Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146608
|
| Title: | 永續意會:諾亞充電站服務設計中的意會衝突
Making Sense of Sustainability: Sensemaking Incongruence in the Service Design of NHOA Charging Station |
| Authors: | 陳彣璿
Chen, Wen-Hsuan |
| Contributors: | 蕭瑞麟
Hsiao, Ruey-Lin
陳彣璿
Chen, Wen-Hsuan |
| Keywords: | 永續發展
漂綠
服務設計
意會
衝突
Sustainability development
Greenwash
Service design
Sensemaking
Incongruence |
| Date: | 2023 |
| Issue Date: | 2023-08-02 14:12:57 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 面對全球淨零轉型趨勢，企業推動永續發展勢在必行。然而，永續發展為一個抽象的觀念，對組織成員是生疏的，對於顧客也是新穎的。故此，落實永續就如同在模稜兩可的狀況下溝通。設計者(企業)需要在導入過程中摸索前行，受眾(顧客)也會憑空揣測。兩者皆面臨對此陌生事物的意會。不幸的是，意會往往造成誤會，導致投入永續轉型的企業被誤解為「漂綠」，只做表面工夫的企業卻被推崇。企業不僅在推動永續時遭遇制度上的阻礙，成員也會因於誤解而難以落實永續。本研究檢視一項新推出的電動車充電站(NHOA.TCC)服務，分析車主於顧客旅程中對充電站所產生的意會。本文分析設計者(企業)與受眾(車主)對「永續物件」的認知，以及探索兩者可能產生的意會衝突。學理貢獻上，本研究分析設計者與受眾之間的認知，以解釋雙方如何意會以永續為主題的服務設計。從充電站中找出觸發意會的物件，探索設計者與受眾之間存在哪些截然不同的感知，藉以浮現兩者間的意會衝突。於永續文獻，本研究指出永續意會不只有正負面的議題，負面意會的背後存在顧客的各種想像，因此需探索意會的內容。此外，歸納 永續意會的三種特性，以及意會衝突的三種類型，藉以分析意會形成誤會的多種樣貌。實務啟發上，分析意會衝突可以協助設計者反思服務採納過程中的相容性議題。化解衝突，永續發展的方案才不至於造成南轅北轍的期望，也才能發揮四兩撥千斤的成效。企業也能體認到，永續的服務設計不能只關注技術性的旅程繪製，更需使受眾產生合宜的觀感，讓永續的理念得以具體落實。本研究指出，理解認知衝突後便可以重新研擬引導 意會的方式，化解思維上的衝突。企業便能重新設計顧客旅程，將相斥引導為相吸，將漂綠的誤會轉化為永續的體會。
Confronting the global trend of Net Zero transformation, sustainability development has become imperative for enterprises. However, sustainability development is still an abstract concept, unfamiliar to both organizational members and customers. Therefore, the realization of sustainability becomes a means of communication in ambiguous conditions. Designers (enterprises) have to learn the rope in the implementation process, while audiences (customers) are engaged in the guesswork regarding sustainability. Both have to make sense of this unknown subject. Unfortunately, sensemaking often leads to misunderstanding, and thereby devoted enterprises often are mistaken for ‘greenwash’ and companies merely paying lip services are held in high esteem. Enterprises not only encounter institutional barriers when promoting sustainability, but members also face difficulties in realizing sustainability due to misconceptions. This research examines a new service of electronic car charging stations service (NHOA.TCC) and analyzes how car owners make sense of charging station during the customer journey. Theoretically, this thesis examines the cognition of enterprises (designers) and car owners (audiences) to explain the sensemaking of both parties regarding sustainability-based service design. This requires identifying the triggering objects within the charging station to explore the difference in perceptions of both parties and highlight any incongruence in their sensemaking. In the literature on sustainability, this research highlights that sustainable sensemaking extends beyond positive and negative aspects, encompassing a range of customer perceptions and imaginations. As a result, it is crucial to delve into the specifics of this sensemaking. Moreover, the study identifies three key characteristics of sustainable sensemaking and explores three types of sensemaking conflicts, aiming to analyze the various forms of misunderstandings that can arise due to differing perspectives. Practically, analyzing sensemaking incongruence can help designers to reflect on the incompatibility issue within the service adoption process. By resolving this incongruence, sustainability initiatives would not cause the polar opposite of expectation but rather leverage for better performance. Enterprises would also appreciate that sustainability-oriented service design should not pay sole attention to the technical aspect of journey mapping, but need to offer services that align with customers’ appropriate perception, realizing the goal of sustainability. This study suggests that, when such cognitive conflicts were apprehended, designers could redirect users’ sensemaking and neutralize conceptual incongruence. As such, enterprises may redesign customer journeys and turn repulsion into attraction, and transform the misperception of greenwash into a genuine appreciation for sustainability. |
| Reference: | 中文文獻
徐嘉黛. 2022. 意會重塑：博物館服務設計中的導意作法. 中山管理評論 30(5): 767 - 807.
