建築設計是種知識密集的活動。知識在減少設計錯誤及提高設計品質上扮演重要的角色。由於「無知的對稱」，知識分享不論在實務上或教育上，都是設計合作最主要的形式。設計工作室是設計教育的典範，藉由模擬實務的操作、師生間針對學生作品的討論與反思、以及同儕間的觀摩與交流，達成合作學習的情境設定。期望透過成員間的經驗交流與資訊分享，達到知識傳播與創造的目的。這表示對學生來說，同儕是重要的知識來源之一。但學生也面臨成績競爭的壓力。由於知識是影響成績表現的重要資源，學生在設計工作室中面臨知識分享的困局：為了成績競爭而保留知識，或為了合作學習而分享知識。許多研究應用資訊科技來促進同儕間的知識分享，但另有些學者認為科技的便利可能會引誘搭便車的行為而妨害知識分享文化的發展。本研究的目的是要瞭解在設計工作室中的知識分享現象及科技應用的影響。本研究的方法包括：1. 應用賽局理論發展研究模型來分析設計工作室中的知識分享；2. 調查學生的知識來源以瞭解設計工作室中的知識分享。
本研究的模型包含兩個部份：Design Scope Model和Knowledge Sharing Game。Design Scope Model用來描述及分析設計工作室中的合作現象。這個模型以設計活動的本質(problem solving)為根基，並整合學習聯盟(learning alliances)的概念與賽局理論（第二章）。由分析一個應用資訊科技的教學案例，本研究推論：(1)學生知識分享的動機可能是為了解決不明確的設計問題；(2)主動的貢獻知識以吸引其他人分享知識可能是必要的策略行動；(3)開放的資訊平台能夠降低溝通的成本並提高資訊透明度，在促進知識分享發揮正面的影響力。Design scope分析並顯示關於知識分享策略的報酬的兩個現象。首先，並不是共享知識庫裡全部的知識都能為學生帶來報酬；其次是學生的貢獻愈多，能獲得的報酬愈高。
模型的第二部份是一個共享知識庫中的知識分享賽局（第三章）。此模型以VCM (Voluntary Contribution Mechanism)為基本架構，並根據第二章的教學案例的分析結果來定義參賽者的報酬函數。透過分析賽局的報酬函數，知識分享賽局的均衡是由參與賽局的人數、賽局初始時不同策略的人口比例、以及知識相關性函數的性質所影響。在這些因素的綜合影響下，策略的演化呈現出一種動態的複雜關係，因此電腦模擬被用來瞭解這個複雜的現象。電腦模擬的結果顯現出共有知識庫的知識分享賽局具備安全賽局的特徵。當賽局初始時策略愈多樣、參與人數愈多，非0策略（知識分享）愈有可能取得支配地位。
除了理論分析，本研究另藉由調查學生的設計知識來源來瞭解設計工作室中的知識分享及科技應用的影響（第四章）。透過知識來源調查，本研究希望能瞭解：(1)作設計時學生的設計知識來源有哪些？(2)是否同儕是學生主要的知識來源？(3)是否資訊科技能促進（或阻礙）設計工作室中的知識分享？從兩個設計工作室的調查分析結果摘要如下。首先是設計工作室中的知識分享是普遍的行為，同儕是學生主要的知識來源之一。其次是設計問題的弱構(ill-defined)本質，可能是促成合作的最主要原因。愈複雜、愈ill-defined的設計，需要愈多的知識，也愈能引起知識分享的行為。第三是工作室中的競爭是在提出獨特的設計方案。這樣的競爭似乎並不影響同學間的知識分享。這或許是因為一個設計案可能有無數的解決方案，同學可以提出相異但同樣優秀的提案。第四是開放的知識平台對合作文化的發展並沒有造成顯著的影響。最後是我們可以利用知識來源調查來評估知識分享文化，並分析不同的知識來源間的相互作用對知識分享文化產生的影響。
設計工作室中的合作與競爭並存，但文獻均過於強調設計工作室中的競爭。本研究的貢獻是定義設計工作室中的合作形式、據此建立分析架構、發展調查及評估工具、並揭露部分設計工作室中獨特的合作與競爭現象。但設計工作室中的知識分享是一個複雜的現象，還需繼續運用或發展不同的方法深入研究。綜合理論分析與知識來源調查，本研究的主要發現為：
* 設計工作室中的知識分享是普遍的行為。設計問題的弱構(ill-defined)本質，可能是促成知識分享最主要的原因。
* 資訊科技在設計知識分享中扮演的角色仍有待釐清。科技應用在知識分享上的思維可能需要改變 ─ 將公共財的分享轉換為個人化的設計或學習工具。

Architectural design is a knowledge-intensive activity. Knowledge is critical to reducing the chance of design errors and improving design quality. Both in professional practice and design education, knowledge sharing is a major form of design collaboration due to the fact of ‘symmetry of ignorance’. Design studio is a paradigm of design education in which a circumstance of collaborative learning is constructed through simulating professional practice, reflecting the practice with the tutors’ assistance, and learning from each other students’ work. It expects that design knowledge will be transferred and created through sharing experience, information, and knowledge. This implies that the peers are a considerable design knowledge source for the students. However, students are also involved in grade competition. Because knowledge is a critical resource for students’ performance, students face a dilemma between hoarding knowledge for grade competition and sharing knowledge for cooperative learning. Many studies suggest that we can apply Information Technology to promoting knowledge sharing behavior; on the other hand, some other scholars argue that the convenience of technology may tempt free riding behavior and impede the development of a knowledge sharing culture. The purpose of this research is to understand the knowledge sharing phenomena and the effect of technology on knowledge sharing behavior in the design studio. Two approaches were adopted. The first was developing research models based on Game Theory to analyze knowledge sharing between students. The other was knowledge sources investigation to estimate the actual state of knowledge sharing in the design studio.
