臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近來，開放式創新團隊在台灣漸被採用，科技部跨領域創意加值計畫嘗試學術界的開放式創新團隊媒合與運作，而拜耳生物科技股份有限公司也採用開放式創新團隊運作。然而，多元的個人知識與能力總是難以在團隊層次匯集，偏偏這一過程又是開放式創新團隊成功運作的關鍵，團隊學習正好可用來改善此過程，因此，開放式創新團隊中的團隊學習過程是值得研究的議題。
本研究的焦點為學術界中的開放式創新團隊。根據一份由111位曾參與科技部跨領域創意加值計畫的學者所填寫的問卷，本研究探討三種團隊成員的特質──「行為職能多樣性」、「經驗開放性」、「對商品化的知覺」──與「團隊學習」及「績效」的關係。研究結果發現：(1)經驗開放性與對商品化的知覺和團隊學習呈正相關，行為職能多樣性則否；(2)團隊學習和績效呈正相關；(3)行為職能多樣性和績效呈正相關，經驗開放性與對商品化的知覺則否；(4)團隊學習可中介經驗開放性與對商品化的知覺，進而達成績效，卻無法中介行為職能多樣性以達成績效。
在本研究中，行為職能多樣性的效果被確認：此一變數與績效呈正相關，卻未被證明與團隊學習呈正相關。經驗開放性對團隊學習的效果則是首次被建立。實務上，本研究建議在篩選開放式創新團隊的成員時，應考量研究內容中探討的這三種個人特質，同時也應在開放式創新團隊中更強力推廣團隊學習。

Recently, open innovation teams have been increasingly adopted in Taiwan. Both the MOST Promoting Program for Cross-Field Creative Scenario Value-Adding and Bayer have open innovation teams. However, the compilation of diverse individual knowledge and capabilities at team level, core to the success of open innovation teams, has been hard. Team learning is a process undertaken to improve such compilation, making it worthwhile to study the team learning process in open innovation teams.
This research focuses on open innovation teams in academic circles. Based on a survey completed by 111 scholars who had participated in the MOST Promoting Program for Cross-Field Creative Scenario Value-Adding, this research explores the relationships between three kinds of team members’ characteristics (namely, behavioral competence diversity, openness to experience, perception of commercialization), team learning, and performance. The findings are as the following: (1) openness to experience and perception of commercialization are positively related to team learning, but behavioral competence diversity is not; (2) team learning is positively related to performance; (3) behavioral competence diversity is positively related to performance, but openness to experience and perception of commercialization are not; (4) team learning can mediate openness to experience and perception of commercialization separately to achieve performance, but cannot mediate behavioral competence diversity to achieve performance.
The effect of behavioral competence diversity is confirmed: it is positively related to performance but not proved to be positively related to team learning. The effect of openness to experience on team learning is established for the first time. In practice, it is suggested that the three personal characteristics discussed should be taken into consideration when selecting members for open innovation teams, and that team learning should be promoted more intensively in open innovation teams.

