臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來許多公司嘗試藉由跨領域團隊的方式，尋求創新策略或概念，尤其是在需要創意的產業，例如：市場行銷、建築、或是產品開發等，嘗試以不同的角度進行產品創新，而在以使用者需求為主的產品，像是輔具產品這類較特殊的產品，更需要多專業的參與，在達到基本功能、及安全標準的同時，進而達到創新的目的。
過去不乏針對跨領域所進行的研究探討，然而都是集中在資訊、團隊管理等面向，較少以設計理論為主，基於上述背景，所以本研究藉由輔具產品為例，進行跨領域之設計研究探討，本研究嘗試以工業設計之觀點，以使用者需求的角度出發，進而呈現跨領域團隊在進行情境預預想法之過程，以及跨領域成員進行在設計之意見整合之設計過程，並提出未來跨領域團隊進行使用者導向設計方法之相關建議。
為達本研究目的，本研究分為兩階段進行，首先參考相關之文獻，由於輔具產品屬性特殊，尤以兒童站立架更有多元使用者之特性，故以之做為發展目標，實驗前預先進行現場觀察紀錄，以收集產品使用過程之相關資料，並對相關產品使用者進行使用者訪談，第二階段以跨領域團隊實驗進行概念發展，以概念發展程序結合情境預想法進行，最後將結果推論之內容提出分析評論，透過產品設計實驗之觀察，以口語內容分析法探討過程中使用者需求之發展，以及跨領域成員之溝通焦點。
研究結果顯示，輔具設計適合應用使用者導向之情境預想方法，跨領域團隊在情境預想法的操作方式因成員組成特質、訊息分享內容而有所不同，另外工業設計之專業背景有利情境預想的進行，而情境法的進行方式與專業問題之解決存在部分衝突，在情境預想的成效方面，跨領域成員可藉由情境的建構，對使用者需求有更深入的了解與探討，而未來跨領域概念發展活動之建議方面，應有多元專業知識的團隊成員，具備概念視覺化能力之組員，另外成員應該充分理解情境預想法進行的原則，以及概念發展過程之限制，更應重視團隊整合的工作，以促進跨領域操作情境預想法的效果。

Recently, many companies have been trying to use the way of interdisciplinary teamwork as to look for creative strategies or concepts, especially in creative industries, such as, marketing, architecture, or product design. These types of industries have tried using various ways to proceed making creative user products, such as, assistive technology products, which require different types of professional expertise. We must realize our goal of creativity, as well as, reaching the basic foundation and secure standard.
In the past, there are many study materials about interdisciplinary. However, most of them focus on the field of informatics and team management, while few concentrate on design theory. According to the previously mentioned, this main research is to investigate the design of interdisciplinary by the example of assistive technology. This research has tried to use the view of industry design and understand the users need by presenting scenarios that show interdisciplinary team work and team members integrating their design comments. At last, we suggest interdisciplinary teamwork to be brought into user-centered design
To reach the goal of our research, this study has been separated in two steps. First, in looking at the specialty of assistive technology concerning a child’s stander, which has various users, we used it as a main example of our development. In our experiment, we observed to collect records about the child’s stander, as well as, interviewed with the users of the product. In the second step, the interdisciplinary teamwork experiment develops concepts which combine with scenario. Lastly, we analyze the results of the experiment. Through the observation of product design experiment, we use the content analysis of colloquial language to investigate the process and development of user’s need, and the focus communication of cross- territory.
The research reveals that the user-oriented scenario suits to be used in assistive technology. Interdisciplinary teams practice differently because of the vary disposition of members’ organization and contents of information sharing. In addition, the background of industry design is beneficial to the work of scenario, but between the proceeding ways of scenario and professional problems solving existed some conflicts. In the aspect and effect of scenario, interdisciplinary members can have deeper understanding and investigation for the users’ need by the situational construction. As for the suggestion of oncoming development of cross-territory interdisciplinary, there should be more multi-professional, knowledgeable and concept visualization members. On the other hand, members should adequately comprehend the rules of scenario, the limits of the process of concept development and put even more emphasis on the cooperation of teamwork as to improve the effect of interdisciplinary scenario.

