請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/1216
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 陳鴻基 | |
dc.contributor.author | Ze-Yu Chen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳則宇 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-12T09:34:23Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-07-03 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-12T09:34:23Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-07-03 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-06-29 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. André, Margarita, María G. Baldoquín, and Silvia T. Acuña. (2011). “Formal Model for Assigning Human Resources to Teams in Software Projects.” Information and Software Technology 53(3): 259–75.
2. Barki, H., Rivard, S., Talbot, J. (2001). An integrative contingency model of software project risk management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 37-69. 3. Barrick M.R., Stewart G.L., Neubert M.J., M.K. (1998). Mount Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness The Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (1998), pp. 377-391 4. Bradley, J.H., Hebert, F.J. (1997). The effect of personality type on team performance. Journal of Management Development 16, 5 (1997) 337–353. 5. Buie E.A. (1988). Psychological type and job satisfaction in scientific computer professionals. Journal of Psychological Type, 15, pp. 50-53 6. Burke, M., Joyce, E., Kim, T., An, V., & Kraut, R. (2007). Introductions and requests: Rhetorical strategies that elicit response in online communities. Third International Conference on Communities & Technologies, 21‐39. 7. Bush C.M, Schkade L.L. (1985). In search of the perfect programmer Datamation, 31 (6), pp. 128-132 8. Cooper, D. R., & William, E. C. (1995). Business Research Methods. Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 9. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. 10. Cruz, Shirley, Fabio Q.B. da Silva, and Luiz Fernando Capretz. (2015). “Forty Years of Research on Personality in Software Engineering: A Mapping Study.” Computers in Human Behavior 46: 94–113. 11. Ellison, N., Gray, R., Vitak, J., Lampe, C., & Fiore, A. (2013). Calling All Facebook Friends: Exploring Requests for Help on Facebook. Proceedings Of The 7Th Annual International Conference On Weblogs And Social Media(ICWSM), The AAAI Press, 155‐164. 12. Faraj, S. and Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software develop- ment teams. Management Science 46, 12 (Dec. 2000), 1554–1568. 13. Farhangian, M, Purvis, M.K., Purvis, M.A., and Savarimuthu, B.T.R. (2016). Personalities and software development team performance – a psycholinguistic study, in proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2016) (Istanbul, Turkey, June 12-15, 2016). 14. Francis, M. E., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1993). LIWC: Linguistic inquiry and word count. (Tech. Rep.). Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University. 15. Freud, S. (1901). Psychopathology of everyday life. New York: Basic Books. 16. Funder, D. C. (2004). The personality puzzle (3rd ed.). New York: Norton.Gottschalk, L. A., Stein, M. K., & Shapiro, D. H. (1997). The application of computerized content analysis of speech to the diagnostic process in a psychiatric outpatient clinic. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 427–441. 17. Gemino, A., Reich, B. H., Sauer, C. (2008). A temporal model of information technology project performance. Journal of Management Information systems, 24(3), 9-44. 18. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-metrix: analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193-202. 19. Gorla Narasimhaiah, and Lam Yan Wah. (2004). “Who Should Work with Whom?” Communications of the ACM 47(6): 79–82. 20. Gottschalk, L. A., & Gleser, G. C. (1969). The measurement of psychological states through the content analysis of verbal behavior. Berkeley: University of California Press. 21. Gottschalk, L. A., Gleser, G. C., Daniels, R., & Block, S. (1958). The speech patterns of schizo- phrenic patients: a method of assessing relative degree of personal disorganization and social alienation. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 127, 153-166. 22. Guinan, P. J., Cooprider, J.G., and Faraj, S. (1998). Enabling software development team performance during requirements. Definition: A behavioral versus technical approach. Information System Research 9, 2 (June 1998), 101–125. 23. Gunsch, M. A., Brownlow, S., Haynes, S. E., & Mabe, Z. (2000). Differential linguistic content of various forms of political advertising. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 27-42. 24. Han, W.M., Huang, S.J. (2007). An empirical analysis of risk components and performance on software projects. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(1), 42-50. 25. Hart, RP. (1984). “Verbal Style and the Presidency: A Computer-Based Analysis.” Academic Pr. 26. Hartley, J., Pennebaker, J. W., & Fox, C. (2003). Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style? Scientometrics, 57, 389-398. 