臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在資訊系統委外的相關議題中，委外建置專案團隊之績效管理是受到較多關心的議題。管理者期望組織內外成員所組成之開發團隊能提高委外績效，使新系統能成功上線。基於資訊系統委外績效對於企業的重要性，本研究以交互記憶系統理論，探討資訊系統委外績效與交互記憶系統的相關性，企圖建立資訊委外績效管理之關鍵因素。本研究以個案研究法，由團隊成員中之業主及委外廠商雙方的角度來探討影響委外績效的因素，包括：競爭性目標導向、業主及委外廠商雙方專案經理人的領導風格對委外績效之影響，分析業主和委外廠商在資訊委外運作過程的評價認知差異性，提供雙方訂定委外成效考核標準的參考，探討影響委外企業與承包商合夥關係的重要因素。
研究發現交互記憶系統會影響委外團隊績效；且競爭性目標導向會對委外團隊績效產生負向影響。此外，研究發現認知差異項目少，委外績效較好，認知差異項目多，委外績效較差。本研究發現可以實務見解供業主及委外廠商參考，期能提升資訊委外建置專案團隊績效之管理。

In the relation of the information system outsourcing’s issue, the performance management is the most interest concerned for the outsourcing project team. The Managers expect all of the team members that include the contract providers and contractor can be improved the performance of the information system outsourcing and helped the new system completed on time and make it successful. The research is used the “transactive memory system theory” to investigate the relationship of the outsourcing‘s performance and the transactive memory system, Those are the main factor and significance for the enterprise. Also, the research is used the “Case Study” method, the method is about the view between the contract providers and contractor to find out what is the effective factors of the Outsourcing performance, which include the transactive memory system, the competiveness objective orientations, the leadership style on transactive memory system and outsourcing performance, the perception gap between the contract providers and contractor, and the partnership between contract providers and the contractor for information system outsourcing.
Finally, the research discovered the transactive memory system will influence the outsourcing performance and the competiveness objective orientations will have negative impact on the outsourcing team performance. In addition, the less cognitive differences, then the performance of outsourcing is better, the more cognitive differences, then the performance of outsourcing is bad. Otherwise, the study supply the real cases view of some projects to the contract providers and contractor for reference, and hoping to improve the performance of information system outsourcing building the project management team.

目錄
摘要 i
Abstract ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 vi
表目錄 vii
第一章 前言 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 2
1.3 研究目的 3
1.4 研究流程 3
第二章 文獻探討 5
2.1 資訊委外 5
2.2 交互記憶系統 12
2.3 競爭性目標導向對交互記憶系統及委外績效之影響 13
2.4 團隊效能理論 15
2.5 合夥關係 17
2.6 專案經理人之領導風格 22
第三章 研究方法 25
3.1 方法基礎 25
3.2 資料蒐集來源與方式 26
3.3 研究架構 29
3.4 研究範圍與對象 29
第四章 個案分析 30
4.1 個案描述 30
4.2 交互記憶系統與資訊委外之績效管理 38
4.3 競爭性目標導向對交互記憶系統及委外績效之影響 44
4.4 領導者之特質對交互記憶系統及委外績效之影響 48
4.5 資訊委外廠商及業主之認知差異對委外績效之影響 49
4.6 合夥關係評估委外廠商績效 60
第五章 結論 76
5.1 研究結論 76
5.2 管理意涵 77
5.3 研究限制及未來研究方向 78
參考文獻 80

【中文文獻】
1. 毛科登 (2007)，「目標互賴性、團隊交融記憶系統對專案績效影響之研究」，國立彰化師範大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
2. 王存國、徐綺憶 (2001)，「資訊系統委外程度之影響因素探討」，資訊管理研究，第3 卷，第1期，107-129。
3. 朱妙華 (2004)，「台灣軟體資訊公司客製化資訊系統開發團隊績效模型之探討」，國立屏東商業技術學院資訊管理系碩士論文。
4. 吳琮璠 (1997)，資訊管理個案研究方法，資訊管理學報，第4卷，第1期。
5. 吳琮璠、謝清佳 (2009)，資訊管理理論與實務，第一章，智勝文化事業有限公司。
6. 李如璋 (2004) ，「資訊科技委外理論與實務關鍵因素之比較分析－以金融業為例」，銘傳大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。
7. 李良猷 (2001)，「李良猷專欄－委外的大趨勢」，資訊贏家。
8. 李錚勝 (2008)，「資訊系統委外業主與承包商認知落差之研究」，元智大學資訊管理學系碩士論文。
9. 林原鋒 (2008)，「知識分享模式之探討」，中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
10. 洪贊凱、卓明德、毛科登 (2011)，「目標互賴性、團隊交融記憶系統對專案績效影響之研究」，管理與系統，第18 卷，第1期，175-198。
11. 孫思源 (2001)，「由社會交換理論探討資訊系統委外合夥關係之影響因素」， 國立中山大學資訊管理學系博士論文。
12. 張君瑤 (2009)，「知識整合能力對資訊系統委外績效之影響」，中央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
