1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. 商學院
  4. 學位論文
  5. Item

學術產出-學位論文

文章檢視/開啟

書目匯出

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

引文資訊

TAIR相關學術產出

題名 以物意悟：疆界物件如何引發跨專業的調適性學習行為
Learning from Objects：How may Boundary Objects Enact Adaptive Learning in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration
作者 王培勛
Wang, Pei Hsun
貢獻者 蕭瑞麟
王培勛
Wang, Pei Hsun
關鍵詞 知識管理
疆界物件
跨界合作
情境學習
調適性學習
做中學
knowledge management
boundary objects
cross-disciplinary collaboration
situated learning
adaptive learning
learning by doing
日期 2011
上傳時間 1-七月-2013 17:29:56 (UTC+8)
摘要 近年來，許多企業希望透過不同領域的專家彼此合作，為組織解決日益複雜的難題。然而，跨專業團隊的合作過程充滿挑戰，過去文獻多專注於如何提升知識分享的效果，卻忽略了許多關鍵新知識必須由跨界團隊合作探索而來。在面對陌生情境下，這樣的探索尤其重要，例如：開發新產品、啟用新製程，但我們至今仍對跨專業社群如何合作探索的過程所知甚少。
     
     為了探究這個議題，本研究採用民族誌的方式，追蹤半導體晶圓廠工程師如何在複雜的生產系統中解決跨專業的維修難題。過程中，工作者常常必須面臨因果錯綜複雜、責任歸屬不清、跨界溝通不良所導致的合作困境。研究發現要解決這樣的困境，工作者必須運用疆界物件引發三種工作實務：解讀現象背後的因果、改變合作關係、整合跨界知識，才能找出問題核心並對症下藥。
     
     根據本研究發現，如果我們能了解工作者在特定情境中的學習過程，便可提升既有的知識管理與疆界物件理論。在實務議題上，本研究的發現也能幫助現有員工培訓與跨專業溝通方式。
Recently, more and more companies are gathering different types of specialist in order to solve increasingly complex problems. But the efforts paid in the process of cooperation are challenging for enterprises. Previous researchers had focused on the transfer and share of cross-disciplinary knowledge. However, they neglected the fact that some critical knowledge must be learned by collaborative exploring in terms of particular situation.
     
     To understand this issue, an ethnography study was used to examine the process of trouble shooting undertaken by engineers who encountered complex problems in the fabrication of semiconductor wafers. This thesis addressed three primary challenges faced by engineers. First, the nature of the problem may not be defined appropriately at the beginning. Second, responsibility may not be clearly attributed by cross specialist team who is in charge of investigation. Third, without comprehensive contexts of the practice, communication between engineers is problematic itself.
     
     To overcome the problem, engineers must be able to go beyond standard operating procedures so that they can find a new path of solution. This thesis argues that the use of boundary objects is an effective trigger of problem solving. The use of a boundary object is then described as a means of decoding the contexts behind the objects, reforming the relationship of cooperation, and integrating knowledge systemically.
     
     These findings suggest that theories of knowledge management and boundary objects could be improved organically by considering what people do and how people learn in practice. Furthermore, these findings bring us practical implications of employee training and cross-disciplinary collaboration.
壹、緒論 11
     貳、文獻回顧 17
     一、跨界合作的困境：患無詞 19
     （一）、創造共通語言的困難 19
     （二）、如何運用疆界物件重現知識 20
     二、跨界合作的困境：詞不達意 23
     （一）、分享語意的困難 23
     （二）、如何運用疆界物件分享語意 24
     （三）、社群間缺乏實務經驗所造成的困境 25
     （四）、如何運用疆界物件重現實務脈絡 27
     三、跨界合作的困境：見樹不見林 32
     （一）、系統性思考對跨界合作的重要性 32
     （二）、什麼樣的問題需要調適性學習 33
     （三）、調適性學習的四個基本功 33
     （四）、調適性學習對於跨界合作的意義 36
     四、理論缺口 38
     參、研究方法 40
     一、方法論 40
     二、個案背景說明 40
     三、個案選擇 42
     四、資料蒐集方式 43
     五、資料分析 48
     肆、研究發現 56
     一、第一天：消失的電路區塊 57
     （一）、模糊的問題情境 57
     （二）、解讀現象背後的因果 58
     （三）、改變合作關係 60
     （四）、整合跨界知識 61
     二、第二天：內嵌型雜質與外顯型雜質的數量比例 63
     （一）、模糊的問題情境 63
     （二）、解讀現象背後的因果 65
     （三）、改變合作關係 67
     （四）、整合跨界知識 68
     三、第五天：管線上的不明膠體 70
     （一）、模糊的問題情境 70
     （二）、解讀現象背後的因果 71
     （三）、改變合作關係 73
     （四）、整合跨界知識 74
     四、第二十天：雜質數的波動頻率 76
     （一）、模糊的問題情境 76
     （二）、解讀現象背後的因果 77
     （三）、改變合作關係 78
     （四）、整合跨界知識 79
     伍、討論 82
     一、工作實務之一：解讀現象背後的因果 83
     二、工作實務之二：改變合作關係 84
     三、工作實務之三：整合跨界知識 86
     四、理論貢獻 89
     五、實務貢獻 92
     六、研究限制 93
     陸、結論 95
     參考文獻 96
參考文獻 Adler, P. S. 1995. Interdepartmental Interdependence and Coordination：The Case of the Design/Manufacturing Interface. Organization Science, 6（2）, 147-167.
     
