博碩士論文 109423033 詳細資訊




以作者查詢圖書館館藏 以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 以作者查詢全國書目 勘誤回報 、線上人數:49 、訪客IP:18.119.133.96
姓名 宋佳軒(SUNG, CHIA-HSUAN)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 資訊管理學系
論文名稱 探討團隊性格與建構式爭論對於高衝突性的軟體流程調適活動績效之影響
(The Effects of Team Personality of Software Project Teams on Process Tailoring Performance: The Mediating Role of Constructive Controversy)
相關論文
★ 專案管理的溝通關鍵路徑探討─以某企業軟體專案為例★ 運用並探討會議流如何促進敏捷發展過程中團隊溝通與文件化:以T銀行系統開發為例
★ 專案化資訊服務中人力連續派遣決策模式之研究─以高鐵行控資訊設備維護為例★ 以組織正義觀點介入案件指派決策之研究
★ 應用協調理論建立系統軟體測試中問題改善之協作流程★ 應用案例式推理於問題管理系統之研究 -以筆記型電腦產品為例
★ 運用限制理論於多專案開發模式的人力資源配置之探討★ 應用會議流方法於軟體專案開發之個案研究:以翰昇科技公司為例
★ 多重專案、多期再規劃的軟體開發接案決策模式:以南亞科技資訊部門為例★ 會議導向敏捷軟體開發及系統設計:以大學畢業專題為例
★ 一種基於物件、屬性導向之變更影響分析方法於差異化產品設計★ 會議流方法對大學畢業專題的團隊合作品質影響之實驗研究
★ 實施敏捷式發展法於大學部畢業專題之 行動研究 – 以中央大學資管系為例★ 建立一個用來評核自然語言需求品質的線上資訊系統
★ 結合本體論與模糊分析網路程序法於軟體測試之風險與風險關聯辨識★ 在軟體反向工程中針對UML結構模型圖之線上品質評核系統
檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   至系統瀏覽論文 (2027-7-1以後開放)
摘要(中) 由於每個軟體專案的獨特性,以致並不存在一套完全適用於所有專案的軟體流程, 因此專案團隊必須需要依照不同專案的特性進行調整以適用其特定專案或組織的需求。 調適活動往往涉及團隊內不同的職務及角色,使得團隊成員對其自身領域知識、職責會 有著不一致的看法,進而導致流程的調整造成其他影響甚至引發衝突。因此,若在SPT 情境下,成員面對與自身意見相反的的論點時,能積極地去理解對方的觀點,並開放性 地討論,便能獲取較佳的調適解決方案。而要促使團隊內部建構式爭論的展現,則需要 有內在因素去驅使,通過不同的團隊性格加深對建設性爭論的理解。
綜合前述,本研究提出以IMO為框架發展的理論模型進一步探討團隊性格與建構式 爭論 (Constructive Controversy) 與軟體流程調適績效間的關係。結合定量的問卷方法 及定性的訪談方法進行調查,並採用偏最小平方法 (PartialLeastSquare) 對資料做分析 並檢視假說。接著,會針對有進行問卷調查的10位受測者做進一步的訪談,對其假說提 出更多實務上的見解。研究結果顯示,團隊性格中的經驗開放性、嚴謹性、外向性特質 對建構式爭論呈現正向的關係;團隊神經質人格則對建構式爭論呈現負向的關係;建 構式爭論對軟體流程調適有效性、效率呈正向關係。此外,本研究亦針對不顯著的假說 做更詳細的解釋,並提出研究過程中的限制,以及對未來可進行的研究方向提出說明。 最後,軟體開發團隊可以通過本研究之發現與建議進行調整以提升軟體流程調適績效。
摘要(英) Software process tailoring (SPT) is an important planning activity for software teams to customize the development process of a software project and to continually adjust the process during the dynamic development of the project. SPT is a critical team activity as it involves changing the process that often arouses conflicts among the members whose tasks may be collaterally impacted due to the change. To handle conflicts for effectually performing SPT, this research attends to the idea of constructive controversy and investigates how it may help software teams efficiently and effectively conduct the conflictual SPT process. In this attempt, this research focuses on the characteristics of team personality, since it is shown to be an important factor that drives how a team handles critical teamwork like SPT. Therefore, an IMO model is proposed in thus research to explore and theorize how different team personalities influence the effects of constructive controversy on the promotion of SPT performance. To investigate the model, this research uses the survey method to quantitatively collect data of 162 samples and analyze the results by using PLS. The results show that constructive controversy has a positive influence on both SPT effectiveness and efficiency; and team personality in terms of openness to experience, conscientiousness, and extraversion has a positive influence on the team when exercising constructive controversy, while the neurotic team personality exerts a negative effect. To further validate the results, this research conducts a qualitative analysis by interviewing several survey participants to obtain practical insights into the hypothesized model.
