政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/125910
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113325/144300 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51159091      線上人數 : 905
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125910


    題名: 設計發包接案平台的使用者介面與服務流程優化
    Toward an Optimized User Interface and Service Flow for the Freelance Design Projects Matching Platform
    作者: 蘇郁庭
    Su, Yu-Ting
    貢獻者: 陳聖智
    廖峻鋒
    Chen, Sheng-Chih
    Liao, Chun-Feng
    蘇郁庭
    Su, Yu-Ting
    關鍵詞: 設計發包接案平台
    使用者經驗
    服務設計
    介面設計
    設計專案管理
    Design freelance platform
    User experience
    Service design
    Interface design
    Design project management
    日期: 2019
    上傳時間: 2019-09-05 17:27:46 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 個人設計接案的優勢是工作時間、地點皆自由，是許多人嚮往的工作型態，隨著零工經濟的來臨，許多人在正職工作外進行接案以增加收入與經驗，然而設計接案不僅需要設計專業，還需要專案管理、業務接洽、溝通效率等能力，甚至在簽約以保障權利時，還會牽涉法律問題，對於專職接案工作者是份內要務，但對於另有正職的設計師或是在校設計系學生來說，這些能力提高了接案的門檻，更可能會影響接案的順利程度，若發包方與接案方之間出現摩擦與爭執，將造成雙方的不愉快與損失。

    本研究透過案例分析國內外9個較知名的發包接案平台，了解其提供的服務流程與特色、使用量與成交量、媒合方式、案件管理、評價機制、收費制度等，以及發包方與接案方的使用流程，同時進行文獻探討服務設計、使用者經驗、介面設計、設計專案管理等相關領域，妥善應用於設計當中。

    依信任程度、資訊易得性以及溝通體驗三大構面，尋找9位有發包或接案經驗作為受訪者，針對接案方與發包方進行使用者需求研究，利用深度訪談發現需求與痛點，將訪談結果進行摘句的收斂，列出使用者的價值觀與痛點並製作成問卷內容，於網路發放問卷以了解使用者在這些痛點的數量與分佈，定義真正需要發包接案平台的目標使用者。

    將質化的訪談結果與量化的問卷結果進行需求分析，本研究收斂後提出7項設計要點，以提升信任程度、資訊易得性以及溝通體驗，發想一個優化的服務流程，提供發包方與接案方從媒合到結案完整過程的服務平台，並以服務藍圖視覺化呈現，轉化為網站地圖以建立資訊架構。以手機App作為載體，規劃任務流，依據任務流繪製成線框圖，安排介面的元件與頁面間的組織，並設計測試情境所需的文字，接著參考現今介面設計風格潮流，加入視覺元素以美化介面設計。

    為了解7項設計要點的使用者滿意度、介面易用性以及優化先後順序，參照任務流設計評估腳本，尋找5位受試者進行一次設計原型的測試評估，測試過程使用放聲思考法，於測後進行小規模的訪談與完成測後問卷。

    總結，本研究結果為：（1）透過使用者需求研究發現發包與接案的過程中，在與對方建立信任、發包或接案產業相關資訊的了解、以及雙方溝通的體驗上，皆有遇到一些問題與困難，然而在案例分析中得知國內現有發包與接案平台皆無法協助解決。（2）建立一個貼近使用者需求的服務流程，以手機App作為載體，並設計出一個符合現今風格潮流的介面。（3）將本研究手機App之設計原型進行測試與評估後，發現受試者普遍對於7項設計要點的滿意程度呈現正向態度，能提升信任程度、資訊易得性以及溝通體驗，且功能與介面易用性達到標準。
    The advantage of being a design freelancer is the flexibility of deciding when and where to work. This type of work attracts many people. With the rapid growth of gig economy, many people intake freelance jobs while having a full-time job to increase their income and experience. However, case design jobs require not only design professions, but other abilities such as project management, business contact, and communication efficiency are also important. Furthermore, while signing a contract to make sure his or her rights are protected, it is essential that he or she is able to deal with legal issues. The required abilities can be easy for full-time design freelancers, who make use of these abilities everyday. However, for full-time designers and design students, the abilities increase the threshold of intaking freelance jobs and may even contribute to an unsmooth working process. If conflicts and disputes appear between the contractor and the freelancer, it may lead to unpleasantness and loss for both sides.

    This study analyzed 9 well-known freelancer platforms at home and abroad through case studies to understand their service process and features, usage and trading volume, mediation methods, case management, evaluation mechanism, charging system, etc., as well as the user flow of the contractors and freelancers. Simultaneously, a literature review is conducted based on service design, user experience, interface design, design project management and other related fields, which can be properly applied in the design of this study.

