臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　團隊成員具有任務相關的專業與技能，共同發展新穎性的構想與豐富創造力進而滿足現有的或潛在的顧客需求。通常，他們能夠在新產品研發期間透過整合個別成員領域相關知識與技能完成競爭性的計畫。最近，在新產品研發團隊的研究的文獻中，互聯記憶系統的理論闡述新產品研發團隊成員知識整合的過程。過去本研究運用互聯記憶系統進而探討組織團隊管理機制下的績效影響。因為以往與新產品研發團隊相關的研究通常針對團隊成員互動過程的績效面來進行研究，本研究與團隊管理機制以及團隊個別成員的責任有關，責任包含成員平衡的貢獻、流程基準性報酬系統以及知識擁有權的認定。在這份研究架構中，互聯記憶系統為一中介變數聯結個人的責任(包含成員平衡的貢獻、流程基準性報酬與知識擁有權的認定)與團隊績效變數(包含效能與效率)。另外，這份研究亦探討環境因素，例如科技變動與市場變動，是否會對互聯記憶系統與團隊績效之間造成干擾作用。
　　研究對象以台灣之高科技產業為主，包含北部與南部的IC、TFT-LCD、光電廠、通訊產業與其它的科學與科技研究者，發放200份問卷，121份有效回收問卷，有效問卷回收率為60.5%。結果發現:1)成員平衡的貢獻與流程基準性報酬系統對互聯記憶系統有顯著的正面影響，知識擁有權的認定卻對互聯記憶系統無顯著的影響。2) 互聯記憶系統對團隊的效能與效率皆有顯著的正面影響。3)科技變動對互聯記憶系統與團隊效率之間有正面的干擾作用，互聯記憶系統在高度的科技變動因素的干擾作用下對團隊效率有較多的正面影響；然而，科技變動對互聯記憶系統與團隊效能之間沒有顯著的干擾作用。4)市場變動因素對互聯記憶系統與團隊效率之間以及互聯記憶系統與團隊效能之間皆無顯著干擾作用。
　　本研究之實務研究結果證實，那些針對管理團隊成員個人責任所用的團隊管理機制（例如成員平衡的貢獻，流程基準性報酬系統，與知識擁有權的認定）對團隊績效之提升有相當重要之影響。在學理上，由於大部份互聯記憶系統的研究專注於對團隊成員互動過程的影響，則本研究成果有助於補充現有互聯記憶系統理論與實務研究之不足。在管理實務上，這份研究提醒管理者在對專案團隊的管理上，除了努力促進團隊成員間的互動外，一些針對如何提升團隊成員達成其個別角色之責任所設計之團隊管理機制（例如成員平衡的貢獻，流程基準性報酬系統，與知識擁有權的認定）也值得採行。

Members of cross-functional teams have task-relevant specializations and skills. They are brought together to develop newfangled ideals and abundant creativities to satisfy existing and/or potential customers’ demands. Usually, they can accomplish competitive projects through integrating individual domain-relevant knowledge and skills during the process of new product development (NPD). In recent research literature of NPD teams, the theory of transactive memory system (TMS) is used to illuminate this knowledge integration process that is the key role in NPD team works. Following this research literature, this study is to use TMS to explore the performance effects of some organizational team governance mechanisms. Because previous studies relating to NPD teams were usually focused on the performance impacts of processes of team members’ interactions, this study will instead focus on those team management mechanisms that are more directly related to team members’ individual accountabilities, including balance of member contributions, process-based rewards system, and clarity of knowledge management. In this study’s research frame, TMS is treated as a mediating variable connecting variables of individual accountabilities (including balance of member contributions, process-based rewards, and clarity of knowledge ownership) and team performance variables (including effectiveness and efficiency). Moreover, we also explore whether these relationships are moderated by environmental factors such as technology turbulence and market turbulence.