關鍵字(中) ★ 軟體流程調適
★ 團隊性格
★ 建構式爭論
★ IMO 模型
★ 軟體專案團隊
關鍵字(英) ★ Software Process Tailoring
★ Team Personality
★ Constructive Controversy
★ IMO Model
★ Software Project Team
論文目次 摘要 i
Abstract ii
目錄 iii
圖目錄 vi
表目錄 vii
第一章、 緒論 1
1-1. 研究背景與研究問題 1
1-2. 研究目的與方法 3
1-3. 研究範圍與假說 3
1-4. 研究架構 4
第二章、 文獻探討 5
2-1. 軟體流程調適績效 5
2-2. IMO 模型 (Input Mediator Outcome Model) 6
2-3. 人格特質 7
2-3-1. 人格特質定義 7
2-3-2. 五因素模型 (Big Five Model) 7
2-3-3. 軟體開發團隊和團隊人格特質組成 10
2-4. 建構式爭論 10
第三章、 研究假說與模型 13
3.1. 團隊經驗開放性人格特質與建構式爭論 13
3.2. 團隊嚴謹性人格特質與建構式爭論 13
3.3. 團隊外向性人格特質與建構式爭論 14
3.4. 團隊宜人性人格特質與建構式爭論 15
3.5. 團隊神經質人格特質與建構式爭論 16
3.6. 建構式爭論與軟體流程調適績效 16
第四章、 研究方法 19
4.1. 資料樣本與收集 19
4.2. 變數定義 20
4.3. 問卷設計 21
4.4. 資料分析與方法 27
4.5. 樣本數需求分析 29
4.6. 訪談法 29
第五章、 資料分析與結果 30
5-1. 樣本結構分析 30
5-2. 樣本特徵分析 31
5-3. 資料聚合 33
5-4. 測量模型分析 34
5-5. 結構模型分析 39
5-6. 中介效果分析 44
5-7. 多群組分析 46
5-8. 訪談結果 47
5-8-1. 團隊性格與建構式爭論 49
5-8-2. 建構式爭論與軟體流程調適 53
第六章、 結果與討論 56
6-1. 理論意涵 56
6-2. 實務意涵 60
第七章、 結論 62
7-1. 研究貢獻 62
7-2. 研究限制與未來發展 63
參考文獻 65
附錄一、問卷量表 82
附錄二、訪談內容 88
參考文獻 黃堅厚. (1999). 人格心理學. 台北: 心理出版社.
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), 1-211.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (1998). Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 33-52.
Anderson, G., Keith, M. J., Francisco, J., & Fox, S. (2018, January). The Effect of Software Team Personality Composition on Learning and Performance: Making the" Dream" Team. In Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 451-460). https://doi. org/10.24251/HICSS.2018.059
Akarsu, Z., Orgun, P., Dinc, H., Gunyel, B., & Yilmaz, M. (2019). Assessing personality traits in a large scale software development company: Exploratory industrial case study. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1060, 192-206.
Akbar, R. (2019). Tailoring agile-based software development processes. IEEE Access, 7, 139852-139869.
Acton, B. P., Braun, M. T., & Foti, R. J. (2020). Built for unity: assessing the impact of team composition on team cohesion trajectories. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(6), 751-766.