     Argote, L. 1999. Organizational learning： Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Norwell, MA：Kluwer.
     
     Barley, S. R. 1996. Technicians in the workplace： Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41：404-441.
     
     Bechky, B. A. 2003. Sharing meaning across occupational communities： The transformation of knowledge on a production floor. Organization Science, 14, 312-330.
     
     Bogdewic, S. P. 1992. Participant observation. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller （Eds.）, Doing qualitative research （Vol. 3） （pp. 45-69）. Newbury Park, CA： Sage.
     
     Boland, & Tenkasi, 1995. Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing, Organization Science, 6（4）, pp.350-372.
     
     Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge Cambridge university press.
     
     Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. 1998. Organizing Knowledge, California Management Review vol. 40, no.3.
     
     Carlile, P. 1997. Transforming knowledge in product development： Making knowledge manifest through boundary objects. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Michigan.
     
     Carlile, P. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries： Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13 （4）.
     
     Carlile, P. R. 2004. Transferring, Translating, and Transforming： An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15（5）, 555-568.
     
     Clark, K. B., & T. Fujimoto. 1991. Product Development Performance. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
     
     Wheelwright, S. C., & K. B. Clark. 1992. Revolutionizing New Product Development： Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency and Quality. The Free Press, New York.
     
     Cohen, M., & P. Bacdayan. 1994. Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory： Evidence from a laboratory study. Organ. Sci. 5 554-568.
     
     Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. 1998. Working Knowledge. Boston： Harvard Business School Press.
     
     Eisenhardt, K. M., & B. Tabrizi. 1995. Acceleratinga daptive processes： Producti nnovation in the global computer industry. Admin.S ci. Quart. 40 84-110.
     
     Galbraith, J. 1973. Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA： Addison-Wesley.
     
     Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley： University of California Press.
     
     Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational learning： The contributingp ro- cesses and the literatures. Organ. Sci. 2 88-115.
     
     Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in Practice： Mind, Mathematics, and Culture in Everyday Life. New York： Cambridge University Press.
     
     Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. 1967. Organizations and Environments： Managing Differentiation and Integration. Cambridge, MA： Harvard Business School Press.
     
     Leonard, D., & S. Sensiper. 1998. The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Rev. 40（3） 112-132.
     
     Levitt, B., & March, J. 1988. Organizational Learning. Annual Review of
     Sociology, Vol. 14, 31-40.
     
     Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. 1984. Analyzing social settings. Belmont, CA：Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.
     
     March, J., & Olsen, J. 1975. The Uncertainty of the Past：Organizational
     Learning under Ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 3, 147-
     171.
     
     March, J. G., H. Simon. 1958. Organizations. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
     
     Nonaka, I. 1991. The knowledge-creatingc ompany. Harvard Bus. Rev. 69（6）96-104.
     
     Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5： 14-37.
     
     Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in Practice：Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing. Organization Science 13（3）： 249-273.
     
     Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge： Toward a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
     
     Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. Hutcheson, London, UK. Sch6n, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books, New York.
     
     Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communications. Urbana, IL： University of Illinois Press.
     
     Simon, H. 1981. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA： MIT Press.
     
     Star, S. L. 1989. The structure of ill-structured solutions： Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In M. Huhns and L. Gasser （eds.）, Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Menlo Park, CA：Morgan Kaufman.
     
     Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness：Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. StrategicM anagement J. 17 27-43.
     
     Tyre, M. J., & von Hippel, E. 1997. The Situated Nature of Adaptive Learning in Organizations. Organization Science, 8（1）, 71-83.
     
