台灣逐漸邁向超高齡化社會，老年失能與身心障礙者人數逐年上升，對於無障礙交通設備之需求亦持續增加。而最符合身心障礙者交通需求的復康巴士長時間存在需求大於供給，乘客訂不到車導致客訴頻繁。基此，以台中復康巴士服務為例，本研究旨在以服務設計的思維，深入洞察身心障礙接送服務系統的問題，提出改善復康巴士服務的設計方案，建立接送服務設計之實務參考。

根據服務設計流程，本研究共劃分三大階段。第一階段為服務探索及定義階段，首先透過觀察法了解現有服務流程，並深度訪談25位利害關係人瞭解其痛點，再透過「服務缺口模式」定義出12項關鍵服務缺口與4大服務問題。第二階段為服務設計發展階段，本研究透過「利害關係人共識會議」確認價值主張，針對服務使用者、服務提供者、服務管理者分別提出新服務設計概念，進而發展新服務設計原型。第三階段為新服務原型評估階段，針對3個新服務設計以「狩野模式」進行評估，最終蒐集有效問卷，服務使用者41份、服務提供者100份、服務管理者18份，其後透過5位專家的啟發式評估，彙整出新服務設計方針執行的優先次序。

最後，本研究的主要發現有: (1)現有復康巴士服務中具有「工具不完善」、「溝通不順暢」、「分工不明確」、「政策不符合需求」4項關鍵服務問題。
(2)「資訊系統的介入」與「標準化服務建立」於身心障礙接送服務，對於顧客滿意度有正向影響。(3)透過服務設計思維來探討身心障礙者接送服務對於執行服務的公部門有正向影響力。

As Taiwan gradually moves toward a hyper-aged society, there has been an increase in the number of elderly people with disabilities per year. The demand for transportation of the elderly with disabilities has also increased gradually. The Rehab-bus is the best transportation that meets the transportation needs of the physical and mental disability people. However, the demand is greater than the supply over a long period of time, resulting in frequent customer complaints and a low service quality. Based on the Taichung Rehab-bus service, the purpose of this study is to provide the perspectives of service design. Finding out problems of the Door-to-door service system for persons with disabilities to establish a practical reference for the shuttle service design.

According to the service design process, this study is employed in a three-step process. The first stage is the service exploration and definition. First, the study identified the current service process through the shadowing method and employed in-depth interviews with twenty-five involved stakeholder to understand their pain points. Then through the Service Gap Model, the study identified 12 key service gaps and 4 major services problems. The second stage is the service design development. Through the “Stakeholder Consensus Conference”, this study confirmed the value proposition, proposing new service design concepts for customers, service providers, and service managers to create new service design prototypes. The final stage is the new service prototype evaluation. The three new service designs were evaluated by the Kano model. Finally, valid questionnaires were collected, including 41 customers, 100 service providers, 18 service managers, and the heuristic evaluation of five experts, bringing the implementation priorities for the development of new service design.

The findings of this study reveal: (1) There are 4 key service issues in the existing Rehab-bus service which include "inappropriate tools," "unsatisfactory communication," "unclear division of labor," and "unmet policies demand." (2) The "Intervention in the Information System" and the "Establishment of Standardized Service" of the shuttle bus service for elderly people with disability have positive impacts on customer satisfaction. (3) Exploring the shuttle service for the elderly with disabilities through service design thinking has a positive influence on the public sector of the service.

英文文獻

1. Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12(2), 124-143.
2. Berger, C., Bauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., Pouliot, F., Richter, R., Rubinoff, A., Shen, D., Timko, M., & Walden, D. (1993). Kano's methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Center for Quality of Management Journal, 2(4), 3-35. 

3. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered design.
4. 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. 

5. Design Council (2005). Eleven lessons- Managing design in eleven global brands: The design process. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/ElevenLessons_Des ign_Cou ncil%20(2).pdf 

6. Jones, M., & Samalionis, F. (2008). From small ideas to radical service innovation. Design Management Review, 19(1), 20-26. 

7. Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. Journal of 
the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 39-48.
8. Kankainen, A., Vaajakallio, K., Kantola, V., & Mattelmäki, T. (2012). Storytelling Group–a co-design method for service design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(3), 221-230.
9. Mager, B., & Sung, T. J. D. (2011). Special issue editorial: Designing for services. International Journal of Design, 5(2).
10. Martin, C. R., & Horne, D. A. (1993). Services innovation: successful versus unsuccessful firms. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 4(1), 49-65. 

