運動鞋業產發展時至今日已非常成熟，也因為運動鞋商業化的趨勢，各家廠牌亦投入相當資源進行研發新技術，期待在已然成熟的運動鞋產業中找出突破的可能性；在創新研發階段，運動鞋試穿流程與條件扮演著非常關鍵的角色，將應用新科技的研發鞋款透過一定的流程如針對某運動項目，讓專業運動員經過實際場域並模擬賽事規則，進行完整的測試，其後由專業訪談員針對試穿運動員進行訪談，並將之得到的結果反饋給研發設計團隊作為設計或工程面在下一階段進行改良的決策方向。反觀運動鞋零售店內的試穿流程卻有著非常簡單的步驟組成，多數情況下是從展示架上取下運動鞋後進行試套，這樣的試套行為是一般民眾在消費端的試穿過程。
本研究欲探討運動鞋在創新研發階段與零售店內針對試穿行為於不同族群間比較以下異同與關聯性：一、決定是否試穿的因子，二、試穿時會考慮的因子。透過評價構造法(EGM)萃取出的影響因子，以KJ法進行大項分類，進而利用數量化一類找出在研發端與零售端決定試穿與試穿時考慮的關鍵因子；再者，亦會探討各因子是否也存在關聯性。將關鍵因子進行影響程度的權重排序後，進行不同族群”專業運動員”、”非專業運動員”在創新研發端與零售端進行比較，期望完善研發端的試穿流程與條件。
研究結果指出，透過創研究階段現況的試穿回饋因子與零售端決定試穿與試穿時考慮的因子，加之不同族群的觀點作一系統性的整理比較，結果反應出創研階段針對專業運動員的試穿回饋因子可導入【外觀結構】與【顏色配置】，透過兩因子的導入對設計變更與製程調整作方向修正，縮短創研開發週期以提升同業競爭力。而零售端如能改變現有的試穿環境，如增設小型的籃球運動場域空間抑或是投籃模擬器都將有助於試穿過程中評估球鞋的性能取向更全面，對回饋因子也將更完善。

Sport footwear has been a very mature industry for a long time. Footwear brands input tons of resource on technology development for looking for the disruptive innovation possibility because of the trend of sport shoes commercialization. Shoe wear test is a very critical process at the innovation development stage. Through a professional athlete to wear test sport shoe that apply new tech by a formal game process on the court. After that process, testing team would interview the athletes and get the test result back to development and design team. The test feedback would be the direction for next round design decision making. But when we look at the wear test process at retailers end that consist of very simple steps. Most of time consumers grab the shoe from shelf and put it on that the process is very common that we can see at retailers all the time.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the differences and similarities between different groups of people in the innovation development stage and the retailers wear test behavior: 1. Factors that decide whether to wear test, and 2. Factors that will be considered during-wear test.
Through capturing the factors by Evaluation Grid Method (EGM) and use KJ method to categorize larger items. Then using the Quantitative Type I method to find out the key factors to be considered for decide-to-wear test and during-wear test at the innovation development end versus the retailer end. Going further to explore whether the factors are also related from one to the other. After ranking the key factors by weighing the influence level between different group of "professional athletes" and “non-professional athletes” were compared at the innovation development end with the retailer end. Hoping that to improve the innovation development end's wear test flow and the potential conditions to be considered in future.
The finding for motivation and preference of professional athletes and non-professional athletes on decide-to-wear test. The attractive factor "agility" is the first key consideration for professional athletes. Direct to middle factor "easy to control (break down to lower factor - low cut design, lightning-shape textured rubber outsole, rubber outsole with outrigger lateral side wall, Kyrie Irving signature shoes)". For professional basketball athletes, the ease of control is considered as a key consideration factor that the shoes have to quickly respond to any movements the players do. Rapidly provide foot flexibility is very critical for basketball sports.
In addition, the professional athletes consider the attractive factors during the process of decide-to-wear test have a concentration trend in "good for matching" which is the color and design sense.
The factors third to sixth "lightness", "comfort", "trust" and "durability" are directly related to the performance of the shoes. The interesting finding is that "trust" actually has a context with the wearing experience which from the signature shoes of the top athletes. There are significant concentrated feedback trends, such as "Kobe Bryant", "Paul George", "Kyrie Irving", "Lebron James" etc. Some athletes reported that they only wear the signature shoes of top athlete and even from the first generation signature shoe. Having those experiences the athletes will buy off the signature shoes carry on very similar design intend from first generation.
