設計思考是一種以人為本的創新策略思考。而傳授設計思考最常見的方式是透過工作坊。近年來，由於線上工具的普及以及疫情的影響之下，工作坊已經不再局限於面對面討論並使用實體文具（白板、筆、便利貼）之形式，越來越多工作坊開始引入線上協作軟體來做為討論工具。
因應工作坊形式多元的發展，本研究主要目的為找出不同團隊協作形式下的關鍵過程增益與損失事件之差異，並分析造成差異的原因。本研究針對現今最常見的三種工作坊團隊協作為研究範圍：(一)全實體：面對面討論配合使用紙本便利貼、(二)混合：面對面討論配合使用線上白板、(三)全線上：線上視訊配合使用線上白板。首先透過訪談，盤點線上與實體工作坊討論形式的過程增益 (process gain)與過程損失 (process loss)之事件；再透過複迴歸分析，與獨立樣本T檢定分析實驗之問卷回饋，找出關鍵過程增益與損失之事件，以及其在三種團隊協作形式下的差異。
結果發現全實體與混合形式皆具有面對面協作的優勢，主要差異在於與全線上形式之比較。而本研究結果歸納出「溝通相關差異」以及「社會助長與惰化現象」兩大結果：遠端視訊形式缺乏多元訊息管道，導致團隊溝通方面的阻礙：(一) 缺乏情緒訊息傳達，難以營造出團隊共創氛圍；(二) 無法傳遞實體觸覺訊息，導致難以討論設計細節。而面對面協作因可傳遞細微肢體語言及肢體指向性，因此可以促成團隊討論中的主次交流管道，提升發言意願及討論的訊息交流量。
除了溝通相關的問題，亦發現社會助長與惰化現象之差異。面對面協作具有豐富的訊息管道，能夠時時感知到其他成員的存在感，進而激發成員更投入於腦力激盪的發想；相反地，全線上協作易關掉或切換訊息管道，缺乏他人的存在感則容易發生社會惰化之現象。本研究之結果可做為未來規劃各形式工作坊之參考，幫助工作坊中的團隊發揮其最大的效能；並且提供未來線上團隊協作工具之設計建議。

Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation and problem-solving. The most common way to teach design thinking is through workshops. In recent years, due to the widespread use of online tools and the impact of the pandemic, workshops are no longer limited to face-to-face discussions and the use of physical stationery (whiteboards, pens, sticky notes). More and more workshops are now incorporating online collaboration software as discussion tools.
In response to the diverse development of workshop formats, the main objective of this study is to identify the differences in key process gains and losses under different team collaboration formats and analyze the reasons behind these differences. The study focuses on three common workshop formats today: (1) Fully in-person: face-to-face discussions using physical sticky notes, (2) Hybrid: face-to-face discussions using online whiteboards, and (3) Fully Online: online video conferencing using online whiteboards. First, through interviews, possible process gains and losses in online and physical workshop discussion formats are documented. Then, experiments of the three different workshop formats are conducted. Questionnaires of potential process gains and losses were filled in by the participants after the experiments. Through multiple regression analysis and independent sample t-tests of the questionnaire feedback, key process gains and losses are identified, along with the differences in these events among the three team collaboration formats.
The results revealed that both the fullu in-person and hybrid formats have advantages in face-to-face collaboration when compared to the fully online format. The findings can be summarized into two main outcomes: “Communication-related differences” and “Social facilitation and social loafing phenomena.” The remote video conferencing format lacks diverse channels of communication, leading to obstacles in team communication: (1) Lack of emotional message conveyance, making it difficult to create a collaborative atmosphere within the team; (2) Inability to convey physical tactile messages, resulting in challenges in discussing design details. In contrast, face-to-face collaboration allows for the transmission of subtle body language and gestures, thus facilitating main and secondary channels of communication in team discussions, increasing willingness to speak up, and enhancing the exchange of information during discussions.

In addition to communication-related issues, differences were also observed in social facilitation and social loafing phenomena. Face-to-face collaboration offers rich information channels, allowing team members to constantly perceive each other's presence, which in turn stimulates greater engagement in brainstorming and ideation. On the other hand, fully online collaboration can easily close or switch off information channels, leading to a lack of social presence and increasing the likelihood of social loafing. The results of this study can serve as references for planning various forms of workshops, helping teams in workshops to maximize their effectiveness, and providing design recommendations for future online team collaboration tools.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking creates new alternatives for business and society. Collins Business.
Crede, M., & Sniezek, J.A. (2003). Group judgment processes and outcomes in videoconferencing versus face-to-face groups. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 875-897. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.07.001
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1983). Information richness. A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Texas A and M Univ College Station Coll of Business Administration.
Dennis, A. R., & Williams, M. L. (2003). Electronic Brainstorming: Theory, Research, and Future Directions. In Group Creativity. Oxford University Press.
Grots, A., & Pratschke, M. (2009). Design thinking—kreativität als methode. Marketing Review St. Gallen, 26(2), 18-23.
Halbe, D. (2012). “Who’s there?” Differences in the Features of Telephone and Face-to-Face Conferences. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 49(1), 48-73.
Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work & Stress, 22(3), 242-256.
Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist, 54(2), 129.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(4), 681.
Katz, B. (2016). Design thinking in design practice: A tale of two cities. Keynote speech at the Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Community Building Workshop, Stanford, United States of America.
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. Currency.
McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and social psychology review, 4(1), 95-105.
Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (Eds.). (2011). Understanding Innovation. Springer.
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and applied social psychology, 12(1), 3-23.
National Education Association (2014) Preparing 21st Century Students for a Global Society.
Nieva, V. F., Fleishman, E. A., & Rieck, A. (1985). Team dimensions: Their identity, their measurement and their relationships. ADVANCED RESEARCH RESOURCES ORGANIZATION BETHESDA MD.
Nunamaker, J. F., & Briggs, B. (2014). Introduction to Collaboration Systems and Technology Track. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.646
Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (Revised ed.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions for future research. The Database for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 6–36.
Pinsonneault, A., Barki, H., Gallupe, R. B., & Hoppen, N. (1999). Electronic brainstorming: The illusion of productivity. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 110-133.
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Weinberg, U. (2009). Design-thinking. Landsberg am Lech: Mi-FacWeinberg, U. (2016). Design thinking (Interview). Ideen & Management
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1217–1227. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217
Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of international business studies, 41(4), 690-709.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
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.
Tschimmel, K. (2012). Design Thinking as an effective Toolkit for Innovation. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (p. 1). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM)
West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309-333). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 82, 183–200. doi:10.1348/096317908X285633
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social Facilitation: A solution is suggested for an old unresolved social psychological problem. Science, 149(3681), 269-274.

中文文獻
張翊祥. (2004). 團隊成員人格特質組合對團隊效能影響之研究—以團隊互動過程為中介變項