成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	趙韋程 Chao, Wei-Cheng
論文名稱：	建設性爭議訓練對設計思考流程中的團隊效能影響之探討 Exploring the Effect of Constructive Controversy Training for Team Performance in Design Thinking Process
指導教授：	楊佳翰 Yang, Chia-Han
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	規劃與設計學院 - 創意產業設計研究所 Institute of Creative Industries Design
論文出版年：	2025
畢業學年度：	113
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	124
中文關鍵詞：	設計思考、工作坊、團隊動力、團隊效能、建設性爭議訓練
外文關鍵詞：	Design Thinking, Workshop, Team Dynamic, Team Performance, Constructive Controversy Training
相關次數：	點閱：23 下載：2
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

近年來，「設計思考」作為一種以人為本的創新問題解決方法論，已在各領域被廣泛應用。其概念最初於1960年代出現於設計領域，並於2000年後透過《哈佛商業評論》與《富比世雜誌》的報導受到關注，逐漸於商業與創新實踐中普及。然而，即使在操作相同設計思考流程與使用相同工具的情況下，不同團隊之間在團隊效能表現上仍存在顯著差異。研究者透過親身參與多場設計思考工作坊的經驗及相關文獻回顧，發現「溝通」是造成團隊效能落差的關鍵因素之一。為此，本研究引入「建設性爭議訓練」（Constructive Controversy Training, CCT）作為溝通訓練方法，期望藉由結構化的理性衝突，提升團隊協作與表現。

本研究採用混合研究法，透過實驗性工作坊、深度訪談與觀察分析等方式，探討CCT對設計思考流程中團隊效能的影響。研究結果顯示，建設性爭議訓練有助於提升團隊成員之間的溝通品質、協作能力與創意思維，進而增強整體團隊效能。本研究發現指出，在設計思考流程中導入結構化爭議機制，能促進更深層次的互動與創新，為當前設計教育與實務帶來具體的提升策略。

In recent years, Design Thinking has emerged as a widely adopted, human-centered problem-solving methodology across various disciplines. Originating in the 1960s within the design field and gaining mainstream attention around 2000, particularly after coverage in Harvard Business Review and Forbes, Design Thinking has become increasingly prevalent in business and innovation practices. Despite its growing application, discrepancies in team performance during Design Thinking processes remain a challenge, even when teams follow the same methodology and utilize identical tools. Through both personal participation in Design Thinking workshops and literature review, the researcher identified communication as a critical factor influencing these disparities. Constructive Controversy Training (CCT), a communication strategy grounded in structured intellectual conflict, has been proposed as a means to enhance team performance.

This study investigates the effect of CCT on team effectiveness within the Design Thinking process through a mixed-method approach including experimental workshops, interviews, and observational analysis. Results reveal that CCT contributes significantly to improving communication, collaboration, and creativity among team members, leading to higher overall team performance. The findings suggest that integrating structured controversy into the Design Thinking framework can foster deeper engagement and innovation, offering a valuable enhancement to current design education and practice.

中文摘要	i
Abstract	ii
Table of Contents	iii
List of Tables	vi
List of Figures	vii
Chapter One: Introduction	1
1 Research Background	1
2 Research Motivation	2
3 Research Objective	2
4 Research Question	3
5 Research Structure	3
Chapter Two: Literature Review	5
1 Development of Design Thinking	5
1.1 Concept of Design Thinking Process	5
1.2 Category of Design Thinking Tool	8
2 Team Dynamic in Design Thinking Process	15
2.1 Interdisciplinary Team and Learning	15
2.2 Team Building for Design Thinking	16
2.3 Type of Design Thinking Team	17
2.4 Design Thinking and Team Performance	18
3 Constructive Controversy Training	19
3.1 Concept of Constructive Controversy	19
3.2 Constructive Controversy and SUIT Framework	20
3.3 Constructive Controversy Training Method	22
Chapter Three: Methodology	23
1 Research Framework	23
2 Research Method	23
2.1 In-depth Interview	23
2.2 Focus Group	24 

