博碩士論文 110423046 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:9 、訪客IP:18.117.75.225
姓名 孫慧淳(Hui-Chun Sun)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 資訊管理學系
論文名稱 探討團隊雙元學習對於軟體開發敏捷性之影響:團隊反思之調節效果
(The Effects of Team Ambidextrous Learning of Software Project Teams on Software Development Agility: The Moderating Role of Team Reflexivity)
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 (2028-7-1以後開放)
摘要(中) 軟體開發團隊在競爭激烈且使用者需求多變的環境中,需要迅速了解需求內容並進行相應的修改。因此,軟體開發敏捷性以能持續滿足不斷變化的使用者需求的能力而受到重視。目前的文獻對於軟體開發團隊是否能夠透過學習來影響軟體開發敏捷性相對匱乏。因此,本研究基於組織學習理論,探討團隊雙元學習對軟體開發敏捷性的影響,團隊透過雙元學習去掌握變化並適應變化,藉由探索性學習去獲取新知識,並透過利用性學習改進現有知識和技能。此外,團隊需要透過反思及時調整內部運行機制,制定適應性策略,以有效並高效率應對客戶需求的變化。
綜合前述,本研究基於組織學習理論建構研究模型,探討團隊雙元學習與軟體開發敏捷性之間的關係,並且透過團隊反思調節。本研究採用問卷調查法收集樣本,共回收123份有效配對問卷,並以偏最小平方法 (Partial Least Square) 對資料做分析並檢視假說。研究結果顯示,團隊雙元學習中的團隊探索性學習與軟體開發敏捷性之軟體團隊回應廣泛性以及回應效率呈現正向關係;團隊利用性學習與軟體團隊回應廣泛性呈現正向關係,並且透過團隊反思正向調節兩者之間的關係。此外,本研究亦針對不顯著的假說做進一步的解釋,並提出研究過程中的限制以及未來研究方向。
摘要(英) In a competitive and rapidly changing environment with diverse user demands, software development teams need to quickly understand the requirements and make corresponding modifications. Therefore, software development agility enables teams to continuously meet evolving user needs and is highly valued. However, existing literature lacks sufficient exploration of whether software development teams can influence their agility through learning. Hence, this study, grounded in organizational learning theory, aims to investigate the impact of team ambidextrous learning on software development agility. Teams utilize ambidextrous learning to comprehend and adapt to changes, acquiring new knowledge through exploratory learning, and improving existing knowledge and skills through exploitative learning. Additionally, teams need to reflect and adjust their internal operations, formulate adaptive strategies, and effectively respond to changing customer demands.
Based on the above, this study constructs a research model based on organizational learning theory to explore the relationship between team ambidextrous learning and software development agility, with team reflexivity as a moderator. The study collects data using a questionnaire survey, obtaining 123 valid matched responses. The collected data are analyzed by Partial Least Squares (PLS). The results indicate that team exploratory learning has a positive relationship with the software team response extensiveness and response efficiency. Team exploitative learning demonstrates a positive relationship with the software team response extensiveness, and team reflexivity positively moderates this relationship. Moreover, this study provides further explanations for non-significant hypotheses and highlights limitations and future research directions.