This study surveyed 200 participants from the high-tech industries in Taiwan, including the industries of IC (Integrated Circuit), TFT-LCD (Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Display), optoelectronic and telecommunication and other researchers of scientific and technological. We received 132 questionnaires of which 11 were deleted as ineffective questionnaires. That resulted in 121 effective questionnaires and a collecting rate of 60.5%. The results find that: 1) Both balance of member contributions and process-based rewards system have significant positive effects on TMS, while clarity of knowledge management has no significant effect on TMS. 2) TMS has significant positive effects on both team effectiveness and efficiency. 3) Regarding the technology turbulence’s moderating effects, it has a significant positive moderating effect on the relationship between TMS and team efficiency that means TMS has a more positive influence on team efficiency in higher level of technology turbulence than in lower level of technology turbulence; while it has no significant moderating effect on the relationship between TMS and team effectiveness. 4) There is no significant moderating effect of market turbulence both on the relationship between TMS and team effectiveness and the relationship between TMS and team efficiency.
The findings of this study provide empirical evidence that some team management mechanisms focusing on team members’ individual accountabilities (such as balance of member contributions, process-based rewards system, and clarity of knowledge ownership) do have a role in team performance. In theory, this result prides a complementary contribution to the research of theory of TMS that is mostly concentrating on the effects of team members’ interaction processes. In management practice, this study can inform corporate managers that, aside from fostering team members’ interaction activities, it still worthwhile to pay efforts on some team management measures relating to team members’ individual accountability.

Contents
中文摘要Ⅰ
AbstractⅡ
誌謝詞Ⅳ
Contents Ⅴ
Li st of Figures Ⅶ
List of Tables Ⅷ
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Purposes and Objective 3
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Accountability 4
2.2 Transactive Memory System 10
2.3 Team Performance 11
2.4 Environmental Turbulence 13
2.5 Hypotheses 14
Chapter 3 Study Method
3.1 Research Framework 19
3.2 Research Design 20
3.3 Measures 20
3.4 Research Subjects 21
3.5 Data Analysis 25
Chapter 4 Results
4.1 Reliabilities 26
4.2 Validities 27
4.3 Correlation Analysis 36
4.4 Multiple Regression 37
Chapter 5 Conclusions
5.1 The relationships between accountability and TMS 44
5.2 The relationships between TMS and team performance 45
5.3 The moderating effects of technology turbulence 46
5.4 The moderating effects of technology turbulence 47
5.5 Theoretical implications 48
5.6 Managerial implications 49
5.7 Limitations and future contributions 49
References 51
Appendix A 58
Appendix B 60
Appendix C 66
Appendix D 71


List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Simplified Expectancy Model 8
Figure 2.2 Efficiency and Effectiveness Management 13
Figure 3.1 Research Framework 19
Figure 4.1 CFA for accountability 28
Figure 4.2 CFA for balance of member contributions and process-based rewards 29
Figure 4.3 CFA for transactive memory system(TMS) 31
Figure 4.4 CFA for team performance 32
Figure 4.5 CFA for environmental turbulence 34
Figure 4.6 CFA for environmental turbulence (technology adds market) 35


List of Tables
Table 2.1 Comparison of Team Success Conceptualizations 12
Table 3.1 Frequency of sex 22
Table 3.2 Frequency of age 22
Table 3.3 Frequency of educational background 23
Table 3.4 Frequency of seniority 23
Table 3.5 Frequency of project scale 23
Table 3.6 Frequency of project’s periods 24
Table 3.7 Frequency of project’s percentage of work time 24
Table 3.3 Frequency of Industry 24
Table 4.1 Cronbach’s Alpha of variables 27
Table 4.2 CFA indices for accountability of independent variable 28
Table 4.3 CFA indices for balance of member contributions and process-based rewards of
independent variable 30
Table 4.4 CFA indices for TMS 31
Table 4.5 CFA indices for team performance of dependent variable 32
Table 4.6 CFA indices for environmental turbulence of moderating variable 34
