由於科技的發展快速，消費性產品市場的競爭也日趨激烈，綜合這些因素進而導致產品生命週期快速縮短。因此企業必須不斷推出新產品或新服務來滿足市場需求，同時維持本身的競爭優勢。傳統的產品研發過程，於開發完成後缺乏整合性的設計改善以及開發評估工具，針對產品在開發生產過程當中，顧客需求與產品生產所可能發生的問題改善的方法、選擇及測試的發展階段，對於生產產品改良的創新思考較無具體工具得以應用，產品改良方法的評選也沒有明確的量化工具。因此，在此階段如何去發展產品設計改良開發的規劃模式，妥善地整合客戶需求，並進行產品創新且挑選最佳的產品方案，將是本研究的動機與目的。
本研究利用三個方法的結合，包括了失效模式分析 (FMEA) 、TRIZ創新理論及分析層級程序法 (AHP) ，在產品設計改良開發的概念發展建立一套評選的程序模式。研究中首先以FMEA作產品實際生產階段中所可能衍生的問題作一闡述並針對可能造成顧客端品質問題因素作階段展開，同時將失效模式與效應分析中的風險優先係數(RPN)實施評估，並提列矯正與預防措施的有效性。在針對須實行改善需求的項目以創新解決問題理論(TRIZ)作為產品設計改良方向時的創新方法構思程序以及衝突檢驗工具的重要依據；進而透過FMEA分析的RPN風險係數須立即改善項目，由TRIZ產生的改良創新概念方案，將目標及各方案與屬性建立起階層關係，同時考量各方案與屬性之間的矛盾影響，並展開成網路架構；輔以AHP法作成對比較以求得相對權重來進行產品改良方案概念的評選及決策。
本研究將以車用沖壓件之製作改良設計的實際案例進行實證分析。驗證在產品製作改良設計與改良開發過程中，建立選擇改良方案發展的評選流程模式，以提供研發人員作為相關的決策參考。

Because of the recent growth of technology improvement, market competition toward products has become intense. This situation has caused a short product life cycle, forcing enterprises to present new products and services to satisfy continual market demand in efforts to maintain competitive advantage. Traditional product research and development processes for new products lack integrated design improvement and estimation of development tools. Therefore, no proper tool exists to estimate/judge real production, which might cause a potential risk to customers. How to develop a product design improvement model to meet customer demand and select the optimal product improvement/corrective solution is the study background and motivation for this research. 
This study integrates three major methods, including the FMEA (Failure Mode Effective Analysis), the TRIZ, and the analysis hierarchy process (AHP) as a system to build an evaluation model in the product improvement phase of the product design and development stage. This study first uses the FMEA method to extend the possible quality problem and the potential risk on the customer side. This research then investigates the Risk Priority Number (RPN) in each production process and focuses on the RPN to find the necessary corrective action. This work defines the top major failure item, and uses the TRIZ as the reference background and the product analysis system. An expert questionnaire sets the target and sums up each criterion to build a hierarchy relationship. The AHP method is used for pair comparison. 
This paper uses the automobile stamping product as an illustration to provide a relevant decision-making reference for R&D personnel, and sets up a model of concept development for product design and development.

Contents
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION	1
1.1	BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION	1
1.2	RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND GOAL	2
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW	4
2.1	FMEA (FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS)	4
2.2	THE BACKGROUND OF FMEA	4
2.3	D FMEA AND PFMEA	6
2.4	ESTIMATION OF THE RISK PRIORITY NUMBER	8
2.5	THEORY OF INVENTIVE PROBLEM SOLVING (TRIZ)	11
2.6	ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP)	21
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY	27
3.1	FMEA ANALYSIS AND STUDY METHOD	28
3.2	BUILDING FMEA STEPS	29
3.3	TRIZ FOR GENERATING AN INNOVATION IMPROVEMENT SOLUTION	30
3.4	COMPOUNDING THE INNOVATION CONCEPT AS THE IMPROVEMENT SOLUTION	31
3.5	BUILDING THE IMPROVEMENT SOLUTION ESTIMATE STRUCTURE	33
3.6	DETAILED EXPLANATION FOR THE ESTIMATE STRUCTURE	34
3.7	SOLUTION ESTIMATE MODEL	35
3.8	DESIGN FOR THE IMPORTANCE NOMINAL SCALE LIST	37
CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDY	41
4.1	QUALITY CERTIFICATION IN FMEA	42
4.2	TRIZ IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT	44
4.3	AHP FINAL SOLUTION SELECTION	49
4.4	AHP DATA ANALYSIS	51
4.5	CHOOSING THE FINAL IMPROVEMENT SOLUTION	53
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS	55
5.1	CONCLUSION AND REVIEW	55
5.2	MODEL BENEFIT AND DISCUSSION OF MANAGEMENT	56
5.3	STUDY LIMITATIONS AND REVIEW	56
5.4	STUDY CONTRIBUTION	57
5.5	FUTURE STUDY SUGGESTIONS	57
REFERENCES	59
APPENDIX A	61
APPENDIX B	62

