臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：專案不確定性極小化和團隊人格特質平衡之成員選擇模式
作者：蔡祥仁
作者(外文)：TSAI, SEAN HSIANGJEN
校院名稱：中華大學
系所名稱：科技管理博士學位學程
指導教授：魏秋建
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2017
主題關鍵詞：專案管理；不確定性；風險；人格特質平衡；溝通複雜度；Project management；Uncertainty；Risk；Personality trait；Communication complexity
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:12
專案必須投入大量的人力和物力，但是成功的關鍵卻往往在於人員的選用是否適切。專案的風險主要來自於專案的不確定性，發展最新產品和服務的專案不確定性最高，因此風險也最高。但是如果專案團隊曾經執行過很多次類似的專案，那麼不確定性就會大幅降低，也就是說成員的經驗和專案的不確定性成反比，因此在資源許可的情況下，指派有相關經驗的人員，去執行他最熟悉的工作，是順利達成專案目標的最高指導原則。
傳統的專案人員選派，只有考慮到能力和經驗，而忽略了人格特質平衡這項重要因素，人格特質會引導出一個人的行為模式，進而牽動團隊成員間彼此的互動關係。人格特質雷同的專案團隊，不僅無利於降低專案的衝突，反而有害於整體專案的績效，因為如果思考模式近似，就無法產生有創意的決策。能力是選擇成員的主要考量因素之一，因此團隊整體的工作能力必須符合專案的門檻要求，但是過猶不及，能力超過對人力資源的利用是一種浪費。成員的經驗越豐富，工作的不確定性就越低，因此團隊整體的經驗等級也必須滿足專案的要求，但是過多的經驗也是人力資源不必要的浪費。成員人數的多寡也關係著專案的溝通順暢程度，溝通管道數和人數的平方成正比，因此在符合能力和經驗要求下，專案團隊的人數應該越少越好，以降低專案溝通的複雜度。
本研究分別提出二種數學模式：（1）建構一個利用人員經驗來極小化專案不確性的數學模式，模式在同時考量專案成本和成員溝通複雜度的限制下，將不同經驗的人員指派到最適合的工作上，以極小化專案的不確定性，提高專案的成功機率。同時再以假設案例來說明所提數學模式的有效性，結果顯示確實能在成本及溝通複雜度限制下，對人員做最適切的分配以產生最小的專案不確定性。（2）綜合考量成員的經驗、能力和整體人數，建立一個可以極大化團隊人格特質平衡度的數學模式，協助專案經理在規劃階段，做出最好的成員選用決策。最後以兩個模擬案例來說明模式的有效性，結果顯示本研究所提模式確實可以在極大化團隊成員人格特質平衡度的狀況下，組成最適當的專案團隊，確保專案順利達成預定的目標。
Projects require substantial human and material resource input, but whether the appropriate personnel has been selected is often the key to success. Project risks come mainly from the future uncertainties, and new product and service development projects possess the most uncertainty and therefore the highest risk. However, if the project team has gained experiences from previous similar projects, the risk to the project drastically declines. In other words, an inverse correlation exists between member experiences and project risk. Therefore, the guiding principle would be to assign an experienced member to execute familiar work for that member.
Conventional project member assignment only considers capability and experience while neglecting the importance of personality balance. Personality traits can guide the behavioral styles of individuals, thereby affecting the mutual interactions among team members. Having a project team with similar personalities is not beneficial to conflict reduction and could even be detrimental to overall project performance, as members with similar mental frameworks are not able to generate creative solutions. In addition, capability is one of the main factors in member selection. Hence, the overall capability of the team must fulfill the threshold requirements of the project, but should not exceed it by too much, as excess capability is a waste of human resources. Also, members with richer experience will have lower task uncertainty; hence, while the overall experience level of the team should meet the project requirements, an excess of experience is also an unnecessary waste of human resources. The number of members is related to the extent to which communication is unhindered within a project and the number of communication channels is directly proportional to the square of the number of members. Therefore, given the requirements for capability and experience, the number of project members should be as low as possible to reduce communication complexity.
