English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88866/118573 (75%)
Visitors : 23552059      Online Users : 307
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/60007

    Title: 台灣兩項設計競賽成效之研究 -以守門機制觀點
    The study of the two design competitions in Taiwan - Gatekeeping perspective
    Authors: 吳信憲
    Wu, Hsin Hsien
    Contributors: 溫肇東
    Wu, Hsin Hsien
    Keywords: 守門機制
    Date: 2009
    Issue Date: 2013-09-04 11:57:27 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 近年來台灣設計實力漸漸在國際間嶄露頭角,根據經濟部「設計產業發展旗艦計畫」統計,在2002 至2008 年間,台灣在德國iF 設計獎、Red dot獎、美國IDEA獎和日本G-Mark獎等全球四大工業設計獎中囊括651 項獎項,2010年台灣在Red dot獎的表現僅次於地主德國,而2011年台灣也將舉辦台北世界設計大會,台灣的設計實力將向全世界發光。
    本研究的核心問題為台灣設計類競賽機制是否適當?選人才與選作品競賽設計機制有何差異?本研究之研究架構為投入流程和產出(Input-Process-Output Model)模型,並輔以競賽架構去分析台灣最具影響力之競賽,分別為「光寶創新獎」和「國際青年設計創業家獎」。經過文獻探討和個案田野訪談後,有以下的結論:
    1. 設計競賽宗旨的訂定,主要與主辦單位背後動機相符。良好的競賽設計,其競賽宗旨、競賽成果和評選重點具有一致性。
    2. 競賽流程中之邊界設定將影響參賽作品/參賽者的輪廓。選作品之邊界設定較廣泛,而選人才之邊界設定限制較嚴謹。
    3. 競賽流程中的評選機制,對競賽成果的樣貌具有決定性的影響。良好的競賽設計應在評選機制的設計,朝向完整審查和開放式的互動設計。選人才之評選機制比選作品較為多層次變化,因選到「對」的人需要較複雜的評選機制。
    4. 在競賽流程的獎勵設計上,主辦單位應思考如何在有限的預算下,創造包含參賽者、主辦單位和競賽三方最大的價值。同時也須思考此獎勵設計是否能吸引主辦單位想要的參賽者,和篩選出來的競賽成果是不是能與競賽宗旨契合。
    5. 競賽流程的加值效果可以運用在競賽每一個環節上,讓參賽者、主辦單位和競賽三方獲得加值效果。競賽的加值效果來自於主辦單位對於競賽的重視程度與努力有關,與選人才或選作品之競賽類型較無關。
    6. 競賽之成果會隨著競賽宗旨而決定,但競賽過程中,會產生其它如對主辦單位和台灣設計產業的附加價值。
    In recent years, Taiwanese design ability has gradually been out-standing. According to “The flagship project of the development of design industry” by the Ministry of Economic Affairs (R.O.C.), from 2002 to 2008, Taiwanese designers have won 651 awards in the four main worldwide industrial design awards, iF Awards, Red dot Awards, International Design Excellence Award (IDEA) and Good Design Award (G-Mark). The number of awards Taiwanese designers got in 2010 Red dot Awards is even only after the hosting country, Germany. In 2011, Taiwan will also be the hosting country of the “2011 IDA Congress Taipei & Taiwan Int’l Design Expo”, from which Taiwanese design ability will be promoted to the world.
    While the ability of Taiwanese design has been approved from these competitions, a good design product must go through the process of commercialization and the numerous trial of the market. As “Competition” in design industry is one of the gatekeeping that pushes the product to the market, this study attempts to explore the design competition in Taiwan based on the theory of gatekeeping.