27. Heslin R. (1964). Predicting group task effectiveness from member characteristics. Psychological Bulletin, 62 (1964), pp. 248-256 28. Howard, A. (2001). Software engineering project management. Commun. ACM 44, 5 (May 2001), 23–24. 29. Huang, C., Chung, C., Hui, N., Lin, Y., Seih, Y., & Lam, B. et al. (2012). The development of the Chinese Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count dictionary. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 185‐201. 30. Jung, C. G. (1990). Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 31. Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please understand me: Character and tempera- ment types. Del Mar, CA: Gnosology Books/Prometheus Nemesis. 32. Kowalski, R. M. (2000). “I was Only Kidding!” Victims’ and perpetrators’ perceptions of teasing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 231-241. 33. Kozlowski S.W.J., Bell B.S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12, Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ (2003), pp. 333-375 34. Lampe, C., Gray, R., Fiore, A., & Ellison, N. (2014). Help is on the way. Proceedings Of The 17Th ACM Conference On Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing ‐ CSCW '14, 3‐15. doi:10.1145/2531602.2531720 35. Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. (1992). Employee involvement and total quality management: Practices and results in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 36. Lee, C. H., Kim, K., Seo, Y. S., & Chung, C. K. (2007). The relations between personality and language use. Journal of General Psychology, 134, 405 – 413. 37. LePine, Jeffery a., Brooke R. Buckman, Eean R. Crawford, and Jessica R. Methot. 2011. “A Review of Research on Personality in Teams: Accounting for Pathways Spanning Levels of Theory and Analysis.” Human Resource Management Review 21(4): 311–30. 38. Lepine J.A., Van Dyne L.. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An attributional model of helping in the context of groups Academy of Management Review, 26 (2001), pp. 67-84 39. LePine J.A., Hollenbeck J.R., D.R. Ilgen, J. (1997). Hedlund Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (1997), pp. 803-811 40. Licorish, Sherlock A., and Stephen G. MacDonell.. (2014b). “Understanding the Attitudes, Knowledge Sharing Behaviors and Task Performance of Core Developers: A Longitudinal Study.” Information and Software Technology 56(12): 1578–96. 41. McGrath, J. E. (1997). Small group research, that once and future field: An interpretation of the past with an eye toward the future. Group Dynamics, 1, 7-27. 42. Mergenthaler, E. (1996). Emotion-abstraction patterns in verbatim protocols: A new way of describing psychotherapeutic processes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1306-1315. 43. Mitra, T., & Gilbert, E. (2014). The language that gets people to give: phrases that predict success on kickstarter. Proceedings of The 17Th ACM Conference On Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing ‐ CSCW '14, 49‐61. doi:10.1145/2531602.2531656 44. Muscatello, J. R., & Parente, D. H. (2006). Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): A Post Implementation Cross-Case Analysis. Information Resources Management Journal , 19 (3), pp. 61–80. 45. Myers, I. B. (1962). “The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.” Consulting Psychologists Press. 46. Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665-675. 47. Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 48. Pennebaker, J. W., & Beall, K. S. (1986). Confronting a traumatic event: Toward an understanding of inhibition and disease. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 274-281. 49. Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Operator ’s manual -- Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.net. 50. Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Ireland, M., Gonzales, A., & Booth, R. J. (2007). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.net. 51. Pennebaker, J., Booth, R., Boyd, R., & Francis, M. (2015). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2015. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates. 52. Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296–1312. 53. Pennebaker, J.W., Boyd, R.L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin. 54. Quenk, N. (2009). Essentials of Myers- Briggs Type Indicator Assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 55. Rasch, R.H. and Henry L. Tosi. (1992). Factors affecting software developers’ performance: An integrated approach. MIS Q. 16, 3 (Sept. 1992), 395–413. 56. Rigby, Peter C., and Ahmed E. Hassan. (2007). “What Can OSS Mailing Lists Tell Us? A Preliminary Psychometric Text Analysis of the Apache Developer Mailing List.” In Fourth International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR’07:ICSE Workshops 2007), IEEE, 23–23. 57. Rushton, S., Morgana, J., & Richard, M. (2007). Teacher’s Myers-Briggs personality profiles: Identifying effective teacher personality traits. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 432–441. 58. Salleh, Norsaremah, Emilia Mendes, and John Grundy. (2012). “Investigating the Effects of Personality Traits on Pair Programming in a Higher Education Setting through a Family of Experiments.” Empirical Software Engineering 19(3): 714–52. 