Another interesting finding before the wear test is that the athletes can clearly deliver out the specific needs to the lower factor that NIKE has many well-known innovation technologies in the market. Like "ZOOM air cushion", "FlyKnit", "XDR" and "React Foam" etc. Apparently innovation development does influence sports industry moving forward. If an application of an innovative technology can obtain recognition from professional athletes through the wearing experience. The positive impression of that experience will expand and continue until another advanced innovation technology emerges and then it’s potentially to be replaced.
For the factors and preferences of during-wear test for professional athletes and non-professional athletes. The factors being considered make a significant replacement once the professional athlete puts the foot into the shoe. Performance will be the athlete's first consideration.
The top five factors "cushion", "comfort", "safety", "confident" and "containment" are all related to the performance of the shoes. The main requirement for the professional athletes after they put the shoe on the foot is the perception of the performance from the shoes. The shoes must show the specific performance perception so that the athletes would be more focused on the basketball skill during the training or the game.
For the retailer end wear test environment, both of professional athletes or non-professional athletes they all indicate that if the environment can make some changes such as a dedicated field that allow the consumers run or jump. That will help the consumers sense the shoes more deeply during wear test so that the feedback factor after wear test is also expected to be more complete.
For the sport shoes industry application recommendation. At present the wear test feedback items of brand "N" at the innovation development end are still limited to "cushion", "comfort", "performance" and "durability". However the following adjustments can be made based on the research results compared to the current innovation development strategy. 1. Incorporate the cosmetic of the shoes into the design change considerations which can be divided into two aspects. First is Cosmetic Structure, from the comparison results of the attractive factors that the professional athletes strongly required the matching characteristics of the shoes. Revealing the structural changes of the shoes will help the athletes to be more able to wear test on the field through process. Complete feedback on the perception of wear test and then responsive rapidly and efficient adjustments to the innovation development design direction change or process optimization. Second is Color Configuration, color requirements have been mentioned many times in various feedback comparisons. Professional athletes have specific characteristics requirements for color. it will help a lot if innovation stage can consider the color configuration of each component of the shoe as a part of the design. In order to fully capture the feedback of professional athletes, the shoe making process variation can also be effectively resolved in the innovation stage. Even for improving efficiency and reducing product yield uncertainty during the innovation stage. 2. If the above two factors are included in the design and development phase of the innovation development stage, there is an opportunity to shorten the lead time of technology transition and the frequency of design changes. The introduction of the two factors will effectively complete the results of the wear test feedback and collect information completely. It will enhance the competitiveness of the industry if the technology of design and development can be directly introduced into mass production.

郭生玉（2012）. 心理與教育研究法：量化、質性與混合研究方法 . 台中市：精華書局。
陳悅琴（2000）. 製造合作廠商間競合關係與策略發展研究─NIKE、豐泰、寶成間的三角關係 . 花蓮市：國立東華大學國際企業管理研究所碩士論文。
陳沂萱（2012） . 慢跑鞋功能評估對使用者功能知覺的影響 . 國立成功大學體育健康與休閒研究所，台南市。
許義雄等（2003）. 運動文化與運動教育，6-7 . 台北市：師大書苑有限公司。
馬敏元，洪嘉永，曾麗丹（2005）. 台灣地方文化創意產業魅力評價研究－以觀光節產業為例，行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告。
馬敏元（2010） . 淺談日本新產品開發之感「心」技術 . 工業材料雜誌，280期，160-172。
徐義權（1994）. 跑步鞋的發展歷史與設計技術 . 台中市：財團法人鞋類暨運動休閒科技研發中心。
徐元民（2005）. 體育史，111 . 台北：品度股份有限公司。
黃偉綸、戴偉謙（2008）. 運動鞋歷史發展意義之探討，身體文化學報，6，71-85 . 臺北市 ： 臺灣身體文化學會。
曾麗丹（2007）. 台灣地方文化創意產業魅力評價－以宜蘭童玩節為例，中華民國設計學會第 12 屆研討會論文集－前瞻設計：科技與人文的整合（光碟版論文光碟版論文集），2007/05/12。高雄師範大學，No. 268，6pp。
蔡保田（1980）. 教育研究法 . 高雄市：復文圖書有限公司。
Phil Knight (2016). SHOE DOG, A Memoir by the Creator of NIKE. Portland: Scribner, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Kelly, G.A., 1955, The psychology of personal constructs. 2 volumes, New York: Norton.