近年來，台灣的創業風氣興盛，許多新創團隊隨著國內外創業競賽或是補助計畫而誕生，並不時獲得大眾的注意，這樣的現象使得國內不少大學院校也紛紛開設創業學程和育成中心，甚至積極發掘校內研究或是專利，透過教授或學生使其商品化、商業化。
當談到新創團隊或是由校園技術為主的校園衍生企業，那代表著一個組織的建立，組織的成員往往是目標不同、知識背景與價值觀念互異，且擁有不同資訊的人所組成，隨著組織開始劃分出各專業部門之後，團隊互動會隨著各個部門的任務不同，因此產生組織內部的衝突，而衝突可能為組織營運帶來負面影響，亦可能是正面影響。
本研究將專注於校園新創團隊，針對可能產生的衝突，進行辨識與分析。研究發現角色定位問題、學生價值觀、領導者背景知識、管理者人格特質、踰越規範、組織目標不一致、資源分配問題，以上幾點問題容易造成組織衝突，對組織營運造成負面影響。

In recent years, Taiwan's entrepreneurial prosperity, many new teams with domestic and foreign entrepreneurship competition or subsidy program was born, and from time to time to get public attention, this phenomenon makes many local universities have also set up entrepreneurship Cheng and Yu Cheng Center, and even actively explore the school research or patent, through professors or students to commercialize, commercialize.
When it comes to astartup or University Spin-off, it represents the establishment of an organization, the members of the organization is often different goals, knowledge background and values are different, and have different information composed of people , As the organization begins to divide the professional departments, team interaction will vary with the various departments, resulting in internal conflicts, and the conflict may have a negative impact on organizational operations, it may also be a positive influence.
This study will focus on the campus new team, for the possible conflict, to identify and analyze. The research found that the role of the role of positioning, student values, leadership background knowledge, manager personality traits, beyond the norms, organizational goals inconsistent, resource allocation problems, the above problems are likely to cause organizational conflicts, organizational operations have a negative impact.

1. 郭崑謨,黃營杉. (1998). 中小企業之特質、現代化策略與經營績效，中小企業經營現代化之研究. 高雄: 復文圖書出版社.
2. 經濟部中小企業處編製. (2008). 民國 97 年中小企業白皮書. 台北: 編製者發行.
3. 司徒達賢. (2001). 策略管理新論: 智勝文化事業有限公司.
4. 林佩璇. (1999). 學校本位課程發展的個案研究: 台北縣鄉土教學活動的課程發展. 臺灣師範大學.
5. 邱憶惠. (1999). 個案研究：質化取向. 國立高雄師範大學教育系教育研究，七期, 113-127.
6. 張慶勳. (1996). 學校組織行為. 台北: 五南.
7. 林佩璇. (1999). 學校本位課程發展的個案研究: 台北縣鄉土教學活動的課程發展. 臺灣師範大學.
8. 邱憶惠. (1999). 個案研究：質化取向. 國立高雄師範大學教育系教育研究，七期, 113-127.
9. 鄭弘岳. (2003). 組織內衝突與衝突管理研究之回顧與前瞻. 應用心理研究(20), 53-82.
10. 價創計畫簡介. Retrieved from https://ivcpa.tdp.org.tw/html/about.aspx
11. Açıkalın, A. (1998). Toplumsalkurumsalveteknikyönleriyleokulyöneticiliği. PegemYayıncılık.
12. Aydın, M. (2000). Eğitimyönetimi. Ankara: HatiboğluYayınevi.
13. Babbie, E. (1998). The Practice of Social Research 8th edition (Wadsworth, Belmont, CA).
14. Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resourceconstruction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative science quarterly, 50(3), 329-366.
15. Başaran, İ. E. (2004). Yönetimdeinsanilişkileri: Yönetseldavranış. Nobel YayınDağıtım.
16. Bellini, E., Capalldo, G., Edström, A., Kaulio, M., Raffa, M., Ricciardi, M., &Zollo, G. (1999). Strategic paths of academic spin-offs: A comparative analysis of Italian and Swedish cases. Paper presented at the 44th ICSB Conference, Naples.
17. Bhave, M. P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of business venturing, 9(3), 223-242.
18. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Mustar, P., &Knockaert, M. (2007). Academic spin-offs, formal technology transfer and capital raising. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 609-640.
19. DeMunck, Victor C. &Sobo, Elisa J. (Eds) (1998). Using methods in the field: a practical introduction and casebook. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
20. DeWalt, Kathleen M. &DeWalt, Billie R. (2002). Participant observation: a guide for fieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
21. Eren, E. (2000). İşletmelerdestratejikyönetimveişletmepolitikası. Beta BasımYayımDağıtım AŞ.
22. Heirman, A., &Clarysse, B. (2004). How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. The Journal ofTechnology Transfer, 29(3), 247-268.
23. Johnson, P. (1986). New firms: An economic perspective: Allen & Unwin.
24. Karip, E. (2003). Çat› flmayönetimi. Ankara: Pegem A Yay› nc› l› k.
25. Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe–the case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299-309.
26. Lussier, R. N. (1995). A nonfinancial business success versus failure prediction mo. Journal of Small Business Management, 33(1), 8.
27. Marshall, Catherine &Rossman, Gretchen B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28. Miller, D. (1992). The generic strategy trap. Journal of business Strategy, 13(1), 37-41.
29. Pattnaik, P. N., & Pandey, S. C. (2014). University Spinoffs: What, Why, and How? Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(12).
30. Robbins, S. P. (1994). Örgütseldavranışıntemelleri. AnadoluÜniversitesi.
31. Rahim M.A. (2001). Managing Conflict in Organizations, Third Edition, Quorum Books Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, CT.
32. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of management Review, 26(2), 243-263.
33. Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., &LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Essential ethnographic methods: Observations, interviews, and questionnaires (Vol. 2). Rowman Altamira.
34. Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation: Edward Elgar Publishing.
35. Şimşek, M. Ş., Akgemci, T., &Çelik, A. (2001). DavranışBilimlerineGirişveÖrgütlerdeDavranış, Nobel YayınDağıtım, 2. Baskı, Ankara.
36. Smilor, R. W., Gibson, D. V., & Dietrich, G. B. (1990). University spin-out companies: technology start-ups from UT-Austin. Journal of business venturing, 5(1), 63-76.
37. Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research policy, 33(1), 147-175.
38. Weatherston, J. (1995). Academic Entrepreneurs: Is a spin-off Company too risky. Proceedings of the 40th International Council on Small Business, Sydney, 18-21.
39. Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study method in evaluation research. Evaluation practice, 15(3), 283-290.