隨著全球造船產業競爭加劇與技術轉型，傳統船廠面臨高建造成本與人才流失的雙重挑戰。以個案公司為例，受科技業人才磁吸效應影響，設計部門長期存在高離職率與中堅人才斷層。由於新進人員多非本科系背景，學習曲線長，而資深工程師在沉重專案壓力下難以兼顧指導，導致設計品質不穩定與翻工頻繁，嚴重影響企業競爭力。
本論文旨在探討解決設計部門人力運用與知識傳承困境的系統化管理模式。研究過程採用專家訪談法，與三位資深主管深度對話以還原管理瓶頸。透過訪談資料分析，歸納出影響設計部門人力運用與知識傳承的三個關鍵因素：產業結構、激勵制度僵固以及專案導向執行模式的排擠。後續將上述因素轉化為管理型萃智理論的邏輯框架，藉由矛盾矩陣分析推導出八項管理策略，並透過專家量化評核機制進行對策收斂，以確立執行之優先順位。
研究結果顯示，經專家量化評核後，以教學範圍與時程預先排程、隱性知識積點制及防禦性預算重分配為優先推動策略。具體作法為將新進人員指導與教學節點納入正式工作計畫，並明訂教學範圍、責任分工與追蹤機制，使知識傳承取得制度化的時間保障；同時，將錯誤案例分享、技術文件撰寫與教材維護等知識貢獻轉化為可量化積點，並連結升遷或升等權重，以提升員工分享意願。在專案資源配置方面，則將原本用於翻工與修改的隱性成本前移至設計審查與標準作業程序查核，從源頭降低設計錯誤與重工發生率。上述措施可優化有限人力配置，減輕資深工程師即時修補負擔，並促使核心技術轉化為可保存與持續累積的組織知識，進而提升設計部門的人力資本運用效率與組織韌性。

The global shipbuilding industry is currently facing intensified competition and rapid technological transformation, which place traditional shipyards under the dual pressure of high construction costs and talent loss. In the case company, the design department has long suffered from high turnover and a gap in mid-level talent due to the talent attraction effect of the high-tech industry. Since many new employees do not have a shipbuilding-related academic background, they require a longer learning curve. At the same time, senior engineers are under heavy project pressure and find it difficult to balance project execution with guidance for new employees. As a result, unstable design quality and frequent rework have become critical issues affecting the company’s competitiveness.
This research aims to explore a systematic management model for addressing human resource utilization and knowledge transfer issues in the design department. The study adopted expert interviews and conducted in-depth discussions with three senior managers to reconstruct the management bottlenecks in practice. Through the analysis of interview data, three key factors affecting human resource utilization and knowledge transfer were identified: industrial structural constraints, rigid incentive systems, and the crowding-out effect of the project-oriented execution mode. These factors were then transformed into the logical framework of Management TRIZ. Through contradiction matrix analysis, eight management strategies were derived, and an expert quantitative assessment mechanism was further applied to refine the strategies and establish implementation priorities.
The research results indicate that, after expert quantitative assessment, the prioritized strategies are the pre-scheduling mechanism for teaching scope and schedule, the tacit knowledge credit system, and defensive budget reallocation. The specific measures include incorporating guidance for new employees and teaching milestones into formal work plans, while clearly defining the teaching scope, division of responsibilities, and tracking mechanism to provide institutionalized time protection for knowledge transfer. In addition, knowledge contributions such as error case sharing, technical document preparation, and teaching material maintenance are converted into quantifiable credits and linked to promotion or advancement weightings to enhance employees’ willingness to share knowledge. In terms of project resource allocation, the hidden costs originally spent on rework and design modifications are shifted forward to design reviews and standard operating procedure checks, thereby reducing design errors and rework at the source. These measures can optimize the allocation of limited human resources, reduce the burden of real-time corrective work on senior engineers, and transform core technical experience into organizational knowledge that can be preserved and continuously accumulated. Overall, the proposed model can improve the efficiency of human capital utilization and strengthen organizational resilience in the design department.

