面對全球化的競爭壓力下，從過去個人設計逐漸轉變成團隊設計模式，過程當中，解決問題更需要透過團隊合作的模式加以進行。且隨著網際網路發達，逐漸跳脫人類的傳統時空觀念，不只侷限在公司內部的會議，甚至可以跨國合作，透過不同的媒材給予激發不同的設計思維，本研究目的為利用概念演化的觀點，分析傳統與數位媒材對於合作式設計之概念演化發展的影響。
分為三步驟進行，第一提出二個假設：（H1）一個好的合作式設計必然有一個鍊結模式可依循。（H2）在合作式設計過程中，傳統與數位草圖在概念發想的數量上並無明顯差異。第二實驗設定：本研究選擇工業設計大三學生作為實驗對象，利用傳統與數位草圖二種媒材參加設計提案，實驗地點選擇在傳統同地與數位不同地（虛擬同地）進行探討。透過二位研究人員共同進行口語分析與編碼作業，第三編碼分析：運用「鍊結表記」與「標示概念排序」探索圖形與概念演化之間的關係。
本研究得到三大結論，結論一：在合作式設計過程中，傳統與數位草圖在概念數量、概念密度、關鍵設計移動總和與互動比例上無顯著差異性，意味著數位草圖可以替代傳統草圖工具，並進行網路合作式設計，達到網路無國界，設計無邊界。結論二：透過分析工具、專家評鑑與文獻資料結合三者結合，訂定出一個好的合作式設計模式可參照。結論三：分析項目與專家評鑑之間的關係，透過檢定發現媒材的特性賦予不同的優勢。研究貢獻在於推動合作式設計的模式，希望能提供設計教育的應用與實行，同時透過成果的說明，推動設計師與電腦輔助設計之間的互動並達成良好的效果。

Facing the competitive stress from the globalization gradually changes the model of single designer into collaborative design. With the progress of network, design ideas wound not only limit inside company’s meetings as past but also build up different thoughts by multinational cooperation provided by different design team members. The research goal is to analyze the influence of traditional & digital medium upon the collaborative design by the concepts of idea evolution.
The research process was divided into three parts: (1)Hypotheses：A good collaborative design must have a trend that can be showed by linkography. In the collaborative design, digital & tradition sketches are similar in terms of the amounts of ideas. (2)This research case studied 10 groups of senior students (2 persons in a group) in Industrial Design department. Traditional & digital sketches were used in the experiment. In addition, this study discussed synchronous / distributed synchronous（virtual same space）collaborative design to discover how the usage of different Media affects design process and problem solving. The processes were video-taped and explored by protocol analysis. (3)Linkography has been used for investigating the structure of design ideas generation and for comparing design productivity.
The research results showed three conclusions: (1)Traditional & digital sketches had close operational quality in the amounts of ideas, design productivity, critical moves and interaction. That is, the digital sketches can take place of tradition ones in the future with the advantage to proceed web collaborative design, so with network design have no boundaries. (2)Combining analysis tools, experts evaluation, and relative literature could establish a guideline for collaborative design. (3)Analyzing the relationship among linkography, design interaction, and expert judge score provided insights of the pros and cons of digital and traditional media. The future research will focus on establishing a better cooperative design method and hopefully benefit the area of education and promote interaction between designers and CAD.

致謝 I
中文摘要 II
ABSTRACT IV
目錄 VI
圖目錄 VIII
表目錄 IX
第一章 緒論 - 1 -
1.1 研究背景與動機 - 1 -
1.2 研究問題與目的 - 2 -
1.3 論文結構 - 3 -
第二章 文獻探討 - 6 -
2.1設計思考 - 6 -
2.1.1概念設計 - 8 -
2.1.2概念演化 - 9 -
2.2合作式設計 - 10 -
2.2.1網路合作式設計 - 11 -
2.2.2溝通模式 - 13 -
2.3設計媒材研究 - 14 -
2.3.1傳統草圖研究 - 15 -
2.3.2數位草圖研究 - 17 -
2.4設計研究方法 - 19 -
2.4.1口語分析 - 20 -
2.4.2鍊結表記 - 22 -
第三章 研究方法 - 25 -
3.1 研究架構 - 25 -
3.1.1口語分析 - 26 -
3.2 實驗說明與規劃 - 27 -
3.2.1實驗工具 - 27 -
3.2.2傳統與數位實驗環境 - 28 -
3.2.3自我測試 - 31 -
3.2.4前測實驗 - 32 -
3.2.5實驗時間 - 33 -
3.2.6分析編碼操作型定義 - 34 -
3.3 正式實驗設計 - 35 -
3.3.1研究假設 - 37 -
3.3.3問卷與訪談 - 38 -
第四章 口語資料編碼與分析流程 - 39 -
4.1原始實驗資料整理 - 39 -
4.2斷句定義 - 41 -
4.3編碼系統建立 - 41 -
4.3.1延伸編碼系統 - 43 -
4.4分析資料 - 44 -
4.4.1團隊-測量指數 - 47 -
4.4.2個人-概念溝通與銜接 - 53 -
4.4.3專家評鑑 - 59 -
4.5統計檢定 - 60 -
4.5.1檢定不同媒材對於概念演化的影響 - 60 -
4.5.2檢定傳統草圖對於概念演化的影響 - 62 -
4.5.3檢定數位草圖對於概念演化的影響 - 62 -
第五章 討論 - 64 -
5.1傳統與數位草圖對於概念演化的影響 - 64 -
5.1.1概念分佈與時間之間的關係 - 64 -
5.1.2分析項目與專家評鑑之間的關係 - 66 -
5.1.3合作模式與元素之間的關係 - 69 -
第六章 結論與建議 - 77 -
6.1研究結論 - 77 -
6.2研究限制 - 79 -
6.3研究貢獻 - 80 -
6.4未來研究 - 81 -
參考文獻 - 83 -
附錄 - 88 -
附錄一、傳統媒材設計流程說明書 - 88 -
附錄二、數位媒材設計流程說明書 - 90 -
附錄三、專家評鑑說明書 - 98 -
附錄四、相關分析項目排名 - 100 -
附錄五、十組設計成果表版 - 101 -