    Based on 3 aspects from the survey, including trust level, information accessibility and communication experience, a user research on contractors and freelancers was performed with 9 participants who have experiences with project contracting and intaking. User needs and pain points were analyzed from the in-depth interview, and a questionnaire was designed according to the interview results. The questionnaire was further distributed on the Internet to find out the number and distribution of the users based on these pain points. According to these results, the real target users who are in need of the freelance platform were defined.

    After analysing the result of qualitative interview and quantitative questionnaire, 7 design points were proposed to improve the trust level, information accessibility and communication experience. The study aims to design an optimized service flow that provides the contractors and freelancers a platform with a complete service from mediatinging to ending a case. The concept was visualized by the service blueprint and was transformed into a site map to establish an information architecture. The mobile application is seen as a carrier for the concept. The design process includes planning the task flow, drawing wireframes according to the task flow, arranging the interface components, pages, and texts. Finally, the visual elements of the interfaces were added in accordance with the trend of the current interface design.

    In order to understand user satisfaction, interface usability and optimization sequence of the seven design points, a user test of the design prototype was performed with 5 participants. The think out loud method was adopted during the process, while a short interview and a post-test-questionnaire were conducted afterwards.

    To sum up, the results of this study are as follows:
     （1）Through the user need research, it was observed that contractors and freelancers have problems with establishing mutual trust, understanding the related information and experiencing the communication between each other during the process of contracting and intaking. However, in the case studies, the problems can not yet be solved by the existing freelance platforms.（2）Design a service flow that meets the user’s need. Consider mobile application as a carrier and design an interface that catch up with the current trend.（3）After evaluating the design prototype of the mobile phone application in this study, it was found that the participants were generally satisfied with the 7 design points, which can enhance the degree of trust, information accessibility and communication experience. In addition, the usability of its function and interface have met the standard.
    參考文獻: 中文文獻
    1. 中華專案管理協會。專案管理Q & A。2019年2月取自http://www.npma.org.tw/%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E5%B0%88%E6%A1%88%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86%E5%AD%B8%E6%9C%83-FAQ.htm
    2. 李來春、曹筱玥、陳圳卿（2018）。互動設計概論Interaction Design。全華。
    3. 宋同正（2014）。服務設計的本質內涵和流程工具。設計學報（Journal of Design），19（2）序。
    4. 何華國（2012）。人際溝通。台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
    5. 洪英正、錢玉芬譯（2003）。Devito, J. A.著。人際溝通Interpersonal communication book. New York。台北：學富。
    6. 張苙雲（2000）。制度信任及行爲的信任意涵。臺灣社會學刊，（23），179-222。
    7. 張紹勳（2001）。研究方法。滄海。
    8. 黃鈴媚、江中信、葉蓉慧譯（2008）。Verderber, K. S.、Verderber, R. F.、Berryman-Fink, C.著。人際關係與溝通Inter-Act: Interpersonal Communication Concepts。前程文化。
    9. 葉謹睿（2010）。互動設計概論：後數位時代的網站、介面、產品及軟體設計的原則。藝術家出版社。
    10. 楊威譯（2005）。Daniel J Canary、Michael J. Cody、Valerie L. Manusov著。人際溝通Interpersonal communication: A goals based approach。台北市：五南。
    11. 鄭佩芬（2000）。人際關係與溝通技巧。揚智文化事業股份有限公司。
    12. 鄧成連（1999）。設計管理：產品設計之組織，溝通與運作。亞太圖書出版社。台北。初版。
    13. 池熙璿譯（2013）。Marc Stickdorn、Jakob Schneider著。這就是服務設計思考！THIS IS SERVICE DESIGN THINKING: BASICS, TOOLS, CASES。中國生產力中心。
    14. 卓耀宗譯（2000）。Norman, D. A. 著。設計心理學:以使用者為中心、安全易用的日常生活用品設計原理（The design of everyday things）。台北：遠流。
    15. 陳建雄譯（2009）。Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. 著。互動設計：跨越人—電腦互動（Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction）（二版）。全華。

