概念混成策略兼顧創新原創性與實踐性之逐步式跨領域團隊思考整合工具

A Progressive Interdisciplinary Concept Integration Tool to Maintain Originality and Realizability of Innovation

楊朝陽(Chao Yang Yang)；傅翊棋(Yi Chi Fu)

設計思考 ； 跨領域 ； 創新工具 ； 逐步式 ； 原創性 ； 實踐性 ； Design Thinking ； Interdisciplinary ； Innovation Tool ； Progressive ； Originality and Realizability

科技管理學刊

27卷3期（2022 / 12 / 01）

113 - 131

繁體中文;英文

許多國內外政策以設計思考與跨領域合作為推動創新的主軸，而推行新型態合作行為必須建立兼顧不同領域目標與具備可操作細節之創新流程管理。本研究探究團隊創新現場情況與促進者需求後以逐步驟誘導團隊發散收斂思考與溝通合作方式，建立一概念分析整合工具（Concept Triangulation Map, CTM），並透過評估使用CTM之創新成效驗證其實質效益。本研究分為三個階段，首先，訪問六名不同專業教師過去領導團隊創新的經驗以探究目前跨領域促進者在實作中面臨的問題；其次，歸納創新初期促進者與團隊的需求建立CTM工具執行步驟細節；最後，帶入真實跨領域創新現場，透過八名專業教師以創意區分模型針對創新團隊成果施以原創性與實踐性表現評價，比較使用CTM指引及不同團隊組成的溝通行為與創新成果。結果顯示使用CTM除了保持團隊創新成果的創新性，也同時幫助提升創新的可實踐性，將來在企業創新實作應用中，CTM以步驟化誘導方式進行，對具體化構念及概念評估方面有正向影響，且對於不熟識的成員間或缺乏團隊創新經驗能增加溝通與參與機會，強化概念在企業有限資源下的可實施性。

Many domestic and foreign policies regard design thinking and interdisciplinary cooperation as the primary means of promoting innovation among future generations. To promote the new type of cooperative behavior, establishing an innovative model that encompasses the innovative goals of different fields and has operational details is essential. This study explored the innovating site and facilitators' needs; proposed progressive steps to promote students' divergent and convergent thinking, communication, and cooperation skills; established a Concept Triangulation Map (CTM) to verify the effectiveness of interdisciplinary divergent and convergent thinking in implementing projects; and proposed measures to promote the benefits of interdisciplinary interactions. The study was conducted in three stages. Six experienced visiting interdisciplinary teachers were consulted on experience of leadership to explore the complex problems that facilitators face in practice. Secondly, the needs of innovative facilitators and team members were summarized to establish tools for implementing a CTM and details of the curriculum's implementation. Finally, the communication behavior and innovation achievements of a diverse group of students were recorded at the interdisciplinary innovating site. The test group and control group-those that did not use a CTM-were observed under the same conditions. In the final phase of the study, eight professional teachers used the Finke creative differentiation model to evaluate students' originality and realizability as the basis for the comparison of the effectiveness of the CTM. The results demonstrated that the use of the CTM maintains the innovation originality and improved the realistic index of team innovative performance and was effective in stimulating communication, strengthening individual internal motivation, promoting concrete innovations, and enhancing evaluation skills. The proposed CTM was introduced progressively, which is a suitable method for teams with new members or with less innovative experience, enhancing members' internal motivation and participation.