Table 4.7 CAF indices for environmental turbulence of moderating variable (technology adds
market) 35
Table 4.8 Correlation, Mean, and Standard Deviations for Eight Variables (N=121) 36
Table 4.9.1 The Result of regression (Dependent = TMS) 38
Table 4.9.2 Coefficient of determination & F (Dependent = TMS) 38
Table 4.10.1 The Result of regression (Dependent = Effectiveness) 39
Table 4.10.2 Coefficient of determination & F (Dependent = Effectiveness) 39
Table 4.11.1 The Result of regression (Dependent = Effectiveness) 40
Table 4.11.2 Coefficient of determination & F (Dependent = Effectiveness) 41
Table 4.12.1 The Result of regression (Dependent = Efficiency) 42
Table 4.12.2 Coefficient of determination & F (Dependent = Efficiency) 42
Table 4.13.1 The Result of regression (Dependent = Efficiency) 43
Table 4.13.2 Coefficient of determination & F (Dependent = Efficiency) 43
Table 5.1 The result of H1 (TMS vs. balance of member contributions) 45
Table 5.2 The result of H2 (TMS vs. process-based rewards) 45
Table 5.3 The result of H3 (TMS vs. clarity of knowledge ownership) 45
Table 5.4 The result of H4 (Effectiveness vs. TMS & Efficiency vs. TMS) 46
Table 5.5 The result of H5 (Moderator = technology) 47
Table 5.6 The result of H5 (Moderator = market) 48

1.Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Keskin, H. and Lynn G. S. 2006. Transactive memory system in new product development teams. IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management, 53(1): 95-111.
2.Antonioni, D. 1994. The effect of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings. Personnel Psychology, 47: 349–357.
3.Argote, L. 1999. Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Kluwer, Norweill, MA.
4.Ba, S., Stallaert, J., and Whinston, A. B. 2001. Research commentary: Introducing a third dimension in information systems design-the case for incentive alignment. Information Systems Research, 12(3): 225-239.
5.Bagozzi, R. P. 1999. Goal setting and goal striving in consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special Issue): 19-32.
6.Balkin, D. and Swift, M. 2006. Top management team compensation in high-growth technology ventures. Human Resource Management Review, 16: 1-11.
7.Band, W. A. 1991. Creating value for customer. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
8.Barua, A., Lee, C.-H.S., Whinston, A.B. 1995. Incentives and computing systems for team-based organization. Organization Science, 6(4): 487–504.
9.Barzel, Y. 1989. Economic analysis of property rights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press.
10.Brandon, D. P. and Hollingshead, A. B. 2004. Transactive memory system in organizations: Matching task, expertise, and people. Organization Science, 15(6): 633-644.
11.Brown, S. L., and Eisenhardt, K. M. 1995. Product development: Past research, present findings, new directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2) 343–378.
12.Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E., and Converse, S. 1993. Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N.J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and group decision making. (pp. 221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.Cummings, L. L., and Anton, R. J. 1990. The logical and appreciative dimensions of accountability. In S. Sivastva, D. Cooperrider, & Associates (Eds.), Appreciative Management and Leadership, (pp.257-286). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.Daft, R. L. and Weick, K. E. 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 284-295.
15.Dayan, M. 2006. The moderating effect of market turbulence on organization intelligence. IEEE, 2: 566-570.
16.Denison, D. R., Hart, S. L., and Kahn, J. A. 1996. From chimneys to cross-functional teams: Developing and validating a diagnostic model. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 1005-1023.
17.Deschamps, Jean-Philippe and Nayak, P. R. 1995. Product juggernauts: How companies moblize to generate a stream of market winners. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
18.DeVellis, R.F. 1991. Scale Development: theory and applications. (Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 26). Newbury Park: Sage.
19.Drucker, P. F. 1959. Thinking ahead. Harvard Business Review, 37: 25–28.
20.Drucker, P. F. 2003. Three’s more than one kind of team. Wall Street Journal.
21.Drucker, P. F., and Maciariello, J. A. 2004. The Daily Drucker. HarperCollins Publishers.