Avila, D. T., Van Petegem, W., & Libotton, A. (2021). ASEST framework: a proposal for improving teamwork by making cohesive software engineering student teams. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(5), 750-764.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377-391.
Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2001). Interpersonal conflict and its management in information system development. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 195-228.
Bowers, J., May, J., Melander, E., Baarman, M., & Ayoob, A. (2002, August). Tailoring XP for large system mission critical software development. In Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Methods (pp. 100-111). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Bagby, R. M., Marshall, M. B., & Georgiades, S. (2005). Dimensional personality traits and the prediction of DSM-IV personality disorder symptom counts in a nonclinical sample. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19(1), 53-67.
Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., Jacobsohn, G. C., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2008). The personality composition of teams and creativity: The moderating role of team creative confidence. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(4), 255-282.
Bradley, B. H., Klotz, A. C., Postlethwaite, B. E., & Brown, K. G. (2013). Ready to rumble: How team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 385-392.
Bell, S. T., Brown, S. G., Colaneri, A., & Outland, N. (2018). Team composition and the ABCs of teamwork. American Psychologist, 73(4), 349-362.
Basirati, M. R., Otasevic, M., Rajavi, K., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2020). Understanding the relationship of conflict and success in software development projects. Information and Software Technology, 126, 106331.
Bergner, R. M. (2020). What is personality? Two myths and a definition. New Ideas in Psychology, 57, 100759.
Cattell, R. B. (1948). Concepts and methods in the measurement of group syntality. Psychological Review, 55(1), 48-63.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual Psychological Assessment Resources. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234-246.
Chen, G., & Tjosvold, D. (2002). Cooperative goals and constructive controversy for promoting innovation in student groups in China. Journal of Education for Business, 78(1), 46-50.
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. N.Y.: Routledge.
Cruz, S., da Silva, F. Q., & Capretz, L. F. (2015). Forty years of research on personality in software engineering: A mapping study. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 94-113.
Campanelli, A. S., & Parreiras, F. S. (2015). Agile methods tailoring–A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 110, 85-100.
Campanelli, A. S., Camilo, R. D., & Parreiras, F. S. (2018). The impact of tailoring criteria on agile practices adoption: A survey with novice agile practitioners in Brazil. Journal of Systems and Software, 137, 366-379.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417-440.
DeMarco, T., & Lister, T. (1999). Productive projects and teams. Dorset House,.
De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749.
Domino, M. A., Collins, R. W., Hevner, A. R., & Cohen, C. F. (2003, April). Conflict in collaborative software development. In Proceedings of the 2003 SIGMIS conference on Computer personnel research: Freedom in Philadelphia--leveraging differences and diversity in the IT workforce (pp. 44-51). N.Y.: Association for Computing Machinery.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 820-828.
den Hartog, S. C., Runge, J. M., Reindl, G., & Lang, J. W. (2020). Linking personality trait variance in self-managed teams to team innovation. Small Group Research, 51(2), 265-295.
Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2), 144-192.
Epstein, J., Santo, R. M., & Guillemin, F. (2015). A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(4), 435-441.
Eldor, L., & Harpaz, I. (2016). A process model of employee engagement: The learning climate and its relationship with extra‐role performance behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 213-235.
El Baz, J., & Ruel, S. (2021). Can supply chain risk management practices mitigate the disruption impacts on supply chains’ resilience and robustness? Evidence from an empirical survey in a COVID-19 outbreak era. International Journal of Production Economics, 233, 107972.
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3), 329-344.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron, Ohio: University of Akron Press.
Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. L., & O′Kane, T. (2003). Software development method tailoring at Motorola. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 64-70.
F. Tripp, J., & Armstrong, D. J. (2018). Agile methodologies: organizational adoption motives, tailoring, and performance. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 58(2), 170-179.
Gerlitz, J. Y., & Schupp, J. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten persoenlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP. DIW Research Notes, 4, 1-16.
Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. (2012). Does PLS have advantages for small sample size or non-normal data?. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 981-1001.
