在最近幾年來，許多學者運用了感性工學評量產品的風格及優劣。隨著電腦程式及網路的開發逐漸成熟，消費的生活型態也逐漸變動，如何面對龐大的資訊，快速的尋求到需求目標是一個值得探討的問題，在消費者選擇產品的過程中，也經常遇到眾多商品的資訊，而無法有效去選擇出最理想的商品。然而，在比較同一件產品的各種風格時，一件產品所營造出的意象並不能夠同時滿足每個相異風格的最佳評價，可能因為產品風格特性具有相反性、相斥性及關聯性，而無法使每種風格的評價達到最高，例如「活潑的」與「古典的」雖非相反語彙，但很難有產品意象能夠達到活潑又古典的效果。
本研究主要運用近似最佳解目標排序法(TOPSIS)發展一套產品風格輔助決策模式，透過消費者所偏好的風格來尋求最適用的產品建議。在建構此輔助決策模式時，本研究以男性領帶搭配襯衫為例，將領带襯衫色彩與領帶紋路分別研究，經由影像合成技術呈現搭配樣式，讓實驗者得以觀看配置情況，並進行感性評估，再建立TOPSIS的排序系統，消費者只需提供各風格偏好程度，即可列出建議候選方案，提供消費者參考之價值。

As the development of computer software and internet matures, the consuming lifestyle is also changes.When choosing a product, consumers often face the problem of not being able to choose the product they want due to the large number of products available. Even so, when comparing a product’s differentstyles, the imagery of a product cannot fulfill the best evaluation of all the different styles. Because product stylization has repulsion, opposition and relation so each style’s evaluation cannot reach its best ratings. This research uses the priority and preferences of the consumer to reach the best product arrangement that fulfills the expectation of the consumer.
This research uses TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution Method) to develop a product style strategic decision mode. This is done through the preferred style of the consumer to find the appropriate product suggestion. In TOPSIS, its principle is to give the consumer priorities and uses the differences between them to calculate the best scheme. This is applied to the selection of a tie through peculiarity and opposition, and through the allocation of the priorities, the final ranking is suggested.
When formulating the structure of this strategic decision method, this research uses the example ofmatching shirts and ties, and researches on both the colors of a tie and a shirt with the patterns on the tie. Through interviews with experts and data collection, Focus Group is proceeded to sum up each components and benchmark numbers of the experiment. Image composition technique is also used to present different combinations of the ties and shirts, in terms of colors and patterns. Prior to the experiment, KJ method (Kawakita Jiro) is applied to group vocabularies of each style combinations. Four final opposing imagery vocabularies are formed. Throughout the experiment, Semantic Differences are applied to each parameter combination to find out the influence of each composed image, and four sets of style vocabularies are evaluated. Consumers only have to choose their favorite styles in each applicable image vocabularies and provide the priority of each style for TOPSIS to come up with a favorable tie and shirt ranking.

1. Beck,L. C., Trombetta, W. L., & Share, S. (1986, February). Using focus group sessions before decisions are made. NCMJ, 47(2), 73-74.
2. Boyle, J.D. & Radocy, R.E., Measurement and evaluation of music experiences, Schirmer Books, New York, pp. 195-217, 1987.
3. Bruce, V., Green, P.R. &Georgeson, M.A., Visual perception: physiology, psychology and ecology, 1996.
4. Caplan, S., Using focus groups methodology for ergonomic design. Ergonomics, Vol. 33, pp. 527-533, 1990.
5. Chen, S. & Parent, R., Shape Averaging and Its Application to Industrial 　　Design, IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications, Vol. 91, pp. 47~54, 1989.
6. Chen S.J., and C.L. Hwang, Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1992.
7. Chen C.T., Extensions of The TOPSIS for Group Decision- Making under Fuzzy　Environment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 114, pp. 1-9, 2000.
8. Feng, C. M. & Wang, R. T.Performance evaluation for airlines including the consideration of financial ratios. Journal of Air Transport Management, 6(3), 133-142, 2000.
9. Fong-Gong Wu, Ying-Jye Lee and Ming-Chyuan Lin. Using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process on optimum spatial allocation, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol 33 No.6, 553-569, 2004
10. Fong-Gong Wu, Chieh-Ying Chen, Ying-Jye Lee. Optimum product color combination using the FAHP approach combined with the image compositing technique, HCI International 2005, Las Vegas, Nevada USA.,2005.
