Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 知識誤差：由情境實踐解析數位服務中的創新落差
Misaligned Knowing: Diagnosing Innovation Gaps in Digital Services through Situated Practice作者 黃朝毅
Huang, Chao-Yi貢獻者 蕭瑞麟
Hsiao, Ruey-Lin
黃朝毅
Huang, Chao-Yi關鍵詞 實踐知識
情境實踐
數位金融
數位轉型
服務創新
Knowing-in-practice
Situated-practice
Digital finance
Digital transformation
Service innovation日期 2025 上傳時間 1-Jul-2025 14:31:58 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究剖析金融業數位轉型過程中的創新落差問題。儘管系統開發團隊投注大量資源設計多樣化的技術功能，使用者卻鮮少實際採用。許多精心規劃的服務創新方案，也常在實施過程中遭遇阻力。這些現象並非單純源自顧客抗拒或學習不足，而是反映出一種更深層的知識誤差：來自實踐現場的理解方式，未能被設計者所掌握。開發者與設計者往往依循制度規格與功能邏輯，打造理想化的產品與服務，卻忽略前線人員在實際服務過程中所面對的挑戰。這樣的盲點，導致前線人員的情境實踐難以納入設計考量，進而使系統設計無法貼合顧客需求，服務創新難以在現場落地，顧客體驗自然無法優化。本研究即以「知識誤差」為切入點，從情境實踐視角診斷創新落差的成因。研究焦點放在這些被系統忽視、卻持續在現場產生作用的實踐知識，如何在制度缺口中被實作出來，並成為創新應對的資源。本研究以證券投資平台為個案，透過投資旅程的分析，指出投資專員在實務操作中展現的情境實踐。透過三組典型場景案例：休眠帳戶的活化、成長型投資的協助與槓桿型投資的服務。說明前線專員如何即時回應顧客的困境，並於制約中產生有效的應對方案。理論上，本研究則主張「知識誤差」並非源自資訊不足，而是源於未能理解第一線的實踐知識如何運作。這些知識非預設於標準程序之中，而是在制度限制、顧客痛點與服務彈性交會的條件下形成。情境實踐於此不僅是行動，更是設計與使用之間的中介場域。透過此視角，研究補充服務創新文獻中對中介角色與在地知識的低估，進一步指出，忽略實踐知識的所產生的誤差可能成為創新失效的根源。實務上，本研究提出三項建議：首先，系統開發流程應納入投資專員的實作經驗，避免僅由制度邏輯主導設計迭代；其次，服務創新應從流程導向轉向情境設計，進而發展出更細緻的服務腳本；最後，應強化服務設計對顧客現場經驗的回應能力，方能提升顧客體驗。本研究主張，設計應從「功能堆疊」轉向「知識對位」，重新定位第一線的行動知識作為創新的形成來源。唯有讓設計回到實踐現場，重新吸納這些在地智慧，數位系統方能跳脫落差，對準服務現場，實現以顧客為中心的創新目標。
This study examines the persistent innovation gap in digital transformation within the financial services sector, drawing on a case study of a securities investment platform in Taiwan. Despite heavy investment in system development and feature design, many technological functions remain underused. Service innovations often falter not due to user resistance or inadequate digital skills, but because of a deeper epistemic misalignment. System designers frequently rely on institutional logic and abstract procedures, failing to account for the situated knowledge of frontline investment advisors. This incongruence produces what the study terms a “misaligned knowing”—a disconnect between formal system design and the real-world constraints under which services are delivered. Focusing on three service scenarios—reactivating dormant accounts, assisting growth-oriented investors, and managing leveraged portfolios—the research highlights how frontline actors improvise context-sensitive solutions that system logic does not anticipate. These practices reflect locally generated knowledge that emerges not from codified procedures but from navigating tensions between customer needs and institutional limits. Theoretically, the study reframes innovation failure as the consequence of neglecting how practical knowledge is formed and applied. This form of knowing is not pre-scripted, but enacted through problem-solving in live service encounters. Situated practice, in this sense, becomes a mediating arena that connects design intentions with service realities, allowing innovation to take shape within rather than apart from constraint. The study puts forward three recommendations for service innovation. First, system development should incorporate the lived experience of frontline staff rather than be solely driven by top-down logic. Second, service design must move beyond process formalisation to embrace context-sensitive scripting. Third, organisations should enhance system responsiveness to customers’ lived experiences, not just their functional requirements. Ultimately, the study calls for a shift from function-driven design to knowledge alignment—positioning frontline knowledge not as peripheral but as a central resource for innovation. By reconnecting design with the reality of practice, digital transformation can move beyond the innovation gap and deliver meaningful, customer-centred value.