如今在以人為本的概念日漸普及的情況之下，儘管運用人物誌於產品設計並展現其用途和價值的人逐漸增多，人物誌更進一步被推廣為一種設計與溝通的強大工具(Billestrup, J. et al., 2014)，並有助於團隊深刻理解使用者並共享需求洞察。但在教育現場，仍存在學生於設計流程中未能妥善運用人物誌的情況，如訪談對象G所述 : 「運用人物誌通常都在最開始的階段到ideation，但到更後面階段就很容易忘記解法要跟使用者有關，只專注在解法上」。人物誌的使用集中於初期的探索與構思階段，而在後續的實作與驗證階段人物誌則顯著缺乏運用，導致以人為本作為核心理念的人物誌工具流於形式化，未能形成和流程之間的深入連結，難以發揮其真正的潛力。
因此，本研究藉由文獻探討和第一階段的實驗規劃與執行，針對原版本人物誌的使用現況進行調查，並從中獲得三項人物誌主要不被妥善使用之因素，分別為 :
(1) 使用者資訊於不同階段需求的適配性與有效性不足 ; (2)跨階段的資訊集中呈現，增加資訊應用於流程的判別難度 ; (3)抽象使用者資訊轉換為具象人物誌的重構困難。
為使人物誌有效實踐並發揮其價值，本研究提出新版本人物誌之創新構思及其三項主要特點，分別為 : (1)「探討流程中各階段所需的關鍵資訊」; (2)「關鍵資訊分階段呈現以減輕資訊判別負擔」: 形成工具和流程的深入連結 ; (3)「明確的框架指引和文字提示」: 協助資訊重構成人物誌的轉譯過程。本研究期望透過設計思考五步驟流程，探討各階段需求之關鍵資訊，建構更適切的新版本人物誌之設計原型，最終藉由第二階段的實驗規劃與執行，進行新版本人物誌的有效性驗證，以此改善學生在教育現場中，使用原版本人物誌的侷限性，並提升工具在設計流程全階段的使用效能。
本研究方法以兩階段的設計思考工作坊實驗作為主軸，第一階段實驗規劃與執行，聚焦於原版本人物誌的使用現況和不被妥善使用因素之調查，同時針對設計思考五步驟，進行流程中各階段不同需求的關鍵資訊探討。第二階段實驗規劃與執行，再針對製作完成的新版本人物誌設計原型之創新工具，進行設計流程工具實踐的有效性驗證，以評估其在設計流程中是否具有增強同理使用者需求、設計目標聚焦及團隊協作的能力。以上兩場實驗蒐集之數據，皆透過焦點團體法和KJ法進行資料歸納分析。
最終本研究獲得四項新版本人物誌的驗證結果，包含 : 「資訊有效性分析」、「創造的新價值」、「關鍵考量因素」以及「未來發展預視」。新版本人物誌透過多面柱體結構設計與階段關鍵資訊提示使提示精準化、資訊有效性提升，促使工具和設計流程間的連結性增強。此外，透過新版本人物誌明確的欄位規劃、文字提示和多面柱體的模組化框架呈現，也簡化了多階段資訊提取與決策的負擔。以上新版本人物誌的特點，都有效解決原版本人物誌 (1)「使用者資訊於不同階段需求的適配性與有效性不足」 ; (2)「跨階段的資訊集中呈現，增加資訊應用於流程的判別難度，以至於工具和流程難以形成深入連結」 ; (3) 「抽象使用者資訊轉換為具象人物誌的重構困難」的三項關鍵問題。
雖然新版本人物誌創造了許多嶄新價值，如加深對使用者的同理、工具呈現的專業性提高信服力和使用信心，以及立體造型提供明確的流程框架進而增強團隊協作的共通語言等等。然而創新工具的初探仍有許多關鍵的考量因素，如柱體分割階段的設計影響階段間資訊的連貫性、新版本特別的形式使其易用性較原版本更為重要、版面的配置仍須進一步調整，以及須提供定義清楚且足夠數量的文本提示作為基礎。此外，還有參與者提出多面柱體設計原型甚至具有帶入時間概念的潛力、累積人物描繪的潛力，以及與其他工具相搭配的多元可能性等等更多對於工具的未來期待…這些經由實驗驗證後得到的適用性回饋，將成為未來迭代並優化工具的重要參考。
最終，本研究結論指出，新版本人物誌成功突破原版本人物誌的限制，讓人物誌和設計思考流程緊密相連，最終得以發揮「人物誌真正扮演代表使用者與設計師不斷對話」的核心功能，並深化其在教育現場的應用價值。研究成果不僅回應了工具創新的需求，亦為未來設計工具的開發提供了參考框架與發展方向，開拓以人為本設計的更多可能性。

This study explores the application of the persona tool in the five stages of design thinking and its innovative improvements. It aims to address the limitations encountered by students using the existing Persona 1.0 version in educational settings and to design and validate Persona 2.0 to enhance the tool's effectiveness across all stages of the design process. The research employs an experimental approach. The first experiment focuses on investigating the current usage of the 1.0 version, examining the reasons for its inadequate application in various stages of the design process and identifying key information needs. The second experiment evaluates the effectiveness and applicability of the 2.0 version, assessing its ability to enhance empathy for user needs, maintain focus on design objectives, and improve team collaboration throughout the design process.