This study proposes two mathematical models. The first model uses member experience to minimize project uncertainty. The nonlinear model assigns members with different experiences to the most suitable tasks to minimize project risk, and thus maximize project success rates under constraints of project costs and communication complexities. An experimental case is used to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed model, and results indicated that, under cost and communication complexity constraints, project uncertainty can truly be minimized by allocating an adequate member to the suitable task. The second model incorporates experience, capability, and overall number of members to propose a mathematical model for the maximization of personality balance, which could assist project managers in making optimal member selection decisions during the planning stage. Finally, using two simulated cases to verify the effectiveness of the model. The results show that this model can, in fact, be used to assemble the most appropriate project team, with the condition of maximizing personality balance, in order to ensure that project goals can be successfully achieved.
李炳賢（2004）。中階主管的人格特質、領導風格及情緒智力與工作績效關聯之研究-以汽車零件製造業為例，國立成功大學高階管理碩士在職專班論文。國立成功大學，台南市。
沈進成、孫君儀（2002）。遊樂園服務人員人格特質、情緒智力對工作表現影響之探討-以劍湖山世界股份有限公司為例。第二屆觀光休閒暨餐旅產業永續經營學術研討會論文集，1-6。
美國專案管理學會（2013）。一般專案管理知識體系（General Project Management Body of Knowledge）。台北市：五南圖書公司。
張春興（1996）。現代心理學。台北：東華書局
曹延傑（1990）。專案管理。台北市：格致圖書有限公司。
許光華、何文榮（1998）。專案管理－理論與實務。台北市：華泰書局。
陳瑞、周林毅（2015）。風險評估與決策管理。台北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
楊國樞（1999）。社會及行為科學研究法。台北：東華書局。new window
歐陽瑜、周桂田（2016）。正視未知的風險知識資產：以知識創造為中心的風險治理架構。政治與社會哲學評論，58, 1-51。new window
賴志宏（2011）。專案管理制度導入。Kris專案管理學院，http://www.krispmschool.com/pmsystemmodel/pmdef/11projdef.php。
戴維舵（1999）。”Big five”五大人格特質在人力甄選上的應用探討。致理學報，12，89-111。
羅應浮（2000）。專案管理的失效模式與效應分析。未出版之碩士論文，私立中華大學工業工程與管理研究所，新竹市。
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1995). The Big Five Personality Dimensions: Implications for Research and Practice in Human Management, in G. Ferris (Ed), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 153-200. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Belbin, R. M., Aston, B. R., & Mottram, R. D. (1976). Building effective management teams. Journal of General Management, 3(3), 23-29.
Belbin, R. M. M. (2012). Management Teams. Abingdon: Routledge.
Belput, A., & Gauvreau, C. (2004). Factors influencing project success: the impact of human resource management. International Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 1-11.
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4), 476-506.
Chin, G. (2004). Agile Project Management. American Management Association, New York, NY.
Clarke, A. (1999). A practical use of key success factors to improve the effectiveness of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 17(3), 139-145.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional Manual of The Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-factor Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Day, D. V., & Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and job performance: Evidence of incremental validity. Personnel Psychology, 42(1), 25-36.
Dekay, M. L., Small, M. J., Fischbeck, P.S., Scott Farrow, R., Cullen, A., & Kadane, J. B. (2004). Risk-based decision analysis in support of precautionary policies. Journal of Risk Research, 5(4), 391-417.
Dey, P. K. (2010). Managing project risk using combined analytic hierarchy process and risk map. Applied Soft Computing, 10(4), 990-1000.
Dey, P. K., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2004). Selection and application of risk management tools and techniques for build-operate-transfer projects. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(4), 334-346.
Fan, M., Lin, N. P., & Sheu, C. (2008). Choosing a project risk-handling strategy: An analytical model. International Journal of Production Economics, 112(2), 700-713.
Gido, J., & Clements, J. (2014). Successful Project Management. Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.
Jones, G. R. & Charles, W. L. (2000). Strategic Management Theory：An integrated approach. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin CO.
Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The big five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 472-477.
Gatewood, R. D., & Field, H. S. (1998). Human Resource Selection, 4th Ed. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.). Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 141-165.
Highsmith, J. (2009). Agile Project Management: Creating innovative products. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Howard, W. R. (2010). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. Kybernetes, 39(1), 155-155.
Hsu, W. K., Tseng, C. P., Chiang, W. L., & Chen, C. W. (2012). Risk and uncertainty analysis in the planning stages of a risk decision-making process. Natural Hazards, 61(3), 1355-1365.
Jun, L., Qiuzhen, W., & Qingguo, M. (2011). The effects of project uncertainty and risk management on IS development project performance: A vendor perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 29(7), 923-933.
Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1985). Project performance and the locus of influence in the R&D matrix. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 67-87.
Kerzner, H. R. (2013). Project Management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Kerzner, H. R. (1984). Project Management: A system approach to planning, scheduling and controlling. New York: Van Nostr and Reinhold.
Lechler, T. (1998). When it comes to project management, it's the people that matter: An empirical analysis of project management in Germany. IRNOP III-The nature and role of projects in the next, 20, 205-215.
Mathiassen, L., & Pedersen, K. (2008). Managing uncertainty in organic development projects. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 23(1), 27.
McNeil, A. J., Frey, R., & Embrechts, P. (2010). Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, techniques, and tools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university press.
Motiar Rahman, M., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2005). Assembling integrated project teams for joint risk management. Construction Management and Economics, 23(4), 365-375.
Nieto-Morote, A., & Ruz-Vila, F. (2011). A fuzzy approach to construction project risk assessment. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 220-231.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor 54 structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 66 (6): 574–583.
Ones, D. D., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679.
Tukel, O. I., & Rom, W. O. (1998). Analysis of the characteristics of projects in diverse industries. Journal of Operations Management, 16(1), 43-61.
Peeters, M. A., Rutte, C. G., van Tuijl, H. F., & Reymen, I. M. (2006). The big five personality traits and individual satisfaction with the team. Small Group Research, 37(2), 187-211.
Pervin, L. A., Cevone, D., & John, O. P. (2005). Personality: Theory and research. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & Meyer, A. D. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Management Science, 48(8), 1008-1023.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Project success: Definitions and measurement techniques. Project Management Journal, 19(1), 67-72.
Pyra, J., & Trask, J. (2002). Risk management post analysis: Gauging the success of a simple strategy in a complex project. Project Management Journal, 33(2), 41-48.
Robbins, S. P. (1992). Organizational Behavior: Concepts, controversies, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28.
Saarinen, T., & Vepsäläinen, A. (1993). Managing the risks of information systems implementation. European Journal of Information Systems, 2(4), 283-295.
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project success: A multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699-725.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J. R. (1999). Meta-analysis of bidirectional relations in personality-job performance research. Human Performance, 12(1), 1-29.
Thamhain, H. (2013). Managing risk in complex project. Project Management Journal, 4(2), 20-35.
Wei, C. C., Lai, M. C., Wei, C. S., & Peng, L. H. (2013). Assignment of project members considering capability and personality balance. Kybernetes, 42(7), 1016-1028.
Wei, C. C., Liu, P. H., & Tsai, Y. C. (2002). Resource-constrained project management using enhanced theory of constraint. International Journal of Project Management, 20(7), 561-567.
Yeh, J. Y., Wei, C. C., Wei, C. S., & Lei, D. F. (2012). The impact of team personality balance on project performance. African Journal of Business Management, 6(4), 1674-1684.

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：797（臺灣：794，外國：3） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2071125 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67868976
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上