[1]UNCTAD (2024). Review of maritime transport 2024: Navigating maritime chokepoints, United Nations.
[2]Goel, M. (2025). Full steam ahead: China’s rise in the global shipbuilding industry. International Journal of Scientific Research and Technoligy, 2(9), 79-95.
[3]Li, Z., Wang, K., Liang, H., Wang, Y., Ma, R., Cao, J., & Huang, L. (2025). Marine alternative fuels for shipping decarbonization, technologies, applications and challenges. Energy Conversion and Management, 329, 119641.
[4]Calvache, M., Pruyn, J., & Napoleone, A. (2025). Navigating shipbuilding 4.0: Analysis and classification of technologies for the digital transformation of the sector. Ship Technology Research.
[5]USWE Project Consortium (2020). Forecasting trends and challenges for a 4.0 shipbuilding workforce in Europe. Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union.
[6]經濟部產業發展署(2024)。造船產業 2025–2027 專業人才需求推估調查，財團法人船舶暨海洋產業研發中心。
[7]王憶紅(2024)。台造船訂單不到全球千分之一。自由時報。取自 https://ec.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1641922 最後瀏覽日：2026/01/27。
[8]立法院預算中心(2021)。我國推動國艦國造政策預算資源配置及其相關問題之探討。取自: https://www.ly.gov.tw/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=45052 最後瀏覽日：2026/01/21。
[9]Farnese, M. L., Barbieri, B., Chirumbolo, A., & Patriotta, G. (2019). Managing knowledge in organizations: A Nonaka’s SECI model operationalization. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2730.
[10]Tenny, S., Brannan, J. M., & Brannan, G. D. (2022). Qualitative study. StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing.
[11]Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
[12]Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2024). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches(5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
[13]Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2018). Generating qualitative data with experts and elites. In U. Flick ( Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection, 352–365. SAGE Publications Ltd.
[14]Islam, M. K., Shaikh, M. A., & Habib, M. M. (2017). An overview of the shipbuilding industry: A literature review. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Business & Management, 185-190.
[15]Weddle, B., Mellors, N., & Brukardt, R. (2024). Charting a new course: The untapped potential of American shipyards. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/our-insights/charting-a-new-course-the-untapped-potential-of-american-shipyards#/
[16]Martínez-Cañas, R., Ruiz-Palomino, P., Jiménez-Moreno, J. J. & Linuesa-Langreo, J. (2023). Push versus pull motivations in entrepreneurial intention: The mediating effect of perceived risk and opportunity recognition. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 29, 100214.
[17]Botha, A., Bussin, M., & De Swardt, L. (2011). An employer brand predictive model for talent attraction and retention. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(1), 388.
[18]Nguyen, T.-M., Nham, T. P., Froese, F. J., & Malik, A. (2019). Motivation and knowledge sharing: A meta-analysis of main and moderating effects. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(5), 998-1016.
[19]Kakada, P. (2023). Knowledge hiding: The effect on organizational learning. Rresearch highlights in language, literature and education, 4, 125-132.
[20]Burgar Makovec, M. (2025). The project triangle paradigm. Challenges of the Future, 10(1), 29-52.
[21]Ilevbare, I. M., Probert, D., & Phaal, R. (2013). A review of TRIZ, and its benefits and challenges in practice. Technovation, 33(2–3), 30-37.
[22]Ekmekci, I., & Nebati, E. E. (2019). TRIZ methodology and applications. Procedia Computer Science, 158, 303-315.
[23]Mann, D. L.(2018). 系統化創新上手：商業與管理 (許棟樑、鄭祺穎譯)。亞卓國際顧問股份有限公司。(原著出版年:2004)
[24]Finstad, K. (2010). Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-point scales. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(3), 104-110.
[25]Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 38, 65-76.