22.Ferris, G. R., Mitchell, T.R., Canavan, P.J., Frink, D.D., and Hopper, H. 1995. Accountability in human resource systems. In G.R. Ferris, S.D. Rosen, & D, T, Barnum (Eds.), Handbook of human resource management. (pp. 175-196). Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishers.
23.Frink, D. D., & Ferris, G. R. 1998. Accountability, impression management, and goal setting in the performance evaluation process. Human Relations, 51: 1259–1283.
24.Gale, B. T. 1994. Managing customer value. New York: The Free Press.
25.Gladstein. D. 1984. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 499-517.
26.Hackman J. R. 1987. The design of work team. In J.W. Lorsch, ed. Handbook of Organizational Behavior. (pp. 67-102). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
27.Hambrick D. 1984. Taxonomic approaches to studying strategy: Some conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Management, 10(1): 27-41.
28.Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H. G. 2001. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence, Organization Science, 12(4): 435–449.
29.Holbrook, M. B. 1994. The nature of consumer value. In Roland T. Rust and Richard L. Oliver, eds. Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice. (pp. 21-71). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
30.Hollingshead, A. B., 1998a. Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34: 423-442.
31.Hollingshead, A. B. 1998b. Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 659-671. 32.Holmstrom, B. 1982. Moral hazard in teams. Bell J. Econom. 13: 324-340.
33.Jackson, P. and Klobas, J. 2008. Transactive memory system in organizations: Implications for knowledge directories. Decision Support Systems, 44: 409-424.
34.Jarvenpaa, S. L. and Majchrzak, A. 2008. Knowledge collaboration among professionals protecting national security: role of transactive memories in ego-centered knowledge networks. Organization Science, 19(2): 260-276.
35.Jaworski, B. J. and Kohli, A. K.1993. Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57: 53-70.
36.Jaworski, B. J. 1998. Toward a theory of marketing control: Environmental contexts, control types, and consequence. Journal of Marketing, 52: 23-39.
37.John, R. A. 2003. Transactive memory in organizational group: The effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 866-878.
38.Kennedy, J. 1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(2): 231-245.
39.Kleingartner, A. and Anderson, C. S. 1987. Human Resource Management in High Technology Firms Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
40.Kumar, P. 2004. The effects of social comparison on inaction inertia. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95 (2): 175-185.
41.Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Neter. J. 2004. Applied Linear Regression Models, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill Irwin.
42.Lai, A. W. 1995. Customer value, product benefits, and customer value: A consumption behavior approach. In Frank R. Kardes and Mita Sujan, eds. Advance in Consumer Research. (pp. 381-388). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
43.Lerner, J. S., and Tetlock, P. E. 1999. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2): 255-275.
44.Lewis, K. 2000. Transactive memory and performance of management consulting teams: Examining construct and predictive validity of a new scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Toronto, Canada.
45.Lewis, K. 2003. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 587–604.
46.Lewis, K., Lange, D., and Gillis, L. 2005. Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science, 16(6): 581-598.
47.McClurg, L. N. 2001. Team rewards: how far have we come? Human Resource Management, 40(1): 73–86.
48.McKee, D. O., Varadarajan. P. R, and Pride, W. 1989. Strategic adaptability and firm performance: A market-contingent perspective. Journal of Marketing, 53(3): 21-35
49.Merchant, K. 1985. Control in business organizations. Boston: Pittman Publishing.
50.Mitchell, T. R. 1993. Leadership, values, and accountability. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 109–136). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
51.Mohammed, S., and Dumville, B. C. 2001. Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 89-106.
52.Molm, L. D., Quist, T.M., and Wiseley, P. A. 1994. Imbalanced structures, unfair strategies: Power and justice in social exchange. American Sociological Review, 59 (1): 98-121.
53.Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., and Krishnan, R. 1996. Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. In J. Nye & Brower (Eds), What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups. (pp. 57-84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.Naumann, E. 1995. Creating customer value. Cincinnati: Thomson Executive Press.
55.Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
56.Ordonez, L. D., Benson, L., and Beach, L. R. 1999. Testing the compatibility test: How instructions, accountability, and anticipated regret affect prechoice screening options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78: 63–80.
