現今產品發展快速，一個成功產品的設計，應能夠同時滿足顧客需求及企業經營者的開發考量。因此在進行產品設計時，瞭解顧客需求及企業經營者的開發考量，對設計師來說是一個相當重要的課題及環節。但在目前產品開發構想發展的研究中，主要都以單方面的需求考量進行產品開發構想的研究。然在開發設計構想中若僅考量其中一方，其所研究之結果會令人感到未盡完善，而所開發之產品也無法得知是否真能滿足消費者及企業兩者之需求。
有鑑於此，本研究想經由現有設計方法的串接發展一輔助設計構想發展的系統，來協助設計師進行產品開發。本研究以文具產品-小型美工刀為例，利用聯合分析法來得知顧客對該產品之各屬性、水準的偏好程度，並以此為依據產生滿足消費者需求的設計構想案。另透過名義團體技術法及分析網路程序法來求得企業經營者在評估設計構想案時所考量的評估準則及其權重值。最終使用理想解類似度偏好順序評估法以企業需求考量的評估準則作為依據來評估滿足消費者需求的設計構想案。
在該案例結果中應證著消費者需求與企業經營者的開發考量是有所差異的，且透過本研究之流程架構可從中取得一平衡點，產生能同時滿足消費者與企業經營者的設計構想提案。研究結果顯示本研究之架構對於開發文具產品美工刀之成效為：
1.縮短設計構想發想時間。
2.有效及清楚得知設計構想提案之優缺點，並進行改善。
3.有效降低企業開發錯誤產品之機率。
關鍵字：聯合分析、名義團體技術法、分析網路程序法、理想解類似度偏好順序評估法

Nowadays in a quick-developed product world, a new successful design should match customer’s requirement and enterprise’s criteria. For designers to comprehend the customer’s requirement and enterprise’s criteria has become an important issue. Today, in the study of product development, most only consider one party of requirement. But by only considering one party of requirement, the result of study is not satisfying. And that can’t tell us if the product match customer’s requirement and enterprise’s criteria or not.
Therefore, we would like to develop an aided-concept development system which combines the design method, to help designers to design products. In the study, we take cutter design as example. We use conjoint analysis to find out customer’s preference, and make a concept design to satisfy customers. And we use nominal group technique (NGT) and analytic network process (ANP) to get weight of enterprise’s criteria. Finally, we order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) to evaluate that concept which can satisfy customer’s requirement of vendor’s criteria.
In this case, the result of the customer’s requirement and of enterprise’s criteria is different. Through the procedure structure of this research can obtain an equalization point and produce the concept motion that can meet consumers and enterprise's operator at the same time. The result of study shows the structure of this research of the effect which develops the stationery products penknife designing:
1.Shorten the time of developing design concept.
2.Effective and clear to learn the pluses and minuses of design concept, and improving it.
3.Reduce the probability of developing wrong products of enterprises.
Keyword： Conjoint Analysis,Nominal Group Technique (NGT), Analytic Network Process (ANP), Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS).

(一)、中文部份
1.王水杉，柴山開發保育公眾參與決策中專業角色與觀點之研究，中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文，民國八十九年。
2.王銘德，消費者對呼叫器及行動電話產品屬性偏好與價格知覺之研究，，國立成功大學交通管理學系碩士論文，民國八十四年。
3.周文賢、李宏達，市場調查與行銷策略研擬，華泰文化事業股份有限公司，台北，民國八十一年。
4.周文賢、林嘉力，新產品開發與管理，華泰文化事業股份有限公司，台北，民國九十年。
5.周文賢、張欽富，聯合分析在產品設計之運用，華泰文化事業股份有限公司，台北，民國八十九年。
6.連敏秀，聯合分析法應用於市場區隔中最佳產品組合之研究-以行動電話為例，國立成功大學工業統計學系碩士論文，民國九十三年。
7.張書文、戴華亭譯，產品設計與開發，華泰文化事業股份有限公司，台北，民國九十一年。
8.黃俊英，多變量分析，中國經濟企業研究所，台北，民國八十九年。
9.陳虹遐，應用分析網路程序法於液晶電視之生態效益評估，國立成功大學工業設計學系碩士論文，民國九十三年。
10.陳冠傑，應用近似最佳解績效排序法於多目標設計決策之研究，國立成功大學工業設計學系碩士論文，民國九十三年。
11.蘇志豪，產品型態與使用者偏好之關係研究-以牙刷為例，國立雲林科技大學工業設計系碩士論文，民國九十二年。
12.魏巧晴，產品設計初期模糊決策之研究，大葉大學工業工程學系碩士班碩士論文，民國九十二年。
13.神田範明著、陳耀茂譯，商品企劃與開發，華泰文化事業股份有限公司，台北，民國九十一年。
14.羅文坤，行銷傳播學，三民書局，民國七十五年。
(二)、英文部分
1.Cattin, P. and Wittink, D.R., “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey,” Journal of Marketing, Vol.46, pp.44-53, 1982.