關鍵字(中) ★ 軟體開發敏捷性
★ 團隊探索性學習
★ 團隊利用性學習
★ 團隊反思
★ 組織學習理論
關鍵字(英) ★ Software Development Agility
★ Team Exploratory Learning
★ Team Exploitative Learning
★ Team Reflexivity
★ Organizational Learning Theory
論文目次 摘要 i
Abstract ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 vi
表目錄 vii
第一章 緒論 1
1-1. 研究背景與問題 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 3
第二章 文獻探討 5
2-1. 軟體開發敏捷性 5
2-2. 團隊探索性學習及團隊利用性學習 7
2-3. 團隊反思 11
第三章 研究模型與假說 15
3-1. 團隊雙元學習與軟體開發敏捷性 15
3-2. 調節因子:團隊反思 16
第四章 研究方法 19
4-1. 資料收集與樣本 19
4-2. 變數定義 20
4-3. 問卷設計 21
4-4. 資料分析方法 26
4-5. 樣本數需求分析 27
第五章 資料分析與結果 28
5-1. 樣本結構分析 28
5-2. 樣本特徵分析 29
5-3. 資料聚合 32
5-4. 測量模型分析 34
5-5. 結構模型分析 38
5-6. 調節效果分析 43
5-7. 多群組分析 44
第六章 結果與討論 46
6-1. 結果與討論 46
6-2. 理論貢獻 49
6-3. 實務意涵 50
第七章 結論 52
7-1. 結論 52
7-2. 研究限制與未來發展 53
參考文獻 55
附錄一、問卷量表 70
參考文獻 [1] Agile Alliance. (2020). Agile 101. Retrieved from https://www.agilealliance.org/agile101/
[2] Armstrong, C. P., & Sambamurthy, V. (1999). Information technology assimilation in firms: The influence of senior leadership and IT infrastructures. Information Systems Research, 10(4), 304–327.
[3] Atuahene-Gima, K., & Murray, J. Y. (2007). Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development: A social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China. Journal of International Marketing, 15(2), 1-29.
[4] Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: embrace change. Addison-Wesley Professional.
[5] Bonawitz, E., Shafto, P., Gweon, H., Goodman, N. D., Spelke, E., & Schulz, L. (2011). The double-edged sword of pedagogy: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition, 120(3), 322-330.
[6] Bonner, N. A. (2010). Predicting leadership success in agile environments: An inquiring systems approach. Academy of Information & Management Sciences Journal, 13(2), 83-103.
[7] Cao, Q., & Dowlatshahi, S. (2005). The impact of alignment between virtual enterprise and information technology on business performance in an agile manufacturing environment. Journal of Operations Management, 23(5), 531-550.
[8] Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of management Journal, 50(5), 1217-1234.
[9] Cauwelier, P., Ribiere, V. M., & Bennet, A. (2019). The influence of team psychological safety on team knowledge creation: A study with French and American engineering teams. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(6), 1157-1175.
[10] Chen, L., Liu, S., Wang, Y., & Hu, X. (2021). Humble leader behavior and team creativity: the team learning perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology.
[11] Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS quarterly, vii-xvi.
[12] Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information systems research, 14(2), 189-217.
[13] Coad, P., Luca, J. D., & Lefebvre, E. (1999). Java modeling color with UML: Enterprise components and process with Cdrom. Prentice Hall PTR.
[14] Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. N.Y.: Routledge.
[15] Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Information systems research, 20(3), 329-354.
[16] Conboy, K., & Fitzgerald, B. (2004, November). Toward a conceptual framework of agile methods: a study of agility in different disciplines. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM workshop on Interdisciplinary software engineering research (pp. 37-44).
[17] Cui, F., Lim, H., & Song, J. (2022). The influence of leadership style in China SMEs on enterprise innovation performance: the mediating roles of organizational learning. Sustainability, 14(6), 3249.
[18] Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of business and psychology, 29(1), 1-19.
[19] De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: a motivated information processing perspective. Journal of applied psychology, 92(3), 628.
[20] De Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management journal, 53(3), 535-549.
[21] Diaz-Fernandez, M., Pasamar-Reyes, S., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2017). Human capital and human resource management to achieve ambidextrous learning: A structural perspective. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 20(1), 63-77.
[22] Dimas, I. D., Assunção, M., Rebelo, T., Lourenço, P. R., & Alves, M. (2022). Innovation in teams: the role of psychological capital and team learning. The Journal of Psychology, 156(2), 133-146.
[23] Donbesuur, F., Owusu-Yirenkyi, D., Ampong, G. O. A., & Hultman, M. (2023). Enhancing export intensity of entrepreneurial firms through bricolage and international opportunity recognition: The differential roles of explorative and exploitative learning. Journal of Business Research, 156, 113467.
[24] Doz, Y. (2020). Fostering strategic agility: How individual executives and human resource practices contribute. Human Resource Management Review, 30(1), 100693.
[25] Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2001). Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(2), 111.
[26] Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization science, 13(2), 128-146.