Figure Contents
FIGURE 1-1　FLOWCHART OF THE RESEARCH.	3
FIGURE 2-1　FMEA PROCEDURE	7
FIGURE 2-2  TRIZ STRUCTURE	12
FIGURE 2-3  TRIZ CONTRADICTION SOLVING FLOW	14
FIGURE 2-4　BASIC S-FIELD MODEL.	18
FIGURE 2-5  AHP HIERARCHY DIAGRAM	22
FIGURE 2-6  AHP FLOW CHART	23
FIGURE 3-1  STUDY PROCESS FLOW	28
FIGURE 3-2  CONCEPT RESULT FLOW OF TRIZ	31
FIGURE 3-3  IMPROVEMENT SOLUTION ESTIMATE STRUCTURE	33
FIGURE 3-4  IMPROVEMENT SOLUTION ESTIMATE FLOW	36
FIGURE 4-1  PARTS PHENOMENON COMPARISON	42
FIGURE 4-2  ANALYSIS BY PROBLEM ESSENCE	45
FIGURE 4-3  PRINCIPLES 5 AND 7	47
FIGURE 4-4  RIVET DESIGN	47
FIGURE 4-5  IMPROVEMENT SOLUTION A	48
FIGURE 4-6  PRINCIPLES 10 AND 34.	48
FIGURE 4-7  IMPROVEMENT SOLUTION B	49
FIGURE 4-8  MAIN FRAME OF IMPROVEMENT SOLUTION	50

Table Contents
TABLE 2-1   FMEA DEVELOPMENT COURSE INFORMATION: CHARTERED, LTD (1996)	5
TABLE 2-2   RECOMMENDED ESTIMATE STANDARD FOR SEVERITY IN PFMEA.	9
TABLE 2-3   RECOMMENDED ESTIMATE STANDARD FOR OCCURRENCE IN PFMEA.	10
TABLE 2-4   RECOMMENDED ESTIMATE STANDARD FOR DETECTION IN PFMEA.	10
TABLE 2-5   INNOVATION LEVEL & DEFINITION	13
TABLE 2-6   39 ENGINEER PARAMETERS (6 GROUPS)	16
TABLE 2-7   CONTRADICTION MATRIX EXAMPLE	17
TABLE 2-8　 SEPARATE PRINCIPLE OF PHYSICAL CONTRADICTION	17
TABLE 2-9　 40 PRINCIPLES	18
TABLE 2-10　REPRESENTATIVE MEANING OF THE LINE IN S-FIELD	19
TABLE 2-11　76 STANDARD ANSWER	19
TABLE 2-12　ARIZ PROGRESS FLOW	20
TABLE 2-13　37 TREND CHART	20
TABLE 2-14  ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS COMPARISON MATRIX SCALE.	24
TABLE 2-15  RANDOM CONSISTENCY. INFORMATION: SAATY(1995)	26
TABLE 3-1   FMEA COLUMN	29
TABLE 3-2   EXAMPLE FOR CONTRADICTION ITEM AND INNOVATION CONCEPT CONSTITUTE LIST.	31
TABLE 3-3   OPPOSITE IMPORTANCE SCALE	37
TABLE 3-4   SECOND LAYER IMPORTANCE ANALYSIS	38
TABLE 3-5   THIRD LAYER OF THE IMPROVE TECHNOLOGY FACTOR IMPORTANCE ANALYSIS.	38
TABLE 3-6   THIRD LAYER OF THE FINANCE FACTOR IMPORTANCE ANALYSIS.	39
TABLE 3-7   THE THIRD LAYER OF THE INNER/ OUTER ENVIRONMENT FACTOR IMPORTANCE ANALYSIS.	39
TABLE 3-8   THIRD LAYER OF THE INNER/ OUTER ENVIRONMENT FACTOR IMPORTANCE ANALYSIS. (CONTINUE)	40
TABLE 4-1   FMEA INDICATION	43
TABLE 4-2   ANALYSIS BY PROBLEM ESSENCE	45
TABLE 4-3   LAYER 2 CALCULATION RESULT	51
TABLE 4-4   LAYER 3 IMPROVEMENT TECHNOLOGY FACTOR CALCULATION RESULT.	51
TABLE 4-5   FINANCE FACTOR CALCULATION RESULT.	52
TABLE 4-6   INNER/ OUTER ENVIRONMENT FACTOR CALCULATION RESULT.	53
TABLE 4-7   IMPROVEMENT SOLUTION A & B CALCULATION RESULT.	53