57.Parker, G. M. 1994. Cross-functional teams: Working with allies, enemies, and other strangers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
58.Rentsch, J.R., Heffner, T.S., and Duffy, L.T. 1994. What you know if what you get from experience: Team experience related to teamwork schemas. Group & Organization Management, 19(4): 450-474.
59.Robbins, S. P. and Coulter, M. 2005. Management, 8th Edition: Prentice-Hall.
60.Robbins, S. P and Judge, T.A. 2007. Organizational Behavior, 12th Edition: Prentice-Hall.
61.Ruggles, R. 1998. The state of the notion: Knowledge management in practice. California Management Review, 40(3): 80-89.
62.Sarin, S., and Mahajan, V. 2001. The effect of reward structures on the performance of cross-functional product development teams. Journal of Marketing, 65: 35-53.
63.Schlenker, B.R., Britt, T.W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., and Doherty, K. 1994. The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101:632-652.
64.Schoenrade, P. A., Batson, C. D., Brandt, J. R., and Loud, R. E. 1986. Attachment, accountability, and motivation to benefit another not in distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 557–563.
65.Seers, A. 1989. Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 43: 118-135.
66.Seers, A., and Petty, M.M., and Cashman, J. F.. 1995. Team-member exchange under team and traditional management: A naturally occuring quasiexperiment. Group & Organization Management, 20: 18–38.
67.Shaw, D.G., and Schneier, C.E. 1995. Team measurement: How some companies are getting it right. Human resource planning, 18(3): 34-39.
68.Sinha, I. and Wayne S. D. 1998. An integrated approach toward the spatial modeling of perceived customer value. Journal of Marketing Research, 35: 236-249.
69.Slater, S. F. and Narver, J. C. 1994. Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58: 46-55.
70.Slywotzky, A. J. 1996. Value migration. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
71.Snow, C., and Hrebeniak, L. 1980. Strategy, distinctive competence, and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 317-335.
72.Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L., and Rangaswamy, A. 2002. Technological opportunism and radical technology adoption: An application to e-business. Journal of Marketing, 66(3): 47-60.
73.Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., and Wittenbaum, G. W. 1995. Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowledge who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31: 244-265.
74.Stasser, G., Vaughan, S. I., and Stewart, D. 2000. Pooling unshared information: The benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82: 102-116.
75.Stasser, G., and Titus, W. 1985. Pooling of unshared information in group decision-making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48: 1467-1478.
76.Stewart, D. D., Billings, R. S., and Stasser, G. 1998. Accountability and the discussion of unshared, critical information in decision-making groups. Group Dynamics, Theory, Research, and Practice, 2: 18–23.
77.Ulmer, R. R., and Sellnow, C. 2000. Ambiguity in organizational crisis communication: Jack in the box as a case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 25: 143-155.
78.Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley.
79.Wageman, R., and Baker, G. 1997. Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 139-158.
80.Waller, M.J., Zellmer-Bruhn, M.E., and Giambatista, R.C. 2002. Watching the clock: Group pacing behavior under dynamic deadlines. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1046-1055.
81.Walsh, J. W. 1995. Flexibility for customer purchasing for uncertain future tastes. Marketing Science, 14(2): 148-165.
82.Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., and Hertel, P. T. 1985. Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In William J. Ickes (ed.), Compatible and Incompatible Relationships, (pp. 253-276). New York: Sppringer-Verlag.
83.Wegner, D. M. 1987. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185-208). New York: Springer-Verlag.
84.Weigold, M. F., and Schlenker, B. R. 1991. Accountability and risk taking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 25–29.
85.Wind, J., and Mahajan, V. 1997. Issues and opportunities in new product development: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing Research, 34: 1–12.
86.Woodruff, R.B. 1997. Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing, 25(2): 139-153.
87.Yoo, Y., and Kanawattanachai, P. 2001. Developments of transactive memory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(2): 187–208.
88.Zeithaml, V. 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52: 2-22.