Guang-dong, W. (2013). The Relationship Between Project Team Dynamic Feature, Conflict Dimension and Project Success--An Empirical Research from Shanghai, China. Pakistan Journal of Statistics, 29(6), 935-952.
Haythorn, W. (1953). The influence of individual members on the characteristics of small groups. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(2), 276-284.
Humphrey, W. S., Snyder, T. R., & Willis, R. R. (1991). Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software, 8(4), 11-23.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: the Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869-879.
Halfhill, T., Sundstrom, E., Lahner, J., Calderone, W., & Nielsen, T. M. (2005). Group personality composition and group effectiveness: An integrative review of empirical research. Small Group Research, 36(1), 83-105.
Hanssen, G. K., Westerheim, H., & Bjørnson, F. O. (2005, June). Tailoring RUP to a defined project type: A case study. In International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement (pp. 314-327). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Hsu, S. Y. C., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2007). Team transformational leadership, trust, satisfaction, and commitment: The testing of a structural equation model in software development teams. Review of Business Information Systems, 11(3), 17-28.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414-433.
Hunter, S. T., & Cushenbery, L. (2015). Is being a jerk necessary for originality? Examining the role of disagreeableness in the sharing and utilization of original ideas. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(4), 621-639.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.
Hauff, S., & Richter, N. (2015). Power distance and its moderating role in the relationship between situational job characteristics and job satisfaction: An empirical analysis using different cultural measures. Cross Cultural Management, 22, 68-89.
Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part I–method. European Business Review, 28(1), 63-76.
Hsu, J. S. C., Shih, S. P., & Li, Y. (2017). The mediating effects of in-role and extra-role behaviors on the relationship between control and software-project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1524-1536.
Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117, 442-458.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review, 31, 2-24.
Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., & Croyle, R. T. (2019). Strategies for team science success: Handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. N.Y.: Springer.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, 517-543.
Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5, 43-46.
Janis, I. L. (2008). Groupthink. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 36(1), 36.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Tjosvold, D. (2006). Constructive controversy. The handbook of conflict resolution. Theory and Practice, 2, 69-91.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O.P. John, R.W. Robins, & L.A. Per-vin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). N.Y.: Guilford Press.
Jiang, J. J., Chang, J. Y., Chen, H. G., Wang, E. T., & Klein, G. (2014). Achieving IT program goals with integrative conflict management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(1), 79-106.
Johnson, D. W. (2015). Constructive controversy: Theory, research, practice. U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2018). Cooperative learning: The foundation for active learning, Active learning—Beyond the future (pp. 59-70). U.K.: IntechOpen.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman & D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333–375). N.Y.: Wiley.
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 744-764.
Kalus, G., & Kuhrmann, M. (2013). Criteria for software process tailoring: a systematic review. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software and System Process (pp. 171-180). N.Y: Association for Computing Machinery.
Kong, D. T., Konczak, L. J., & Bottom, W. P. (2015). Team performance as a joint function of team member satisfaction and agreeableness. Small Group Research, 46(2), 160-178.
Kartiwi, M., & Sukmana, H. T. (2015). Influences of the input factors towards the success of an information system project. Telkomnika, 13(2), 686-693.
Körner, M., Wirtz, M. A., Bengel, J., & Göritz, A. S. (2015). Relationship of organizational culture, teamwork and job satisfaction in interprofessional teams. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 1-12.
Kock, N. (2017). Common method bias: a full collinearity assessment method for PLS-SEM. In Partial least squares path modeling (pp. 245-257). Cham: Springer.
Kesmodel, U. S. (2018). Cross‐sectional studies–what are they good for? Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 97(4), 388-393.
Levina, N. (2005). Collaborating on multiparty information systems development projects: A collective reflection-in-action view. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 109-130.
Liang, T. P., Liu, C. C., Lin, T. M., & Lin, B. (2007). Effect of team diversity on software project performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107, 636-653.
Liang, T. P., Jiang, J., Klein, G. S., & Liu, J. Y. C. (2009). Software quality as influenced by informational diversity, task conflict, and learning in project teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57(3), 477-487.
