Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0114107-005516 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0114107-005516
論文名稱
Title
關係模式對於群體知識分享之影響-以資訊專案團隊為實證
The effects of Relation Models on Knowledge Sharing among Members in the group--An Empirical Study of IS Project Team.
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
50
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2006-07-26
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2007-01-14
關鍵字
Keywords
關係構面、知識分享、關係模式、社會資本
Knowledge Sharing, Relatonal dimension of social, Relaton Models
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5808 次,被下載 968
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5808 times, has been downloaded 968 times.
中文摘要
在知識經濟時代中,促使團隊成員進行知識分享的原因有很多,許多學者也以不同的研究角度對各種知識分享的模式做進一步的闡釋,因此也產生許多分歧的研究結果。然而,知識分享乃架構在人與人之間相處、互動的四種共存的基本關係模式,社群分享(Communal Sharing)、權力驅使(Authority Ranking)、對等互惠(Equality Matching)、市場價值(Market Pricing)之中,並與不同程度的社會資本所共同運作而成。眾多不同知識分享的現象與模式即是受這些因素交互作用影響的結果。本論文即以這四種基本關係模式與社會資本關係構面的四大元素:信任(Trust)、認同(Identification)、義務(Obligation)與規範(Norm)等加以進行探討,想要瞭解這些重要變數如何共同影響在資訊專案成員中的知識分享機制,從而能進一步提升團隊中知識分享的成效。
本論文使用問卷調查法來收集在台灣產業界中,資訊專案成員對於知識分享相關構面的實際感受資料。並且採用典型分析和逐步迴歸分析對於研究架構進行檢驗,其結果顯示,資訊專案團隊若以社群分享、對等互惠與市場價值為其主要的互動模式再加上團隊內若存在著良好的社會資本關係構面的四大要素,將可形成良好的知識分享機制, 其中以社群分享為主的互動模式最能有效促進知識分享的成效。反觀之,若成員中的互動採以權力驅使模式,則成員對於知識分享較無法得到滿意的成效。
Abstract
This study developed a conceptual model for exploring the correlation between relational dimension of social capital and relation models in hope to reveal to what extent each elements in relational dimension of social capital influences the combination of relation models of knowledge sharing. Further we investigated the impact of each relation model on the effectiveness of knowledge sharing and attempt to present an efficient mechanism based on the combination of the four relation models. We adopted the survey method and focus on the members in IS project team to collect research data. Canonical correlation analysis was employed to examine the correlation between the two constructs, the relational dimension of social capital and the relation models of knowledge sharing, and two significant canonical functions with powerful explanation were derived. The first canonical function with major explanatory power showed that all the elements in the relational dimension of social capital are highly related with the models, CS, EM and MP, in the construct of relation models. The second canonical function, in which obligation is highly related with MP and AR, was derived with inferior explanatory power to the first one. Stepwise regression analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship between each relation model and the effectiveness of knowledge sharing. CS, among the four relation models, was found to have the highest positive significance with the effectiveness, followed by EM and MP sequentially, while AR was found no significant relation with the effectiveness of knowledge in our observations. With the results of this study, we hope to present an efficient mechanism for practitioners to promote knowledge management by enhancing corresponding social capital in relational dimension and offer comprehensive perspectives for researchers to achieve a better insight of the dynamics of knowledge sharing.
