日，取自 https://sa.ylib.com/MagArticle.aspx?id=757 吳靜吉 (1994)。心理與生活。臺北市:遠流。 吳靜吉 (2020)。創造力的激發:吳靜吉的七十堂創造力短講。臺北市:遠流。 唐玄輝、別蓮蒂 (2019)。新服務設計的內涵。2019 年 1 月，取自 https://medium.com/ditl/%E6%96%B0%E6%9C%8D%E5%8B%99%E8%A8%AD %E8%A8%88%E7%9A%84%E5%85%A7%E6%B6%B5-31f2319588a4 蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬 (2014)。劣勢創新:梵谷策展中的隨創行為。中山管理評 論，22(2)，323–367。https://doi.org/10.6160/2014.06.04 張存真、游錦雲 (2020)。「兒童五大人格特質量表」之信效度及測量不變性:探索 性結構方程模式取向。測驗學刊，67(3)，191–214。2023 年 12 月 26 日，取自 https://tpl.ncl.edu.tw/NclService/pdfdownload?filePath=lV8OirTfsslWcCxIpLbUfh QHstx_oOBLxvpjkbCdnGjbuEk3JKm- umCiokqpURMz&imgType=Bn5sH4BGpJw=&key=jyjri2h2WQQl5BVccDVDG3z g1uAdTprD_QStZnTLOD8eVVU9OyINO4qBZJhLTxWd&xmlId=0007049192 二、外文部分 Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128 Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329 Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2011). Expecting the unexpected? How swat officers and film crews handle surprises. The Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 239– 261. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23045079 Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 94-017-9085-7 Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 461–493). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10227-017 Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487 John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Retrieved December 26, 2023, from https://pages.uoregon.edu/sanjay/pubs/bigfive.pdf Rubin, J. H., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing (2nd ed.): The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226651 Kaner, S. (2007). Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 285– 294. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_06 Mootee, I. (2013). Design thinking for strategic innovation: What they can’t teach you at business or design school. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Norman, D. (2010, November 26). Why design education must change. Core77. Retrieved May 19, 2023, from https://www.core77.com/posts/17993/Why-Design- Education-Must-Change Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606061850 Simon, H. A. (2008). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved December 26, 2023, from https://monoskop.org/images/9/9c/Simon_Herbert_A_The_Sciences_of_the_Artifici al_3rd_ed.pdf Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. London, England: Watts & Co. Retrieved December 26, 2023, from https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-502468959 Torrance, E. (1968). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. January, 1968, from https://doi.org/10.1037/t05532-000 Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Stead-Dorval, K. B. (2010). Creative Problem Solving (CPS Version 6.1TM) a contemporary framework for managing change. Sarasota, FL, Center for Creative Learning; Orchard Park, NY: Creative Problem Solving Group. Retrieved December 26, 2023, from https://www.creativelearning.com/~clearning/images/freePDFs/CPSVersion61.pdf Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1307–1314. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.360 zh_TW
