情境故事法運用於跨領域合作的問題與影響

The Influence and Problems of Scenario Design Approach on Multi-disciplinary Collaboration Design

10.6381/JD.201109.0021

唐玄輝(Hsien-Hui Tang)；林穎謙(Ying-Qian Lin)

跨領域合作 ； 團隊運作 ； 溝通 ； 情境故事法 ； 使用者 ； Multidisciplinary Collaboration ； Team Work ； Communication ； Scenario Design Approach ； Users

設計學報

16卷3期（2011 / 09 / 01）

21 - 44

繁體中文

因應全球化的經營模式與競爭，跨領域合作已逐漸取代傳統的個人運作模式。跨領域團隊擁有許多同質性團隊所沒有的先天優勢，但也必須面對因異質性所產生的問題。本研究運用具有「使用者為中心」理念與視覺化溝通特性的情境故事法，進行跨領域的合作設計教學，藉此了解跨領域合作設計的問題，並探討情境故事法對於跨領域合作設計團隊的影響。問卷調查與訪談發現，跨領域團隊運作過程的問題包含，因成員異質性背景所產生的溝通問題，團隊領導者與人員專業比例，和過程中共識的形成與概念分析和評估等三項。而情境故事法則可以作為溝通的媒介，有效地幫助跨領域的設計團隊，進行設計思考與概念上的溝通，並可有效地協助工程領域的學員，順利進入設計運作流程。另外，執行情境故事法最重要的部分是確實地定義使用者，經由實際的使用者觀察，確認相關的定義與需求。本研究成果可以作為情境故事法教學時的參考，藉以提升設計教育的品質。

For increasing global competition, multidisciplinary collaboration has replaced individuals in design projects. A multidisciplinary team has many advantages that a homogeneous team does not possess, but there are also problems from the heterogeneous collaboration. This study utilized Scenario Design Approach, featuring user-center concepts and visual communication, in a multidisciplinary collaborative design course. We intended to understand the problems in multidisciplinary collaborative design courses and influences of Scenario Design Approach on resolving these problems. By questionnaires and interviews, we found the problems in a multi-disciplinary team, including communicative difficulties caused by heterogeneous backgrounds, team compositions, leadership and consensus, and conceptual evaluation. However, Scenario Design Approach can be the media to facilitate the communication in a multi-disciplinary design team and to help students with engineering background to get involved in the design process smoothly. The vital part of using Scenario Design Approach is to obtain precious user definitions from realistic observations. The cons and pros of using Scenario Design Approach and multidisciplinary collaboration could be implemented in design research and education to improve the design quality.