參考文獻 中文文獻 朱彩馨、李慶芳、許致嘉，2014，「知易行難：以施行理論觀點探索數位學習導入失敗」中山管理評論，第四期，第22卷，857-900頁。 朱彩馨，2015，「溫故不知新：半新科技的意會調適」，中山管理評論，第一期，第23卷，137-183頁。 蕭瑞麟，2020，(第五版)《不用數字的研究：質性研究的思辨脈絡》，台北：五南學術原創專書系列。 英文文獻 Argyris, C. 2006. Reinforcing organizational defensive routines: An unintended human resources activity. Human Resource Management, 25: 541-555. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Burt, R. S. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2): 349-399. Chikudate, N. 2002. Collective myopia and disciplinary power behind the scenes of ethical practices: diagnostic theory on Japanese organisation. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3): 289-307. Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. 2006. Disruptive innovation for social change. Harvard Business Review, 84(12): 94-101. Davidson, E. J. 2002. Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quarterly, 26(4): 329-358. Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2011. Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5): 1240-1253. Følstad, A., & Kvale, K. 2018. Applying Transactional NPS for Customer Journey Insight: Case Experiences and Lessons Learned. Services Marketing Quarterly, 39(3): 208-224. Gavetti, G., & Menon, A. 2016. How to avoid strategy myopia. Sloan Management Review, 57(3): 69–77. Gherardi, S. 2010. Telemedicine: A practice-based approach to technology. Human Relations, 63(4): 501-524. 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. L. 1996. Cognitive Elements in the Implementation of New Technology: Can Less Information Provide More Benifits? MIS Quarterly, 20(1): 99-110. Hsiao, R., Tsai, D. H., & Lee, C. F. 2003. Knowing in situated practice: knowledge transferring systems in the workplace. Organisation Studies: under review. Knudsen, T., & Srikanth, K. 2014. Coordinated exploration: Organizing joint search by multiple specialists to overcome mutual confusion and joint myopia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3): 409-441. Kumar, A., & Operti, E. 2023. Missed chances and unfulfilled hopes: Why do firms make errors in evaluating technological opportunities? Strategic Management Journal, 44(13): 3067-3097. Leonardi, P. M. 2011. Innovation blindness: Culture, frames, and cross-boundary problem construction in the development of new technology concepts. Organization Science, 22(2): 347-369. Levinthal, D., & Posen, H. E. 2007. Myopia of selection: Does organizational adaptation limit the efficacy of population selection? Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(4): 586-620. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95-112. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319-340. Levitt, T. 1960. Marketing myopia. Harvard Business Review, 38: 45–56. Lin, A., & Silva, L. 2005. The social and political construction of technological frames. European Journal of Information Systems, 14: 49-59. Lind, M. R., & Zmud, R. W. 1991. The influence of a convergence in understanding between technology providers and users on information technology innovativeness. Organization Science, 2(2): 195-217. March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71-87. Miller, K. D. 2002. Knowledge inventories and managerial myopia. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8): 689. Möller, K., Rajala, R., & Westerlund, M. 2008. Service innovation myopia? A new recipe for client-provider value creation. California Management Review, 50(3): 31-48. Nicolini, D. 2011. Practice as the site of knowing: Insights from the field of telemedicine. Organization Science, 22(3): 602-620. Opper, S., & Burt, R. S. 2021. Social network and temporal myopia. Academy of Management Journal, 64(3): 741-771. Orlikowski, W. J. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations Organization Science, 11(4): 404–428. Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing. Organization Science, 13(3): 249-273. Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. 1994. Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM transactions on information systems, 12(2): 174-207. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2000. The knowing-doing gap : how smart companies turn knowledge into action. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Prasad, P. 1993. Symbolic processes in the implementation of technological change: a Symbolic interactionist study of work computerization. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1400-1429. Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Seidel, V. P., Hannigan, T. R., & Phillips, N. 2018. Rumor Communities, Social Media, and Forthcoming Innovations: The Shaping of Technological Frames in Product Market Evolution. Academy of Management Review, 45(2): 304-324. Sharma, S., Singh, J., & Kumar, M. 2024. ‘Invented‐on‐the‐fly’ mobile application for disaster response: Construction of technological frames and impact. Information Systems Journal, 34(3): 567–595. Srivastava, S. C., & Shainesh, G. 2015. Bridging the service divide throuh digitally enabled service innovation: Evidence from Indian healthcare service providers. MIS Quarterly, 39(1): 245-A219. Tsang, E. W. K. 2002. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint ventures in a transition economy: Learning-by-doing and learning myopia. Strategic Management Journal, 23(9): 835. Tyre, M. J., & von Hippel, E. 1997. The situated nature of adaptive learning in organizations. Organization Science, 8(1): 71–83. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1): 1-17. Wong, M. M. L. 2005. Organizational learning via expatriate managers: Collective myopia as blocking mechanism. Organization Studies, 26(3): 325-350. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
112364119資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112364119 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) 黃朝毅 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Huang, Chao-Yi en_US dc.creator (作者) 黃朝毅 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Huang, Chao-Yi en_US dc.date (日期) 2025 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2025 14:31:58 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Jul-2025 14:31:58 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2025 14:31:58 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0112364119 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/157719 - 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) 112364119 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究剖析金融業數位轉型過程中的創新落差問題。儘管系統開發團隊投注大量資源設計多樣化的技術功能，使用者卻鮮少實際採用。許多精心規劃的服務創新方案，也常在實施過程中遭遇阻力。這些現象並非單純源自顧客抗拒或學習不足，而是反映出一種更深層的知識誤差：來自實踐現場的理解方式，未能被設計者所掌握。開發者與設計者往往依循制度規格與功能邏輯，打造理想化的產品與服務，卻忽略前線人員在實際服務過程中所面對的挑戰。這樣的盲點，導致前線人員的情境實踐難以納入設計考量，進而使系統設計無法貼合顧客需求，服務創新難以在現場落地，顧客體驗自然無法優化。本研究即以「知識誤差」為切入點，從情境實踐視角診斷創新落差的成因。研究焦點放在這些被系統忽視、卻持續在現場產生作用的實踐知識，如何在制度缺口中被實作出來，並成為創新應對的資源。本研究以證券投資平台為個案，透過投資旅程的分析，指出投資專員在實務操作中展現的情境實踐。透過三組典型場景案例：休眠帳戶的活化、成長型投資的協助與槓桿型投資的服務。說明前線專員如何即時回應顧客的困境，並於制約中產生有效的應對方案。理論上，本研究則主張「知識誤差」並非源自資訊不足，而是源於未能理解第一線的實踐知識如何運作。這些知識非預設於標準程序之中，而是在制度限制、顧客痛點與服務彈性交會的條件下形成。情境實踐於此不僅是行動，更是設計與使用之間的中介場域。透過此視角，研究補充服務創新文獻中對中介角色與在地知識的低估，進一步指出，忽略實踐知識的所產生的誤差可能成為創新失效的根源。實務上，本研究提出三項建議：首先，系統開發流程應納入投資專員的實作經驗，避免僅由制度邏輯主導設計迭代；其次，服務創新應從流程導向轉向情境設計，進而發展出更細緻的服務腳本；最後，應強化服務設計對顧客現場經驗的回應能力，方能提升顧客體驗。本研究主張，設計應從「功能堆疊」轉向「知識對位」，重新定位第一線的行動知識作為創新的形成來源。唯有讓設計回到實踐現場，重新吸納這些在地智慧，數位系統方能跳脫落差，對準服務現場，實現以顧客為中心的創新目標。