目次 Table of Contents
Content Table
Abstract 1
Chapter 1 Introduction 3
Chapter 2 Literature Review 6
2.1 IS Project Team 6
2.2 Knowledge Sharing 6
2.3 Relation Models 8
2.3.1 Communal Sharing 9
2.3.2 Authority Ranking 9
2.3.3 Equality Matching 10
2.3.4 Market Pricing 10
2.4 Social Capital Theory 11
2.4.1 The Relational Dimension of Social Capital 12
2.4.1.1 Trust 13
2.4.1.2 Identification 13
2.4.1.3 Obligation 14
2.4.1.4 Norm 14
2.5 The Effectiveness of Knowledge Sharing 15
Chapter 3 Research Model and Hypotheses 17
3.1 Research Model 17
3.2 Research Hypotheses 17
Chapter 4 Research Methodology and Analysis 21
4.1 Measurement and Data Collection 21
4.1.1 Pearson Correlation 26
4.2 Analysis Methods 27
4.2.1 Canonical Correlation Analysis 27
4.2.2 Stepwise Regression Analysis 27
4.2.3 Explanatory Power of Canonical Correlation Analysis 28
4.2.3.1 Level of Significance 29
4.2.3.2 Magnitude of the Canonical Relationship 30
4.2.3.3 Redundancy Index 30
4.2.3.4 The Amount of Explained Variance 31
4.2.3.5 Canonical Loading 31
4.2.3.6 Interpretation of Canonical Correlation 32
4.2.4 Stepwise Regression Analysis 35
Chapter 5 Discussion and Implications 38
5.1 Results Discussion 38
5.2 Implications for Theory 40
5.4 Limitations and Future Studies 42
5.5 Conclusion 42
Reference 45
Appendix 48
參考文獻 References
1. Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E. and Levin, D. Z. (2003). ‘Nurturing Interpersonal Trust in Knowledge Sharing Networks’. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 4, 64-78.
2. Adler, P. S. (2001). ‘Market, Hierarchy and Trust; The Knowledge Economy and the Future of Capitalism’. Organization Science, 12, 2, 215-235.
3. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003) ‘A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development’. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 1, 105-123.
4. Argote, L., and Ingram, P. (2000). ‘Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 1, 150-169.
5. Bartol, K. M. and Locke, E. A. (2000). Incentives and motivation. In S. Rynes and B Gerhart (ed), Compensation in Organizations: Progress and Prospects, CA, New Lexington Press, 104-147.
6. Bartol, K. M. and Srivastava, A. (2002). ‘Encouraging Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Organizational Reward Systems’. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 64-76.
7. Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001).‘Organizational Knowledge Management: A Contingency Perspective’. Journal of Management Information System, 18, 1, 23-51.
8. Bij, H. van der, Song, X. M. and Weggeman, M. ( 2004). 'An Empiracal Investigation into the Actecedents of Knowledge Dissemination at the Strategic Business Unit Level'. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20, 163-179.
9. Bock, GW and Kim, YG. (2002). ‘Breaking the Myths of Rewards: An Exploratory Study of Attitudes about Knowledge Sharing’. Information Resources Management Journal, 15, 2, 14-21.
10. Boer, N. I., and Berends, H. (2002). ‘The Relational Dimension of Knowledge Sharing: An Empirical Study of An Industrial Research Group’. Fourth European Conference on Organizational Knowledge.
11. Boisot, M. H. (1995). Information Space: A Framework for Learning in Organizations, Institutions and Culture. London: Routledge.
12. Boer N.I., Peter J.B. and Kuldeep K. (2004). ‘The Implications of Different models of Social Relations for Understanding Knowledge Sharing’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 959-971.
13. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital in JG Richardson (ed), Handbook of theory and research for the Sociology of Education. New York, Greenwood Press, 241-258.
14. Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1991). ‘Organizational learning and communities of Practice’. Organizational Science, 2, 40-57.
15. Burgess, D. (2005).‘What Motivates Employees to Transfer Knowledge Outside Their Work Unit?’. Journal of Business Communication, 42, 4, 324-348.
16. Cady, S. H., and Fandt, P. M. (2001). ’Managing Impressions with Information: A Field Study of Organizational Realities’. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37, 180-204.
17. Cameron, J. and Pierce, WD. (1994). 'Reinforcement, Reward, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta-Aanlysis'. Review of Educational Research, 64, 3, 363-423.
18. Coleman, J. S. (1990). ‘Foundations of Social Theory’. MA, Cambridege: Belknap Press.
19. Cicourel, A. V. (1973). Cognitive Sociology: Language and Meaning in Social Interaction. Harmondsworth, Penguin Press.
20. Collins, H. M. (1974). 'The TEA Set: tacit knowledge and scientific networks.' Sinence Studies, 4, 165-186.
21. Collins, H. M. (2001). ‘Tacit Knowledge, Trust and the Q of Sapphire’. Social Studies of Science, 31, 1, 71-85.
22. Constant, D., Sproull, L. and Kiseler, S. (1996). ‘The Kindness of Strangers: The Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice’. Organization Science, 7, 2, 119-135.
23. Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. (1998). ‘Working knowledge: How organizations manage What They know’. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
24. Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., and Beers, M. C. (1998). ‘Successful knowledge management projects’. Sloan Management Review, 39, 43-57.
25. Disterer, G, (2001). ‘Individual and Social Barriers to Knowledge Transfer’. Proceedings 34th Hawaii Int. Conference on System Sciences. USA.
26. Dyer, J. H. and Singh, H. (1998). ‘The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Inter-organizational Competitive Advantage’. Academy of Management Review, 23, 4, 660-679.
27. Earl, M. (2001). ‘Knowledge Management Strategies: Toward a Taxonomy’. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 1, 215-235.
28. Faraj, S. and Wasko, M. M. (2002). ‘The Web of Knowledge: An Investigation of Knowledge Exchange in Networks of Practice. Working Paper.
29. Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structure of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations. The Free Press.
30. Fiske, A. P. (1992). ‘The four elementary forms of sociality: framework for a unified theory of social relations’. Psychological Review, 99, 689-723.
31. French, J. and Raven, B. (1959). The bases for social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (ed), Group dynamics: Research and theory.
32. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: The Free Press.
33. Goodman, P. S. and Darr, E. D. (1998). ‘Computer-Aided Systems and Communities: Mechanisms for Organizational Learning in Distributed Environments’. MIS Quarterly 22, 4, 417-440.
34. Granovetter, M., (1992). ‘Problems of Explanation in Economic Sociology’. In Nohria, N. and Eccles, RG (ed), Networks and organizations: Structure, Form, and action, M.A, Harvard Business School Press, 25-56.
35. Grant, R. M. (1996). ‘Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm’. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122.
36. H van der Bij, Song, X. M. and Weggeman, M. (2003). ‘An empirical investigation into the antecedents of Knowledge Dissemination at The Strategic Business Unit Level’. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20, 169-179.
37. Hall, H. (2001). ‘Input-Friendliness: Motivating Knowledge Sharing Across Intranets’. Journal of Information Science, 27, 139-146.
38. Huber, G. P. (1991). ‘Organizational Learning: the contribution process and the literatures’. Organization Science, 2, 88-115.
39. Jarvenpaa, S. L. and Staples, S. D. (2000). ‘Exploring Perceptions of Organizational ownership of Information and Expertise’. Journal of Management Information System, 18, 1, 151-184.
40. Kankanhalli, A. and Bernard C. Y. T. and Kwok-Kee Wei. (2005). ’Contribution Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories: An Empirical Investigation’. MIS Quarterly, 29, 113-143.
41. Krackhardt, D. (1990). ‘Assessing the Political Landscaped: Structure, Cognition, and Power in Organization’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 342-369.
42. Krogh, G. (1998). ‘Care in Knowledge Creation’. California Review, 40, 3, 133-153.
43. Leonard-Barton D. (1995). Wellsprings of Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
44. Michailova, S. and Husted, K. (2004). ‘Decision Making in Organizations Hostile TO Knowledge Sharing’. Journal for East European Management Studies, 9, 1, 7-19.
45. Mistzal, B. A. (1996). ‘Trust in Modern Societies’. England, Cambridge: Polity Press.
46. Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998). ‘Social Capital Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage’. Academy of Management Review, 23, 2, 242-266.
47. Starbuck, W. H. (1992). ‘Learning by Knowledge-Intensive Firms’. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 6, 713-740.
48. Szulanski, G. (1997). ‘Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments To The Transfer Of The Best Practice Within The Firm’. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27-43.
49. Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998). ‘Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks’. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 4, 464-476.
50. Wasko, M. and Faraj, S. (2000). ‘It Is What One Does: Why People Participate and Help Others in Electronic Communities of Practice’. Journal of Strategic Information System, 9, 155-173.
51. Weiss, L. (1999). ‘Collection and Connection: The Anatomy of Knowledge Sharing in Professional Service Firms’. Organization Development Journal, 17, 4, 61-77.
52. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identify. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53. Wiig, K. M. (2002) ‘Knowledge Management in Public Administration’. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6, 3, 224-236
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內外都一年後公開 withheld
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available


紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code