     Weick, K. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading MA：Addison-Wesley.
     
     Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice：Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK： Cambridge University Press.
     
     Winter, S. 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In D. Teece（ed.）, The Competitive Challenge. Cambridge, MA：Ballinger.
     
     Hsiao, R.-L., Tsai, D.-H., & Lee, C.-F. 2012. Collaborative Knowing：The Adaptive Nature of Cross-Boundary Spanning. Journal of Management Studies, 49（3）, 463-491.
     
     杜綺文（2006），何謂參與觀察法，國科會例行報告。
     
     陳蕙芬（2010），柔韌設計：以創新調適的策略回應機構力,國立政治大學科技管理研究所，博士論文。
     
     葉佩雯、劉玠均、陳琬嫣（2011），「矽」說從頭──電子電機的前世「晶」生，奇普士的異想世界，第37-40頁。
     
     蕭瑞麟（2007），不用數字的研究，培生出版。
     
     國科會高瞻自然科學教學資源平台，http：//case.ntu.edu.tw/hs/wordpress/？p=29966
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理研究所
98359020
100
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098359020
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 蕭瑞麟zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) 王培勛zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) Wang, Pei Hsunen_US
dc.creator (作者) 王培勛zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Wang, Pei Hsunen_US
dc.date (日期) 2011en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-七月-2013 17:29:56 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-七月-2013 17:29:56 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-七月-2013 17:29:56 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0098359020en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/58692-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 科技管理研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 98359020zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 近年來，許多企業希望透過不同領域的專家彼此合作，為組織解決日益複雜的難題。然而，跨專業團隊的合作過程充滿挑戰，過去文獻多專注於如何提升知識分享的效果，卻忽略了許多關鍵新知識必須由跨界團隊合作探索而來。在面對陌生情境下，這樣的探索尤其重要，例如：開發新產品、啟用新製程，但我們至今仍對跨專業社群如何合作探索的過程所知甚少。
     
     為了探究這個議題，本研究採用民族誌的方式，追蹤半導體晶圓廠工程師如何在複雜的生產系統中解決跨專業的維修難題。過程中，工作者常常必須面臨因果錯綜複雜、責任歸屬不清、跨界溝通不良所導致的合作困境。研究發現要解決這樣的困境，工作者必須運用疆界物件引發三種工作實務：解讀現象背後的因果、改變合作關係、整合跨界知識，才能找出問題核心並對症下藥。
     
     根據本研究發現，如果我們能了解工作者在特定情境中的學習過程，便可提升既有的知識管理與疆界物件理論。在實務議題上，本研究的發現也能幫助現有員工培訓與跨專業溝通方式。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Recently, more and more companies are gathering different types of specialist in order to solve increasingly complex problems. But the efforts paid in the process of cooperation are challenging for enterprises. Previous researchers had focused on the transfer and share of cross-disciplinary knowledge. However, they neglected the fact that some critical knowledge must be learned by collaborative exploring in terms of particular situation.
     
     To understand this issue, an ethnography study was used to examine the process of trouble shooting undertaken by engineers who encountered complex problems in the fabrication of semiconductor wafers. This thesis addressed three primary challenges faced by engineers. First, the nature of the problem may not be defined appropriately at the beginning. Second, responsibility may not be clearly attributed by cross specialist team who is in charge of investigation. Third, without comprehensive contexts of the practice, communication between engineers is problematic itself.
     
     To overcome the problem, engineers must be able to go beyond standard operating procedures so that they can find a new path of solution. This thesis argues that the use of boundary objects is an effective trigger of problem solving. The use of a boundary object is then described as a means of decoding the contexts behind the objects, reforming the relationship of cooperation, and integrating knowledge systemically.
     