Research models include a Design Scope Model and a Knowledge Sharing Game. The Design Scope Model was utilized to interpret and analyze knowledge sharing among students. The model is based upon design problem solving and has integrated features of learning alliances and Game Theory (Chapter 2). The results of a pedagogical case analysis demonstrate that (1) students’ motivation of knowledge sharing may be to resolve the ill-defined design problem; (2) frequently sharing knowledge to invite allies can be a necessary strategic move for sustaining the profit of cooperation; (3) information technology which improves information transparency and reduces communication costs may act as a catalyst for initiating and sustaining cooperation. The analysis also indicates two phenomena about the payoff of knowledge sharing strategies. The first is that only relevant knowledge can bring gains to students; the second is that the more a student contributed, the more the student gained.
The second model is a Knowledge Sharing Game in shared electronic databases that was based on the Voluntary Contribution Mechanism (VCM) (Chapter 3). Based on design scope analysis, players' payoff function was defined. Through analyzing the payoff function, the equilibrium of the knowledge sharing game was affected by the group size, the initial distribution of players' strategies, and the characteristics of knowledge relevance function. Agent-based computer simulation is employed to explore the complicate interrelations of these three factors. Simulation results demonstrate that the knowledge sharing game in shared electronic databases can be characterized as an Assurance Game. The more strategic diversity and the more player of the initial state are, the more chance that non-zero strategies (knowledge contributors) can dominate the game. In addition, the more strategic diversity, non-zero strategies can dominate with less group size.
Besides theoretical analysis, students’ knowledge sources were investigated to examine whether the peers are students’ primary knowledge source, and whether a shared web forum will promote knowledge sharing behavior. Two pedagogical studios were investigated and the findings are as follows. First of all, the peers were a primary design knowledge source for the students. Second, the ill-defined nature of design problems may be the main factor of encouraging knowledge sharing behavior. The more complicated, ill-defined design projects required more knowledge and resulted in more obvious knowledge sharing behavior. Third, competition in the design studio is to propose unique and creative design proposals. This kind of competition did not seem to hinder knowledge sharing between students. Forth, shared web forum did not have a significant influence on the development of a knowledge sharing culture. The evident function of shared databases is documenting students’ works and learning processes. Finally, through investigating students’ knowledge sources, we can estimate the knowledge sharing culture in a design studio, evaluate the efficacy of the facilitator of knowledge sharing, and analysis the mutual effect among different knowledge sources on the knowledge sharing behavior.