11. Gordon, H.H.M, & Hugh, M., Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research, A Handbook for Managers and Researchers(2nd Edition), N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 115-129, 1999.
12. Goldman, A.E., and McDonald, S.S., The Group Depth Interview: Principles and Practice, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1987.
13. Greenbaum, T.L., The Handbook for Focus Group Research( 2nd Edition), Sage, London, 1998.
14. Harada, A., The parallel Design Methodology in the KANSEI Engineering, Report of Modeling the Evaluation Structure of Kansei, pp. 309-316, 1998.
15. Hwang C. L., Y. J. Lai, and T. Y. Liu, A New Approach forMultiple Objective Decision Making, Computers OperationResearch, Vol. 20, No. 8, pp. 889-899, 1993.
16. Kalay, Yehuda E., Principles of Computeraided Design: Modeling Objects and Environments, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1989.
17. Kwong, C.K., Yam, S.M., Case-based resoning approach to concurrent design of low power transformers,.Joumal of Materials Processing Technology 128, pp136-141, 2002
18. Jee, D.H., and Kang K.J., A Method for Optimal Material Selection Aided with Decision Making Theory, Materials and Design, Vol. 21, pp. 199-206, 2000.
19. Hirohiko, A., A Hierarchical Representation of the Consumer Value Structure Using Qualitative Data, Report of Modeling the Evaluation Structure of Kansei, pp. 223-231, 1999.
20. Krueger, R.A., Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Sage, London, 1988.
21. Krueger, R.A., In: Morgan, D.L., Krueger, R.A.(Eds.), Analysing and Reporting Focus Group Results, Vol. 6, The Focus Group Kit. Sage, London, 1998a.
22. Krueger, R.A., In: Morgan, D.L., Krueger, R.A.(Eds.), Developing Questions for Focus Groups, Vol. 3, The Focus Group Kit. Sage, London, 1998b.
23. Krueger, R.A., In: Morgan, D.L., Krueger, R.A.(Eds.), Moderating Focus Groups, Vol.4, The Focus Group Kit. Sage, London, 1998c.
24. Krueger, R.A., King, J.A., In: Morgan, D.L., Krueger, R.A.(Eds.), Involving Community Members in Focus Groups, Vol.5, The Focus Group Kit. Sage, London, 1998.
25. Matsubara, Y., Nagamachi, M., Hybrid Kansei Engineering System and Design Support, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 19, pp. 81-92, 1997.
26. Miller, G.A., The magical number seven plus or minus two： some limits on our capacity for processing information, Psychological Rev., Vol. 63, pp. 81~97, 1956.
27. Morgan, D.L., In: Morgan, D.L., Krueger, R.A. (Eds.), The Focus Group Guidebook, Vol. 1, The Focus Group Kit. Sage, London, 1998a.
28. Morgan, D.L., In: Morgan, D.L., Krueger, R.A. (Eds.), The Planning Focus Group Guidebook, Vol. 2, The Focus Group Kit. Sage, London, 1998b.
29. Muneo, K., Kim, Don-Han, Communicating Kansei Design Concept via Artifacts- A Cognitive Scientific Approach, Report of Modeling the Evaluation Structure of Kansei, pp. 337-343, 1998.
30. Nagamachi, M., Image technology based on knowledge engineering and its application to design consultation, In: A.S. Adams, R.R. Hall, B.J. McPhee and M.S. Oxenburgh (Eds.), Proc. 10th Congress of International Ergonomics Association, pp. 72-74, 1988.
31. Nagamachi, M., Kansei Engineering: A new ergonomic comsumer-oriented technology for product development, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 15, pp. 3~11, 1995.
32. Negi D. S., Fuzzy Analysis and Optimization, Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Industrial Engineering, Kansas State University, 1989.
33. O’Donnell, P.J., Scobie, G., and Baxter, I., The use of focus groups as an evaluation technique in HCI, In: Diaper, D., and Hammond, N. (Eds.), People and Computers VI. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 211-224, 1991.
34. Osgood, C.E., Suci, J.G. and Tannenbaum, P.H., The Measuremental of Meaning, University of Illinois Press, pp. 31-75, 1957.