1. 林士平,陳冠宇(2021)。大學創業教育生態系統影響大學生創業警覺性養成之因素重要性研究。科技管理學刊，26(2)，55-76。
   連結：
2. 凌漢璋,樊學良(2020)。探索跨領域專案團隊共享知識之個案研究。科技管理學刊，25(3)，1-27。
   連結：
3. 黃彥智,李振宇(2017)。激勵專案團隊創新：獎酬與團隊學習導向在新產品開發的角色。科技管理學刊，22(4)，57-85。
   連結：
4. 楊朝陽,康仕仲,陳彥甫,林喬茵,王嫊淩,林怡萱(2018)。以「設計導向學習」模式初探智齡設計課程。科學教育學刊，26(特刊)，399-418。
   連結：
5. Abraham, A.(2016).Gender and Creativity: An Overview of Psychological and Neuroscientific Literature.Brain Imaging and Behavior,10(2),609-618.
6. Amabile, T. M.(2011).Componential Theory of Creativity.Boston:Harvard Business School.
7. Amabile, T. M.(1988).A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations.Research in Organizational Behavior,10(1),123-167.
8. Amabile, T. M.(2018).Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity.New York:Routledge.
9. Apedoe, X. S.,Reynolds, B.,Ellefson, M. R.,Schunn, C. D.(2008).Bringing Engineering Design into High School Science Classrooms: the Heating/Cooling Unit.Journal of Science Education and Technology,17(5),454-465.
10. Bao, Q.,Faas, D.,Yang, M.(2018).Interplay of Sketching & Prototyping in Early Stage Product Design.International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation,6(3-4),146-168.
11. Benedek, M.,Jauk, E.,Sommer, M.,Arendasy, M.,Neubauer, A. C.(2014).Intelligence, Creativity, and Cognitive Control: The Common and Differential Involvement of Executive Functions in Intelligence and Creativity.Intelligence,46,73-83.
12. Besemer, S. P.,O'Quin, K.(1999).Confirming the Three-Factor Creative Product Analysis Matrix Model in an American Sample.Creativity Research Journal,12(4),287-296.
13. Black, P.,Wiliam, D.(2009).Developing the Theory of Formative Assessment.Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education),21(1),5-31.
14. Boden, M. A.(2004).The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms.London:Routledge.
15. Bouncken, R.,Brem, A.,Kraus, S.(2016).Multi-cultural Teams as Sources for Creativity and Innovation: The Role of Cultural Diversity on Team Performance.International Journal of Innovation Management,20(01),1650012.
16. Council, D.(2011).Design for Innovation.London:Design Council.
17. Craft, A.,Gardner, H.,Claxton, G.(2007).Creativity, Wisdom, and Trusteeship: Exploring the Role of Education.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.
18. Crismond, D. P.,Adams, R. S.(2012).The Informed Design Teaching and Learning Matrix.Journal of Engineering Education,101(4),738-797.
19. Durakovic, B.(2017).Design of Experiments Application, Concepts, Examples: State of the Art.Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences,5(3),421-439.
20. Girotra, K.,Terwiesch, C.,Ulrich, K. T.(2010).Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea.Management Science,56(4),591-605.
21. Gürsoy, B.,Özkar, M.(2015).Visualizing Making: Shapes, Materials, and Actions.Design Studies,41,29-50.
22. Herman, D.(2013).Storytelling and the Sciences of Mind.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
23. Kenett, Y. N.(2019).What Can Quantitative Measures of Semantic Distance Tell Us about Creativity?.Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences,27,11-16.
24. Litchfield, R. C.,Gilson, L. L.,Gilson, P. W.(2015).Defining Creative Ideas: Toward a More Nuanced Approach.Group & Organization Management,40(2),238-265.
25. Mohan, M.,Chen, Y.,Shah, J. J.(2011).Towards a Framework for Holistic Ideation in Conceptual Design.Proceedings of the International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference,Washington, D.C.:
26. Nakata, C.,Hwang, J.(2020).Design Thinking for Innovation: Composition, Consequence, and Contingency.Journal of Business Research,118,117-128.
27. Prior, A.,Bentin, S.(2008).Word Associations are Formed Incidentally during Sentential Semantic Integration.Acta Psychologica,127(1),57-71.
28. Ramli, S. H.,Dolah, M. S.,Effendi, R. A. R.,Chen, Y. F.,Yang, C. Y.,Fu, Y. C.(2021).Iceberg© Online: Applying Physical Creativity Integration Tool into Online Studios.Proceedings of The 2nd International Conference on Design Industries & Creative Culture
29. Rauth, I.,Köppen, E.,Jobst, B.,Meinel, C.(2010).Design Thinking: An Educational Model Towards Creative Confidence.Proceedings of The 1st International Conference on Design Creativity,Kobe, Japan:
30. Sandstrom, C.,Bjork, J.(2010).Idea Management Systems for a Changing Innovation Landscape.International Journal of Product Development,11(3-4),310-324.
31. Shanker, R.,Bhanugopan, R.,Van der Heijden, B. I.,Farrell, M.(2017).Organizational Climate for Innovation and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Effect of Innovative Work Behavior.Journal of Vocational Behavior,100,67-77.
32. So, C.,Joo, J.(2017).Does a Persona Improve Creativity?.The Design Journal,20(4),459-475.
33. Stokholm, M.(2014).Problem Based Learning Versus Design Thinking in Team Based Project Work.Proceedings of The 16th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education,The Netherlands:
34. Van Diggelen, M.,Doulougeri, K.,Gomez-Puente, S.,Bombaerts, G.,Dirkx, K.,Kamp, R.(2021).Coaching in Design-Based Learning: A Grounded Theory Approach to Create a Theoretical Model and Practical Propositions.International Journal of Technology and Design Education,31(2),305-324.
35. VanGundy, A. B.(1988).Techniques of Structured Problem Solving.New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold.
36. 教育部跨領域教師發展暨人才培育計畫(2022)，「教育部跨領域教師發展暨人才培育計畫結案報告書」，取自：https://www.design-thinking.tw/workshop-achievement.html
37. 陳彥甫,楊朝陽,蔡孟涵,傅翊棋,林子勤(2022).大同大學光齡苗圃成果彙編.台北:大同大學媒體設計學系.
38. 楊朝陽,傅翊棋(2022).創新概念混成-逐步設計思考.台北:大同大學.
39. 資訊及科技教育司(2014)，「智慧生活整合性人才培育計畫成果發表會」，取自：https://reurl.cc/gQErMN。