淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


  查詢圖書館館藏目錄
系統識別號 U0002-2506201416292000
中文論文名稱 設計思考系統性觀點之研究-以企業個案為例
英文論文名稱 A Systematic Study on Designing Thinking by Business Cases
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 企業管理學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Business Administration
學年度 102
學期 2
出版年 103
研究生中文姓名 孟洵育
研究生英文姓名 Xun-Yu Meng
學號 601610180
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2014-05-30
論文頁數 100頁
口試委員 指導教授-洪英正
共同指導教授-張雍昇
委員-姚成彥
委員-陳基祥
中文關鍵字 設計思考  組織文化  領導  創新  組織結構 
英文關鍵字 Design Thinking  organizational culture  leadership  innovation  organizational structure 
學科別分類
中文摘要 企業要在劇烈競爭的環境中脫穎而出,創新絕對是不可或缺的一項重要能力。如今,有越來越多企業強調創意與創新的重要性,然而,是否存在一套方法或程序,能幫助企業順利導入創意能量?設計思考或許是這個問題的最佳解答。
源自於設計領域的設計思考,近年來在IDEO大力的推廣下,似乎已成為挽救歐美各大企業創新不足的良方。如同Brown (2009)對設計思考的詮釋:「設計思考是一種原則,以設計師的敏感度和方法、運用可行的科技、以及能轉化成顧客價值與市場機會的商業策略,來滿足人們的需求。」本研究利用Brown (2009)、Martin (2009)、以及Liedtka & Ogilvie (2011)所提出有關設計思考的概念性模型的描繪,從中擷取設計思考的一般性原則,而建立本研究之研究架構。
藉由深度訪談的方式,本研究希望透過本土化企業個案的分析與詮釋,來描繪設計思考於台灣企業的應用概況與輪廓,同時辨識出在設計思考在應用過程中,可能產生助力與阻力的組織脈絡因素為何。
本研究從消費市場切入,以服務業為主要探討對象,針對三家企業在推動創新專案(服務)的過程,來對設計思考之重要屬性進行驗證,並釐清其面臨的限制與阻礙。結果顯示,開放且鼓勵創新的組織文化、主管的授權與參與、取得組織上下一致的認知與共識、以及有彈性的組織結構,均會對設計思考的推動產生助力;相對的,在偏向僵化、保守及官僚的組織文化與結構下,則不利於設計思考的推行。
此外,研究結果也顯示,設計思考的推行,可能有其產業適用性;亦即競爭越激烈、市場動態性越高的產業,可能越適合設計思考的推行。而且,設計思考的推動,也有助於企業挖掘使用者需求,從而推出能真正滿足使用者需求的解決方案、並導致績效的提昇。
因此,企業在推動設計思考時,須考量到組織環境的適用性,盡可能塑造一個開放、有利成員互動的環境,也必須能成功「向上溝通」設計思考的核心信念,取得公司高層的認同、支持與參與,因而避免可能造成限制的組織脈絡因素,讓設計思考有足夠的空間得以成長、茁壯。
英文摘要 Innovation is a key factor that can make enterprise break through the severe competition. More and more companies place emphasis on innovation, however, is there any process or method could help companies to breed their creativity? Design Thinking might be the best answer responded to that question.
In recent years, by the enthusiastic promotion of IDEO, Design Thinking seems to become a panacea which can help companies to save their dried up creativity. As Brown’s (2009) definition: ” Design thinking can be described as a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity.” This research employ three conceptual models, which are proposed by Brown (2009), Martin (2009) , and Liedtka & Ogilvie (2011), to extract the general attributes (or principles) of Design Thinking, and build up the research framework.
By in-depth interview through three local service businesses, this research aims to depict a rough sketch of Design Thinking, also tries to identify the contextual factors that could possibly affect how it works. The results shows that liberal and innovation encouraged culture, empowerment and the participation of high-level managers, consistent understanding and consensus throughout the entire organization, and the substantial flexibility of structure will positively drive the implementation of Design Thinking.
Besides, this research also reveals that Design Thinking might have its industrial adaptation. That is, the more dynamic the market is, the more appropriate to implement Design Thinking. It implies that when companies want to lunch Design Thinking, they must consider the fitness between organizations and its contexts.
Design Thinking drives companies to discover the consumer’s real needs. In order to successfully lunch Design Thinking, companies must engage in shaping an open-minded and interactive environment, upward-communicating the core concept and belief of Design Thinking, receiving the identification, support and participation of high-level management, also avoiding the contextual factors that could blocking the way of Design Thinking.
論文目次 目錄
目錄 I
表目錄 III
圖目錄 IV
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究問題與目的 5
第三節 研究流程 5
第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 設計思考的歷史演進 7
第二節 組織管理與設計思考 9
第三節 設計思考的概念性模型 11
第四節 設計思考程序中的重要屬性 15
第五節 設計思考應用實例 19
第三章 研究方法 26
第一節 研究架構 26
第二節 研究設計與工具 27
第三節 研究對象 33
第四章 研究結果 35
第一節 J公司個案 35
第二節 M公司個案 40
第三節 B品牌個案 45
第四節 個案彙整:橫斷面 49
第五節 個案彙整:縱斷面 55
第五章 結論、討論及建議 60
第一節 推論 60
第二節 討論 63
第三節 管理意涵 64
第四節 限制與建議 64
參考文獻 66
附錄一 J公司訪談內容逐字稿 72
附錄二 M公司訪談內容逐字稿 85
附錄三 B品牌訪談內容逐字稿 95