中文部分
Altshuller, G. (1999)，The innovation algorithm: TRIZ，systematic innovation and technical creativity，Lev Shulyak，Steven Rodman (英譯)，潘志文，蕭詠今 (中譯)，TRIZ矛盾創意思考突破法 (2007)，初版，建速個人工作室，台北。
Altshuller, G. (2005), 40 Principles Extended Edition: TRIZ Keys to Innovation. Lev Shulyak, Steven Rodman (英譯)，潘志文、蕭詠今 (中譯)，TRIZ創意40錦囊妙計 (2007)。初版，建速個人工作室，台北。
Kaplan, S. (2008), TRIZ發明問題解決理論，初版，姜台林 (中譯)，宇河文化出版公司，台北。
王宗華，可靠度工程技術手冊，中華民國品質協會，民97年。
司徒達賢，策略管理，遠流出版公司，民84年。
宋明弘 (2009)，TRIZ萃智：系統性創新理論與應用，鼎茂圖書出版有限公司，台北。
房治國，Innovative R&D process KPIs Establishment and Evaluation by Incorporating TRIZ — An Case study for Notebook，國立台北科技大學，民99。
林宜君 (2007)，「以QFD與TRIZ理論為基礎建構產品開發評估模型─以平面顯示器為例」，逢甲大學工業工程研究所，碩士論文。
高天志 (2004)，「TRIZ 法應用於工業設計構想發展之初探」，國立台灣科技大學設計研究所，碩士論文。
陳澤義 (2007)，科技管理 : 理論與應用，初版，華泰文化事業公司，台北。
曾俊傑、童超塵、廖乃毅、國立雲，運用品質機能展開及失效模式與效應分析建構顧客稽核管理系統，林科技大學工業工程與管理研究所，民97年。
蔣永明譯，日刊工業新聞社小島敏彥編著，新產品開發管理-企業革新的生存之道，財團法人中衛發展中心，民91年。
鄧振源 (2005)，計畫評估：方法與應用。第二版，海洋大學運籌規劃與管理研究中心，基隆。
簡禎富，決策分析與管理，雙葉書廊，民94年。

English
Brown, M.G., and Stevenson, R.A., “Measuring R&D Productivity”, Research echnology Management, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1988, pp. 11-15.
Carlson, W. D., Vallance, G. R. and Carlson, C. S., 2001, Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, 3th ed., AIAG.
Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., and Kleinschmidt, E.J., “Optimizing The Stage-GateProcess: What Best Practice Companies Are Doing— partII”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 45, No. 5, 2002.
Deming, W. E., 2000, The New Economics: For Industry, Government, Education, MIT Press, Massachusetts.
Doggett, A. M., 2005, Root cause analysis: a framework for tool selection, Quality   Management Journal, 12(4), 34-45.
Evans, J. R. and Lindsay, W. M., 2001, The Management and Control of Quality, 5th ed., West Publishing, New York.
Hauser, J. R. and Clausing, D., 1988, The house of quality, Harvard Business Review, 66(3), 63-73.
ISO Central  Secretariat, 01/2008, The ISO Survey- 2006, <http://www.iso.org>.
ISO Copyright Office, 2000, ISO 9000 Quality Management Systems-Fundamentals  and  Vocabulary, Switzerland.
Mann, D. (2002), “Assessing the accuracy of the contradiction matrix for recent mechanical inventions,” The TRIZ Journal, February Issue.
Price, C. J., Pugh, D. R., Wilson, M. S. & Snooke, N., 1995. The Flame System: Automating Electrical Failure Mode & Effects Analysis (FMEA).
Shulyak, L. (2002), Introduction to TRIZ, 40 Principles: TRIZ Keys to Technical Innovation, Genrich Altshuller, with new material by Lev Shulyak, Drawings by Uri Fedoseev, Vol. 1, 15-21.
Simchi-Levi, D., Kaminsky, P. and Simchi-Levi, E.,2001, Design and Managing the Supply Chain: Concept, Strategies, and Case Study, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Su and Chou. (2008). Risk Evaluation of Green Components to Hazardous Substance Using FMEA and FAHP.
Tan, C. M., 2003, Customer-focused build-in reliability: a case study, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 20(3), 378-397.
Teoh, P. C. and Case, K., 2004, Failure modes and effects analysis through knowledge  modeling, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 153(154), 253-260.
Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B., “Revolutionizing Product Development”, New York, The Free Press, 1992, pp.165-187.
Whitten J.L., Bently L.D., and Dittman K.C., “ Systems Analysis and Design ethods ”, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 2003.