    英文文獻
    1. Alexander Handley（2018）.User flow is the new wireframe. Retrieved from
    2. https://uxdesign.cc/when-to-use-user-flows-guide-8b26ca9aa36a
    3. Allen, T.J. （1977）. Managing theflow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    4. Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J.（2009）. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of usability studies, 4（3）, 114-123.
    5. Ba, S., & Pavlou, P. A. （2002）. Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: Price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS quarterly, 243-268.
    6. Berger, C. （1993）. Kano`s methods for understanding customer-defined quality.Center for quality management journal, 2（4）, 3-36.
    7. Biehal, G., & Chakravarti, D. （1986）. Consumers` use of memory and external information in choice: Macro and micro perspectives. Journal of Consumer Research, 12（4）, 382-405.
    8. Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N.（2008）. Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation. California management review, 50（3）, 66-94.
    9. Brooke, J.（1996）. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189（194）, 4-7.
    10. Canary, D. J., Cody, M. J., & Manusov, V. （2000）. Interpersonal communication: A goals-based approach. New York: Bedford/St.
    11. Cegala, D. J. （1984）. Affective and cognitive manifestations of interaction involvement during unstructured and competitive interactions. Communications Monographs, 51（4）, 320-338.
    12. Chung, K. W.（1989）. The role of industrial design in new product strategy: with particular emphasis on the role of design consultants （Doctoral dissertation, Manchester Polytechnic）.
    13. Cody, M. J., Greene, J. O., Marston, P., Baaske, K., O`Hair, H. D., & Schneider, M. J. （1986）. Situation perception and the selection of message strategies. Communication yearbook, 8, 390-420.
    14. Cooper（2008）.The Origin of Personas, Retrieved from https://www.cooper.com/journal/2008/05/the_origin_of_personas.
    15. Cooper, A., Reimann, R., Cronin, D., & Noessel, C.（2014）. About face: the essentials of interaction design. John Wiley & Sons.
    16. Culnan, M. J. （1983）. Environmental scanning: The effects of task complexity and source accessibility on information gathering behavior. Decision Sciences, 14（2）, 194-206.
    17. De Mozota, B. B.（2003）. Design management: using design to build brand value and corporate innovation. Skyhorse Publishing Inc..
    18. Design Council（2010）. What is service design? Retrieved Feb. 2019, from
    19. http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/about-design/Types-of-design/Service-design/What-is-service-design/
    20. Design Management Institute （n. d.）. What is Design Management? Retrieved Feb. 2019, from http://dmi.site-ym.com/?What_is_Design_Manag
    21. Dirks, K. T. （1999）. The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of applied psychology, 84（3）, 445.
    22. Dodge, M. （2000）. Accessibility to information within the Internet: How can it be measured and mapped?. In Information, Place, and Cyberspace （pp. 187-204）. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
    23. Duran, R. L. （1983）. Communicative adaptability: A measure of social communicative competence. Communication Quarterly, 31（4）, 320-326.
    24. Farr, M.（2011）. Design management: Why is it needed now. The handbook of design management, 47-52.
    25. Garrett, J. J. （2002）. The elements of user experience: User-centered design for the web and beyond. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
    26. Gerstberger, P. G., & Allen, T. J. （1968）. Criteria used by research and development engineers in the selection of an information source. Journal of applied psychology, 52（4）, 272.Green, W. S., & Jordan, P. W.（2002）. Pleasure with products: Beyond usability. CRC press.
    27. Gorb, P.（1990）. Introduction: what is design management. Design Management: Papers from the London Business School, Architecture Design and Technology Press, London, 1-12.
    28. Guide, A.（2017）. Project Management Body of Knowledge （PMBOK® GUIDE）. In Project Management Institute.
    29. Guo, F. （2012）. More than usability: The four elements of user experience. Retrieved from https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/04/more-than-usability-the-four-elements-of-user-experience-part-i.php
    30. Hanington, B., & Martin, B.（2012）. Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport Publishers.
    31. Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. （2006）. User experience-a research agenda. Behaviour & information technology, 25（2）, 91-97.
    32. Hassenzahl, M. （September）. User experience （UX）: towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In IHM（Vol. 8, pp. 11-15）.
    33. Higgins, E. T. （1981）. Accessibility of social contructs: information processing consequences if individual and contextual variability. Personality, cognition, and social interaction, 69-121.
    34. Interaction Design Association. What is interaction design? Retrieved Mar. 2019, from https://ixda.org/ixda-global/about-history/
    35. Kuniavsky, M. （2010）. Smart Things: Ubiquitous Computing User Experience Design （1 ed.）: Elsevier.
    36. Lewis, C., & Rieman, J.（1993）. Task-centered user interface design. A Practical Introduction.
    37. Lin, J. C. C., & Lu, H. （2000）. Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use a web site. International journal of information management, 20（3）, 197-208.
    38. Liu, L. A., Chua, C. H., & Stahl, G. K. （2010）. Quality of communication experience: Definition, measurement, and implications for intercultural negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95（3）, 469.