1. Verplank, B., Fulton, J., Black, A., & Moggridge, B. (1993). Observation and invention: Use of scenarios in interaction design. Tutorial at INTERCHI'93, Amsterdam
2. Alessi, S. M.,Trollip, S. R.(2001).Multimedia for learning: Methods and development.Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
3. Alexiou, K.,Zamenopoulos, T.(2008).Design as social process: A complex systems perspective.Futures,40,586-595.
4. Campbell, R. L.(1992).Will the real scenario please stand up?.ACM SIGCHI Bulletin,24(2),6-8.
5. Carroll, J. M.(2000).Five reasons for scenario-based design.Design Studies,13(1),43-60.
6. Cohen, S. G.,Bailey, D. E.(1997).What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite.Journal of Management,23(3),239-290.
7. Cotton, J. L.(1993).Employee involvement.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
8. Eastman, C. M.(1999).Building product models: Computer environments supporting design and construction.Boca Raton, Florida:CRC Press.
9. Ekeh, P.(1974).Social exchange theory.London:Heinemann.
10. Fiol, C. M.(1994).Consensus, diversity and learning in organizations.Organization Science,5,403-420.
11. Forsythe, D. R.(1999).Group dynamics.Belmont, CA:Brooks/Cole.
12. Goldschmidt, G.(1995).The designer as a team of one.Design Studies,16(2),189-209.
13. Jason, D.(2000).Interdependence and preference for group work: Main and congruence effects on the satisfaction and performance of group members.Journal of Management,26(2),259-279.
14. Joachim, S.,Petra, B. S.(2004).Thinking in design teams-an analysis of team communication.Design Studies,23(5),473-496.
15. Kahai, S. S.,Sosik, J. J.,Avolio, B. J.(1997).Effects of leadership style and problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment.Personnel Psychology,50(1),121-146.
16. Kidwell, R. E.,Mossholder, K. W.,Bennett, N.(1997).Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals.Journal of Management,23(6),775-793.
17. Knight, D. J.(1999).Performance measures for increasing intellectual capital.Strategy and Leadership,27(2),22-27.
18. Laurel, B.(ed.)(1990).The art of human computer interface design.MA:Addison Wesley.
19. Lorsch, J. W.(ed.)(1987).Handbook of organizational behavior.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
20. Mohrman, S. A.,Cohen, S. G.,Mohrman, A. M.(1995).Designing team-based organization: New forms for knowledge work.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
21. Nardi, B. A.(1992).The use of scenarios in design.ACM SIGCHI Bulletin,24(4),13-14.
22. Nigel, C.,Anita, C. C.(1995).Observation of teamwork and social processes in design.Design Studies,16(2),143-170.
23. Norman, D. A.(1988).The design of everyday things.New York:Doubleday/Currency.
24. Pan, J. I.(1999).Taiwan,Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Central University.
25. Parker, G. M.(1996).Team players and teamwork: The new competitive business strategy.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
26. Paulus, P. B.(1989).Psychology of group influence.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum Associates.
27. Paulus, P. B.(2000).Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups.University of Texas at Arlington,49(2),237-262.
28. Rowe, P. G.(1987).Design thinking.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
29. Shah, J. J.,Vargas-Hernandez, N.,Summers, J. D.,Kulkarni, S.(2001).Collaborative sketching (C-Sketch)-An idea generation technique for engineering design.Journal of Creative Behavior,35(3),1-31.
30. Steward, D. D.,Stasser, G.(1995).Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,69(4),619-628.
31. Strauss, A.、Corbin, J.、吳芝儀譯 、廖梅花譯 (2001)。質性研究入門：紮根理論研究方法。台北市:濤石文化。
32. Vredenburg, K.,Mao, J.-Y.,Smith, P. W.,Carey, T.(2002).A survey of user-centered design practice.Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.(CHI'02),New York:
33. Zeisel, J.(1991).Inquiry by design.London:Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
34. 丁崇寬(2003)。台北市=Taipei，國立台北科技大學創新設計研究所=National Taipei University Of Technology。
35. 余德彰、林文綺、王介丘(2001)。劇本導引－資訊時代產品與服務設計新法。台北市=Taipei:田園城市=Garden City。
36. 呂黛伶(2001)。新竹市=Hsinchu，國立交通大學應用藝術所=National Chiao Tung University。
37. 李佩蓉(2008)。桃園縣=Taoyuan，長庚大學工業設計研究所=Chang Gung University。
38. 徐建偉(2004)。高雄市=Kaohsiung，樹德科技大學應用設計研究所=Shu-Te University。
39. 馬玉(2005)。桃園縣=Taoyuan，長庚大學工業設計研究所=Chang Gung University。
40. 梁又照(1997)。產品設計開發功能及管理模式之探討。台北技術學院學報，29(2)，26-30。
41. 黃敏萍、鄭伯壎、王建忠(2003)。轉型領導、團隊內互動、及團隊與成員效能：IPO模式之驗證。管理學報，20(3)，397-427。
42. 黃麗芬(2001)。台北市=Taipei，國立台北科技大學創新設計研究所=National Taipei University of Technology。
43. 楊義銘(2002)。台北市=Taipei，國立台北科技大學創新設計研究所=National Taipei University of Technology。
44. 劉怡婷(2010)。台南市=Tainan，國立成功大學工業設計所=National Cheng Kung University。
45. 蘇照彬(1994)。新竹市=Hsinchu，國立交通大學傳播所=National Chiao Tung University。

1. 張東豪(2016)。以劇本法應用於在地客製化設計旅館開發之商業模式探究—以台灣C文旅為例。國立臺灣大學碩士在職專班國際企業管理組學位論文。2016。1-133。