簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 林千宸
Lin, Chien-Chen
論文名稱： 評估設計構想品質的基礎研究
Fundamental study on quality metric of evaluating design ideas
指導教授： 周君瑞
Chou, Chun-Juei
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 規劃與設計學院 - 工業設計學系
Department of Industrial Design
論文出版年： 2022
畢業學年度： 111
語文別： 中文
論文頁數： 95
中文關鍵詞： 品質尺度 、評估尺度 、設計構想
外文關鍵詞： Quality metrics, evaluation metrics, design concept
相關次數： 點閱：121  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 品質尺度可用於評估構想或作品符合設計規範的程度，然而，現有的品質尺度仍有 其應用的限制與困難，為了瞭解學生的設計構想該符合哪些品質屬性，故本研究的 研究目的有二: (1)探討並建立評估設計構想的品質尺度，包含品質的屬性、屬性的 權重、以及如何正確使用品質尺度的相關建議。(2)建立可以讓學生自行使用的品質尺度，學生將有機會自行挑選優質的設計構想。因此，本研究可為評估尺度的研究提 供完整的理論基礎。 關於本研究的重要性，國內外之相關文獻不曾探討品質的重要屬性及其權重，這些 屬性包含可行性、有用性、以及組件數量等，估計約10多個項目，本團隊預計針 對九種不同設計主題的學生作品建立評估構想的品質尺度，歸納重要的品質屬性並 建立新的品質尺度，新尺度將改善或足以取代舊有的尺度，讓學生清楚了解哪些品質要求應在構想產生階段達成。 關於本研究的原創性，本研究的研究成果將成為重要的理論基礎，有利於建立通用的品質尺度，所謂通用的品質尺度可用於評估大多數的設計構想，未來全球的設計研究學者與學生可以參考我們的品質尺度方法，新的品質尺度可為學術界與產業界建立評估標準，使本研究在構想有效性的研究領域中爭取領導全球的地位。

    Quality metrics can be used to evaluate the degree of how an idea or student work meets the design specifications. However, the existing quality metrics still has limitations and difficulties in its application. In order to understand students' design ideas should meet which quality attributes, the research purpose of this project is twofold: (1) Explore and establish quality metrics for evaluating design ideas, including quality attributes, attribute weights, and related suggestions for simplifying the quality metrics. (2) Establish quality metrics that students can use on their own, and then students will have the opportunity to select high-quality design ideas by themselves. Therefore, this project can provide a complete theoretical basis for the study of evaluation metrics in design.

    摘要 i Fundamental study on quality metric of evaluating design ideas ii 致謝 v 目錄 vi 表目錄 x 圖目錄 xi 第1章 緒論 1 1.1 研究背景 1 1.1.1 評估設計構想的重要性 1 1.1.2 評估構想有效性的方法論並未臻於完善 1 1.1.3 教學場域中挑選構想的問題 2 1.2 研究動機 2 1.2.1 評估設計構想的品質尺度仍有其應用的限制與困難 2 1.2.2 探討品質尺度有助於發展跨越功能類別的評估尺度 3 1.2.3 期望在品質尺度的研究領域中佔有一席之地 4 1.3 研究目的 4 1.3.1 探討品質尺度 4 1.3.2 讓學生知道如何使用品質尺度 5 1.3.3 為未來的尺度研究建立理論基礎 5 1.4 研究限制與範圍 6 1.4.1 創意性=新穎性+品質 6 1.4.2 評估尺度的種類，以及尺度間的關聯性 6 1.4.3 評估尺度的基本定義與性質 6 1.4.4 每個構想的品質是可以單獨計算的 7 1.4.5 與新穎性、多樣性相比，品質與構想功能的相關性較低 7 1.4.6 目前的品質尺度可用於評估具有不同功能的設計構想 7 1.4.7 探討尺度而非量表 7 1.4.8 以展版呈現設計構想，而非草圖手稿 8 1.4.9 多種多元的設計樣本 8 1.4.10 本研究的參與者 8 第2章 文獻探討 10 2.1 產生構想的方法論 10 2.2 以類尺度方法評估構想相關研究 15 2.3 量測設計構想品質的方法 20 2.4 應用品質尺度評估構想的相關研究 24 2.5 探討設計構想品質常用的統計分析方法 29 2.5.1 ANOVA/ANCOVA 30 2.5.2 T檢定 30 2.5.3 因素分析法 31 2.5.4 史畢爾曼等級相關 32 2.5.5 克隆巴赫係數 32 2.5.6 組內相關係數 32 2.5.7 皮爾森相關係數 33 第3章 研究步驟 34 3.1 研究架構 34 3.2 研究步驟 34 3.2.1 收集設計作品 34 3.2.2 整理設計作品 35 3.2.3 制定評分方式 35 3.2.4 邀請專家為設計作品評分 35 3.2.5 探討品質尺度的屬性與權重 35 3.2.6 調查品質尺度的屬性與權重 37 3.2.7 挑選品質尺度 38 3.2.8 評估作品並計算品質分數 38 3.2.9 比較品質尺度與作品評分的相關性 38 3.2.10 分析作品評分與品質分數的關係 38 第4章 研究結果與分析 39 4.1 邀請專家為設計作品評分 39 4.2 探討品質尺度的屬性與權重 39 4.3 調查品質尺度的屬性與權重 40 4.3.1 問卷調查品質尺度的屬性與權重 40 4.3.2 品質尺度的屬性調查結果 40 4.3.3 專家與學生品質尺度屬性調查結果比較 40 4.4 挑選品質尺度 46 4.5 評估作品並計算品質分數 46 4.6 比較分析品質尺度與作品評分的相關性 46 4.6.1 專家評分與學生評分的相關性 49 4.6.2 品質尺度分數與作品評分的相關性 49 4.7 調查草圖內容是否能夠呈現品質屬性 50 4.8 應用多元迴歸分析品質的四個屬性之權重 51 第5章 結論與建議 53 5.1 結論 53 5.1.1 專家評分與學生評分的相關性高 53 5.1.2 專家與學生挑選的品質尺度屬性相近 53 5.1.3 品質在整體創意性中的占比 53 5.1.4 如何使用以及什麼情況較適合使用品質尺度 54 5.2 建議 54 5.2.1 受測者選擇的屬性權重與 MPCA 的屬性權重比較 54 5.2.2 達成屬性的細項應無優劣之分，若有該如何處理? 54 5.2.3 構想的屬性組合數應為多少才足以評估全部的構想? 55 參考文獻 56 附錄A、其它評估設計構想的非尺度方法與相關應用 61 A.1 以非尺度方法評估構想的理論 61 A.2 以非尺度方法評估構想之相關研究 65 附錄B、專家評分皮爾森相關係數結果 69 附錄C、品質屬性調查問卷 73 附錄D、專家與學生屬性填答次數統計長條圖 77 附錄E 品質屬性MPCA調查問卷 82 附錄F 各主題品質分數、學生評分及專家評分皮爾森相關性 91

    陳順宇(1997)。統計學(二版)，華泰書局。
    陳順宇(1998)。多變量分析，華泰書局，8-15~17。