    39. Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L.（2006）. Service dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6（3）, 281-288.
    40. Mager, B., & Sung, T. J.（2011）. Special issue editorial: Designing for services. International Journal of Design, 5（2）, 1-3.
    41. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. （1995）. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20（3）, 709-734.
    42. McCarter, M. W., & Northcraft, G. B. （2007）. Happy together?: Insights and implications of viewing managed supply chains as a social dilemma. Journal of operations management, 25（2）, 498-511.
    43. McKay, E. N. （2013）. UI is communication: How to design intuitive, user centered interfaces by focusing on effective communication. Newnes.
    44. McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. （2001）. What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International journal of electronic commerce, 6（2）, 35-59.
    45. McLain, D. L., & Hackman, K. （1999）. Trust, risk, and decision-making in organizational change. Public Administration Quarterly, 152-176.
    46. Melzer, J. （2005）. Morville`s Facets of User Experience Refined. Merkintä James Melzering blogissa ‘Getting My Bearings. Retrieved from http://www.jamesmelzer.com/morville-facets.html
    47. Moritz, S. （2009）. Service design: Practical access to an evolving field. Lulu. com.
    48. Morville, P. （2004）. User experience design. Retrieved from http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000029.php
    49. NAz, K. A. Y. A., & Epps, H. （2004）. Relationship between color and emotion: A study of college students. College Student J, 38（3）, 396.
    50. Nielsen, J. （1995）. 10 usability heuristics for user interface design. Nielsen Norman Group, 1（1）.
    51. Nielsen, J. （2000）. Why you only need to test with 5 users. Nielsen Norman Group.
    52. Norman, D.（2013）. The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books.
    53. Normann, R., & Ramirez, R.（1993）. From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 71（4）, 65-77.
    54. O`Reilly III, C. A. （1982）. Variations in decision makers` use of information sources: The impact of quality and accessibility of information. Academy of Management journal, 25（4）, 756-771.
    55. Pinto J. K., Slevin D. G.（1988）. Project Success: Definition and Measurement Techniques. Project Management Journal, 19（1）, 67-72.
    56. Plattner, H.（2010）. An Introduction to Design Thinking Process Guide. The Institute of Design at Stanford.
    57. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H.（2015）. Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons.
    58. Reichheld, F. F., & Schefter, P. （2000）. E-loyalty: your secret weapon on the web. Harvard business review, 78（4）, 105-113.
    59. Rice, R. E., & Shook, D. E. （1988）. Access to, usage of, and outcomes from an electronic messaging system. ACM Transactions on Information Systems （TOIS）, 6（3）, 255-276.
    60. Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. （1992）. Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic management journal, 13（7）, 483-498.
    61. Roto, V. （2007）. User experience from product creation perspective. Towards a UX Manifesto, 31.
    62. Saffer, D.（2010）. Designing for interaction: creating innovative applications and devices. New Riders.
    63. Sauerwein, E., Bailom, F., Matzler, K., & Hinterhuber, H. H. （1996）. The Kano model: How to delight your customers. In International Working Seminar on Production Economics （Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 313-327）. Innsbruck.
    64. Sauro, J.（2011）. Sustisfied? little-known system usability scale facts. UX Magazine, 10（3）.
    65. Srull, T. K., & Wyer Jr, R. S. （1986）. The role of chronic and temporary goals in social information processing.
    66. Stickdorn, M., Schneider, J., Andrews, K., & Lawrence, A.（2011）. This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases （Vol. 1）. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
    67. Shneiderman, B. （2010）. Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Pearson Education India.
    68. Shy, O., & Oz, S. （2001）. The economics of network industries. Cambridge university press.
    69. Singh, J., & Sirdeshmukh, D. （2000）. Agency and trust mechanisms in consumer satisfaction and loyalty judgments. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 28（1）, 150-167.
    70. Swanson, E. B. （1992）. Information accessibility reconsidered. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 2（3）, 183-196.
    71. The Economist. Closing the `digital divide` in 2019 Getting people online is not an unalloyed blessing. Retrieved Aug. 2019, from https://worldin2019.economist.com/digitaldivide
    72. Topalian, A.（1984, June）. Developing a corporate approach to design management. In Keynote paper presented at the first Olivetti Design Management Symposium.
    73. Verderber, K. S., Verderber, R. F., & Berryman-Fink, C. （2004）. Inter-act: Interpersonal communication concepts, skills, and contexts. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
    74. Wood, J. T. （2015）. Interpersonal communication: Everyday encounters. Nelson Education.
    75. Wurman, R. S., Bradford, P., & Pedersen, B. M. （1997）. Information Architects. 1996.
    76. Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychological review, 93(3), 322.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    數位內容碩士學位學程
    106462003
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1064620031
    資料類型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU201900921
    顯示於類別:[數位內容碩士學位學程] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 大小格式瀏覽次數
    003101.pdf25675KbAdobe PDF20檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