近年來，隨著地方創生概念的興起，越來越多的地區積極推動地方的再造與發展，而在發展的過程中，欲運用創新思維與跨領域結合之設計思考能量，創造與帶動地方發展及地方文化提升，規劃具有當地文化特色之整合性服務。再者，在規劃整體服務的過程當中，由於網路技術已臻成熟的優勢，網路平臺扮演了重要的角色，網路平臺可幫助使用者建立快速且即時分享訊息的管道。此外，伴隨著體驗經濟時代的到來，根據服務族群的不同，運用不同類型的服務規劃滿足顧客需求，促成更大的共享價值更是關鍵所在。
在共享的背景之下，為瞭解如何透過視覺化方法，擬定策略目標，提出以共享為標的之整合性服務設計策略。本研究以埔里地區的七間七作物代表農家為服務對象，以訪談法揭露場域現況之問題與需求，以心智圖法、腦力激盪法，找出農家間共享與合作的可能性並進行服務機制的確認與完善，以擬定出共享服務平臺之架構，此外，經由線上的服務平臺與線下體驗活動，進行線上與線下的整合，確立最終的共享服務之設計策略。本研究之架構包含三個階段：第一階段對場域中的農家現況進行深入瞭解，主要發現：（1）農家間知識受限於空間與時間的條件，無法快速且即時的進行分享，且訊息缺乏有效的分類與圖示化；（2）理念的傳遞缺乏良好規劃與適當的訊息呈現；（3）活動流程內容規劃不佳、活動預定機制匱乏，加上訊息的篇幅過長，而影響到活動的傳遞與溝通；（4）「活動傳遞」的內容需求可作為平臺架構規劃、共享機制整合、以及整體服務規劃落點的指標。本研究第二階段依據上階段之研究成果，採用視覺思考的方法，擬定策略與目標，主要發現：（1）在活動的規劃上依據其服務族群的不同進行農家間的串連，促成實質或虛擬資產共享的可能性；（2）可將活動、理念、和知識三大共享層面之需求作為平臺架構之核心；（3）透過訊息整合可節省現階段籌備體驗活動的人力成本以及訊息傳遞不一致的問題；（4）提供具有啟發性的互動訊息與圖示說明以解決目前理念呈現不夠完整的困境；（5）通過知識整合與訊息分類的前置工作，可弭補現在知識無法準確且快速傳遞流通的困難。第三階段綜合一、二階段成果，研擬出共享服務平臺之設計，此外，根據服務族群的不同提出不同的活動規劃，藉由線上與線下的整合，確立最終的共享服務之設計策略。其主要設計要點為：（1）因應現有場域中農家間活動服務族群的多元性，提出不同的活動規劃方案；（2）進行「首頁」、「關於我們」、「小農活動」、「小農理念」、「小農知識」各區塊之服務內容設計，達成知識的傳遞、理念的建構以及重整體驗活動的相關機制與服務；（3）進行線上平臺服務與線下體驗服務的分進合擊。

In the wake of local community innovation, more and more districts have progressively boosted local community reconstruction and development. In the development process, those districts energized local development and local culture using the design-thinking energy which originated from innovative thinking and interdisciplinary integration, and at the same time prepared the integrated service which features local cultural characteristics. In the process of integrated service planning, network platform was employed to help users establish channels so they could rapidly and instantly share information with one another. In the era of experience economy, all kinds of service planning are available to serve customers of different service groups and thereby augment the value of sharing. This is the most critical part of local community innovation.