    黃俊英(1998)。多變量分析(六版)，中國經濟企業研究所。
    楊忠祥(2018)。體育與運動測驗信度考驗：組內相關係數，麋研筆墨有限公司，32-52。
    Altshuller, G. (2002). 40 principles: TRIZ keys to innovation (Vol. 1). Technical Innovation Center, Inc..
    Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997-1013.
    Buzan, T., & Buzan, B. (2003). The Mind Map Book: Radiant Thinking-Major Evolution in Human Thought. 3rd.
    Bytheway, C. W. (2007). FAST creativity and innovation: Rapidly improving processes, product development and solving complex problems. J. Ross Publishing.
    Blessing, L. T. M. & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, A Design Research Methodology, Verlag: Springer.
    Belton, V., & Gear, T. (1983). On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies. Omega, 11(3), 228-230.
    Chulvi, V., Mulet, E., Chakrabarti, A., López-Mesa, B., & González-Cruz, C. (2012). Comparison of the degree of creativity in the design outcomes using different design methods. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 241-269.
    Chakrabarti, A., Sarkar, P., Leelavathamma, B., & Nataraju, B. S. (2005). A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. Ai Edam, 19(2), 113-1
    Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons LTD.
    Chakrabarti, A., Sarkar, P., Leelavathamma, B., & Nataraju, B. (2005). A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 19, 113-132.
    Christiaans, H. H. (2002). Creativity as a design criterion. Creativity Research Journal, 14(1), 41-54.
    Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
    Dean, D. L., Hender, J. M., Rodgers, T. L., & Santanen, E. L. (2006). Identifying quality, novel, and creative ideas: Constructs and scales for idea evaluation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(30), 646-698.
    Fiorineschi, L., Frillici, F. S., & Rotini, F. (2020). Impact of missing attributes on the novelty metric of Shah et al. Research in Engineering Design, 31(2), 221-234.
    Guler, K., & Petrisor, D. M. (2021). A Pugh Matrix based product development model for increased small design team efficiency. Cogent Engineering, 8(1), 1923383.
    Girotra, K, Terwiesch, C., Ulrich, K. T., (2010). Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea. Management Science 56(4): 591-605. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1144
    Horn, D., & Salvendy, G. (2006). Consumer‐based assessment of product creativity: A review and reappraisal. Human factors and ergonomics in manufacturing & service industries, 16(2), 155-175.
    Howell, D. C. (2009). Statistical Methods for Psychology, Duxbury - Thomson Learning, Pacific Grove, CA, 177-228.
    Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2017). The Pocket Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas and Design Effective Solutions Rockport.
    Jagtap, S., Larsson, A., Hiort, V., Olander, E., & Warell, A. (2014). Interdependency between average novelty, individual average novelty, and variety, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 3(1), 43-60.
    Justel, D., Vidal, R., Arriaga, E., Franco, V., & Val-Jauregi, E. (2007). Evaluation method for selecting innovative product concepts with greater potential marketing success. International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED’07).
    Kudrowitza, B. M. & Wallace, D. (2013). Assessing the quality of ideas from prolific, early-stage product ideation, Journal of Engineering Design, 24(2), 120–139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2012.676633
    Kemis, M., & Walker, D. A. (2000). The aeIou approach to program evaluation. Black Issues Book Review, 35, 42.