Cooperation and competition coexist in the design studio. Nevertheless, existing literature seems to overemphasize competition and fails to explain the coexistence. Contributions of this research are developing analytic models and investigation instrument and revealing some unique phenomena of knowledge sharing in the design studio. Nevertheless, knowledge sharing in the design studio is a complex phenomenon. Employing various approaches or developing new methods for advanced studies is necessary. The major findings of this research are:
* Knowledge sharing between students was pervasive and frequent in the three design studios. The ill-defined nature of design problems may be the main contributing factor encouraging knowledge sharing behavior.
* The effect of Information Technology in promoting design knowledge sharing is still vague. The author suggests that the ideology of IT application should be shifted from the provision of public goods to personal design or learning tools.

Adler, P.S. (1989). When knowledge is the critical resource, knowledge management is the critical task. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 36(2), 87-94.
Ahmed, S., Wallace, K.M., & Blessing, L.T. (2003). Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 1-11.
Alexander, J. M. (2003). Evolutionary Game Theory. from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2003/entries/game-evolutionary/
Anthony, K.H. (1991). Design Juries on Trial: The Renaissance of the design studio. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Avram, G. (2006). At the Crossroads of Knowledge Management and Social Software. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 1-10.
Axelrod, R.M. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Bengtsson, M. & Kock, S. (2000). "Coopetition" in Business Networks--to Cooperate and Compete Simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management , 29(5), 411-426.
Blog. (2007). In Webopedia [Web]. Retrieved September 14, 2007, from http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/b/blog.html
Bonabeau, E. (2002). Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 99 (Suppl. 3), 7280-7287.
Boyarski, D. (1998). Designing design education. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 30(3), 7-10.
Brusasco, P.L., Caneparo, L., Carrara, G., Fioravanti, A., Novembri, G., & Zorgno, A.M. (2000). Computer supported design studio. Automation in Construction, 9(4), 393-408.
Cabrera, A. & Cabrera, E.E. (2002). Knowledge-sharing Dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23(5), 687-710.
Chastain, T. & Elliott, A. (2000). Cultivating design competence: online support for beginning design studio. Automation in Construction, 9(1), 83-91.
Chua, A. (2003). Knowledge sharing: a game people play. Aslib Proceedings, 55(3), 117-129.
Clemens, C. & Riechmann, T. (2006). Evolutionary Dynamics in Public Good Games. Computational Economics, 28(4), 399-420.
Cooper, L.P. (2003). A research agenda to reduce risk in new product development through knowledge management: a practitioner perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1-2), 117-140.
Craig, D.L. & Zimring, C. (2000). Supporting collaborative design groups as design communities. Design Studies, 21(2), 187-204.
Cress, U., Kimmerle, J., & Hesse, F.W. (2006). Information Exchange With Shared Databases as a Social Dilemma. Communication Research, 33(5), 370-390.
Cross, R. & Sproull, L. (2004). More Than an Answer: Information Relationships for Actionable Knowledge. Organization Science, 15(4), 446-462.
Cuff, D. (1991). Architecture: The Story of Practice. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Dawes, R.M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169-193.
Dixit, A.K., & Skeath, S. (2004). Games of strategy. New York: W.W. Norton.
Drucker, P.F. (1992). The New Society of Organizations. Harvard Business Review , 70(5), 95-104.
Fischer, G. (2000). Symmetry of ignorance, social creativity, and meta-design. Knowledge-Based Systems, 13(7-8), 527-537.
Fischer, G., & Otswald, J. (2001). Knowledge management: problems, promises, realities, and challenges. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(1), 60-72.
Ford, D.P. & Staples, D.S. (2006). Perceived value of knowledge: the potential informer's perception. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(1), 3-16.
Goldberg, D.E. (1989). Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley.
Goldstone, R.L. & Janssen, M.A. (2005). Computational models of collective behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(9), 424-430 .
Gulati, R., Khanna, T., & Nohria, N. (1994). Unilateral commitments and the importance of process in alliances. Sloan Management Review, 35(3), 61-70.
Hamel, G., Doz, Y.L., & Prahalad, C.K. (1989). Collaborate with Your Competitors -- and Win. Harvard Business Review, 67(1), 133-139.
Hendriks, P.H.J. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100.
Holland, J.H. (1992). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge Sharing on Organizations: A Conceptual Framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337-359.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. & Staples, D.S. (2000). The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: an exploratory study of determinants. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2-3), 129-154.