[27] Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
[28] Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1(1), 23-43.
[29] Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2), 144-192.
[30] 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.
[31] 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.
[32] Escandon-Barbosa, D., Salas-Paramo, J., & Rialp-Criado, J. (2021). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as a moderator of the relationship between ambidextrous learning and corporate sustainability in born global firms. Sustainability, 13(13), 7344.
[33] Eschleman, K. J., Mathieu, M., & Cooper, J. (2017). Creating a recovery filled weekend: The moderating effect of occupation type on the relationship between non-work creative activity and state of feeling recovered at work. Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 97-107.
[34] Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron, Ohio: University of Akron Press.
[35] Fenner, S. V., Arellano, M. C., von Dzengelevski, O., & Netland, T. H. (2023). Effect of lean implementation on team psychological safety and learning. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 43(2), 308-331.
[36] Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of management review, 10(4), 803-813.
[37] 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.
[38] Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Personnel psychology, 70(1), 113-165.
[39] Fu, N., Flood, P. C., Rousseau, D. M., & Morris, T. (2021). Resolving the individual helping and objective job performance dilemma: The moderating effect of team reflexivity. Journal of Business Research, 129, 236-243.
[40] Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of business research, 69(8), 3192-3198.
[41] Gessler, M. (2014). Kompetenzbasiertes Projektmanagement: Handbuch für die Projektarbeit, Qualifizierung und Zertifizierung auf Basis der IPMA Competence Baseline 3.0. 6. Auflage. Nürnberg: GPM Deutsche Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement.
[42] Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and standardization: complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness?. Academy of Management journal, 48(3), 521-531.
[43] Goodhue, D., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. (2006, January). PLS, small sample size, and statistical power in MIS research. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS′06) (Vol. 8, pp. 202b-202b). IEEE.
[44] Goodhue, D., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. (2007). Research note—Statistical power in analyzing interaction effects: Questioning the advantage of PLS with product indicators. Information Systems Research, 18(2), 211-227.
[45] Gren, L., & Lenberg, P. (2020). Agility is responsiveness to change: An essential definition. In Proceedings of the Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (pp. 348-353).
[46] Gurtner, A., Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., & Nägele, C. (2007). Getting groups to develop good strategies: Effects of reflexivity interventions on team process, team performance, and shared mental models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 127-142.
[47] Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
[48] 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.
[49] 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.
[50] 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.
[51] Hassine, J., Rilling, J., Hewitt, J., & Dssouli, R. (2005, September). Change impact analysis for requirement evolution using use case maps. In Eighth International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution (IWPSE′05) (pp. 81-90). IEEE.
[52] Henderson-Sellers, B., & Serour, M. K. (2005). Creating a dual-agility method: The value of method engineering. Journal of Database Management (JDM), 16(4), 1-24.
[53] 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.
[54] Highsmith, J., & Cockburn, A. (2001). Agile software development: The business of innovation. Computer, 34(9), 120-127.
[55] Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. (1998). Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(4), 22-42.
[56] Huang, S. Z., Lu, J. Y., Chau, K. Y., & Zeng, H. L. (2020). Influence of ambidextrous learning on eco-innovation performance of startups: moderating effect of top management’s environmental awareness. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1976.
[57] Iivari, J., & Huisman, M. (2007). The relationship between organizational culture and the deployment of systems development methodologies. Mis Quarterly, 35-58.
[58] Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5, 43-46.
[59] Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1993). Organizing for global competition. Decision Sciences, 24(3), 547–580.
[60] Kesmodel, U. S. (2018). Cross-sectional studies–what are they good for? Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 97(4), 388-393.
[61] 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.
[62] Koeslag-Kreunen, M. G., Van der Klink, M. R., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2018). Leadership for team learning: The case of university teacher teams. Higher Education, 75, 191-207.
[63] Kostopoulos, K. C., & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Team exploratory and exploitative learning: Psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36(3), 385-415.
[64] Lai, J.-M., Lee, G.-G., & Hsu, W.-L. (2009). The influence of Partner’s trust-commitment relationship on electronic commerce strategic planning. Management Decision, 47(3), 491–507.