摘要....................................................Ⅰ
Abstract................................................Ⅱ
誌謝....................................................Ⅳ
Table of Contents.......................................Ⅵ
List of Tables..........................................Ⅸ
List of Figures.........................................XI
Chapter One Introduction.................................1
1.1 Research Background................................1
1.2 Motivation.........................................3
1.3 Research Procedure................................................7
Chapter Two Literature Review...................................................9
2.1 Team Learning.................................................9
2.2 Behavioral Competence Diversity...............................................15
2.3 Openness to Experience..............................................20
2.4 Perception of Commercialization.......................................24
2.5 Performance.......................................28
2.6 Mediation Effects.................................................33
2.6.1 Relationships between Behavioral Competence Diversity, Openness to Experience, Perception of Commercialization, and Performance......................33
2.6.2 Mediating Role of Team Learning................................................35
Chapter Three Methodology.............................................38
3.1 Introduction to the MOST Promoting Program for Cross-Field Creative Scenario Value-Adding..................................................38
3.2 Conceptual Structure...............................................41
3.3 Operationalization......................................41
3.3.1 Team Learning................................................41
3.3.2 Behavioral Competence Diversity...............................................42
3.3.3 Openness to Experience..............................................43
3.3.4 Perception of Commercialization.......................................44
3.3.5 Performance.............................................45
3.4 Research Design and Sampling................................................46
3.5 Data Analysis Method..................................................47
Chapter Four Research Results.................................................48
4.1 Response of Surveys.................................................48
4.2 Descriptive Statistics Analysis................................................49
4.2.1 The Profile of Respondent..............................................49
4.2.2 The Descriptive Statistics of Constructs..............................................53
4.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis................................................59
4.3.1 EFA of Behavioral Competence Diversity...............................................59
4.3.2 EFA of Openness to Experience..............................................60
4.3.3 EFA of Perception of Commercialization.......................................61
4.3.4 EFA of Team Learning................................................62
4.3.5 EFA of Performance.............................................63
4.4 The Effect of Expertise on Behavioral Competence Diversity, Openness to Experience, Perception of Commercialization, Team Learning, and Performance.............................................64
4.5 The Effect of Patenting on Perception of Commercialization and Performance.............................................65
4.6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis................................................67
4.6.1 Reliability Analysis................................................68
4.6.2 Validity Analysis – Convergent Validity................................................68
4.6.3 Validity Analysis – Discriminant Validity................................................71
4.6.4 Model Fit of CFA.....................................................72
4.6.5 Confirmation of the Factor Structure...............................................73
4.7 SEM – Path Analysis and Hypothesis Test....................................................77
4.7.1 Examination of Direct Effects.................................................77
4.7.2 Examination of Mediating Effects.................................................78
Chapter Five Conclusion and Suggestion..............................................82
5.1 Research Conclusion..............................................82
5.1.1 Behavioral Competence Diversity, Openness to Experience, Perception of Commercialization, and Team Learning................................................83
5.1.2 Team Learning and Performance.............................................84
5.1.3 Behavioral Competence Diversity, Openness to Experience, Perception of Commercialization, and Performance..............................................85
5.1.4 Mediating Role of Team Learning.................................................86
5.2 Theoretical Implication..............................................87
5.3 Practical Implication..............................................88
5.4 Research Limitation...............................................90
5.5 Suggestion for Further Research.................................................90
References...............................................93

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 50,
179-211.
Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., Lynn, G., ＆ Dogan, D. (2012).
Antecedents and consequences of team sensemaking capability
in product development projects. R＆D Management, 42 (5),
473-493.
Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S., Keskin, H., ＆ Dogan, D. (2014). Team
learning in IT implementation projects: antecedents and
consequences. International Journal of Information
Management, 394 (1), 37-47.
Alavi, M., ＆ Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and
knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and
research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25 (1), 107-136.
Anderson, J. C., ＆ Gerbing, D. G. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (May), 411-423.
Bagozzi, R. P., ＆ Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and
testing organizational theories: a holistic construal.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (3), 459-489.
Bagozzi, R. P., ＆ Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation for
structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.
Baron, R. M., ＆ Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research:
conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-
1182.
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as
predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92 (3), 595-615.
Bell, B. S., Kozlowski, S. W. J., ＆ Blawath, S. (2012). Team
learning: A theoretical integration and review [Electronic
version]. Retrieved 2017.6.29, from Cornell University,
School of Industrial and Labor.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural
models. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2), 238-246.
Browne, M. W., ＆ Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A., ＆ Long, J. S. (Eds).
Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-142).
Buyl, T., Boone, C., Hendriks, W., ＆ Matthyssens, P. (2011).
Top management team functional diversity and firm
performance: the marketing role of CEO characteristics.
Journal of Management Studies, 48 (1), 151-177.
Cardno, C. (2002). Team learning: opportunities and challenges
for school leaders. School Leadership ＆ Management, 22 (2),
211-223.