Nowadays, with the growing prevalence of human-centered concepts, the use of Persona in product design has increasingly demonstrated their utility and value. Persona have been further promoted as a powerful tool for design and communication (Billestrup, J. et al., 2014), aiding teams in deeply understanding users and sharing insights about their needs. However, challenges persist in educational contexts, where students often fail to utilize Persona effectively throughout the design process. As interviewee G remarked, "The use of Persona usually happens at the beginning stages up to ideation, but in the later stages, it's easy to forget that solutions should relate to the users and instead focus solely on the solution."
This pattern reveals that Persona are predominantly used during the initial exploration and ideation phases, while their application significantly diminishes in the later implementation and validation phases. As a result, Persona—intended as tools embodying the human-centered core of the design process—often become superficial and disconnected from the process, failing to realize their full potential.
Therefore, through literature review and the planning and execution of the first experimental phase, this study investigates the current usage of the original persona and identifies three primary factors contributing to its improper utilization: (1) Insufficient adaptability and effectiveness of user information to meet the needs of different design phases. (2) The centralized presentation of cross-phase information increases the difficulty of applying the information throughout the design process. (3) Challenges in transforming abstract user information into concrete Persona.
To ensure Persona are effectively implemented and maximize their value, this study proposes an innovative conceptualization for a new version of Persona (Persona 2.0) with three key features: (1) Exploring the key information required at each stage of the process. (2) Presenting key information in a phase-specific manner to reduce the cognitive burden of information processing: Creating a deeper connection between the tool and the design process. (3) Providing clear framework guidance and textual prompts: Assisting in the translation of user information into Persona.
This study aims to use the five-step design thinking process to explore the key information required at each stage, thereby developing a more suitable design prototype for Persona 2.0. Ultimately, through the planning and execution of the second experimental phase, this study seeks to validate the effectiveness of the new persona version. The findings are expected to address the limitations of the original persona tool in educational settings and enhance its usability across all stages of the design process.
This study employs a two-phase design thinking workshop experiment as its core methodology. The first phase focuses on investigating the current usage of the original persona tool and identifying factors contributing to its improper utilization. Additionally, this phase explores the key information required at different stages of the design thinking process, encompassing the five steps: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test.
The second phase involves planning and executing experiments to validate the effectiveness of the newly developed Persona 2.0 design prototype as an innovative tool. This phase assesses whether the new version enhances user empathy, sharpens focus on design goals, and improves team collaboration within the design process.
Data collected from both experiments are systematically analyzed using focus group interviews and the KJ method to synthesize and categorize findings.
Ultimately, this study identified four key validation results for the new version of the persona tool: "Information Effectiveness Analysis," "New Value Creation," "Critical Considerations," and "Future Development Prospects." Through its multi-faceted pillar structure and stage-specific key information prompts, the new persona tool enhances the precision of information prompts and the effectiveness of information utilization, thereby strengthening the connection between the tool and the design process.
Furthermore, the clear field planning, textual guidance, and modular framework presentation of the multi-faceted pillar simplify the burden of multi-stage information retrieval and decision-making. These features effectively address the three critical issues of the original persona tool: (1) Insufficient adaptation and effectiveness of user information for different stage-specific needs. (2) Concentrated presentation of cross-stage information, increasing the difficulty of applying information within the design process and hindering deeper connections between the tool and the process. (3) Challenges in transforming abstract user information into concrete Persona.
Although the new version of the persona tool has created significant new value—such as deepening user empathy, enhancing the tool's professional presentation to improve credibility and user confidence, and providing a clear framework through its three-dimensional design to strengthen team collaboration as a common language—there remain key considerations for future iterations. These include: The impact of stage segmentation within the pillar structure on the continuity of information across stages. The heightened importance of usability compared to the original version due to the new tool's unique format. The need for further adjustments to layout configurations. The necessity of providing clearly defined and sufficiently detailed textual prompts as a foundation.