表目錄
表3-1:訪談大綱 31
表4-1:交叉比較表 58


圖目錄
圖1-1:本研究流程圖 6
圖2-1:創新三空間 12
圖2-2:知識漏斗 13
圖2-3:設計思考的程序 14
圖3-1:研究架構與研究進行的步驟 26
參考文獻 參考文獻
1. Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007, Fall). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California Management Review, 50(1). Retrieved from http://thinkdesignchange.com/innovation-as-a-learning-process-embedding-de-0
2. Bell, J. (2005). Doing your research project (4th Ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.
3. Boland, R. J., & Collopy, F. (2004). Managing as designing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
4. Brown, T. (2005) Strategy by design. Fast Company, June.
5. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84
6. Brown, T. (2009) Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
7. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter, 31-35.
8. Cassell, C. & Symon, G. (1994). Qualitative research in work context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Clark, K., & Smith, R. (2008). Unleashing the power of design thinking. Design Management Review, 19(3), 8-16.
10. Conger, J. A. (1998). Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 107-121.
11. Connell, F., & Erin, S. (2013). Exploring Operational Practices and Archetypes of Design Thinking (Ph.D.'s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database. (UMI No. 3596135)
12. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116-127.
15. Cross, N. (2007). Editorial: Forty years of design research. Design Studies, 28(1), 1-4.
16. Denscombe, M. (1998). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
17. Donaldson, L. (1987). Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and performance: In defense of contingency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 24(1), 1-24.
18. Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(4), 512–523.
19. Esterberg, K.G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
20. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research. Aalborg, Denmark: Sage.
21. Geertz, C. (1975). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
22. Heather, F. (2007). The practice of breakthrough strategies by design. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4), 66-74.
23. Huberman, M., & Miles, M.B. (2005). The qualitative researcher’s companion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24. Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think: The design process demystified. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Ltd.
25. Liedtka, J. M., & Rosenblum, J. W. (1996). Shaping conversations: Making strategy, managing change. California Management Review, Fall, 141-157.
26. Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Designing for growth: A design thinking tool kit for managers. New York,NY: Columbia Business School Publishing.
27. Liedtka, J.M. (2000). In defense of strategy as design. California Management Review, 42(3), 8-30.
28. Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges and guidelines. The Lancet, 358(9280), 483-488.
29. Martin, R. (2007). The opposable mind: Winning through integrative thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
30. Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
31. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32. Meyer, A. (2011). Embedding design practice within organizations. In R. Cooper, S. Junginger, & T. Lockwood (Eds.). The handbook of design management (pp. 187-201). New York, NY: Berg.
33. Michlewski, K. (2008). Uncovering design attitude: Inside the culture of designers. Organization Studies, 29(3), 373-392.
34. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. Mingfen, L. (2000). Fostering design culture through cultivating the user-designers’ design thinking and systems thinking. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 142, 1-2.
36. Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting Strategy. Harvard Business Review, (July/August), 66-75.
37. Mintzberg, H. (1990). The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 171-195.
38. Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
39. Newman, R. (1999). Educating homeless children. New York, NY: Garland.
40. Nussbaum, B. (2005). Getting schooled in innovation. BusinessWeek, January 3.
41. Riege, A. M. (2003). Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review with “hands-on” applications for each research phase. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 75-86.
42. Rith, C., & Dubberly, H. (2006). Why Horst W. J. Rittel matters. Design Issues, 22(4), 72-91.
43. Rittel, H. W. J. (1972). On the planning crisis: System analysis of the “first and second generations.” Institut fur Grundlagen der Planung I.A., Universitat Stuttgart.
44. Rittel, H. W. J. (1988). The reasoning of designers. Arbeitspapier zum International Congress on Planning and Design Theory. Boston, MA.
45. Rowe, P. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
46. Salkind, N. J. (2003). Exploring research (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
47. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing and qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
48. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
49. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
50. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
51. Swanson, R. A. & Holton, E. F. (2005). Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
52. Tischler, L. (2009). IDEO’s David Kelley on design thinking. Fast Company.com. Accessed June 5, 2009.
53. Verganti, R. (2009) Design driven innovation – Changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
54. Whitney, D. E. (1988). Manufacturing by design. Harvard Business Review, 66(4), 83-91.
55. Wylant, B. (2008). Design thinking and the experience of innovation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Design Issues, 24(2), 3-14.
56. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57. Zargarpour, N. (2005). A collective inquiry response to high-stakes accountability. (Ph.D.'s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database. (UMI No. 3164237)
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2014-06-27公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2019-06-27起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信