Chan, F., Lee, G. K., Lee, E. J., Kubota, C., ＆ Allen, C. A.
(2007). Structural equation modelling in rehabilitation
counselling research. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin,
51 (1), 44-57.
Cheetham, G., ＆ Chivers, G. (1996). Towards a holistic model of
professional competence. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 20 (5), 20-30.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for
Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H., ＆ Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech:
early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R ＆
D Management, 36 (3), 229-236.
Cheung, G. W., ＆ Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and
suppression effects of latent variables: bootstrapping with
structural equation models. Organizational Research
Methods, 11 (2), 296-325.
Cohen, S. G., ＆ Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work:
group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the
executive suite. Journal of Management, 23 (3), 239-290.
Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., ＆ Hinds, P. J. (2005). Team
diversity and information use. Academy of Management
Journal, 48 (6), 1107-1123.
Dees, W., Bennett, G., ＆ Tsuji, Y. (2006). Attitudes toward
sponsorship at a state sports festival. Event Management,
10 (2-3), 89-101.
Delamare Le Deist, F., ＆ Winterton, J. (2005). What is
competence? Human Resource Development International, 8
(1), 27-46.
Du Chatenier, E., Verstegen, J. A. A. M., Biemans, H. J. A.,
Mulder, M., ＆ Omta, O. (2009). The challenges of
collaborative knowledge creation in open innovation teams.
Human Resource Development Review, 8 (3), 350-381.
Du Chatenier, E., Verstegen, J. A. A. M., Biemans, H. J. A.,
Mulder, M., ＆ Omta, O. S. W. F. (2010). Identification of
competences for professionals in open innovation teams. R＆D
Management, 40 (3), 271-280.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning
behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44 (2), 350-383.
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., ＆ Pisano, G. P. (2001).
Disrupted routines: team learning and new technology
implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46 (4), 685-716.
Edmondson, A. C., Dillon, J. R., ＆ Roloff, K. S. (2007). Three
perspectives on team learning: outcome improvement, task
mastery, and group process. The Academy of Management
Annals, 1 (1), 269-314.
Ellis, A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C. O.
L. H., West, B. J., ＆ Moon, H. (2003). Team learning:
collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88 (5), 821-835.
Fishbein, M., ＆ Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and
Predicting Social Behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Fornell, C., ＆ Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50.
Fritsch, M., ＆ Krabel, S. (2012). Ready to leave the ivory
tower?: academic scientists’ appeal to work in the private
sector. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37 (3), 271-296.
Gassmann, O., ＆ Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a theory of open
innovation: three core process archetypes. Paper presented
at proceedings of the R＆D management conference (RAMDA),
Lisbon, Portugal.
Gogunskii, V., Koleshikov, O., Koleshikova, K., ＆ Lukianov, D.
(2016). “Lifelong learning is a new paradigm of
personnel training in enterprises. Eastern-European Journal
of Enterprise Technologies, 82 (4/2), 4-10.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., ＆ Black, W. C.
(1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings. NY:
Paulist press.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., ＆
Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.).
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Haon, C., Gotteland, D., ＆ Fornerino, M. (2009). Familiarity
and competence diversity in new product development teams:
effects on new product performance. Marketing Letters, 20
(1), 75-89.
Henry, J. W., ＆ Stone, R. W. (1994). A structural model of end-
user satisfaction with a computer-based medical information
system. Information Resources Management Journal, 7 (3),
21-33.
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., van
Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., ＆ Van Kleef, G. A. (2008).
Facing differences with an open mind: openness to
experience, salience of intragroup differences, and
performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management
Journal, 51 (6), 1204-1222.
Horwitz, S. K., ＆ Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team
diversity on team outcomes: a meta-analytic review of team
demography. Journal of Management, 33 (6), 987-1015.
Hu, L. T., ＆ Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1-55.
Johnson, M., Monsen, E. W., ＆ MacKenzie, N. G. (2017).