59. Tausczik, Y.R., & Pennebaker, J.W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24-54. 60. Tziner A., Eden D. (1985). Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of its parts? The Journal of Applied Psychology, 70 (1985), pp. 85-93 61. Wallace, L., Keil, M., Rai, A. (2004). How software project risk affects project performance: an investigation of the dimensions of risk and an exploratory model. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 289-322. 62. Wiesche, M, and H Krcmar. (2014). “The Relationship of Personality Models and Development Tasks in Software Engineering.” Proceedings of the 52nd ACM conference on Computers and people research. ACM. 63. Yellen, R.E., Winniford, M.A., and Sanford, C.C. (1995). Extroversion and introversion in electronically supported meetings. Information & Management 28, 63–74. 64. Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: CA: SAGE and Publications. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/1216 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究的目的在探討大型資訊專案使用者滿意度與成員人格特質之間的關聯, 用以了解當團隊成員的人格特質與學者的建議有所不同,產生人格特質落差時會 如何實際影響使用者滿意度。本研究探討個案「賦稅資訊系統整合再造更新整體實 施計畫」,透過分析專案團隊角色的訪談文字稿找出口語言特徵,藉此找出專案團 隊角色在 MBTI 量表中的人格特質,進而檢視其是否出現人格特質落差,並且在 個案中造成對使用者滿意度的影響。具體來說,本研究認為團隊成員的人格特質是 否出現落差,會在專案進行中影響使用者滿意度。
本研究將專案團隊分為專案管理者與專案開發者,分析結果顯示:(1) 專案 管理者在 Decision Making 向度出現人格特質落差,可能導致決策偏頗、不願依 專案情況調整決策等事件。(2) 專案管理者在 Information Gathering 向度出現人格 特質落差,可能最終導致系統不完全符合使用者需求。(3) 專案開發者在 Social Interaction 向度出現人格特質落差,可能導致合作機制、時程安排與共事上沒有 共識。並在最後根據研究結果做出建議,當組建專案團隊時,除了考量成員的技 術能力,也需考量成員的人格特質是否與其擔任的團隊角色相符,當沒有出現人 格特質落差時,才能避免專案使用者滿意度受影響。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The main purpose of this research is to explore the relationship between large- scale information project user satisfactions and the personality traits of members. This research wants to explain when the personality traits of project team members do not match scholars’ recommendations, how the gaps between will affect user satisfactions. This research studies the case “Tax information system integration and reengineering plan” to find if there are certain gaps in MBTI personality traits that may bring influences to user satisfactions by analyzing project team members’ linguistic features. Specifically, this research claims that whether there are gaps between the actual personality traits of project team members and the scholars’ recommendations will affect project user satisfactions.
In this study, the project team is divided into team leaders and programmers. The analysis showed that: (1) If there is a gap in team leaders’ “Decision Making” personality trait dimension, it may lead to biased decision making and unwillingness to adjust decisions based on the circumstances of the project. (2) If there is a gap in team leaders’ “Decision Making” personality trait dimension, it may cause the problem that the eventual system does not meet users’ requirements perfectly. (3) If there is a gap in programmers’ “Social Interaction” dimension, it may cause a lack of consensus on cooperation mechanisms, project scheduling, and work relationships between users and programmers. Finally, we provide advices that when conducting a project team, not only the technical skills but also the personality traits of a team member needs to be considered. Only when there are no gaps between the personality traits of project team members and the scholars’ recommendations will the project user satisfactions not be affected. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-12T09:34:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R05725049-1.pdf: 2079792 bytes, checksum: 39d7ad3d2017fe03eb7ceb002fa2f481 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書 I
中文摘要 II 英文摘要 III 目錄 V 圖目錄 VII 表目錄 VIII 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的 2 第二章 文獻探討 5 第一節 MBTI量表 5 第二節 口語言特徵 7 第三節 LIWC 10 第四節 團隊成員人格特質 11 第三章 研究架構與方法 14 第一節 研究架構 14 第二節 研究方法 15 第三節 個案介紹 22 第四章 研究結果 28 第一節 專案團隊口語言特徵分析 28 第二節 專案團隊人格特質分析 31 第三節 專案團隊人格特質落差 34 第四節 上線階段使用者訪談分析 36 第五節 使用者滿意度討論與建議 44 第五章 結論與建議 46 第一節 研究結論 46 第二節 研究限制與未來建議 48 參考文獻 50 附錄一:訪談大綱 58 附錄二:C-LIWC 2007類別 60 附錄三:完整口語言特徵結果 65 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 從口語言特徵探討大型資訊專案使用者滿意度與成員人格特質的關聯 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Exploring the Relationship between Large-scale Information Project User Satisfactions and the Personality Traits of Members from Their Linguistic Features | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 朱宇倩,周子元 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 使用者滿意度,團隊成員人格特質,人格特質落差,口語言特徵, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | User Satisfactions,Project Team Members’ Personality Traits,Gaps in Personality Traits,Linguistic Features, | en |
dc.relation.page | 69 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201801160 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-07-02 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 資訊管理學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 資訊管理學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-107-1.pdf | 2.03 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。