35. Saaty T.L., and Vargas, L.G., The logic of priorities, Kluwer-Nijhoff, Boston, Massachusetts, 1982.
36. Saaty T.L., The analytic hierarchy process, New York：McGraw-Hill, 1980.
37. Saaty T.L., The analytic hierarchy process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh,PA., 1990.
38. Tanoue, C., Ishizaka, K., Nagamachi, M., Kansei Engineering: A study on perception of vehicle interior image, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 19, pp. 115-128, 1997.
39. Yen J., and L. Reaz, , Fuzzy Logic：Intelligence, Control, and Information, Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1999.
40. Zdzislaw M.Lewalski, Product Esthetics, Design & Development Engineering , Press , Nevada, 1988.
41. Zwicky, F., The Morphological Approach to Discovery, Invention, Research andConstruction, New Method of Though and Procedure: Symposium on Methodologies. Pasadena, May, pp. 316~317, 1967.
42. 川田喜二郎 ，中央公論社，1986。
43. 王文科、王智弘編譯。焦點團體訪談—教育與心理學適用，五南，台北市，1999。
44. 王文俊，認識Fuzzy，第二版，全華科技，2001。
45. 日本能率協會，KJ法應用實務，沈士涼譯，台北市，1986。
46. 王海山主編，恩楷出版，科學方法百科，pp. 57-59，2002。
47. 李少華、陳美芳，服裝的色彩學，藝風堂，pp.98，1991。
48. 李建璁，感性工學 Kansei Engineering，勞工安全衛生簡訊66期，2004。
49. 邱皓政，量化研究與統計分析：SPSS 中文視窗版資料分析範例解析，五南出版社，台北，2002。
50. 沈旻瑋，多重感性語彙間之複合性探討，雲林科技大學工業設計研究所碩士論文，台南，2003。
51. 林文昌、歐秀明，服裝色彩學，藝術圖書公司，pp. 72~76，1992。
52. 林成蔚，平衡國內汽車產業競爭條件可行措施之模糊多評準決策，交通大學交通運輸研究所碩士論文，1994。
53. 周君瑞、陳國祥，複合感性意象之塑造-以造形特徵為基礎，銘傳大學設計學院學術研討會論文集，pp. 71-78，2001
54. 林俊男，頁: 87
人工聲音信號意象感知評價之研究，國立雲林科技大學工業設計研究所碩士論文，2001。
55. 胡幼慧，焦點團體法，質性研究—理論方法及本土女性研究實例，巨流，台北市，1996。
56. 南雲治嘉，色彩配色圖表，龍溪出版社，2001。
57. 施孟穆，概念設計方法暨模糊理論評估應用於微機電幫浦，台灣大學機械工程學研究所碩士論文，2000。
58. 馬永川，產品意象語彙語造型呈現對應關係之研究，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文，1998。
59. 許有麟，金融企業商標意象語彙之研究，高苑學報11卷，2005。
60. 梅宜冬，從感性觀點探討數位產品造型意象特質─以數位攝影機為例，大葉大學設計研究所碩士班論文，2004。
61. 陳冠傑，應用近似最佳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研究所碩 士論文，2004。
62. 陳振東、許錫美，模糊TOPSIS模式之研究，中國工業工程學會論文集，pp. 348-354，1993。
63. 陳振東，研究發展計劃評選之模糊多準則群體決策模式建構，交通大學工業工程學系博士論文，1994。
64. 陳振東、許錫美，多準則之模糊層級模糊權重分析模式，中國工業工程學會論文集，pp. 129-136，1994。
65. 莊淑婷，台灣中醫護理技術標準之建構與評值，中醫藥年報第23期第3冊，2005。
66. 陳順宇，多變量分析，二版，華泰，台北，2000。
67. 莊盈祺，複合感性意象下產品造形建構，成功大學工業設計研究所碩士論文，2002。
68. 張淑卿，多屬性決策方法之模擬分析比較，銘傳大學管理科學研究所碩士論文，2002。
69. 莊雅量，應用音樂性聲音訊號傳遞訊息屬性的可能性研究—以行動電話之“ 聽聲辨人“ 為例，國立交通大學應用藝術研究所碩士論文，2001。
70. 許鳳火，產品設計之理念與方法，大同出版社，台北，1985。
71. 黃俊英，多變量分析，中國經濟企業研究所， 2000。
72. 黃俊英，多變量分析，華泰書局，台北，1995。
73. 孫慶文，視覺與認知─視覺知覺與視覺運動系統，色彩視覺，遠流出版，台北，1999。