[65] Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of management review, 31(4), 833-863.
[66] Larman, C. (2004). Agile and iterative development: a manager′s guide. Addison-Wesley Professional.
[67] Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: an integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS quarterly, 34(1), 87-114.
[68] 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.
[69] Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology, 14(1), 319-338.
[70] Liu, S., Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., He, L., & Xiao, Y. (2022). The influence of supervisor creative feedback environment on team creativity: The role of the ambidextrous learning and creative cognitive style. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
[71] Liu, X. M., Geng, Z. Z., & Zhu, R. (2013). Strategic Orientations and Organizational Creativity—Mediating effects of Three Modes of Organization Learning. R and D Management, 25, 104-115.
[72] Lorinkova, N. M., Pearsall, M. J., & Sims Jr, H. P. (2013). Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 573-596.
[73] Lu, Y., & K.(Ram) Ramamurthy. (2011). Understanding the link between information technology capability and organizational agility: An empirical examination. MIS quarterly, 931-954.
[74] Lyubovnikova, J., Legood, A., Turner, N., & Mamakouka, A. (2017). How authentic leadership influences team performance: The mediating role of team reflexivity. Journal of business Ethics, 141, 59-70.
[75] Lyytinen, K., & Rose, G. M. (2006). Information system development agility as organizational learning. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 183-199.
[76] Mammassis, C. S., & Schmid, P. C. (2018). The role of power asymmetry and paradoxical leadership in software development team agility. In Cognition and Innovation (Vol. 3, pp. 125-139). Emerald Publishing Limited.
[77] March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.
[78] Matsuo, M. (2018). How does managerial coaching affect individual learning? The mediating roles of team and individual reflexivity. Personnel review, 47(1), 118-132.
[79] Matsuo, M. (2020). Managers’ exploration activities and individual unlearning: The mediating role of learning orientation and reflection. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(5), 638-656.
[80] Memon, M. A., Cheah, J. H., Ramayah, T., Ting, H., Chuah, F., & Cham, T. H. (2019). Moderation analysis: issues and guidelines. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 3(1), 1-11.
[81] Men, C., & Jia, R. (2021). Knowledge-oriented leadership, team learning and team creativity: the roles of task interdependence and task complexity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(6), 882-898.
[82] Moreland, R. L., & McMinn, J. G. (2010). Group reflexivity and performance. In Advances in group processes (Vol. 27, pp. 63-95). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
[83] Nerur, S., & Balijepally, V. (2007). Theoretical reflections on agile development methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 50(3), 79-83.
[84] Oesterle, S., Buchwald, A., & Urbach, N. (2020). Investigating the co-creation of IT consulting service value: empirical findings of a matched pair analysis. Electronic Markets, 1-27.
[85] Patzak, G., & Rattay, G. (2017). Projektmanagement: Projekte, Projektportfolios, Programme und projektorientierte Unternehmen. Linde Verlag GmbH.
[86] 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.
[87] Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(4), 399-424.
[88] Purwanto, A., & Sudargini, Y. (2021). Partial least squares structural squation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis for social and management research: a literature review. Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management Research, 2(4), 114-123.
[89] Qu, X., and Zhang, J. (2021). A study on the relation between organizational forgetting, ameliorative learning and trans-boundary innovation: a moderating role based on redundant resources. Technology Economics, 40, 20–27.
[90] Ramayah, T. J. F. H., Cheah, J., Chuah, F., Ting, H., & Memon, M. A. (2018). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using smartPLS 3.0. An updated guide and practical guide to statistical analysis.
[91] Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Nejati, M., Lei Mee, T., Ramayah, T., Shafaei, A., & Abd Razak, N. (2017, June). Full collinearity as a new criterion to assess discriminant validity of composite (formative) and reflective measurement models. In 9th International Conference on PLS and Related Methods (PLS’17) (pp. 17-19).
[92] Rathor, S., Batra, D., Xia, W., & Zhang, M. (2016). What constitutes software development agility?. In AMCIS.