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study examines the persistent innovation gap in digital transformation within the financial services sector, drawing on a case study of a securities investment platform in Taiwan. Despite heavy investment in system development and feature design, many technological functions remain underused. Service innovations often falter not due to user resistance or inadequate digital skills, but because of a deeper epistemic misalignment. System designers frequently rely on institutional logic and abstract procedures, failing to account for the situated knowledge of frontline investment advisors. This incongruence produces what the study terms a “misaligned knowing”—a disconnect between formal system design and the real-world constraints under which services are delivered. Focusing on three service scenarios—reactivating dormant accounts, assisting growth-oriented investors, and managing leveraged portfolios—the research highlights how frontline actors improvise context-sensitive solutions that system logic does not anticipate. These practices reflect locally generated knowledge that emerges not from codified procedures but from navigating tensions between customer needs and institutional limits. Theoretically, the study reframes innovation failure as the consequence of neglecting how practical knowledge is formed and applied. This form of knowing is not pre-scripted, but enacted through problem-solving in live service encounters. Situated practice, in this sense, becomes a mediating arena that connects design intentions with service realities, allowing innovation to take shape within rather than apart from constraint. The study puts forward three recommendations for service innovation. First, system development should incorporate the lived experience of frontline staff rather than be solely driven by top-down logic. Second, service design must move beyond process formalisation to embrace context-sensitive scripting. Third, organisations should enhance system responsiveness to customers’ lived experiences, not just their functional requirements. Ultimately, the study calls for a shift from function-driven design to knowledge alignment—positioning frontline knowledge not as peripheral but as a central resource for innovation. By reconnecting design with the reality of practice, digital transformation can move beyond the innovation gap and deliver meaningful, customer-centred value. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 聲明頁 I 謝誌 II 中文摘要 III 英文摘要 IV 表目錄 X 圖目錄 XI 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 一、實務動機 1 （一）數位化反擴大體驗落差 1 （二）功能完善卻造成用戶失望 2 （三）蒐集意見需求卻仍失準 3 二、理論動機 4 （一）認知落差：有溝通不代表對準 4 （二）組織視差：制度下的深層問題 6 （三）知識誤差：中介者的情境實踐 8 第二節 研究目的 10 一、定義使用者輪廓，建立人物誌 10 二、檢視顧客旅程，辨識服務斷點 11 三、分析投資專員實踐情境 12 第三節 預期效益 13 ㄧ、預期理論貢獻 13 二、預期實務啟發 15 三、章節佈局 17 第二章 文獻回顧 19 第一節 定義實踐知識 19 一、情境實踐：知識來自現場 19 二、實踐視角牽動服務創新 20 三、知行落差的現象 21 第二節 認知落差觀點 22 一、焦點落差論點 22 二、詮釋落差論點 26 三、角色落差論點 28 第三節 組織視差觀點 30 一、學習視差論點 30 二、制度視差論點 32 三、行動視差論點 34 第四節 情境實踐觀點 36 一、從「做中學」走向「做中知」 36 二、理論缺口：由情境實踐探索知識誤差 37 第三章 研究方法 41 第一節 方法論的選擇 41 第二節 案例選擇與理論取樣 43 一、展現制約中的能動性 43 二、展現問題的再定義 44 三、展現服務的創新潛能 45 第三節 分析架構與資料分析 46 一、服務中的行動者 47 二、現行作法與現實的差距 47 三、中介者的情境實踐 48 第四節 資料蒐集 50 一、各階段的資料收集工作 50 二、資料收集的規劃 52 三、採訪設計與執行 54 第四章 研究發現 57 第一節 案例背景 57 一、金融市場的競爭 57 二、系統的採納挑戰 58 三、學習視差議題 60 第二節 場景一：化靜為動——活化休眠戶 63 一、投資人樣貌 63 （一）選股階段：風險排斥與心理屏障 65 （二）監測階段：帳戶靜止與行動停滯 66 （三）調節階段：缺乏回饋與投資成效 67 二、情境實踐 68 （一）轉譯行動：從話術重塑投資認知 69 （二）生成行動：反覆操作中形成投資習慣 70 （三）轉化行動：從靜態分類走向主動參與 71 三、知識誤差分析 72 （一）現行做法的制度知識 72 （二）情境實踐的實踐知識 73 四、需求分析 74 （一）功能設計：理財月月見——從生活場景觸動投資有感 75 （二）服務設計：陪伴式導航——讓顧客願意走下去的方案 76 第三節 場景二：倍增成長——滾雪球投資 77 一、投資人樣貌 77 （一）選股階段：倚賴外部建議 80 （二）監測階段：焦慮積壓，失去感知 81 （三）調節階段：無節奏、難成習慣 