2.Cestre, G. and Darmon, R.Y., “Assessing consumer preferences in the context of new product diffusion,” Ressarch in marking, Vol.15, pp.123-135, 1998.
3.Chena, Y.W. and Larbani, M., “Two-person zero-sum game approach for fuzzy multiple attribute decision making problems,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol.157, pp.34–51, 2006.
4.Chen, C.H., Khoo, L.P. and Yan, W., “A strategy for acquiring customer requirement patterns using laddering technique and ART2 neural network,” Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol.16, pp.229–240, 2002.
5.Chen, C.H., Khoo, L.P. and Yan, W., “PDCS—a product definition and customisation system for product concept development,” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol.28, pp.591–602, 2005.
6.Chen, C.T., “Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol.114, pp.1–9, 2000.
7.Chen, C.T., Lin, C.T. and Huang, S.F., “A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management,” Int.J.Production Economics, Vol.102, pp.289–301, 2006.
8.Fan, Z.P., Ma, J. and Zhang, Q., “An approach to multiple attribute decision making based on fuzzy preference information on alternatives,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol.131, pp.101–106, 2002.
9.Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K., “Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applications, ” Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1981.
10.Lee, W.B., Lau, H., Liu, Z.Z. and Tam, S., “A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach in modular product design,” Expert Systems, Vol.18, pp.32-41, 2001.
11.Liu, X.F., Noguchi, K. and Zhou, W., “Requirement Acquisition, Analysis and Synthesis in Quality Function Deployment,” Technomic Publishing Co., pp.24-36, 2001.
12.Moore, W.L., Louviere, J.J. and Verma, R., “Using Conjoint Analysis to Help Design Product Platforms,” PROD INNOV MANAG, Vol.16, pp.27–39, 1999.
13.Mitchell, J.J.and Tseng, M., “Customizability analysis in design for mass customization,” Computer-Aided Design, Vol.36, pp.745–757, 2004
14.Naes, T., Kubberod, E.and Sivertsen, H., “Identifying and interpreting market segments using conjoint analysis,” Food Quality and Preference, Vol.12, pp.133-143, 2001.
15.Natter, M.and Feurstein, M., “Real world performance of choice-based conjoint models,” European Journal of Operational Reseaech, Vol.137, pp.448-458, 2002.
16.Ozdemir, M.S.and Saaty, T.L., “The unknown in decision making What to do about it,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.174, pp.349–359, 2006.
17.Pullman, M.E., Moore, W.L.and Wardell, D.G., “A comparison of quality function deployment and conjoint analysis innew product design,” Product Innovation Management, Vol.19, pp.354—364, 2002.
18.Tong, L.I., Wang, C.H., Chen, C.C.and Chen, C.T., “Dynamic multiple responses by ideal solution analysis,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.156, pp.433–444, 2004.
19.Saaty, T.L., “Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.168, pp.557–570, 2006.
20.Saaty, T.L.and Shang, J.S., “Group decision-making: Head-count versus intensity of preference,” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol.41, pp.22–37, 2007.
21.Saaty, T.L., “The analytic network process,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.145, pp.85–91, 2001.
22.Shyura, H.J.and Shih, H.S., “A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection ,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol.44, pp.749–761, 2006.
23.Shyur, H.J., “COTS evaluation using TOPSIS and ANP,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol.177, pp.251-259, 2006.
24.Yan, W., Chen, C.H. and Khoo, L.P., “An integrated approach to the elicitation of customer requirements for engineering design using picture sorts and fuzzy evaluation,” Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol.16, pp.59–71, 2002.
25.Yan, W., Chen, C.H. and Shieh, M.D., “Product concept generation and selection using sorting technique and fuzzy c-means algorithm,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol.50, pp.273–285, 2006.