[93] Rebelo, Lourenço, P. R., & Dimas, I. D. (2019). The journey of team learning since “The Fifth Discipline.” The Learning Organization, 27(1), 42–53.
[94] Ren, Wang, Z., & Collins, N. T. (2021). The joint impact of servant leadership and team-based HRM practices on team expediency: the mediating role of team reflexivity. Personnel Review, 50(7/8), 1757–1773.
[95] Salmela, H., Tapanainen, T., Baiyere, A., Hallanoro, M., & Galliers, R. (2015). IS Agility Research: An Assessment and Future Directions. ECIS 2015 Completed Research Papers, 155.
[96] Sánchez-Cardona, I., Salanova Soria, M., & Llorens-Gumbau, S. (2018). Leadership intellectual stimulation and team learning: The mediating role of team positive affect. Universitas psychologica, 17(1), 221-236.
[97] Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity. Human Relations, 61(11), 1593-1616.
[98] Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & Wienk, J. A. (2003). Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(6), 779-802.
[99] Schippers, M. C., Edmondson, A. C., & West, M. A. (2014). Team reflexivity as an antidote to team information-processing failures. Small Group Research, 45(6), 731-769.
[100] Schippers, M. C., Homan, A. C., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2013). To reflect or not to reflect: Prior team performance as a boundary condition of the effects of reflexivity on learning and final team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 6-23.
[101] Schippers, M. C., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2015). Team reflexivity and innovation: The moderating role of team context. Journal of Management, 41(3), 769-788.
[102] Schippers, M. C., West, M. A., & Edmondson, A. C. (2017). Team reflexivity and innovation. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of team working and collaborative processes, 459-478.
[103] Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., & Cule, P. (2001). Identifying software project risks: An international Delphi study. Journal of management information systems, 17(4), 5-36.
[104] Schneider, 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), 836–851.
[105] Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2002). Agile software development with scrum. Series in agile software development (Vol. 1). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
[106] Sheffield, J., & Lemétayer, J. (2013). Factors associated with the software development agility of successful projects. International Journal of Project Management, 31(3), 459-472.
[107] Shin, Y., Kim, M., & Lee, S. H. (2017). Reflection toward creativity: Team reflexivity as a linking mechanism between team goal orientation and team creative performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32, 655-671.
[108] 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.
[109] Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Estrada, J. M. V., & Chatla, S. B. (2016). The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. Journal of business Research, 69(10), 4552-4564.
[110] Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict. European journal of marketing, 53(11), 2322-2347.
[111] Skogmar, K. (2015). PRINCE2, the PMBOK guide and ISO 21500: 2012. London: Axelos.
[112] Solís-Molina, M., Hernández-Espallardo, M., & Rodríguez-Orejuela, A. (2018). Performance implications of organizational ambidexterity versus specialization in exploitation or exploration: The role of absorptive capacity. Journal of business research, 91, 181-194.
[113] Somech, A., & Naamneh, M. (2019). Subject coordinators as boundary managers: The impact on team learning and organizational outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(1), 56-73.
[114] Stapleton, J. DSDM Dynamic Systems Development Method. 1997. Harlow, England: Addison-Wesley.
[115] Streukens, S., & Leroi-Werelds, S. (2016). Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: A step-by-step guide to get more out of your bootstrap results. European management journal, 34(6), 618-632.
[116] Strode, D. E., Huff, S. L., & Tretiakov, A. (2009, January). The impact of organizational culture on agile method use. In 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-9). IEEE.
[117] Swafford, P. M., Ghosh, S., & Murthy, N. (2006). The antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm: scale development and model testing. Journal of Operations management, 24(2), 170-188.
[118] Swieringa, J., & Wierdsma, A. F. (1992). Becoming a learning organization: Beyond the learning curve (Vol. 62753). Addison-Wesley Longman Limited.
[119] Tekleab, A. G., Karaca, A., Quigley, N. R., & Tsang, E. W. (2016). Re-examining the functional diversity–performance relationship: The roles of behavioral integration, team cohesion, and team learning. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3500-3507.
[120] Tho, N. D., & Duc, L. A. (2021). Team psychological capital and innovation: the mediating of team exploratory and exploitative learning. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(7), 1745-1759.