13. 湯宗益、鄭景華 (2004)，「知識整合能力模式之研究」，資訊、科技與社會學報，第4卷，第1期，19-45。
14. 楊明璧、黃銘章、莊建峰 (2005)，「夥伴關係緊密程度與夥伴關係績效之相關性分析－以台灣電子產業為例」，企業管理學報，第65期，61-100。
15. 鄭義熙 (2001)，「政府資訊作業系統委外管理之研究─以國稅局資訊系統為例」，義守大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
16. 蕭瑞麟 (2008)，科技福爾摩斯，美商麥格羅‧希爾，美國。
17. 賴文杰 (2009)，「交融記憶系統與競爭性目標導向對專案績效之影響：以領導風格為干擾變數」，元智大學管理研究所碩士論文。
18. 賴文祥、張芝綺 (2010)，「企業學習、互動關係與知識移轉對企業委外之關連性研究」，智慧科技與應用統計學報，第8 卷，第2期，49-68。
19. 蘇志遠 (2008) ，「專案經理之領導風格與知識整合對專案績效的影響─以專案特性為調節變數」，銘傳大學資訊管理學系碩士在職專班碩士論文。
【英文文獻】
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. Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., and Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005), “Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective,” Information & Management, 42(8), 1105-1120.
3. Alekdander, P. J. E. (2006), “System Breakdown: The Role of Mental Models and Transactive Memory in the Relationship between Acute Stress and Team Performance,” Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 576-589.
4. Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., and Law, K. S. (2000), “Conflict Management, Efficacy and Performance in Organizational Teams,” Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 625-642.
5. Anderson, J. C. and J. A. Narus (1990), “A model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships,” Journal of Marketing, 54, 42-58.
6. Benbasat , I ., Goldstein , D . & Mead M . (1987), “The Case Research Strateqy in Studies of Information System,” MIS Quarterly , 11(3), 369-386.
7. Blau, P. M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
8. Bonoma , T . V . (1985), “Case Research in Markering : Opportunities , Problems , and a Process,” Journal of Marketing Research . 22, 199-208 .
9. Burns, J. M. (1978), Leadership, New York: Harper & Row.
10. Chen, Y. N. and Tjosvold, D. (2008), “Goal Interdependence and Leader-Member Relationship for Cross-Cultural Leadership in Foreign Ventures in China,” Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(2), 144-166.
11. Chung, S., H. Singh and K. Lee (2000), “Complementarity, Status Similarity and Social Capital As Drivers of Alliance Formation,” Strategic Management Journal, 21(1),1-22.
12. Cross, R., Rice, R. E., and Parker, A. (2001), “Information seeking in social context: Structural influences andreceipt of information benefits,” Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C: IEEE Transactions on, 31(4), 438-448.
13. De Boer, M., Bosch, F. A. J. and Volberda, H. W. (1999), “Managing organizational knowledgeintegration in the emerging multimedia complex,” Journal of Management Studies, 36(3),379-398.
14. Deutsch, M. (1990), “Sixty years of conflict,” The International Journal of Conflict Management, 1(3), 237-263.
15. Deutsch, M. (1949), “A theory of cooperation and competition,” Human Relations, 2, 129-152.
16. Dulewicz, V., and Higgs, M. J. (2003), “Design of a New Instrument to Assess Leadership Dimensions and Styles,” HenleyWorking Paper Series HWP 0311. Henley-on-Thames, Henley Management College, UK.
17. Emerson, R. M. (1962), “Power-dependence Relations,” American Sociological Review, 27, 31-41.
18. Emerson, R. M. (1981), “Social Exchange Theory,” Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, edited by M. Rosenberg and R. H. Turner. New York: Basic Books, 30-65.
19. Etgar, M. (1979), “Sources and Types of Intrachannel Conflict,” Journal of retailing, 55, 61-78.
20. F. Robert Dwyer, Paul H. Schurr and Sejo Oh (1987), “Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 51, 11-27.
