隨著臺灣逐漸邁向超高齡化社會，臺灣長照巴士成為身障者與年長者生活中不可或缺的無障礙交通接送服務。然而據服務現況與過去研究指出，由於此服務成立不久，政府尚未訂定統一的服務規範，各家廠商皆無結構化的司機訓練流程與服務SOP，導致服務品質不一、客訴增加等問題。且隨著數位系統介入傳統服務，如何讓司機更有效地學習使用數位工具唯一重要議題。

基於上述研究背景，本研究目的為探討如何以服務設計思維幫助長照巴士建立標準化司機服務SOP，過程中參考人力資源管理領域之員工訓練流程與評估方法，確保所設計概念有辦法實際應用於產業訓練。期望透過人員服務SOP與學習工具的建立，提升司機學習成效與興趣，最終幫助公司降低訓練成本，作為未來人員服務SOP研究與設計參考。

本研究以臺灣長照巴士為設計個案，研究架構為個案研究，設計流程分為三階段：第一階段為問題探索及定義，透過關係人訪談、場域觀察、參閱現有服務規範、人員訓練方式，定義核心問題；第二階段為設計概念發展，首先梳理服務渠道與歷程，再以服務核心角色進行服務SOP與學習工具設計；第三階段為設計概念驗證，透過訪談與問卷評估設計方案，問卷設計參考Kirkpatrick四層次評估模型與胡凱傑、蔡云軒（2019）提出的三維模型概念，針對司機端與管理端進行設計驗證與評估，最終提出設計概念執行順序與相關建議。

本研究的主要發現有：（1）以服務設計思維結合人力資源管理員工訓練方法進行人員服務SOP設計，有助於提升用戶學習成效與體驗（2）情境故事版有助於人員服務SOP的呈現且能幫助用戶更加了解服務執行細節；（3）Kirkpatrick四層次評估模型能有效評估用戶對於設計概念的學習成效與喜好程度（4）三維模型能有效協助未來設計執行優先次序考量與設計著重點。綜合上述，本研究成功將服務設計與人力資源管理結合至人員服務SOP與學習工具的設計，且設計成果確實能提升司機學習成效與滿意度。

As Taiwan is on the cusp of becoming a super-aged society, the accessible transportation services provided by long-term care shuttle buses have become an indispensable part of the lives of the seniors and the disabled in Taiwan. However, past studies and the current state of the services have shown that the government has yet to create unified regulations for such services due to them being in their early stage of development. The lack of a standardized driver training program and a standard operating procedure (SOP) among service providers has resulted in inconsistent service quality and an increased number of customer complaints, among other issues. As digital systems are combined with traditional services, it has become a major issue to effectively train drivers on the use of digital tools.

Based on the aforementioned background information, the purpose of this study is to explore how to use service design thinking to help long-term care shuttle service providers establish a service SOP for their drivers. In this process, the author referenced the employee training procedure and performance assessment methods used in human resources management and ensured that design thinking can be applied to employee training in the transportation services industry. By creating a service SOP and its corresponding learning tools, the author aims to enhance the drivers’ learning motivation and outcomes and lower the training costs for service providers, thus establishing a basis for future studies and designs of service SOP.

This study is a case study on a long-term care shuttle service provider in Taiwan. The design process can be broken down into three stages. The first stage is defining the core problems through stakeholder interviews, observation of the space, and examination of existing service regulations and personnel training methods. The second stage is the development of design concepts by organizing the service channels and procedures and designing the service SOP and its corresponding learning tools around the core roles. The third stage is the verification of design concepts by evaluating design solutions through interviews and questionnaires. The questionnaire design is based on the Kirkpatrick Model of the four levels of training evaluation and a three-dimensional model, and focuses on the design verification and evaluation on the driver end and the management end. Lastly, the author proposes the implementation order of the design concepts and other relevant suggestions.

The main findings of this study are as follows: (1) service SOP design through the combination of service design thinking and the employee training methods used in human resources management can enhance the learning outcomes and experience of training participants; (2) storyboards can help visualize the service SOP and help participants familiarize themselves with the details of service execution; (3) the Kirkpatrick Model of the four levels of training evaluation can effectively evaluate the participants’ learning outcomes and satisfaction regarding the design concepts; and (4) the three-dimensional model can effectively help determine the implementation order and focus of future designs. In conclusion, this study has successfully combined service design thinking and human resources management to design a service SOP and its corresponding learning tools that enhance the learning outcomes and satisfaction among drivers in training.