Given the concept of sharing, this study has proposed an integrated service design strategy, using visual method to find out how to formulate strategic goals in order to materialize the lofty ideal of sharing. For this reason, this study has chosen seven farmhouses specialized in seven crops in Puli District as the service objects, and employed interview methods to identify the field issues and needs, using mind-mapping method and brainstorming method to find out the possibility of sharing and cooperation between farmhouses, and at the same time improved the service mechanism in order to formulate an architecture for the service platform required by sharing. Moreover, based on the research results acquired from online service platform and the offline experience activities, this study has integrated online service with offline activities so as to finalize the design strategy which allowed farmhouses to share with one another eventually. This study has established an architecture comprising three phases. In Phase 1, the current status of farmhouses was intensively examined with major findings as follows: (1). With limited time and space, farmhouses could hardly share knowledge with one another rapidly and instantly, and were unable to categorize and pictorialize information effectively. (2). There wasn’t a proper planning that allowed farmhouses to pass on ideas and present information to one another. (3). Activity run-down process was not satisfactorily organized. There wasn’t any activity reservation mechanism, and the length of information was too long. As a result, farmhouses were unable to pass the activities on to one another and discuss with one another. (4).The content of “Passing on the Activity” served as an index for platform architecture planning, sharing-mechanism integration, and the placement of the integrated service planning. In Phase 2, this study employed visual thinking method to formulate strategies and goals based on the research results acquired from Phase 1. Findings include the following: (1). In the stage of activity planning, farmhouses were connected to each other based on the differences among service groups, aiming to increase the possibility of sharing either real or virtual assets among farmhouses. (2). Three major dimensions associated with sharing – activities, concepts and knowledge – were treated as the core elements of platform architecture. (3). Once information integration was completed, the labor costs required by the preparation of experience activities decreased and the issues arising from the inconsistency of information transmission was resolved. (4). Instructive interactive messages and graphic descriptions were provided to resolve the impasse resulting from the inadequacy of concept presentation. (5). With the advance preparation of knowledge integration and message classification, this study has resolved the impasse arising from the inaccuracy and ineffectiveness of knowledge transmission. In Phase 3, this study has completed the design of sharing-service platform based on the results acquired form Phases 1 and 2. Moreover, this study has proposed different activity planning based on the differences among different service groups, and then integrated online service with offline activity in order to finalize the design strategy for sharing-services with design guidelines as follows: (1). Various activity proposals were designed to cope with the diversity of service groups among farmhouses. (2). The design of service content such as “Homepage”, “About Us”, “Small-holder farmer’s activities”, “Small-holder farmer’s concepts”, and “Small-holder farmer’s knowledge” was completed, allowing farmhouses to pass on knowledge, construct concepts, reform the mechanisms and services related to experience activity. (3). Online platform was constructed and offline experience service was provided simultaneously. Thus, the goal was accomplished.

Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Univ of California Press.

Belk, R. (2007). Why not share rather than own? Annals of the American academy of political and social science, 611, 126–140. 46

Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595-1600.

Berry, L. L., Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (2002). Managing the total customer experience. MIT Sloan management review, 43(3), 85-89.

Berry, L. L., & Carbone, L. P. (2007). Build loyalty through experience management. Quality progress, 40(9), 26.

Botsman, R. (2014). Sharing's not just for start-ups. Harvard business review, 92(9), 23-25.

Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84.

Falcone, P. M., & Imbert, E. (2017). Bringing a sharing economy approach into the food sector: The potential of food sharing for reducing food waste. In Food Waste Reduction and Valorisation (pp. 197-214). Springer, Cham.

Gittins, D. (1986). Icon-based human-computer interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24(6), 519-543.

Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012)。設計的方法：100個分析難題，跟成功商品取經（趙慧芬、林潔盈、吳莉君，譯）。臺北市：原點。

Hejne, R. (2011). American dream vs. American responsibilities. Public Management, 93(6), 20-21.

Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual tools for constructing knowledge. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1250 N. Pitt Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-1453.

Kriston, A., Szabó, T., and Inzelt, G. (2010). The marriage of car sharing and
hydrogen economy: A possible solution to the main problems of urban living. International journal of hydrogen energy, 35(23), 12697-12708.

Lovelock, C., & Wirtz, J. (2007). Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy, 6th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mascarenhas, O. A., Kesavan, R., & Bernacchi, M. (2006). Lasting customer loyalty: a total customer experience approach. Journal of consumer marketing, 23(7), 397-405.

Mckim, R. H. (1980). Experiences in Visual Thinking, Stanford, Wadsworth.

Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook, Scribner.

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard business review, 76, 97-105.

Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. M. (2018). How to facilitate a brainstorming session: The effect of idea generation techniques and of group brainstorm after individual brainstorm.CreativeIndustries Journal, 11(3), 263-277.

Schmitt, B. H., (1999). Experiential Marketing, New York: Free Press.

Spohrer, J., Maglio, P. P., Bailey, J., & Gruhl, D. (2007). Steps toward a science of service systems. Computer, 40(1), 71-77.

Stephany, A. (2015)。共享經濟時代（郭恬君，譯）。臺北市：商周。

The Economist (2013). A Inclusive Sharing Economy by BSR , 2017

Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., Gremler, D. D., & Pandit, A. (2006). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm.

久恆啓一（2003）。圖形思考 : 事半功倍的工作竅門（鄭雅云，譯）。臺北市：商周。

木下齊（2017）。地方創生: 小型城鎮、商店街、返鄉青年的創業10鐵則（張佩瑩，譯）。臺北市：不二家。

王洪文 （1967）。南投縣地理志氣候篇稿。南投文獻叢輯(15)，152-153。南投 : 南投縣文獻會。

日經設計編輯部（2016）。設計思考第一現場: 由創意思考案例入手， 讓您從發想到實踐， 輕鬆駕馭最貼近顧客需求的商業新模式。財團法人中國生產力中心。

中衛中心任務小組（2010）。風格密碼：顧客完整體驗大解析。中衛。臺北市。

村井瑞枝（2010）。解決不了的問題，用「畫」的就對了! （張凌虛，譯）。臺北市：東販。

李明芬（1996）。訊息設計的省思 : 跨越媒體的界線。教學科技與媒體，28，19-29。

李恆毅、賴香菊（2017）。使用共享經濟服務意向之研究。臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