1.Akin, Ö. (1984). An exploration of the design process. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in Design Methodologies (pp. 189-208). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
2.Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Worth Publishers.
3.Cross, N. (1989).Engineering design methods” Strategies for Product Design, John Wiley, Chichester
4.Cross, N. (1999). Natural intelligence in design. Design Studies, 20, 25-39.
5.Cross, N., & Cross, A. C. (1995). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Design Studies, 16, 143-170.
6.Cross, N and Clayburn-Cross, A. (1996) Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. In Cross N., Christiaans H. and Dorst K. (eds) Analysing design activity J. Wiley and Sons (pp. 291–317), Wiley, Chichester, UK
7.Daru, R., & Snijder, P. (1994). Sketch-trigger: Towards a pecification for a form generator and design analysis toolbox for architectural sketching. Second Design and Decision Support Systems in Architecture & Urban Planning (pp.15-19), Vaals, the Netherlands
8.Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data ma. Cambridge: MIT Press.
9.French, M., & Gravdahl, J. T. (1998). Conceptual design for engineers. London：New York.
10.Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge. MIT Press.
11.Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 123-143.
12.Goldschimidt, G. (1992). Serial sketching: Visual problem solving in designing. Cybernetics and systems: An international Journal, 23, 191-219.
13.Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: The vis kids of architecture. Design Studies, 15, 158-174.
14.Goldschmidt, G. (1995). The designer as a team of one. Design Issue, 16, 189-209.
15.Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies, 26, 593-611.
16.Herbert, D. M. (1988). Study drawings in architectural design: Their properties as a graphic medium. Architectural Education, 41, 26-38.
17.Herbert, D. M. (1993). Architectural study drawing.New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
18.Kan, J. W., & Gero, J. S. (2005). Entropy Measurement of Linkography in Protocol Studies of Designing. In J.S. Gero & N. Bonnardel, (Eds.), Studying Designers’05 (pp. 229-245). Australia: 2005 Key Center of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney.
19.Lim, C.-K. (2003). Is a pen-based system just another pen or more than a pen? in eCAADe.
20.Liu, Y. T. (1993). A connectionist approach to shape recognition and transformation. In U. Flenming & S. Van Wyk (Eds.), CAAD Futures '93 (pp.19-36). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
21.Lloyd, P., Lawson, B., & Scott, P. (1995). Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition? Design Studies, 16, 237-259.
22.Manolya, K., Stephen, A., & Linden, J. (1998). Structure in idea sketching behaviour. Design Studies, 19, 485-517.
23.Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
24.Macmillan, S., Steele, J., Austin, S., Kirby, P.& Spence, R.(2001)Development and verification of a generic framework for conceptual design, Design Studies, 22, 169–191.
25.Neiman, B., Gross, K., & Do, E. (1999). Sketches and their functions in early design - a retrospective analysis of a pavilion house. Proceedings Design Thinking Research Symposium. Cambridge,MA.
26.Salter, A., & Gann, D. (2002). Sources of ideas for innovation in engineering design. Research Policy, 32, 1309-1324.
27.Saund, E., & Moran, T. (1994). A perceptually-supported sketch editor. Symposium on User Interface Sortware & Technology, 175-184.
28.Simon, H. A. (1966). Scientific discovery and the psychology of problem solving, mind and cosmos. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
29.Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1962). Computer simulation of human thinking and problem solving, though in the young child. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
30.Stacy, M. (1996). Spatial expressions in design idea capture languages. In Damski, J.C.B., & Narayanan, N.H.(eds) In Proceeding of the AID'96 Workshop in Visual Representations, Reasoning and Interaction in Design
31.Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams - an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23, 473-496.
32.Stumpf, S., & McDonnell, J. (2002). Talking about team framing: Using argumentation to analyse and support experientiall learning in early design episodes. Design Studies, 23, 5-23.
33.Suwa, M. (1998). Content-oriented Protocol Analysis Coding Scheme. Sydney, Australia: Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition.
34.Suwa, M., Purcell, T., & Gero, J. (1998). Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers' cognitive actions. Design Studies, 19, 455-483.
35.Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18, 385-403.
36.Tomes, A., Oates, C. & Armstrong, P. (1998). Talking design: Negotiating the verbal-visual translation. Design Studies, 19, 127-142.
37.van der Lugt, R. (2001). Sketching in design idea generation meetings, PhD dissertation, Faculty of Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology.
38.Verstijinen, I., Hennessey, J., Leeuwen, C., Hamel, R., & Goldschmidt, G. (1998). Sketching and creative discovery. Design Studies, 19, 519-546.
39.Zuo, J., & Director, S. W. (2000). An integrated design environment for early stage conceptual design (pp.27-30). Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition.
40.林育進 (1999)。全球資訊網下產品設計中電腦支援協同設計之應用。碩士論文，台南：成功大學。
41.儲裕娟 (2003)。互動式工作空間。碩士論文，台南：成功大學。
42.戴瑤強 (2003)。數位媒體協同設計流程控管頻平台之研究。碩士論文，台灣：元智大學。
43.張家鳳 (2004)。協同設計下整合跨廠組裝次序與易組性設計之評估模式。台灣：元智大學。