Loi, R., Lai, J. Y., & Lam, L. W. (2012). Working under a committed boss: A test of the relationship between supervisors′ and subordinates′ affective commitment. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 466-475.
Liu, C., Yang, L. Q., & Nauta, M. M. (2013). Examining the mediating effect of supervisor conflict on procedural injustice–job strain relations: The function of power distance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(1), 64-74.
Li, Y., Shepherd, M., Liu, J. Y. C., & Klein, G. (2017). Enhancing development team flexibility in IS projects. Information Technology and Management, 18(1), 83-96.
Lee, J. C., & Chen, C. Y. (2020). Exploring the team dynamic learning process in software process tailoring performance: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 33(3), 502-518.
Lee, J. C., Wang, Y. T., & Chen, C. Y. (2020). The effect of transactive memory systems on process tailoring in software projects: The moderating role of task conflict and shared temporal cognitions. Journal of Systems and Software, 164, 110545.
Lee, J. C., Chou, I. C., & Chen, C. Y. (2021). The effect of process tailoring on software project performance: The role of team absorptive capacity and its knowledge‐based enablers. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 120-147.
Lee, J. C., & Chen, C. Y. (2021). Exploring the effects of team coordination and power distance on effective software process tailoring: a theoretical perspective. Information Technology & People, 35(3), 1009-1028.
Mann, L., & Janis, I. (1983). Decisional conflict in organizations. Productive Conflict Management: Perspectives for Organizations (pp. 19-40). N.Y.: Irvington Publishers.
McRae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1990). Personality in adulthood. N.Y.: Guilford.
Moad, J. (1994). Psych tests for MIS staff: is this nuts? Datamation, 40(13), 27-29.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American psychologist, 52(5), 509-516.
Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientiousness: duty and achievement striving in escalation of commitment dilemmas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 533-540.
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface‐and deep‐level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(8), 1015-1039.
Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58(3), 583-611.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410-476.
Monteiro, P., Machado, R. J., & Kazman, R. (2009, September). Inception of software validation and verification practices within CMMI Level 2. In 2009 Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (pp. 536-541). Berlin: IEEE.
Madrid, H. P., Patterson, M. G., Birdi, K. S., Leiva, P. I., & Kausel, E. E. (2014). The role of weekly high‐activated positive mood, context, and personality in innovative work behavior: A multilevel and interactional model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(2), 234-256.
Model, B. F. Johnson, JA (2017). Big-Five model. In V. Zeigler-Hill, TK Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences (pp. 1-16). N.Y.: Springer.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(6), 574.
Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group & Organization Management, 24(1), 28-45.
Nanda, V. (2001, October). On tailoring an organizational standard software development process for specific projects. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Software Quality (pp. 1-13). Madird, Spain: IEEE Computer Society.
Nesterkin, D., & Porterfield, T. (2016). Conflict management and performance of information technology development teams. Team Performance Management, 22(5/6), 242-256.
O′Neill, T. A., & Allen, N. J. (2011). Personality and the prediction of team performance. European Journal of Personality, 25(1), 31-42.
O′Neill, T. A., & Allen, N. J. (2014). Team task conflict resolution: An examination of its linkages to team personality composition and team effectiveness outcomes. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(2), 159.
O’Neill, T. A., Hoffart, G. C., McLarnon, M. M., Woodley, H. J., Eggermont, M., Rosehart, W., & Brennan, R. (2017). Constructive controversy and reflexivity training promotes effective conflict profiles and team functioning in student learning teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 257-276.
Ou, Z., Chen, T., Li, F., & Tang, P. (2018). Constructive controversy and creative process engagement: The roles of positive conflict value, cognitive flexibility, and psychological safety. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(2), 101-113.
Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2019). Leaders’ impact on organizational change: Bridging theoretical and methodological chasms. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 272-307.
O’Meara, M. S., & South, S. C. (2019). Big Five personality domains and relationship satisfaction: Direct effects and correlated change over time. Journal of Personality, 87(6), 1206-1220.