82 二、情境實踐 83 （一）重構行動：靜態持有的資源再定義 84 （二）補位行動：系統缺口的輔助行動 86 （三）統整行動：轉化分散經驗為策略 87 三、知識誤差分析 87 （一）現行做法的制度知識 88 （二）情境實踐的實踐知識 89 四、需求分析 89 （一）功能設計：引航儀——由數據碎片走向邏輯確立 90 （二）服務設計：陪跑員——從技術碎片到行動規律 91 第四節 場景三：槓桿投資——以波段逆襲 92 一、投資人樣貌 93 （一）選股階段：籌碼解讀的時效落差 95 （二）監測階段：重功能、輕提醒的矛盾狀態 96 （三）調節階段：缺乏資金配置的輔助 97 二、情境實踐 97 （一）對焦行動：辨識投資與知識盲點 98 （二）陪跑行動：用工具活化投資操作 99 （三）內化行動：促進自主策略的生成 100 三、知識誤差分析 101 （一）現行做法的制度知識 101 （二）情境實踐的實踐知識 102 四、需求分析 103 （一）功能設計：建立節奏——同步判斷的智能模組 103 （二）服務設計：時機訓練——從預判到決策的回饋 105 第五章 討論 107 第一節 學術貢獻 107 一、需求失準：從認知落差到知識誤差 107 二、知識互補：從組織視差到情境實踐 109 三、實踐知識的價值 111 第二節 實務啟發 114 一、服務創新的實踐盲點 114 二、從內部行動看到創新契機 116 三、實踐知識應內嵌於服務設計 118 第三節 研究限制與未來方向 119 一、探索多元場景樣態 120 二、探索實踐的落差 120 三、探索制度與文化的限制 120 第六章 結論 121 參考文獻 123 中文文獻 123 英文文獻 123 zh_TW dc.format.extent 6497143 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112364119 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 實踐知識 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 情境實踐 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 數位金融 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 數位轉型 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 服務創新 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Knowing-in-practice en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Situated-practice en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Digital finance en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Digital transformation en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Service innovation en_US dc.title (題名) 知識誤差：由情境實踐解析數位服務中的創新落差 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Misaligned Knowing: Diagnosing Innovation Gaps in Digital Services through Situated Practice en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻 朱彩馨、李慶芳、許致嘉，2014，「知易行難：以施行理論觀點探索數位學習導入失敗」中山管理評論，第四期，第22卷，857-900頁。 朱彩馨，2015，「溫故不知新：半新科技的意會調適」，中山管理評論，第一期，第23卷，137-183頁。 蕭瑞麟，2020，(第五版)《不用數字的研究：質性研究的思辨脈絡》，台北：五南學術原創專書系列。 英文文獻 Argyris, C. 2006. Reinforcing organizational defensive routines: An unintended human resources activity. Human Resource Management, 25: 541-555. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Burt, R. S. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2): 349-399. Chikudate, N. 2002. Collective myopia and disciplinary power behind the scenes of ethical practices: diagnostic theory on Japanese organisation. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3): 289-307. Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. 2006. Disruptive innovation for social change. Harvard Business Review, 84(12): 94-101. Davidson, E. J. 2002. Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quarterly, 26(4): 329-358. Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2011. Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5): 1240-1253. Følstad, A., & Kvale, K. 2018. Applying Transactional NPS for Customer Journey Insight: Case Experiences and Lessons Learned. Services Marketing Quarterly, 39(3): 208-224. Gavetti, G., & Menon, A. 2016. How to avoid strategy myopia. Sloan Management Review, 57(3): 69–77. Gherardi, S. 2010. Telemedicine: A practice-based approach to technology. Human Relations, 63(4): 501-524. 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. L. 1996. Cognitive Elements in the Implementation of New Technology: Can Less Information Provide More Benifits? MIS Quarterly, 20(1): 99-110. Hsiao, R., Tsai, D. H., & Lee, C. F. 2003. Knowing in situated practice: knowledge transferring systems in the workplace. Organisation Studies: under review. Knudsen, T., & Srikanth, K. 2014. Coordinated exploration: Organizing joint search by multiple specialists to overcome mutual confusion and joint myopia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3): 409-441. Kumar, A., & Operti, E. 2023. Missed chances and unfulfilled hopes: Why do firms make errors in evaluating technological opportunities? Strategic Management Journal, 44(13): 3067-3097. Leonardi, P. M. 2011. Innovation blindness: Culture, frames, and cross-boundary problem construction in the development of new technology concepts. Organization Science, 22(2): 347-369. Levinthal, D., & Posen, H. E. 2007. Myopia of selection: Does organizational adaptation limit the efficacy of population selection? Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(4): 586-620. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95-112. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319-340. Levitt, T. 1960. Marketing myopia. Harvard Business Review, 38: 45–56. Lin, A., & Silva, L. 2005. The social and political construction of technological frames. European Journal of Information Systems, 14: 49-59. Lind, M. R., & Zmud, R. W. 1991. The influence of a convergence in understanding between technology providers and users on information technology innovativeness. Organization Science, 2(2): 195-217. March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71-87. Miller, K. D. 2002. Knowledge inventories and managerial myopia. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8): 689. Möller, K., Rajala, R., & Westerlund, M. 2008. Service innovation myopia? A new recipe for client-provider value creation. California Management Review, 50(3): 31-48. Nicolini, D. 2011. Practice as the site of knowing: Insights from the field of telemedicine. Organization Science, 22(3): 602-620. Opper, S., & Burt, R. S. 2021. Social network and temporal myopia. Academy of Management Journal, 64(3): 741-771. Orlikowski, W. J. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations Organization Science, 11(4): 404–428. Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing. Organization Science, 13(3): 249-273. Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. 1994. Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM transactions on information systems, 12(2): 174-207. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2000. The knowing-doing gap : how smart companies turn knowledge into action. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Prasad, P. 1993. Symbolic processes in the implementation of technological change: a Symbolic interactionist study of work computerization. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1400-1429. Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Seidel, V. P., Hannigan, T. R., & Phillips, N. 2018. Rumor Communities, Social Media, and Forthcoming Innovations: The Shaping of Technological Frames in Product Market Evolution. Academy of Management Review, 45(2): 304-324. Sharma, S., Singh, J., & Kumar, M. 2024. ‘Invented‐on‐the‐fly’ mobile application for disaster response: Construction of technological frames and impact. Information Systems Journal, 34(3): 567–595. Srivastava, S. C., & Shainesh, G. 2015. Bridging the service divide throuh digitally enabled service innovation: Evidence from Indian healthcare service providers. MIS Quarterly, 39(1): 245-A219. Tsang, E. W. K. 2002. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint ventures in a transition economy: Learning-by-doing and learning myopia. Strategic Management Journal, 23(9): 835. Tyre, M. J., & von Hippel, E. 1997. The situated nature of adaptive learning in organizations. Organization Science, 8(1): 71–83. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1): 1-17. Wong, M. M. L. 2005. Organizational learning via expatriate managers: Collective myopia as blocking mechanism. Organization Studies, 26(3): 325-350. zh_TW