中文部分
1. 楊怡馨（2018）。以服務設計觀點探討身心障礙接送服務系統-以台中復康巴士為例。國立臺灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文，臺北。
2. 李知芸（2019）。透過服務設計觀點整合無障礙交通接送服務系統設計-以台中宜蘭長照巴士為例。國立臺灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文，臺北。
3. 施佩伶（2020）。以服務設計思維優化AR體育競賽觀賽體驗：以Meleap公司之產品HADO為例。 國立臺灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文，臺北。
4. 何舒軒、宋同正（2014）。綜論服務設計學術研究發展。設計學報，19(2)，45-66。
5. 唐玄輝、林穎謙（2011）。情境故事法運用於跨領域合作設計課程的問題與影響。設計學報，16(3)，37。
6. 胡凱傑、任維廉 （2007）。市區公車乘客認知服務品質屬性之評估與改善排序-期望容忍區間與重要度為觀點。運輸學刊，19(3)，241-270。
7. 胡凱傑、蔡云軒（2019）。整合 kano 模式、IPA與目標困難度探討市區公車服務品質改善策略：以台北市為例。運輸學刊，31(3)，265-295。
8. 鍾倫納（1997）。應用社會科學研究法。臺北：臺灣商務出版社。
9. 黃光玉、劉念夏、陳清文譯（2004）。《媒介與傳播研究方法：質化與量化研究途徑》。臺北：風雲論壇。
10. 潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究理論與應用。臺北：心理出版社股份有限公司。
11. 邱皓政（2002）。量化研究與統計分析。臺北：五南書局。
12. 衛福部（2018）。長期照顧十年計畫2.0（106~115年）。臺北：衛福部。
13. 行政院（2019）。國情統計通報（第002號）。臺北：行政院主計總處綜合統計處。
14. 交通部（2011）。低地板公車駕駛員服務身心障礙及其他行動不便乘客上下車標準作業程序。臺北：臺北市公共運輸處。
15. 陳沁怡（2004）。訓練與發展。台北：雙葉書廊。
16. 劉淑芬（2007）。企業教育訓練評鑑方法應用之研究：Kirkpatrick 四層次模式理論分析的觀點。國立中正大學成人及繼續教育研究所博士論文，嘉義。
17. 林淑慧（總校閱），李慶芳、王冠斌、李清賢、童泰盛、蔡宏偉、趙怡嘉 （編譯）（2014）。人力資源管理。臺北：普林斯頓國際。

英文部分
1. Buckley, R., & Caple, J. (1995). The training and development audit evolves: Is your training and development and development budget wasted. Journal of European Industrial Training, 20(5), 68-79.
2. Bartram, S., & Gibson, B. (2000). Training needs analysis toolkit: a resource for identifying training needs, selecting training strategies, and developing training plans. United Kingdom: Human Resource Development.
3. 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.
4. Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster C., Burchill, G., Duouchel, W., Pouliot, F., Richter, R., Rubinoff, A., Shen, D., Timko, M., and Walden, D. (1993), Kano’s Methods for Understanding Customer-defined Quality. Center for Quality of Management Journal, 2(4), 3-36.
5. Curtis, G., & Vertelney, L. (1990). Storyboards and Sketch Prototypes for Rapid Interface Visualization. Tutorial, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Seattle: ACM.
6. Dessler, G. (2017). Human Resource Management, 15e. United Kingdom: Pearson Education.
7. Dessler, G. (2011). Fundamentals of human resource management. United Kingdom: Pearson Education.
8. Grove, S. J., & Fisk, R. P. (1989). Impression management in services marketing: A dramaturgical perspective. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Jeffrey, K. L., & Meier, D. A. V. I. D. (2006). The Toyota Way Field book. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
10. Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., and Tsuji, S. (1984), Attractive Quality and Must-be Quality. The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 39-48.
11. Kirkpatrick, D. L. and Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training
Programs: The Four Levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
12. Lee, S. H., & Pershing, J. A. (2002). Dimensions and design criteria for developing training reaction evaluations. Human Resource Development International, 5(2), 175-197.
13. Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, 485-516.
14. Meroni, A., & Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Design for service. England: Grower Publishing Limited.
15. Manghani, K. (2011). Quality assurance: Importance of systems and standard operating procedures. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 2(1), 34-34.
16. Martilla, J. A. and James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77-79.
17. 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.
18. Penin, L. (2018). An Introduction to Service Design: Designing the Invisible. England: Bloomsbury Visual Arts.
19. Rancière, J. (2010). Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics. London and New York: Continuum.
20. Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard business review, 81(12), 46-55.
21. Stickdorn, M., Schneider, J., Andrews, K., & Lawrence, A. (2011). This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
22. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). The four service marketing myths: remnants of a goods-based, manufacturing model. Journal of service research, 6(4), 324-335.
23. Zhang, H. Q., & Chow, I. (2004). Application of importance-performance model in tour guides’ performance: evidence from mainland Chinese outbound visitors in Hong Kong. Tourism management, 25(1), 81-91.

網路資料
1. 唐玄輝（2019）。新服務設計的內涵。2019 年 1 月 28 日。取自: https://medium.com/ditl/%E6%96%B0%E6%9C%8D%E5%8B%99%E8%A8%AD%E8%A8%8 8%E7%9A%84%E5%85%A7%E6%B6%B5-31f2319588a4。
2. 多扶事業股份有限公司（2016）。無障礙服務震撼教育多扶培訓uberAssist關懷優步熱血駕駛。2016年3月19日。取自：http://www.duofu.com.tw/story/uberassisttpe。
3. 身心障礙聯盟Freemove123（2018）。交通部公路總局服務身障者及視障者上下車教學影片。取自：https://league0630.pixnet.net/blog/post/345585514
4. 范振豐（2011）。精實服務流程、顧客滿意百分。2011年10月3日。取自：https://mymkc.com/article/content/21234。
5. Moritz, S. (2005). Service design. Practical access to an evolving field. (Master’s thesis, Köln International School of Design). Retrieved from https://issuu.com/st_moritz/docs/pa2servicedesign/4
6. Dial A Ride (2018). MiDAS Training. Retrieved from: http://www.scarboroughdialaride.org/midas.html
7. TAPTCO (2018). Transit Operator Development Course. Retrieved from: https://taptco.com/taptco-bus-driver-training-products/transit-operator-development-course/
8. Sauro, J. (2011). Measuring usability with the system usability scale (SUS). Retrieved from: https://measuringu.com/sus/
9. Sarah, G. (2017). Service Blueprints: Definition. Retrieved from: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/service-blueprints-definition/