摘要 iii
目錄 vii
圖目錄 x
表目錄 xi
表目錄 xi
第一章 緒論 12
1.1 研究背景與動機 12
1.1.1輔具設計趨勢 13
1.1.2跨領域合作 14
1.1.3概念發展程序 14
1.1.4情境預想法 15
1.2研究目的 15
1.3研究範圍 15
1.4 研究流程 16
第二章 文獻探討 19
2.1輔具設計 19
2.1.1輔具分類 19
2.1.2輔具與使用者的關係 21
2.2使用者導向設計 22
2.3 跨領域團隊 28
2.3.1跨領域的趨勢 28
2.3.2團隊溝通理論 32
2.4產品概念發展程序 35
2.4.1產品設計程序 35
2.4.2概念發展階段 36
2.5 情境預想法 40
2.5.1 情境預想法的定義 40
2.5.2情境法應用流程 41
2.5.3情境法的分類 42
2.5.4情境法的優缺點 43
2.5.5情境觀察 45
2.6訊息分享分類 46
2.7 小結 48
第三章 研究方法 50
3.1研究命題與架構 51
3.2前置現場觀察 54
3.2.1前測對象 54
3.2.2兒童站立架 55
3.3實驗設計 56
3.3.1實驗對象 58
3.3.2 實驗設備 59
3.3.3實驗內容與流程 60
3.4分析方法 61
3.4.1編碼架構的發展 61
3.4.2小組發展內容過程定序 64
3.4.3逐字稿分析範例 65
3.5 本章小結 68
第四章 研究結果 69
4.1 前測結果 69
4.1.1觀察與訪談結果 69
4.1.2現場使用觀察 71
4.1.3情境的建構有助於使用者導向的概念產出 72
4.2各分組之互動概況 73
4.2.1小組成員口語內容分佈 73
4.2.2分組編碼統計 75
一、使用者中心階段趨勢 75
二、訊息互動趨勢 76
4.3過程訊息引用的現象 77
4.3.1 訊息引用 77
一、 實體資源引用 79
二、 話題的詢問與引用 79
4.4情境預想法之訊息特性 80
4.4.1情境預想互動編碼類型 80
4.4.2三組應用情境預想法之差異 85
4.5團隊整合的現象 86
4.5.1程序規劃 87
4.5.2評估與歸納 87
4.6 各組結果資料彙整 88
4.7小結 91
第五章 討論 92
5.1 現場使用觀察資料直接影響情境預想的發展 92
5.1.1輔具產品依不同使用者產生不同需求特性 92
5.1.2情境的建構有助於使用者導向的概念產出 94
5.2 個體因素影響情境預想的操作 97
5.2.1工業設計師手繪溝通技巧可促進情境預想的進行 97
5.2.2情境法易產生使用者導向的溝通共識 99
5.3團隊因素影響情境預想的效果 102
5.3.1跨領域團隊整合與訊息分享可促進情境預想的執行 102
5.3.2跨領域團隊討論可促進團隊成員在產品開發重視使用者需求 106
5.4小結 109
第六章 結論與建議 112
6.1結論 112
6.1.1輔具概念發展 112
6.1.2 跨領域操作情境法 113
6.2建議 116
6.2.1 後續研究之建議 118
參考文獻 119
中文部份 119
附件 123

中文部份
1.鄧成連，(1999)，設計管理─產品設計之組織、溝通與運作，台北，亞太圖書。
2.黃英忠、張存金，(1997)，新產品過程中溝通行為資訊處理模式，人力資源學報，第七期。
3.梁宏敏，(2004)，工業設計因應台灣資通產業不同營運型態之設計方式研究，台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
4.陳文印，(1997)，設計解讀－工業設計專業知能之探索，台北，亞太圖書。
5.錢致蓉，(2002)，年輕女性之生活型態與產品設計開發研究，大同大學工業設計研究所碩士論文。
6.樊耀宗，(2002)，工業設計公司提案與決策效率探討，台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
7.姚鍾穎，(2004)，未來辦公家具之體驗劇本設計，台北科技大學創新設計研究所碩士論文。
8.劉穎隆，(2000)，未來辦公室家具之情境設計研究，實踐大學工業產品設計研究所碩士論文。
9.廖洲棚，(1997)，團隊型組織之溝通訊息傳遞過程：符號與資訊科技互動的研究，國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。
10.廖華立，(1998)，創新團隊能力、工作滿足、組織承諾與創新績效的關係，銘傳大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
11.蘇照彬，(1994)，Scenario在人機互動中之理論與應用－以互動電視節目表的發展與評估為例，交通大學傳播科技研究所碩士論文。
12.呂黛伶，(2001)，以劇本法設計一個人本的電子郵件使用者介面，交通大學應用設計研究所碩士論文。


英文部份
1.Alderfer, P. (1977). Group and intergroup relations. In Hackman, J. & Suttle, J.(Eds.), Improving Life at Work, P: 227-296. CA: Goodyear.