11. Matzler, K., & Hinterhuber, H. H. (1998). How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano's Model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment. Technovation, 18(1), 25-38. 

12. Moritz, S. (2005). Service design: Practical access to an evolving field. Lulu. com.
13. Nielsen, J. (1995). Multimedia and hypertext: The Internet and beyond. Morgan Kaufmann.
14. Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990, March). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 249-256). ACM.
15. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple-item 
scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 
64(1), 12-40. 

16. Stauss, B., & Weinlich, B. (1995). Process-oriented measurement of service quality by applying the sequential prevention technique. In Fifth Workshop on Quality Top Management in Services, EIASM, Tilburg, Olanda.
17. Steen, M., Manschot, M., & De Koning, N. (2011). Benefits of co-design in service design projects. International Journal of Design, 5(2).
18. Stickdorn, M., Schneider, J., Andrews, K., & Lawrence, A. (2011). This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
19. Sweeney, J. C., & Wyber, F. (2002). The role of cognitions and emotions in the music-approach-avoidance behavior relationship. Journal of services marketing, 16(1), 51-69.
20. Zehrer, A. (2009). Service experience and service design: concepts and application in tourism SMEs. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 19(3), 332-349.
21. Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). Problems and strategies in services marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 33-46.

中文文獻

1. 內政部 (2016)。身心障礙者生活需求調查報告。台北：內政部。
2. 王東雲(2012)。社會研究方法:量化與質性取向及其應用。新北市:威仕曼文化。
3. 王基祥(2008)。身心障礙者交通服務之研究-以南投縣溫馨巴士交通服務為例。暨南大學社會政策與社會工作學系碩士論文。 

4. 史習平、張朝能（2015）。無障礙計程車運輸服務推動策略。台北市：交通部運輸研究所。
5. 宋同正(2014)。序–服務設計的本質內涵和流程工具。設計學報，19 (2)。 

6. 李友錚、賀力行(2008)。品質管理:整合性思維。台北:前程文化。
7. 辛孟鑫(2005)。撥召運輸系統路線規劃問題之研究-以台北市復康巴士為例。成功大學交通管理科學研究所碩士論文。 

8. 張紹勳 (2005)。研究方法。第三版，台中:滄海。
9. 連緯晏(譯)(2015)。是很酷，但又何如(原作者:Payne. M.)。台北:精誠資訊股份有限公司。 

10. 郭佩棻、周文生、史習平（2016）。預約式無障礙小客車運輸服務之整合。交通學報，16 (2)。
11. 陳奕璇 (2016)。高齡駕駛人上路行不行。新竹市：交通大學。
12. 陳毓婷(2017)。整合高齡者就醫交通工具之設計研究。東海大學工設計研究所碩士論文。
13. 楊朝傑(2010)。探討不同障別之身心障礙者使用復康巴士之頻率及使用目的- 以台北市無障礙交通服務為例。陽明大學物理治療暨輔助科技研究所碩士論文。
14. 魏健宏、王穆衡、蔡欽同和辛孟鑫 (2007) 。臺北市復康巴士路線規劃問題之研究。運輸學刊，19（3），301-332。

網路文獻

1. 公視-載他去想去的地方
取自 http://bus.pts.org.tw/index.html
2. 衛生福利部統計處 (2017)。內政統計通報106年底身心障礙者人數按季。
取自https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOS/cp-2976-13815-113.html
3. 衛生福利部(2017)。中華民國106年老人狀況調查報告。2014年10月
取自http://www.mohw.gov.tw/cht/DOS/Statistic.aspx?f_list_no=312&fod_list_no=4695
4. 臺北市公共運輸處 (2014)。103年臺北地區計程車營運情形調查。
5. 林恩琪(2013)。身障者自由趴趴GO 無障礙計程車。2013年4月19日
取自http://enews.url.com.tw/enable/72846
6. 香港復康巴士。
取自 http://www.rehabsociety.org.hk/zh-hant/我們的服務/交通服務/
7. 加拿大HandyDART。
取自http://www.cfh.org.tw/modules/news/article.php?storyid=400
8. 美國紐約Accessible Dispatch。
取自http://accessibledispatch.org/
9. 澳洲雪梨Easy Transport。
取自https://transportnsw.info/