2.3 Participant Observation Method	24
2.4 Experiment Design	25
2.5 Questionnaire	25
3 Research Design	25
3.1 Workshop Design	25
3.2 Data Collection	27
3.3 Data Source	27
Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results	29
1 Data Source	29
1.1 Source of Secondary Data	29
1.2 Source of Primary Data	31
2 Current Situation and Development of Design Thinking	44
2.1 Design Thinking Nowadays and Challenges	44
3 Team Performance affected by Constructive Controversy Training	46
3.1 Team Dynamic in Design Thinking Process	46
3.2 Constructive Controversy Training	48
3.3 The Impact of Constructive Controversy Training on Team Performance in the Design Thinking Process	51
4 Online Design Thinking Workshop with Constructive Controversy Training	54
4.2 Self-reported questionnaire	78
4.3 Experts-rated questionnaire	80
4.4 General Comparison Between Groups	81
4.5 Focus group interview for participants	82
4.6 Experts observation	85
4.7 Divergence Patterns: Three Emergent Types	87
4.8 Significance of Self–Expert Comparison	88
4.9 Summary	88
Chapter 5: Discussion	90
1 Overall Discussion on Findings	90
2 Implication for Theory	92
3 Implication for Practice	94
4 Research Limitation	98
5 Recommendation for Future Study	100
Chapter 6: Conclusions	103 

References	105
Appendix A Canvas used in online Design thinking workshop	108
A.1  Empathy phase-5W1H	108
A.2  Define phase-Persona	108
A.3  Define phase-How Might We	109
A.4  Ideation Warmup – 30 Circles	109
A.5  Ideation phase – 6-3-5 method	110
A.6  Prototype & Test phase – Storyboard	110
Appendix B Interview Record for Design Thinking Experts	111
                                    