21. Fong, P. S.W. (2003), “Knowledge creation in multidisciplinary project teams: An empirical study of the processes and their dynamic interrelationships,” International Journal of Project Management, 21(7), 479-486.
22. Fraidin, S. N. (2004), “When is one head better than two? Interdependent information in group decision making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,93(22),102-113.
23. Gattorna, J. (1978), “Channels of Distribution Conceptualizations: A State-of-the-Art Review,” European Journal of Marketing, 12(7), 471-512.
24. Gibson, C. B. (1999), “Do They do What They Believe They can? Group Efficacy and Group Effectiveness across Tasks and Cultures,” Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 138-152.
25. Hanlon, S. C., Meyer, D. C., and Taylor, R. R. (1994), “Consequences of Gain Sharing：A Field Experiment Revisited,” Group and Organizational Management, 19, 87-111.
26. Hersey, P., and Blanchard, K. H. (1974), “What's Missing in MBO?,” Management Review, 63, 25-32.
27. Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., and Vollrath, D. A. (1997), “The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors,” Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 43-64.
28. Hollingshead, A. B. (2001), “Cognitive Interdependence and Convergent Expectations in Transactive memory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1080-1089.
29. Homans, G. C. (1958), Social Behavior as Exchange, The American Journal of Sociology, pp. 597-606.
30. House, R. J. and Mitchell, T. R. (1974), “Path-Goal Theory of Leadership,” Journal of Contemporary Business, 3(4), 81.
31. Hwang M. I. & Thorn, R. G. (1999), “The Effect of User Engagement on System Success: A Meta-Analytical Integration of Research Findings,” Information & Management, 35, 229-236.
32. Jiang, J. & Klein, G. (2000), “Software Development Risks to Project Effectiveness,” The Journal of Systems and Software, 52, 3-10.
33. Lee, J. and Y. Kim (1999), “Effect of Partnership Quality on IS Outsourcing Success: Conceptual framework and Empirical Validation,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 29-61.
34. Leonard-Barton , D. (1990), Implementing Structured Software Method-logies : A Case of Innovation in Process Techology, Interfaces 17 , May-June , 6-17 .
35. Lewis, K. (2003), “Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587-604.
36. Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., and Argote, L. (1995), “Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating factor of transactive memory,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384-393.
37. Lin, W. T. & Shao, B. M. (2000), “The Relationship between User Participation and System Success: A Simultaneous Contingency Approach,” Information & Management, 37, 283-295.
38. McDonald, G. W. (1981), Structural Exchange and Marital Interaction, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 825-839.
39. Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001), “Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 89-106.
40. Mohr, J. and R. Spekman (1994), “Characteristics of Partnership Success: Partnerships Attributes, Communication Behavior, and Conflict Resolution Techniques,” Strategic Management Journal, 15, 135-152.
41. Moreland, R. L. and Myaskovsky, L. (2000), “Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication ?,” rganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 117-133.
42. Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., and Krishnan, R. (1996), “Socially Shard Cognition at Work: Transactive Memory and Group Performance,” In J. L. Nye and A. M. Brower (Eds.), What's Social About Social Cognition?, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 57-85.
43. Morgan, R. M. and S. D. Hunt (1994), “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38.
44. Muller, R., and Turner (2007), J. R. “Matching the Project Manager's Leadership Style to Project Type,” International Journal of Project Management, 25, 21-32.
45. Thamhain, H. J. & Nurick, A. J. (1994), “Project Team Development in Multinational Environments,” Global Project Management Handbook, (David I. Cleland, Roland Gareis editors), New York: McGraw-Hill.
46. Thibaut, J. W. and H. Kelly (1959), The social Psychology of Groups, New York: Wiley.
47. Tjosvold, D., Law, K. S., and Sun, H. F. (2003), “Collectivistic and individualistic values: Their effects on group dynamics and productivity in China,” Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(4), 243-263.
48. Turner, J. H. (1986), The Structure of Sociological Theory, Chicago: The Dorsey Press.
49. Wegner, D. M. (1987), “Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the groupmind,” In B. Mullen and G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185-208).New York, NY: Springer.
50. Wegner, D. M. (1995), “A compter network model of human transactive memory,” SocailCognition, 13(3), 319-339.
51. Williamson, O. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York, NY: The Free Press.
52. Williamson, O. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York, NY: The Free Press.
53. Yin , R. (1989), Case study Research : Design and Methods, Newburry Park FCalif., Sag Publications , (rev.) .