     These findings suggest that theories of knowledge management and boundary objects could be improved organically by considering what people do and how people learn in practice. Furthermore, these findings bring us practical implications of employee training and cross-disciplinary collaboration.		en_US
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 壹、緒論 11
     貳、文獻回顧 17
     一、跨界合作的困境：患無詞 19
     （一）、創造共通語言的困難 19
     （二）、如何運用疆界物件重現知識 20
     二、跨界合作的困境：詞不達意 23
     （一）、分享語意的困難 23
     （二）、如何運用疆界物件分享語意 24
     （三）、社群間缺乏實務經驗所造成的困境 25
     （四）、如何運用疆界物件重現實務脈絡 27
     三、跨界合作的困境：見樹不見林 32
     （一）、系統性思考對跨界合作的重要性 32
     （二）、什麼樣的問題需要調適性學習 33
     （三）、調適性學習的四個基本功 33
     （四）、調適性學習對於跨界合作的意義 36
     四、理論缺口 38
     參、研究方法 40
     一、方法論 40
     二、個案背景說明 40
     三、個案選擇 42
     四、資料蒐集方式 43
     五、資料分析 48
     肆、研究發現 56
     一、第一天：消失的電路區塊 57
     （一）、模糊的問題情境 57
     （二）、解讀現象背後的因果 58
     （三）、改變合作關係 60
     （四）、整合跨界知識 61
     二、第二天：內嵌型雜質與外顯型雜質的數量比例 63
     （一）、模糊的問題情境 63
     （二）、解讀現象背後的因果 65
     （三）、改變合作關係 67
     （四）、整合跨界知識 68
     三、第五天：管線上的不明膠體 70
     （一）、模糊的問題情境 70
     （二）、解讀現象背後的因果 71
     （三）、改變合作關係 73
     （四）、整合跨界知識 74
     四、第二十天：雜質數的波動頻率 76
     （一）、模糊的問題情境 76
     （二）、解讀現象背後的因果 77
     （三）、改變合作關係 78
     （四）、整合跨界知識 79
     伍、討論 82
     一、工作實務之一：解讀現象背後的因果 83
     二、工作實務之二：改變合作關係 84
     三、工作實務之三：整合跨界知識 86
     四、理論貢獻 89
     五、實務貢獻 92
     六、研究限制 93
     陸、結論 95
     參考文獻 96		-
dc.description.tableofcontents 壹、緒論 11
     貳、文獻回顧 17
     一、跨界合作的困境：患無詞 19
     （一）、創造共通語言的困難 19
     （二）、如何運用疆界物件重現知識 20
     二、跨界合作的困境：詞不達意 23
     （一）、分享語意的困難 23
     （二）、如何運用疆界物件分享語意 24
     （三）、社群間缺乏實務經驗所造成的困境 25
     （四）、如何運用疆界物件重現實務脈絡 27
     三、跨界合作的困境：見樹不見林 32
     （一）、系統性思考對跨界合作的重要性 32
     （二）、什麼樣的問題需要調適性學習 33
     （三）、調適性學習的四個基本功 33
     （四）、調適性學習對於跨界合作的意義 36
     四、理論缺口 38
     參、研究方法 40
     一、方法論 40
     二、個案背景說明 40
     三、個案選擇 42
     四、資料蒐集方式 43
     五、資料分析 48
     肆、研究發現 56
     一、第一天：消失的電路區塊 57
     （一）、模糊的問題情境 57
     （二）、解讀現象背後的因果 58
     （三）、改變合作關係 60
     （四）、整合跨界知識 61
     二、第二天：內嵌型雜質與外顯型雜質的數量比例 63
     （一）、模糊的問題情境 63
     （二）、解讀現象背後的因果 65
     （三）、改變合作關係 67
     （四）、整合跨界知識 68
     三、第五天：管線上的不明膠體 70
     （一）、模糊的問題情境 70
     （二）、解讀現象背後的因果 71
     （三）、改變合作關係 73
     （四）、整合跨界知識 74
     四、第二十天：雜質數的波動頻率 76
     （一）、模糊的問題情境 76
     （二）、解讀現象背後的因果 77
     （三）、改變合作關係 78
     （四）、整合跨界知識 79
     伍、討論 82
     一、工作實務之一：解讀現象背後的因果 83
     二、工作實務之二：改變合作關係 84
     三、工作實務之三：整合跨界知識 86
     四、理論貢獻 89
     五、實務貢獻 92
     六、研究限制 93
     陸、結論 95
     參考文獻 96		zh_TW
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098359020en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知識管理zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 疆界物件zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 跨界合作zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 情境學習zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 調適性學習zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 做中學zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) knowledge managementen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) boundary objectsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) cross-disciplinary collaborationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) situated learningen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) adaptive learningen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) learning by doingen_US
dc.title (題名) 以物意悟：疆界物件如何引發跨專業的調適性學習行為zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Learning from Objects：How may Boundary Objects Enact Adaptive Learning in Cross-Disciplinary Collaborationen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Adler, P. S. 1995. Interdepartmental Interdependence and Coordination：The Case of the Design/Manufacturing Interface. Organization Science, 6（2）, 147-167.
     
     Argote, L. 1999. Organizational learning： Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Norwell, MA：Kluwer.
     