Ostermeier, K., Davis, M., & Pavur, R. (2020). Personality configurations in teams: a comparison of compilation and composition models. Team Performance Management, 26(3/4), 227-246.
Ogunfowora, B., Stackhouse, M., Maerz, A., Varty, C., Hwang, C., & Choi, J. (2021). The impact of team moral disengagement composition on team performance: the roles of team cooperation, team interpersonal deviance, and collective extraversion. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(3), 479-494.
Pervin, L. A. (1996). The science of personality. N.Y.: Wiley.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., Samarah, I., & Mykytyn, P. P. (2004). Impact of heterogeneity and collaborative conflict management style on the performance of synchronous global virtual teams. Information & Management, 41(3), 303-321.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636-652.
Pedreira, O., Piattini, M., Luaces, M. R., & Brisaboa, N. R. (2007). A systematic review of software process tailoring. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 32(3), 1-6.
Prewett, M. S., Walvoord, A. A., Stilson, F. R., Rossi, M. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2009). The team personality–team performance relationship revisited: The impact of criterion choice, pattern of workflow, and method of aggregation. Human Performance, 22(4), 273-296.
Parolia, N., Chen, J. V., Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (2015). Conflict resolution effectiveness on the implementation efficiency and achievement of business objectives in IT programs: A study of IT vendors. Information and Software Technology, 66, 30-39.
Pillat, R. M., Oliveira, T. C., Alencar, P. S., & Cowan, D. D. (2015). BPMNt: A BPMN extension for specifying software process tailoring. Information and Software Technology, 57, 95-115.
Prewett, M. S., Brown, M. I., Goswami, A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2018). Effects of team personality composition on member performance: A multilevel perspective. Group & Organization Management, 43(2), 316-348.
Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(3), 238-264.
Qamar, N., & Malik, A. A. (2020). Determining the Relative Importance of Personality Traits in Influencing Software Quality and Team Productivity. Computing & Informatics, 39(5), 994-1021.
Reilly, R. R., Lynn, G. S., & Aronson, Z. H. (2002). The role of personality in new product development team performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 19(1), 39-58.
Ramírez‐Mora, S. L., Oktaba, H., & Patlán Pérez, J. (2020). Group maturity, team efficiency, and team effectiveness in software development: a case study in a CMMI‐DEV Level 5 organization. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 32(4), 1-19.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg′s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506-516.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 135-148.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2003). The structure of personality attributes. InBarrick MR, Ryan AM (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 1–29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Hanges, P. J., Smith, D. B., & Salvaggio, A. N. (2003). Which comes first: employee attitudes or organizational financial and market performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 836.
Shmueli, G., & Koppius, O. R. (2011). Predictive analytics in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 553-572.
Shin, Y., Kim, M., Choi, J. N., & Lee, S. H. (2016). Does team culture matter? Roles of team culture and collective regulatory focus in team task and creative performance. Group & Organization Management, 41(2), 232-265.
Soomro, A. B., Salleh, N., Mendes, E., Grundy, J., Burch, G., & Nordin, A. (2016). The effect of software engineers’ personality traits on team climate and performance: A Systematic Literature Review. Information and Software Technology, 73, 52-65.
Shameem, M., Chandra, B., Kumar, C., & Khan, A. A. (2018). Understanding the relationships between requirements uncertainty and nature of conflicts: a study of software development team effectiveness. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 43(12), 8223-8238.
Söllner, M., Bitzer, P., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2018). Process is king: Evaluating the performance of technology-mediated learning in vocational software training. Journal of Information Technology, 33(3), 233-253.
Seman, N. A. A., Govindan, K., Mardani, A., Zakuan, N., Saman, M. Z. M., Hooker, R. E., & Ozkul, S. (2019). The mediating effect of green innovation on the relationship between green supply chain management and environmental performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 229, 115-127.
Singh, S. K., Chen, J., Del Giudice, M., & El-Kassar, A. N. (2019). Environmental ethics, environmental performance, and competitive advantage: Role of environmental training. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 203-211.