Additionally, participants highlighted the potential of the multi-faceted pillar design to incorporate a temporal dimension, support the cumulative depiction of Persona, and enable versatile integration with other tools. These insights and usability feedback, derived from experimental validation, will serve as critical references for future iterations and optimization of the tool.
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that the new version of the persona tool successfully overcomes the limitations of the original, establishing a closer connection between Persona and the design thinking process. This allows the tool to fulfill its core function as a medium for ongoing dialogue between users and designers. Moreover, the new version enhances the tool's educational value in academic settings. The findings not only address the need for tool innovation but also provide a reference framework and developmental direction for future design tools, opening new possibilities for human-centered design.

Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1656-1666.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84.
Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of product innovation management, 28(3), 381-383.
Billestrup, J., Stage, J., Nielsen, L., & Hansen, K. S. (2014, March). Persona usage in software development: advantages and obstacles. In The Seventh International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (ACHI) (pp. 359-364).
Chasanidou, D., Gasparini, A., & Lee, E. (2014, October). Design thinking methods and tools for innovation in multidisciplinary teams. In Workshop Innovation in HCI. (Vol. 14, No. 2014, pp. 27-30). Helsinki, Finland: NordiCHI.
Cross, N. (2007). From a design science to a design discipline: Understanding designerly ways of knowing and thinking. In Design research now (pp. 41-54). Birkhäuser Basel.
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual review of psychology, 51(1), 665-697.
Gladstein, G. A. (1983). Understanding empathy: Integrating counseling, developmental, and social psychology perspectives. Journal of counseling psychology, 30(4), 467.
Grots, A., & Pratschke, M. (2009). Design thinking—Kreativität als Methode. Marketing Review St. Gallen, 26(1), 18-23.
Hillen, V. (2016). The Paris d. school. In Creating Innovation Leaders: A Global Perspective (pp. 227-237). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Ickes, W. (1993). Empathic accuracy. Journal of personality, 61(4), 587-610.
Jansen, B. J., Jung, S. G., Salminen, J., Guan, K. W., & Nielsen, L. (2021). Strengths and weaknesses of persona creation methods: Guidelines and opportunities for digital innovations. Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Hawaii, USA : HICSS conference.
Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user's life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437-448.
Katz, B. (2016). Design thinking in design practice: A tale of two cities. Keynote Speech at the Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Community Building Workshop. Stanford, CA: United States of America.
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. New York, NY: Currency.
Krippendorff, K. (2005). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Lockwood, T. (2010). Design thinking in business: An interview with Gianfranco Zaccai. Design Management Review, 21(3), 16-24.
Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Designing for growth: A design thinking tool kit for managers. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Marshall, S. L., Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P. D., & Sahdra, B. K. (2020). Is self‐compassion selfish? The development of self‐compassion, empathy, and prosocial behavior in adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(3), 472-484.
Miaskiewicz, T., & Kozar, K. A. (2011). Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes? Design Studies, 32(5), 417-430.
Matthews, T., Judge, T., & Whittaker, S. (2012, May). How do designers and user experience professionals actually perceive and use personas? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1219-1228).
Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (Eds.). (2011). Understanding innovation (pp. 17-18). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Rogers, C. R. (1975). Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The counseling psychologist, 5(2), 2-10.
Rogers, C. R. (1980). Growing old—or older and growing. Journal of humanistic psychology, 20(4), 5-16.
Pruitt, J., & Adlin, T. (2010). The persona lifecycle: Keeping people in mind throughout product design. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Pruitt, J., & Grudin, J. (2003, June). Personas: Practice and theory. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences (pp. 1-15).
Reik, T. (1949). Fragment of a great confession: A psychoanalytic autobiography. New York, NY: Harper.
Smeenk, W. (2019). Navigating empathy: Empathic formation in co-design. Eindhoven, Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology.
Stein, S. E. (1917). Zum Problem der Einfühlung (No. 4). Germany : Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses.
Tschimmel, K. (2012). Design thinking as an effective toolkit for innovation. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (p. 1). International Society for Professional Innovation Management.
Weinberg, U. (2016). Design thinking (Interview). Ideen & Management, Materialien für nachhaltige Unternehmensführung, 1, 4-7.
馬敏元, 謝辰甫, & 遲家琦 (2023). 同理 [心在哪?]: 以工作坊形式學習設計思考影響同理心之探討. 設計學報, 28(3), 123-138.
劉世南, & 楊佳翰 (2021). 設計思考中的創意: 釋義與造物的啟發. 中華心理學刊, 63(2), 121-141.
遲家琦 (2021). 設計思考學習影響同理心之探討（未發表的碩士論文）. 臺南市 : 國立成功大學工業設計所。