翁晶晶, & 易莉翔. 2022. 制度邏輯之演化：從企業社會責任的發展探討商業永續. 中山管理評論, 30(5): 809 - 856.
黃銘章, 陳振燧, 董蓁, 梁燕燕, & 盧振華. 2021. 買方永續供應鏈管理與利益關係人壓力可以讓供應商獲得更好的環境與營運績效嗎？. 管理學報, 38(4): 497 - 532.
蔡依倫. 2021 延遲改變：永續轉型過程的捍衛制度工作. 管理學報 38(4): 411 - 443.
蘇威傑. 2017. 為什麼企業要發佈永續報告書？從非市場觀點解釋. 管理學報, 34(3): 331 - 353.
英文文獻
Aguilera, R. V., Aragón-Correa, J. A., Marano, V., & Tashman, P. A. 2021. The corporate governance of environmental sustainability: A review and proposal for more integrated research. Journal of Management, 47(6): 1468-1497.
Andrews, N. 2021. Manifestations of corporate social responsibility as sensemaking and sensegiving in a hydrocarbon industry. Business and Society Review, 126(2): 211-234.
Benbenisty, Y., & Luria, G. 2021. A time to act and a time for restraint: Everyday sensegiving in the context of paradox. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(8): 1005-1022.
Bilgili, H., Tochman Campbell, J., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. 2017. Riding off into the sunset: Organizational sensegiving, shareholder sensemaking, and reactions to CEO retirement. Journal of Management Studies, 54(7): 1019-1049.
Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. 2010. Why Ethical Consumers Don`t Walk Their Talk: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Gap Between the Ethical Purchase Intentions and Actual Buying Behaviour of Ethically Minded Consumers. Journal of business ethic, 97(1): 139-158.
Challagalla, G., & Dalsace, F. 2022. Moving the needle on sustainability. Harvard Business Review, 100(6): 130-137.
Cohen, B., & Muñoz, P. 2017. Entering Conscious Consumer Markets: Toward a New Generation of Sustainability Strategies. California management review, 59(4): 23-48.
Creed, W. E. D., DeJordy, R., & Lok, J. 2010. Being the change: resolving institutional contradiction through identity work. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1336-1364.
Eccles, R. G., Johnstone-Louis, M., Mayer, C., & Stroehle, J. C. 2020. The board’s role in sustainability. Harvard Business Review, 98(5): 48-51.
Edelman, D. C., & Singer, M. 2015. Competing on customer journeys. Harvard Business Review, 93(11): 88-87.
Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. 2010. The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science, 21(5): 1092-1107.
Fairfield, K. D. 2019. The role of sensemaking and organizational identification in employee engagement for sustainability. Organization Management Journal, 16(4): 278-297.
Garst, J., Maas, K., & Suijs, J. 2022. Materiality Assessment Is an Art, Not a Science: Selecting ESG Topics for Sustainability Reports. California management review, 65(1): 64-90.
Gioia, D., & Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6): 433-448.