    The core issue of the study is to examine the suitability of competing mechanisms in design awards in Taiwan and the difference between the competition of choosing designers or design products. Utilizing the Input-Process-Output Model and the structure of competition as the theoretical framework to analyze the most influential design competitions in Taiwan, two Taiwanese design competitions, Lite-On Award and International Young Design Entrepreneurs Awards (IYDE), are included in this study. Conclusions of this study can summarize as the following:
    1. The purpose of the design competitions mainly corresponds with the motivation of the organizers. The purpose of the awards, competition outcome, and the point of evaluation should be consistent in a good design competition.
    2. The bounding condition of the competition process will influence the profile of the designers/works. The bounding conditions of competitions that choose works are wider than the competitions that choose designers.
    3. The evaluation mechanism in the competing process will have decisive influence on the outcome of the competition. A great competition should be oriented toward a complete verification and an open interactional design. The competitions of choosing designers have more variation in their evaluation mechanism than the competitions of choosing works as it is more difficult to choose the “right” designer(s).
    4. The organizers should think about how to maximize the value of the designers, the organizers, and the competition itself under the limited budget. At the same time, they should also consider if the design awards can attract the attention of the type of designers the organizers would like to have, and if the outcome of competition is consistent with the purpose of the competition.
    5. The value-added effects of the competition can be applied to every part of the awards, which will benefit the designers, organizers and the competition. The value-added effects of the competition have correlation with the endeavor of the organizers but are irrelevant with the competition of choosing designers or choosing works.
    6. The outcome of the design competition may be decided based on the purpose of competitions. However, it will generate the value-added effects to the organizer and Taiwan design industry.
    Reference: 一、 英文文獻
     Bache, I., & Bristow, G. (2003). Devolution and the gatekeeping role of the core executive: the struggle for European funds. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5(3): 405-427.
     Black, L. J., Carlile, P. R., & Repenning, N. P. (2004). A Dynamic Theory of Expertise and Occupational Boundaries in New Technology Implementation: Building on Barley's Study of CT Scanning. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 572-607.
     Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.
     Denzau, A. T., & Mackay, R. J. (1983). Gatekeeping and monopoly power of committees: an analysis of sincere and sophisticated behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 27:740-761.
     Hsiang, W.H. (2005). The study of gatekeeping mechanisms of creative and innovative products. Academy of Management Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii.
     Hsiang, W.H., Chen, T.W., Chen,Y.W., Wu, S.H., & Wen, C.T. (2006). Gatekeeping innovation: an interactive model. Academy of Management Conference, Atalanta, USA.
     Johnston, M. T. (1994). The European Council: gatekeeper of the European Community. Oxford: Westview Press.
     Katz, R., and Tushman, M. (1981). An Investigation into the Managerial Roles and Career Paths of Gatekeepers and Project Supervisors in a Major R&D Facility. R & D Management, 11(3): 103-111.
     Katz, R. and Tushman, M. (1997ed). A study of the influence of technical Gatekeeping on Project Performance and Career Outcome in an R&D Facility. in Palph Katz. 331-346.
     Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28: 167-195.
     Macdonald, S. and Williams, C. (1993). Beyond the boundary: An information perspective on the role of the gatekeeper in the organization. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(5): 417-428.
     Macdonald, S. and Williams, C. (1994).The survival of the gatekeeper, Research Policy, 23(2): 123-133.
     Ramirez, R. (1999). Value Co-Production: Intellectual Origins and Implications for strategy. British Journal of Management, 11: 1–15.
     Roberts, E. B., and Fusfeld, A. R. (1981). Staffing the Innovative Technology-Based Organization. Sloan Management Review, 22(3): 19-35.
     Spencer, J. W. (2003). Global gatekeeping, representation, and network structure: a longitudinal analysis of regional and global knowledge-diffusion networks. Journal of International Business Studies, 34: 428-442.
     Tichenor, P. J., Olien, C. N., Donohue, G. A., & Griswold, W. F., Jr. (1986). Social change and gatekeeper change: Opinions of community editors. Paper presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research.
     V. K. Jolly(1997). Commercializing new technology: getting from mind to market
     White, D. M. (1950). The "gate keeper": A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27(4), 383–390.

    二、 中文文獻
     林嘉源(2007),展覽的產業守門機制研究—以COMDEX Fall、CeBIT、COMPUTEX Taipei世界三大電腦展為例,國立政治大學科技管理研究所之碩士論文。
     徐聯恩、樊學良(2006)。組織創新守門機制之分析—以工業技術研究院為例」。台灣商管與資訊研討會。
     溫肇東、陳意文、吳宜蓁(2010年6月)。創業論壇「以設計為薪,點燃無限加值火花」,創業管理研究期刊,第五卷第二期,p.49-82。
     溫肇東、羅育如、陳意文(2007)。守門活動的價值創造機制之研究:以實境競賽節目為例。中華民國科技管理學會年會暨論文研討會。
     溫肇東(2009),產業創新能耐平臺建置與推廣(II)-B組創新守門機制之應用與推廣,經濟部學界開發產業技術計畫。

    三、 報章雜誌
     尤子彥(2010),設計金童跌倒再戰 改玩設計創投,商業週刊,1173 期。
     張寧馨(2008/01/29),<紅點大賞 設計界奧斯卡>Red dot Design award紅色榮耀,自由時報/消費新聞。
     溫肇東(2008/07/15),《創業家精神》期待中的設計創業家,工商時報/經營知識/E4版。
     溫肇東(2006),以守門人機制看如何強化產業之創新能耐,技術尖兵,No.142。

    四、 網站資料
     Karine Barzilai-Nahon(2008).Gatekeeping: A Critical Review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology
     iF緣起(無日期),2010年5月1日,取自:
     國際四大工業設計獎之四-美國IDEA award設計獎(2009年2月9日
     國際著名工業設計大獎介紹( 2005年09月08日) ,2010年5月20日,取自:
     德國iF Award官網,2010年6月1日,取自:
     德國紅點官網,2010年6月1日,取自:
     IDEA award官網,2010年6月1日,取自:
     日本G-Mark官網,2010年6月1日,取自:
     紅點,百度百科,2010年4月20日,取自:
     包益民﹣設計師在世界上的定位,TEDxTaipei 2009,2010年6月10日,取自:
     蕭青陽﹣一個設計師提案的過程,TEDxTaipei 2009,2010年6月10日,取自:
     官政能-好的設計,要在品牌中留下資產,天下影音,2010年6月10日,取自:
    Description: 碩士
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0973590201
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[科技管理研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    020101.pdf2847KbAdobe PDF587View/Open

    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback