產品設計評價研究

A Study of Product Design Evaluation

本研究針對「1995年台灣精品獎」19家獲獎廠商之20件產品，以半結構式問題表，進行個案訪談，其主要目的在於了解獲得台灣精品獎產品之設計評價進行之形式。主要之發現有： 1.在評價進行的形式方面，最顯著之特徵為大企業在任何設計進行階段大都制定固定的開發時程表，並且明確訂定門檻的檢討或評價時間，在階段中則是以隨時進行評價的形式。中小企業卻是大都未排定固定的設計開發時程，並且在階段中或門檻也未訂定明確之評價時程。 2.以評價會議的進行形式而言，最明顯的差異之處是大企業在階段中是以非正式之討論為主，而在門檻中則是以排定之時程表上的時間以正式會議進行評價。中小企業則是大都不論在階段中或門檻皆以非正式之形式進行評價。產品類別之因素並不影響其評價會議之進行形式。 3.評價參與人員方面，不論大企業或中小企業大都有相同之趨勢，在設計開始之初，除了設計單位（包括機構、電機、工業設計）之外，大都還會有高階主管、營業單位、行銷單位之參與。到進入初步設計或細部設計階段，則是由設計單位負責進行。到設計具體化或實體化階段除了以上單位之人員外，大都有模型或工廠之製造或品保單位的參與。 4.決策可分為決策形態及決策的方式二部份：（l）決策形態部分，不論大企業或中小企業在各階段中或門檻大都是以團體的形態進行決策。（2）決策方式部分，不論大企業或中小企業在各階段中或門檻大都是以口頭討論之方式進行決策，但是有四個大企業之個案在某些階段中或門檻的決策方式有所不同。其中二個個案是以加權計分的方式；另外二個個案則是以投票之方式進行決策。 5.評價表格方面，不論大企業或中小企業在各階段中或門檻大都未使用任何評價表格。主要是因為評價之決策方式是以口頭討論，因此不需要引用評價表格。但是有部分個案由於公司制度及產品特性，在某些階段中或門檻以評價表格進行評價。 6.評價標準方面，不論大企業、中小企業或產品別在各階段所引用之評價標準都有一個大致的趨勢，在設計準備階段是造型、機構設計之可行性為主。到初步設計及細部設計階段則是以造型、機構設計、技術等標準。其原因為必須將未來製造納入考慮。在設計具體化及實體化階段則是考慮生產，技術、模具為主要之評價重點。就產品別而言，資訊類、交通工具類最常注重造形、機構設計、技術等標準。消費性電子類與家電類則是造形、機構設計最受重視。

This research is to investigate the 20 award winning products that participated in the '1995 Symbol of Excellence award'. The study was conducted by face-to-face interviews with a semi-structured question list. The primary aim of this research work is to understand how design evaluations are proceeded by those award winning manufactures. The major finding are: 1. On evaluation schedules: most large scale manufacturers usually scheduled whole design evaluation process and the time of stages and gates. On the contrary, Small scale manufacturers usually did not. 2. On the form of meetings: the most apparent features are that most large scale manufacturers took informal discussions in stages but taking formal meetings in gates. Small scale manufacturers most often took informal discussion both in stages and gates. The different kind of products had no effect on this issue. 3. On the member of design evaluation: both in large and small scale manufactures are almost the same. In design preparation stage, the members usually included design （ME, EE, ID）, sales, marketing department and managing executives. In primary and detail design stages, design department are often in charge of design evaluation. In embodiment and tangiblized design stages, the members will add model making and manufacturing departments. 4. On decision making: it could be separated into the form and the way of decision making to be discussed. （1） Both large and small scale manufacturers usually took group decision making on the form of decision. （2） Both large and small scale manufacturers usually tookoral discussion to make decision. However, there are 4 cases which took quantitative method and voting in some stages and gates. 5. On the design evaluation form: neither large nor small scale manufacturers seldom use any design evaluation form. However, there are some manufacturers used evaluation form due to safety regulations or company systems. 6. There is a similar trend on applying the design evaluation criteria. Both large and small scale manufacturers usually focused on styling and mechanism design in design preparation stage. In primary and detail design stages, they emphasized styling, mechanism and technical criteria; and technical, tooling criteria in embodiment and tangiblized design stages. Information and transportation products often applied styling, mechanism, technical criteria. Consumer electronic products and home appliances emphasized styling, mechanism most.