Gonzalez-Arcos, C., Joubert, A. M., Scaraboto, D., Guesalaga, R., & Sandberg, J. 2021. “How Do I Carry All This Now?” Understanding Consumer Resistance to Sustainability Interventions. Journal of marketing, 85(3): 44-61.
Griffith, T. 1999. Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 472-488.
Haanaes, K., Michael, D., Jurgens, J., & Rangan, S. 2013. Making sustainability profitable. Harvard Business Review, 91(3): 110-115.
Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F., L. 2015. Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 4015: 18-42.
Heinonen, K., & Strandvik, T. 2021. Reframing service innovation: COVID-19 as a catalyst for imposed service innovation. Journal of Service Management, 32(1): 101-112.
Hengst, I.-A., Jarzabkowski, P., Hoegl, M., & Muethel, M. 2020. Toward a process theory of making sustainability strategies legitimate in action. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1): 246-271.
Hsiao, R.-L., Wu, S. W., & Hou, S. T. 2008. Sensitive cabbies: Ongoing sense-making within technology structuring. Information and Organization, 18(4): 251–279.
Kim, E.-H., & Lyon, T. P. 2015. Greenwash vs. brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure. Organization Science, 26(3): 705-723.
Leonidou, C. N., Gruber, V., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. 2022. Consumers’ environmental sustainability beliefs and activism: A cross-cultural examination. Journal of International Marketing, 30(4): 78-104.
Lubin, D. A., & Esty, D. C. 2010. The sustainability imperative. Harvard Business Review, 88(5): 42-50.
Luk, S. T. K., & Layton, R. 2002. Perception gaps in customer expectations: Managers versus service providers and customers. Service Industries Journal, 22(2): 109-128.
Möller, K., Rajala, R., & Westerlund, M. 2008. Service innovation myopia? A new recipe for client-provider value creation. California Management Review, 50(3): 31-48.
Patriotta, G. 2003. Sensemaking on the shop floor: Narratives of knowledge in organizations. Journal of Management Study, 40(2): 349-375.
Pinkse, J., & Bohnsack, R. 2021. Sustainable product innovation and changing consumer behavior: Sustainability affordances as triggers of adoption and usage. Business strategy and the environment, 30(7): 3120-3130.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2006. Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12): 78-92.
Prasad, P. 1993. Symbolic processes in the implementation of technological change: A symbolic interactionist study of work computerization. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1400-1429.
Pucker, K. P. 2021. Overselling sustainability reporting: We`re confusing output with impact. Harvard Business Review, 99(3): 134-143.
Rothenberg, S. 2007. Sustainability through servicizing. Sloan Management Review, 48(2): 83-89.
Rouleau, L. 2005. Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7): 1413-1441.
Sendlhofer, T., & Tolstoy, D. 2022. How employees shape CSR transparency: A sensemaking perspective. Journal of Business Research, 150: 268-278.
Serafeim, G. 2020. Social-Impact Efforts That Create Real Value. Harvard business review.
Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. 2015. Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science, 26(2): 531-549.
Soderstrom, S. B., & Weber, K. 2020. Organizational Structure from Interaction: Evidence from Corporate Sustainability Efforts. Administrative science quarterly, 65(1): 226-271.
Stein, A., & Ramaseshan, B. 2016. Towards the identification of customer experience touch point elements. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30: 8-19.
Weick, K. E. 1990. Technology as equivoque: Sensemaking in new technologies. In P. S. Goodman, & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Technology and Organizations: 1-44. San Francisco.: Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4): 409-425.
White, K., Hardisty, D. J., & Habib, R. 2019. The elusive green consumer. Harvard Business Review, 11(1): 124-133.
Wijen, F. 2014. Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields: Trading off compliance and achievement in sustainability standard adoption. Academy of Management Review, 39(3): 302-323.
Zimmermann, A., Albers, N., & Kenter, J. O. 2022. Deliberating Our Frames: How Members of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Use Shared Frames to Tackle Within-Frame Conflicts Over Sustainability Issues. Journal of business ethics, 178(3): 757-782. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
110364106 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110364106 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 410601.pdf | | 22516Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 121 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