    Linsey, J., Clauss, E., Kurtoglu, T., Murphy, J., Wood, K., & Markman, A. (2011). An Experimental Study of Group Idea Generation Techniques: Understanding the Roles of Idea Representation and Viewing Methods. Journal of Mechanical Design, 133(3), 031008.
    Lopez-Mesa, B., Mulet, E., Vidal, R., & Thomson, G. (2011). Effects of additional stimuli on idea-finding in design teams. Journal of Engineering Design, 22(1), 31-54.
    Linsey, J. S. (2007). Design-by-Analogy and Representation in Innovative Engineering Concept Generation. Ph.D. thesis. Austin, TX: The University of Texas.
    Moss, J. (1966). Measuring Creative Abilities in Junior High School Industrial Arts. Monograph 2. (ERIC No. ED022023), Minnesota Tests of Creative Thinking, American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education, Washington, DC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED022023
    Nelson, B. A., Wilson, J. O., Rosen, D., & Yen, J. (2009). Refined metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies, 30(6), 737-743.
    ÖZSOY, Ö. H., & ÖZSOY, Ç. Y. (2019). Product design concept evaluation by using analytical hierarchy and analytical network processes. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 35(2).
    Oman, S. K., Tumer, I. Y., Wood K., & Seepersad, C. (2013). A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects, Research in Engineering Design, 24,65-92.
    Oulasvirta, A., Kurvinen, E., & Kankainen, T. (2003). Understanding contexts by being there: case studies in bodystorming. Personal and ubiquitous computing, 7(2), 125-134.
    Ozer, M. (2005). What do we know about new product idea selection. Center for Innovation Management Studies.
    Osborn, A.F. (1963) Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (Third Revised Edition). New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.
    Ott, R. L. & Longnecker, M. T. (2015). An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis (7th Edition), Cengage Learning.
    Rietzschel, E. (2005). From quantity to quality: Cognitive, motivational and social aspects of creative idea generation and selection. Ph.D. thesis Universiteit Utrecht.
    Ranjan, B. S. C., Siddharth, L., & Chakrabarti, A. (2018). A systematic approach to assessing novelty, requirement satisfaction, and creativity. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 32, 390-414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060418000148
    Redelinghuys, C. (1997). A model for the measurement of creativity, Part I: relating expertise, quality and creative effort. International Journal of Engineering Education, 13(1), 30-41.
    Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting Creativity to Work: Effects of Leader Behavior on Subordinate Creativity, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, (55)1, 120-151.
    Reinig, B. A., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker Jr., J. F. (2007). On the Measurement of Ideation Quality, Journal of Management Information Systems, Spring 2007, 23(4), 143-161.
    Rencher, A. C. & Christensen, W. F. (2012). Methods of Multivariate Analysis (3rd Edition), Wiley, 210.
    Silk, E. M., Daly, S. R., Jablokow, K. W., & McKilligan, S. (2018). Incremental to radical ideas: paradigm-relatedness metrics for investigating ideation creativity and diversity, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, V7, 2019, I1-2, 30-49, DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2018.1463177
    Shah, J. J., Kulkarni, S. V., & Vargas-Hernandez N. (2000). Evaluation of idea generation methods for conceptual design: Effectiveness metrics and design of experiments, Journal of Mechanical Design, 122, 377-384.
    Shah, J. J., Vargas-Hernandez, N., & Smith, S. M. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies, 24(2), 111-134.
    Stylidis, K., Wickman, C., & Söderberg, R. (2020). Perceived quality of products: a framework and attributes ranking method, Journal of Engineering Design, 31:1, 37-67, DOI: 10.1080/09544828.2019.1669769
    Sarkar, P. & Chakrabarti, A. (2008). The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, 22(2): 101-116.
    Sarkar, P. & Chakrabarti, A. (2011). Assessing design creativity, Design Studies, 32(2011), 348-383.
    Srivathsavai, R., Genco, N., & Hölttä-Otto, K. (2010). Study of Existing Metrics Used in Measurement of Ideation Effectiveness, Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
    Van der Lugt, R. (2000). Developing a graphic tool for creative problem solving in design groups. Design studies, 21(5), 505-522.
    Vidal, R., Mulet, E., & Gómez-Senent, E. (2004). Effectiveness of the means of expression in creative problem-solving in design groups. Journal of Engineering Design, 15(3), 285-298.
    Verhaegen, P. A., Vandevenne, D., Peeters, J., & Duflou, J. R. (2013). Refinements to the variety metric for idea evaluation. Design Studies, 34, 243-263.
    Vandevenne, D., Pieters T., & Duflou, J. R. (2016). Enhancing novelty with knowledge-based support for Biologically-Inspired Design, Design Studies, 46(2016), 152-173.
    Zwicky, F. (1948). Morphological astronomy. The observatory, 68, 121-143.

    無法下載圖示 校內：2028-01-12公開
    校外：2028-01-12公開
    電子論文尚未授權公開，紙本請查館藏目錄
    QR CODE