佘昌翰、 王弓、 張明宗 （2015）。共享經濟平臺下的信任機制之個案分析-以 Airbnb為例。 中央大學，桃園市。

吳美美（1998）。建構一個終生學習的自學識網路資源知識庫。教學科技與媒體，41期，32-42。

岩佐十良（2018）。設計思考Ｘ地方創生。財團法人中衛發展中心。臺北市。

林廷宜（2010）。視覺訊息呈現的基礎概念。2010亞洲基礎造型論壇。銘傳大學。

林朝棨（1964）。南投縣文獻叢輯（十二）：南投縣志地形篇稿，第1-124頁，南投縣文獻委員會出版。

洛杉磯臺灣貿易中心（2018）。經貿透視雙周刊，第485期，外貿協會。

柳軍亞（2018）。臺灣社會企業的美麗與哀愁-以地方創生發展地方產業為例。臺灣大學政治學研究所學位論文， 1-119 。

馬化騰、張孝榮、孫怡、蔡雄山（2017）。共享經濟 : 改變全世界的新經濟方案。遠見天下文化出版股份有限公司。

許玉潔（2009）。網路平臺的參與度對學習成果及學習態度之影響。

康廷嶽、黃柏偉（2015）。由國際共享經濟發展探究我國中小企業商機。中小企業發展季刊， 第36期。

國家發展協會（2017）。「設計翻轉、地方創生」計畫規劃作業指引。

許雯逸、陳逸蓓（1998）。社論：大學圖書館與網路資源。大學圖書館，2卷1期，頁2-3。

張嘉年（2016）。訊息設計應用於列車資訊顯示幕之研究。臺灣科技大學。臺北市。

曾志朗（1997）。資訊網路對教育現代化的影響。科技報導，185期，2-4。

趙鏞浩 （2013）。平臺爭奪戰：行動上網時代，企業的未來在平臺（吳蘇夢，譯）。臺北市：漢宇國際。

劉家銘、邱韻芳（2013）。在地知識的形塑與實踐 : 以埔里茭白筍為例。暨南國際大學，南投縣。

蔡鳳凰（2018）。借鏡日本經驗發展我國地方特色產業。經濟前瞻（177），107-113。

蕭玟玲（2015）。國內推動中小企業發展共享經濟之政策想。臺灣經濟研究月刊，38(8)， 64-73。

Austin S., C. C., & S., S. (2015). The Billion Dollar Startup Club, Wall Street Journal,Feb 18. Retrieved from : http://graphics.wsj.com/billion-dollar-club/

Owyang, J., Tran, C., , & Silva, C. (2013). The Collaborative Economy. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/Altimeter/the-collaborative-economy

丁予嘉（2017）。共享經濟的利與弊。
取自 https://money.udn.com/money/story/5629/2613935

李念庭（2019）。「東京是個黑洞，把年輕人都吸走了」日本用三大關鍵讓偏鄉重生。取自https://web.cheers.com.tw/issue/2019/placemaking/article/05.php

李岳霞（2016）。臺大導入史丹佛設計思考課程 貼近使用者需求打造「暖科技」。
取自https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5070020-臺大導入史丹佛設計思考課程%E3%80%80貼近使用者需求打造「暖科技」

李盼＆劉依蓁（2016）。推動農村社區產業化與六級化發展。
取自http://www.biotaiwan.org.tw/mag/image_doc/46/13推動農村社區產業化與
六級化發展.pdf 7

周妙芳 & 韓寶珠（2013）。加入WTO對我國農業影響及因應之經驗。
取自https://www.coa.gov.tw/ws.php?id=24479058

洪柏聲 & 陳思瑋（2014）。建構新價值鏈農業，創造農業新感動。
取自https://www.csd.org.tw/report/preview/85.html

郭美孜 & 周凡鈺（2017）。共享經濟 你今天分享了嗎？
取自http://infographic.chinatimes.com/20170901000006-262804

徐瑞廷（2017）。Uber、Airbnb用「共享」撼動市場！給傳統企業的7個生存建議。取自https://www.managertoday.com.tw/columns/view/55314

高敬原（2017）。迎接2020東京奧運？Airbnb在日本就地合法。
取自https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/44881/airbnb-now-legal-japan-hosts-can-sublethomes-180-days

歐宜佩、陳信宏（2017）。共享經濟的零和遊戲借鏡英國推動之經驗與作法-中華經濟研究院。取自http://www.cier.edu.tw/site/cier/public/data/173-13 國際經濟.pdf