Follow the leader or the pack? Regulatory focus and
academic entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 34 (2), 181-200.
Kibbeling, M., van der Bij, H., ＆ van Weele, A. (2013). Market
orientation and innovativeness in supply chains:
suppliers’ impact on customer satisfaction. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 30 (3), 500-515.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., ＆ Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and
teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, ＆ E.
J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333-375). London,
UK: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., ＆ Bell, B. S. (2008). Team learning,
development, and adaptation. In V. I. Sessa ＆ M. London
(Eds.), Group Learning (pp. 15-44). Mahwah, NJ. LEA.
Latif, N. S. A., Abdullah, A., ＆ Jan, N. M. (2016). A pilot
study of entrepreneurial orientation towards
commercialization of university research products. Procedia
Economics and Finance, 37, 93-99.
Lau, R. S., ＆ Cheung, G. W. (2012). Estimating and comparing
specific mediation effects in complex latent variable
models. Organizational Research Methods, 15 (1), 3-16.
McCrae, R. R., ＆ Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-
factor model of personality across instruments and
observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52
(1), 81-90.
Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Anitoch
Review, 8 (2), 193-210.
Meyer, J. P., ＆ Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the
workplace: toward a general model. Human Resource
Management Review, 11 (3), 299-326.
Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., ＆ Lupton, G. (2011).
The entrepreneurial university: examining the underlying
academic tensions. Technovation, 31 (4), 161-170.
Raes, E., Kyndt, E., Decuyper, S., Van den Bossche, P., ＆
Dochy, F. (2015). An exploratory study of group development
and team learning. Human Resources Development Quarterly,
26 (1), 5-30.
Robbins, S. P., ＆ Coulter, M. (2016). Management. London, UK:
Pearson Education.
Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational decision making in business
organizations. The American Economic Review, 69 (4), 493-
513.
Stevens, M. J., ＆ Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill,
and ability requirements for teamwork: implications for
human resource management. Journal of Management, 20 (2),
503-530.
Stevens, M. J., ＆ Campion, M. A. (1999). Staffing work teams:
development and validation of a selection test for teamwork
settings. Journal of Management, 25 (2), 207-228.
Sun, H., Teh, P.-L., Ho, K., ＆ Lin, B. (2017). Team diversity,
learning, and innovation: a mediation model. Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 57 (1), 22-30.
Tabachnick, B. J., ＆ Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate
statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn ＆ Bacon.
Tversky, A., ＆ Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: a heuristic
for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive
Psychology, 5 (2), 207-232.
Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., ＆
Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors
driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments:
team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research,
37 (5), 490-521.
Van der Vegt, G. S., ＆ Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and
performance in multidisciplinary teams: the importance of
collective team identification. Academy of Management
Journal, 48 (3), 532-547.
van Offenbeek, M. (2001). Processes and outcomes of team
learning. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 10 (3), 303-317.
van Woerkom, M., ＆ Croon, M. (2009). The relationships between
team learning activities and team performance. Personnel
Review, 38 (5), 560-577.
Woo, S. E., Chernyshenko, O. S., Longley, A., Zhang, Z.-X.,
Chiu, C.-Y., ＆ Stark, S. E. (2014a). Openness to
experience: its lower level structure, measurement, and
cross-cultural equivalence. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 96 (1), 29-45.
Woo, S. E., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S. E., ＆ Conz, G.
(2014b). Validity of six openness facets in predicting work
behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 96 (1), 76-86.
Yee, S., Hitkari, J. A., ＆ Greenblatt, E. M. (2007). A follow-
up study of women who donated oocytes to known recipient
couples for altruistic reasons. Human Reproduction, 22 (7),
2040-2050.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M., ＆ Gibson, C. (2006). Multinational
organization context: implications for team learning and
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (3), 501-
518.
Zhang, Z., Won, D., ＆ Pastore, D. L. (2005). The effects of attitudes toward commercialization on college students’ purchasing intentions of sponsors’ products. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14 (3), 177-187.