Auernhammer, J. & Roth, B. (2021) The Origin and Evolution of Stanford University’s Design Thinking: From Product Design to Design Thinking in Innovation Management, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(6), pp.668-700.
Beckman, S., & Barry, M. (2007), Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding Design Thinking, California Management Review, 50(1), pp.25-56.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84.
Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2003). The Mind Map Book: Radiant Thinking-Major Evolution in Human Thought. 3rd. In: Aufl.
Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing design thinking: The concept in idea and enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 38-57.
C¸eviker-C¸ınar, G., Mura, G., & Demirbag-Kaplan, M. (2017), Design Thinking: A New Road Map in Business Education, The Design Journal, 20, pp.977-987.
Collins, H. (2013). Can design thinking still add value? Design Management Review, 24(2), 35-39.
Collins, H. (2018). Creative research: the theory and practice of research for the creative industries.
Davis, B. M. (2010). Creativity & innovation in business 2010 teaching the application of design thinking to business. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(4), 6532-6538.
Dorst, K. (2011), The Core of “Design Thinking” and Its Application, Design Studies, 32(6), pp.521-532.
Dunne, D. & Martin, R. (2006) Design Thinking and How it will Change Management Education, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5, pp.512-523.
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43.
Efeoglu, A., Møller, C., Sérié, M., & Boer, H. (2013). Design thinking: characteristics and promises. Paper presented at the Proceedings 14th International CINet Conference on Business Development and Co-creation.
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization science, 12(4), 435-449.
Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2006). Team reflexivity in innovative projects. R&d Management, 36(2), 113-125.
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J. & Çetinkaya, M. (2013), Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures, Creativity and Innovation Management, 22, pp.121-146.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37–51.
Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 57–80). MIT Press.
Koria, M., Graff, D., & Karjalainen, T.-M. (2011). Learning design thinking: International design business management at Aalto University. Review on Design, Innovation and Strategic Management, 2(1), 1-21.
Kosara, R. (2011). Visual Complexity Mapping Patterns of Information. Science, 334(6063), 1643-1644.
Lattemann, C., Siemon, D., Dorawa, D., & Redlich, B. (2017). Digitization of the Design Thinking Process Solving Problems with Geographically Dispersed Teams, Cham.
Lee, C. J. S. K., & Benza, R. (2015). Teaching Innovation Skills: Application of Design Thinking in a Graduate Marketing Course. Business Education Innovation Journal, 7(1), 43-50. Retrieved from http://er.lib.ncku.edu.tw:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=108948446&lang=zh-tw&site=eds-live
Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Designing for growth: A design thinking tool kit for managers: Columbia University Press.
Liedtka, J. (2018), Why Design Thinking Works, Harvard Business Review, 96/5, pp.72-79.
Matthews, J. H., & Wrigley, C. (2017), Design and Design Thinking in Business and Management Higher Education, Journal of Learning Design, 10, pp.41-54.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of management review, 26(3), 356-376.
Martelaro, N., Ganguly, S., Steinert, M., & Jung, M. (2015). The personal trait myth: a comparative analysis of the innovation impact of design thinking tools and personal traits. In Design Thinking Research (pp. 41-57): Springer.
Micheli, P., Wilner, S.J.S., Bhatti, S., Mura, M. & Beverland, M.B. (2019) Doing Design Thinking: Conceptual Review, Synthesis and Research Agenda, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36, pp.124-148.
Morrison-Smith, S., & Ruiz, J. (2020). Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: A literature review. SN Applied Sciences, 2(6), 1096.
O'Neill, T. A., Hancock, S., McLarnon, M. J., & Holland, T. (2020). When the SUIT Fits: Constructive Controversy Training in Face‐to‐Face and Virtual Teams. Negotiation and conflict management research, 13(1), 44-59.
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.
Owen, C. (2007). Design Thinking: Notes on its Nature and Use, Research Quarterly, 2(1), pp.16-27.
Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (2019). The Oxford handbook of group creativity and innovation. Oxford University Press.
Plattner, H. (2010). Bootcamp Bootleg. Design School Stanford. In: Stanford.
Purvanova, R. K. (2014). Face-to-face versus virtual teams: What have we really learned? The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(1), 2–29.
Roseth, C. J., Saltarelli, A. J., & Glass, C. R. (2011). Effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated constructive controversy on social interdependence, motivation, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 804.
Rugman, A. M., & D'cruz, J. R. (1993). The" double diamond" model of international competitiveness: The Canadian experience. MIR: Management International Review, 17-39.
Sands, R. G., Stafford, J., & McClelland, M. (1990). " I Beg to Differ" Conflict in the Interdisciplinary Team. Social Work in Health Care, 14(3), 55-72.
Schmiedgen, J., Spille, L., Köppen, E., Rhinow, H., & Meinel, C. (2016). Measuring the Impact of Design Thinking. In (pp. 157-170): Springer International Publishing.
Stickdorn, M., Schneider, J., Andrews, K., & Lawrence, A. (2011). This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases (Vol. 1): Wiley Hoboken, NJ.
Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology, 47(3), 285-313.
Tjosvold, D. (2008). Constructive controversy for management education: Developing committed, open-minded researchers. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 73-85.
Tschimmel, K. (2012). Design thinking as an effective toolkit for innovation. In Proceedings of the XXIII ISPIM Conference: Action for Innovation: Innovating from Experience (pp. 1–20).
van de Grift, T. C., & Kroeze, R. (2016). Design thinking as a tool for interdisciplinary education in health care. Academic Medicine, 91(9), 1234-1238.
Verganti, R., Dell'Era, C., & Swan, S. (2021), Design Thinking: Critical Analysis and Future Evolution, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38, pp.603-622.
Vetterli, C., Brenner, W., Uebernickel, F., & Berger, K. (2011). Die Innovationsmethode Design Thinking. Amberg, M.(Hrsg.): Dynamisches IT-Management. So steigern Sie die Agilität, Flexibilität und Innovationskraft Ihrer IT. In: Symposion Publishing.
Vetterli, C., Hoffmann, F., Brenner, W., Eppler, M. J., & Uebernickel, F. (2012). Designing innovation: Prototypes and team performance in design thinking.
Wiesche, M., Leifer, L., Uebernickel, F., Lang, M., Byler, E., Feldmann, N., . . . Krcmar, H. (2018). Teaching Innovation in Interdisciplinary Environments: Toward a Design Thinking Syllabus. Paper presented at the AIS SIGED International Conference on Information Systems Education and Research, San Francisco, CA. https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/255309/
Zhang, Z. (2020). Development of Online Collaboration Tools (OCT) for Collaborative Innovation Design. International Journal of Systematic Innovation, 6(1).

校內：立即公開
校外：立即公開

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文