     Barley, S. R. 1996. Technicians in the workplace： Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41：404-441.
     
     Bechky, B. A. 2003. Sharing meaning across occupational communities： The transformation of knowledge on a production floor. Organization Science, 14, 312-330.
     
     Bogdewic, S. P. 1992. Participant observation. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller （Eds.）, Doing qualitative research （Vol. 3） （pp. 45-69）. Newbury Park, CA： Sage.
     
     Boland, & Tenkasi, 1995. Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing, Organization Science, 6（4）, pp.350-372.
     
     Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge Cambridge university press.
     
     Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. 1998. Organizing Knowledge, California Management Review vol. 40, no.3.
     
     Carlile, P. 1997. Transforming knowledge in product development： Making knowledge manifest through boundary objects. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Michigan.
     
     Carlile, P. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries： Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13 （4）.
     
     Carlile, P. R. 2004. Transferring, Translating, and Transforming： An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15（5）, 555-568.
     
     Clark, K. B., & T. Fujimoto. 1991. Product Development Performance. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
     
     Wheelwright, S. C., & K. B. Clark. 1992. Revolutionizing New Product Development： Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency and Quality. The Free Press, New York.
     
     Cohen, M., & P. Bacdayan. 1994. Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory： Evidence from a laboratory study. Organ. Sci. 5 554-568.
     
     Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. 1998. Working Knowledge. Boston： Harvard Business School Press.
     
     Eisenhardt, K. M., & B. Tabrizi. 1995. Acceleratinga daptive processes： Producti nnovation in the global computer industry. Admin.S ci. Quart. 40 84-110.
     
     Galbraith, J. 1973. Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA： Addison-Wesley.
     
     Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley： University of California Press.
     
     Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational learning： The contributingp ro- cesses and the literatures. Organ. Sci. 2 88-115.
     
     Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in Practice： Mind, Mathematics, and Culture in Everyday Life. New York： Cambridge University Press.
     
     Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. 1967. Organizations and Environments： Managing Differentiation and Integration. Cambridge, MA： Harvard Business School Press.
     
     Leonard, D., & S. Sensiper. 1998. The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Rev. 40（3） 112-132.
     
     Levitt, B., & March, J. 1988. Organizational Learning. Annual Review of
     Sociology, Vol. 14, 31-40.
     
     Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. 1984. Analyzing social settings. Belmont, CA：Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.
     
     March, J., & Olsen, J. 1975. The Uncertainty of the Past：Organizational
     Learning under Ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 3, 147-
     171.
     
     March, J. G., H. Simon. 1958. Organizations. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
     
     Nonaka, I. 1991. The knowledge-creatingc ompany. Harvard Bus. Rev. 69（6）96-104.
     
     Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5： 14-37.
     
     Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in Practice：Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing. Organization Science 13（3）： 249-273.
     
     Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge： Toward a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
     
     Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. Hutcheson, London, UK. Sch6n, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books, New York.
     
     Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communications. Urbana, IL： University of Illinois Press.
     
     Simon, H. 1981. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA： MIT Press.
     
     Star, S. L. 1989. The structure of ill-structured solutions： Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In M. Huhns and L. Gasser （eds.）, Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Menlo Park, CA：Morgan Kaufman.
     
     Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness：Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. StrategicM anagement J. 17 27-43.
     
     Tyre, M. J., & von Hippel, E. 1997. The Situated Nature of Adaptive Learning in Organizations. Organization Science, 8（1）, 71-83.
     
     Weick, K. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading MA：Addison-Wesley.
     
     Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice：Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK： Cambridge University Press.
     
     Winter, S. 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In D. Teece（ed.）, The Competitive Challenge. Cambridge, MA：Ballinger.
     
     Hsiao, R.-L., Tsai, D.-H., & Lee, C.-F. 2012. Collaborative Knowing：The Adaptive Nature of Cross-Boundary Spanning. Journal of Management Studies, 49（3）, 463-491.
     
     杜綺文（2006），何謂參與觀察法，國科會例行報告。
     
     陳蕙芬（2010），柔韌設計：以創新調適的策略回應機構力,國立政治大學科技管理研究所，博士論文。
     
     葉佩雯、劉玠均、陳琬嫣（2011），「矽」說從頭──電子電機的前世「晶」生，奇普士的異想世界，第37-40頁。
     
     蕭瑞麟（2007），不用數字的研究，培生出版。
     
     國科會高瞻自然科學教學資源平台，http：//case.ntu.edu.tw/hs/wordpress/？p=29966		zh_TW