2.Baya, V.(1996).Information handling behavior of designers during conceptual design: three experiments. Stanford University PHD.
3.Birch, D. & Joseph, V. (1966). Motivation: A study of Action onterey. CA: Brooks-Cole.
4.Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., Mosher, A. & Swenton, P. (1993). Ethnographic Field Methods and Their Relation to Design. In: Dchuler, D. & Namioka, A. (Eds.), Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
5.Buhler, C. & Schmidt, M. (1993). User involvement in evaluation and assessment of assistive technology, ECART2, Stockholm p: 26-28.
6.Clark, B. & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry. Boston. Harvard Business School Press.
7.Cooper, G., Edgett, J., & Kleinschmidt, J. (2002). Optimizing the Stage-Gate Process: What Best Practice Companies Are Doing – Part I, Research Technology Management, Industrial Research Institute, Inc.
8.Costley, L., Santana, C. & Todd, R. (1993). Human relations inorganizations, 5th ed. Minneapolis: West Publishing Company.
9.Cross, N. & Cross, A. (1995).Observations of teamwork and social processes in design, Design Studies 16:145-170.
10.Gibson, W. & Hodgetts, M.(1989). Business Communication: Skill and Strategies, Harper and Row, New York.
11.Gross, E. (1995). Compensation for Teams: How to Design and Implement, Team- based Reward Systems. New York: American Management Association.
12.Gruenfeld, H. & Hollingshead, B. (1993). Sociocognition in work groups: The evolution of group integrative complexity and its relation to task and performance. Small Group Research, 24(3): 383-405.
13.Hopkins, S. (1981). New Products Winners and Losers. The Conference BoardReport, N773, New York.
14.Kan, T. & Gero, S. (2004). A method to analyse team design activities, Proceedings of 38th ANZAScA, University of Tasmina, p: 111-117.
15.Kankainen, A. (2002).Thinking model and tools for understanding user experience related to information appliance product concepts. Doctoral Dissertation, Mathematics and Computing Series , Oy: Polytechnica Kustannus.
16.Macmillan, S., Steele, J., Austin, S., Kirby, P. & Spence, R. (2001). Development and verification of a framework for conceptual design, Design Studies, 22: 169–191.
17.McGregor, D. (1960). The human communication. California: Wadsworth publishing Company.
18.Milne, A. (2000). Analyzing the Activity of Multidisciplinary Design Teams in the Early Stages of Conceptual Design: Method and Measures. Collaborative Design Scrivener et al. (eds.) , London: Springer.
19.Moenaert, K. (1995). R&D/Marketing Communication During the FuzzyFront-End. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(3): 243-258.
20.Nielsen, J. (1990). Hypermedia and Hypertext. London: Academic Press.
21.Nosek, A. & Krouskop, A. (1995). Demonstrating a model approach toindependent living center-based assistive technology services. AssistiveTechnology, 7(1): 48-54.
22.Osborn, E. (1963). Applied imagination (3rd ed.). New York: Scribners.
23.Paulson, D. & Richardson, S. (1998). USERfit – a framework for user centred design in assistive technology. Technology and Disability, 9:163-171.
24.Pettigrew, A. (1973). The politics of organizational decision-making. London:Travistock.
25.Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Boston: Pittman.
26.Quick, L. (1992). Successful team building, New York: American Management Association.
27.Rittel, J. (1984). Second-generation design methods. In Cross, N. ed. Developments in Design Methodology, P: 317-327.NY: Wiley.
28.Senior, B. (1997). Team performance: using repertory grid technique to gain a view from the inside. Team performance Management, 3(1): 33-39.
29.Smith, K. (1977). An intergroup perspective on individual behavior. In Hackman, R., Lawler, E. & Porter, L. (Eds.), Perspectives on Behaviorin Organizations, NY: McGraw-Hill.
30.Sonnenwald, H. (1995). Contested collaboration: A descriptive model of intergroup communication in information system design. Information Processing & Management, 31(6): 859-877.
31.Suri, J. & Marsh, M. (2000). Scenario building as an ergonomics method in consumer product design. Applied Ergonomics 31(2): 151-157.
32.Tjosvold, D. (1984). Cooperation theory and organizations. Human Relations, 37(9): 743-767.
33.Walther, J. (1995). Relational Aspects of Computer-mediated Communication :Experimental Observations Over Time, rganization Science, 6(2): 186-203.
網頁部份
1.ISO 9241: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance on usability http://www.iso.org.
2.ISO 13407：Human centered design processes for interactive systems http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools//r_international.htm#134 07