[121] Tjosvold, D., Tang, M. M., & West, M. (2004). Reflexivity for team innovation in China: The contribution of goal interdependence. Group & Organization Management, 29(5), 540-559.
[122] Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., & Raes, E. (2016). Team learning in teacher teams: Team entitativity as a bridge between teams-in-theory and teams-in-practice. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31, 275-298.
[123] Walter, F., & van der Vegt, G. S. (2013). Harnessing members′ positive mood for team-directed learning behaviour and team innovation: The moderating role of perceived team feedback. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(2), 235-248.
[124] Wang, D., Song, J., Sun, X., & Wang, X. (2022). A study on the impact of boundary-spanning search on the sustainable development performance of technology start-ups. Sustainability, 14(15), 9182.
[125] Wang, L., Jiang, W., Zhang, H., & Lin, H. (2020). Leader information seeking, team performance and team innovation: Examining the roles of team reflexivity and cooperative outcome interdependence. Information Processing & Management, 57(6), 102343.
[126] Wang, Z., Cui, T., & Cai, S. (2022). How and when team reflexivity influences employee innovative behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(1), 61-75.
[127] Wang, Z., Cui, T., Cai, S., & Ren, S. (2022). Team reflexivity, individual intellectual capital and employee innovative behavior: a multilevel moderated mediation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23(6), 1276-1295.
[128] Wang, Z., Guan, C., Cui, T., Cai, S., & Liu, D. (2021). Servant leadership, team reflexivity, coworker support climate, and employee creativity: A multilevel perspective. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28(4), 465-478.
[129] Wang, Z., Ren, S., Chadee, D., Liu, M., & Cai, S. (2021). Team reflexivity and employee innovative behavior: the mediating role of knowledge sharing and moderating role of leadership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(6), 1619-1639.
[130] West, M. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration (pp. 555-579). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[131] West, M. A. (2000). Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams. Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams, 5.
[132] West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied psychology, 51(3), 355-387.
[133] Widmer, P. S., Schippers, M. C., & West, M. A. (2009). Recent developments in reflexivity research: A review. Psychology of Everyday Activity, 2(2), 2-11.
[134] Wu, T., Chen, B., Shao, Y., & Lu, H. (2021). Enable digital transformation: entrepreneurial leadership, ambidextrous learning and organisational performance. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 33(12), 1389-1403.
[135] Wysocki, R. K. (2011). Effective project management: traditional, agile, extreme. John Wiley & Sons.
[136] Xiong. (2022). Improvise to win: the relationship between entrepreneurial improvisation and start-up competitive advantage. Asian Business & Management, 21(2), 184–204.
[137] Xu, P., & Shen, Y. (2016). Empowering Leadership, Transactive Memory Systems and Agility in Software Development Teams: A Theoretical Framework.
[138] Yamin, S., & Kurniawan, H. (2011). Generasi baru mengolah data penelitian dengan partial least square path modeling. Jakarta: Salemba Infotek.
[139] Yang, M., Schloemer, H., Zhu, Z., Lin, Y., Chen, W., & Dong, N. (2020). Why and when team reflexivity contributes to team performance: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3044.
[140] Yang, X., Jin, R., & Zhao, C. (2022). Platform leadership and sustainable competitive advantage: the mediating role of ambidextrous learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 609.
[141] Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The leadership quarterly, 12(4), 451-483.
[142] Zhang, X., & Wang, X. (2021). Team learning in interdisciplinary research teams: antecedents and consequences. Journal of knowledge management, 25(6), 1429-1455.
[143] Zhang, Y., Long, J., & Zhao, W. (2022). The Curvilinear Relationships Between Relational Embeddedness and Dynamic Capabilities: The Mediating Effect of Ambidextrous Learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 830377.
[144] Zhao, K., Zong, B., & Zhang, L. (2020). Explorative and exploitative learning in teams: unpacking the antecedents and consequences. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2041.
指導教授 陳仲儼(Chung-Yang Chen) 審核日期 2023-7-11
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