Stipelman, B. A., Rice, E. L., Vogel, A. L., & Hall, K. L. (2019). The Role of Team Personality in Team Effectiveness and Performance. In Strategies for Team Science Success (pp. 189-196). Cham: Springer.
Smith, M. L., Hamplová, D., Kelley, J., & Evans, M. D. R. (2021). Concise survey measures for the Big Five personality traits. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 73, 100595.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Pick, M., Liengaard, B. D., Radomir, L., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychology & Marketing, 39(5), 1035-1064.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 225-251.
Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 315-330.
Tjosvold, D., Wong, A., Nibler, R., & Pounder, J. S. (2002). Teamwork and controversy in undergraduate management courses in Hong Kong: Can the method reinforce the message?. Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 61(3), 131-138.
Trimmer, K. J., Domino, M. A., & Blanton, J. E. (2002). The impact of personality diversity on conflict in ISD teams. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42(4), 7-14.
Tjosvold, D. (2008). Constructive controversy for management education: Developing committed, open-minded researchers. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 73-85.
Tsai, K. H., & Hsu, T. T. (2014). Cross-Functional collaboration, competitive intensity, knowledge integration mechanisms, and new product performance: A mediated moderation model. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 293-303.
Tjosvold, D., Wong, A., & Chen, N. Y. F. (2014). Managing conflict in organizations constructively. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 545-568
Tjosvold, D., Tang, M. M., & Wan, P. M. (2015). Constructive controversy for innovation in business: theory, research, and application. In Konstruktive Kontroverse in Organisationen (pp. 89-107). Gabler, Wiesbaden: Springer.
von Wangenheim, C. G., Weber, S., Hauck, J. C. R., & Trentin, G. (2006). Experiences on establishing software processes in small companies. Information and Software Technology, 48(9), 890-900.
Vollmer, A., & Seyr, S. (2013). Constructive controversy research in the business organizational context: A literature review. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(4), 399-420.
Van Casteren, W. (2017). The Waterfall Model and the Agile Methodologies: A comparison by project characteristics. Research Gate, 2, 1-6.
Vishnubhotla, S. D., Mendes, E., & Lundberg, L. (2020). Investigating the relationship between personalities and agile team climate of software professionals in a telecom company. Information and Software Technology, 126, 106335.
Wickramasinghe, V., & Nandula, S. (2015). Diversity in team composition, relationship conflict and team leader support on globally distributed virtual software development team performance. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal, 8(2/3), 13-155.
Xu, P., & Ramesh, B. (2003, January). A tool for the capture and use of process knowledge in process tailoring. In 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 7-pp). Berlin: IEEE.
Xia, W., & Lee, G. (2004). Grasping the complexity of IS development projects. Communications of the ACM, 47(5), 68-74.
Xu, P. (2005, January). Knowledge support in software process tailoring. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 87c-87c). Berlin: IEEE.
Xu, P., & Ramesh, B. (2007). Software process tailoring: an empirical investigation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2), 293-328.
Xu, P., & Ramesh, B. (2008). Impact of knowledge support on the performance of software process tailoring. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(3), 277-314.
Xiang, S., Chen, G., Liu, W., Zhou, Q., & Xing, S. (2019). An empirical study of the impact of goal orientation on individual ambidexterity–moderating roles of goal interdependence and constructive controversy. Nankai Business Review International, 10, 456-484.
Xu, X., Jiang, L., & Wang, H. J. (2019). How to build your team for innovation? A cross‐level mediation model of team personality, team climate for innovation, creativity, and job crafting. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(4), 848-872.
Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206.
Zhang, X., Stafford, T. F., Dhaliwal, J. S., Gillenson, M. L., & Moeller, G. (2014). Sources of conflict between developers and testers in software development. Information & Management, 51(1), 13-26.
Zhang, R., Li, A., & Gong, Y. (2021). Too much of a good thing: Examining the curvilinear relationship between team‐level proactive personality and team performance. Personnel Psychology, 74(2), 295-321.
指導教授 陳仲儼(Chung-Yang Chen) 審核日期 2022-7-26
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明