摘要
本研究之目的在探討以組的意象轉換為設計手法，應用於產品設計與展開之可行性。內容包含四部份:(1)應用開放性問卷調查，整理符合人們認知具有組意象的事物，並歸納組意象之概念型態。(2)依據各類型態之組意象的元素關係、來源以及屬性，歸納組意象的設計手法，並以文具組之設計為例，設計及製作3D模擬繪圖，實施組意象之測試。(3)測試結果以主成分分析法探討組意象之構成要因及組意象與測試樣本之對應關係。(4)利用多元回歸分析探討組意象與「創意的」及「實用的」兩綜合評價之因果關係。 人們所認知之組意象，依其元素間的關係，可分成「屬性差異的元素」、「同一空間的元素」、「屬性搭配的元素」。不同關係之元素經組合後會可歸納出「互補」、「衝突」、「對比」、「共存」、「加強」、「匹配」等6類型態之組意象設計手法。 依據各類型設計手法所設計之文具組樣本，其組意象之構成要因為「整合的-分離的」、「搭配的-突兀的」、「加強的-減弱的」。設計之樣本可依其與組意象構成要因之對應關係，再整理出四種設計手法，分別為「匹配強化」、「零散組合」、「功能整合」、「造形整合」。 「功能整合」設計手法群在「創意的」與「實用的」的評價皆為最高。影響「創意」評價之組意象為「豐富的-單調的」，亦即產品組的組合元素越豐富，將使得產品組越有創意感。影響「實用」評價的組意象為「強化的-弱化的」，亦即產品組要具有實用性的，在功能上須有強化的感覺。
並列摘要
The purpose of this study is to explore a design method in terms of image transformation by groups, which applies to product design and its feasibility with contents to cover 4 parts : (1) to introduce an open questionnaire survey to consolidate things in image groups that conform to people’s perception and to summarize the concept pattern of images. (2) to summarize the image groups as per element relations, source and type of image groups in various patterns and to use the design of stationery group to design and draw simulated 3D drawing to implement testing of image group. (3) to introduce principal component analysis on the testing results to discuss the determinants of image group and the corresponding relationship between image groups and testing samples. (4) to use multiple regression analysis to explore image groups and cause and effect of comprehensive evaluation that covers both “creativity” and “practicability”. The image groups perceived by people can be divided as “elements in different types”, “elements in same space”, “elements in types that complement to each other” as per relationship between elements. Elements in different relations can be summarized as 6 image groups – “complement to each other”, “conflict”, “contrast”, “co-existence”, “reinforcement”, and “match”. And according to the stationery group samples designed as per design methods in various patterns, the determinants of image group are “integrated-separated”, “matched-different”, “enhanced-weakened”. In which the designed samples can be consolidated into 4 design methods as per corresponding relation between determinants of image groups, which are “matched and enhanced”, “scattered combination”, “function integration”, and “modeling integration”. A “function integration” design method is ranked the highest in terms of “creativity” and “practicability”. What affects “creativity” evaluation is “varied- monotonous” image group, i.e. the richer combination the elements, the more creative the product group. What affects “practicability” evaluation is “enhanced-weakened” image group, in other words, the product group needs to reinforce its functional features in order to enable practicability.