Jian, G. & Jeffres, L.W. (2006). Understanding Employees' Willingness to Contribute to Shared Electronic Databases. Communication Research, 33(4), 242-261.
Kalman, M.E., Monge, P., Fulk, J., & Heino, R. (2002). Motivations to Resolve Communication Dilemmas in Database-Mediated Collaboration. Communication Research, 29(2), 125-154.
Khanna, T., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (1998). The dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 193-210.
Kollock, P. (1998). SOCIAL DILEMMAS: The Anatomy of Cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 183-214.
Kvan, T. (2001a). The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation in Construction, 10(3), 345-353.
Kvan, T. (2001b). The Problem in Studio Teaching - Revisiting the Pedagogy of Studio Teaching. In M. Tan (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st ACAE Conference on Architectural Education (pp. 95-105). Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture, National University of Singapore.
Larsson, R., Bengtsson, L., Henriksson, K., & Sparks, J. (1998). The Interorganizational Learning Dilemma: Collective Knowledge Development in Strategic Alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 285-305.
Ledyard, J.O. (1995). Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research. In A. Roth, & J. Kagel (Eds.), A Handbook of Experimental Economics (pp. 111-194). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lee, G., Eastman, C.M., & Zimring, C. (2003). Avoiding design errors: a case study of redesigning an architectural studio. Design Studies, 24(5), 411-435.
Leuthold, J.H. (1987). A Public Goods Experiment for the Classroom. Journal of Economic Education, 18(1), 58-65.
Loebecke, C., Van Fenema, P.C., & Powell, P. (1999). Co-opetition and knowledge transfer. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 30(2), 14-25.
Macal, C.M., & North, M.J. (2005). Tutorial on agent-based modeling and simulation. In M.E. Kuhl, N.M. Steiger, F.B. Armstrong, & J.A. Joines (eds.), 2005 Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference . 4-7 Dec. 2005.
Maynard Smith, J. & Price, G. (1973). The logic of animal conflict. Nature, 246, 15-18.
Millie Kwan, M. & Balasubramanian, P. (2003). KnowledgeScope: managing knowledge in context. Decision Support Systems, 35(4), 467-586.
Mitchell, M. (1996). An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Nash, J.F. (1950). Equilibrium Points in N-Person Games. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48-49.
Nash, J.F. (1951). Non-Cooperative Games. Annals of Mathematics, 54(2), 286-295.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
O'Hear, S. (2004). Logs prepare to go on a roll. Retrieved February, 10, 2007, from http://education.guardian.co.uk/elearning/story/0,,1233425,00.html
Oxman, R.E. (1999). Educating the designerly thinker. Design Studies, 20(2), 105-122.
Oxman, R.E. (2004). Think-maps: teaching design thinking in design education. Design Studies, 25(1), 63-91.
Pettenati, M.C., Cigognini, E., Mangione, J., & Guerin, E. (2007). Using Social Software for Personal Knowledge Management in Formal Online Learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 52-65.
Powell, J.H. (2003). Game theory in strategy. In D. Faulkner, & A. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford Text Book of Strategic Management (Vol.2, pp. 383-415). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Powell, W.W. (1998). Learning From Collaboration: Knowledge and Networks in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries. California Management Review, 40(3), 228-240.
Raban, D.R. & Rafaeli, S. (2007). Investigating ownership and the willingness to share information online. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2367-2382.
Reich, Y. (1995). Measuring the value of knowledge. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 42(1), 3-30.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M.M. (1984). Planning problems are wicked problems. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in Design Methodology (pp. 135-144). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rodgers, P.A., Caldwell, N.H.M., Clarkson, P.J., & Huxor, A.P. (2001). The management of concept design knowledge in modern product development organizations. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 14(1), 108-115.
Romp, G. (1997). Game Theory: Introduction and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.
Sell, J. & Wilson, R.K. (1991). Levels of Information and Contributions to Public Goods. Social Forces, 70(1), 107-124.
Zhu, K. (2002). Information Transparency in Electronic Marketplaces: Why Data Transparency May Hinder the Adoption of B2B Exchanges. Electronic Markets, 12(2), 92-99.
Zimring, C., Khan, S., Craig, D.L., Haq, S., & Guzdial, M. (2001). CoOL Studio: using simple tools to expand the discursive space of the design studio. Automation in Construction, 10(6), 675-685.