全球化的競爭之下，設計已進入提升產品價值與品質的時代。跨領域合作已逐漸取代傳統的個人運作模式。跨領域團隊擁有許多同質性團隊所沒有的先天優勢，但相對的需要面對的是因異質性所帶來的衝擊。
本研究實際運用跨領域合作式設計教學於情境故事設計工作坊，藉此探討跨領域合作設計對於設計教育與學習的影響，並了解跨領域合作時設計人員與工程人員在學習前，學習中，以及設計完成等三階段，對於團隊的溝通協調與概念傳達的問題及應對方式。並藉由情境故事法以「使用者」為中心與視覺化溝通的特性，探討情境故事法對於跨領域合作設計團隊的影響，並提出教學建議。從訪談及問卷調查中得知跨領域合作設計，的確可以有效增加團隊合作的認知，及產品創新的成熟度，並促使參予成員自我學習與挑戰。
溝通與專業基礎，是所有團隊皆須面對的問題，也是跨領域團隊運作的基本要素，找尋共通的語言對於跨領域團隊來說，是優先於建立共同的團隊目標。情境故事法的運用也確實可有效幫助跨領域設計團隊，進行思考與概念上的溝通，並可有效協助科技人員順利進入設計運作流程，而情境也提供了設計與工程團隊在跨領域合作上的共通語言。情境故事法中的使用者調查，是情境故事法運用的重要關鍵，影響著跨領域團隊產品創新成果的成熟度與效率，使用者調查給予跨領域團隊明確的目標，進而幫助參與學員的設計學習。

Because of the global competition, the goal of design has been changed to improve the value and quality of products. The operation of companies cannot be completed by a single division. The multidisciplinary collaboration has replaced traditional team work gradually. The multidisciplinary collaboration teams possess many inborn strengths that homogeneity teams have not. On the other hand, the multidisciplinary collaboration teams also need to face the problems and impacts resulted from the nature of heterogeneity.
This study used Scenario Approach on multidisciplinary collaboration design course to research the influence of multidisciplinary collaboration design on the teaching and studying of design, and to understand the way by which designers and engineers communicate, coordinate, convey concepts and interact in each stage, including pre-learning, in-learning, and after-learning. This study also explored the issues of user orientation and visual communication, being the traits of scenario approach, in an attempt to research the effect of scenario approach on multidisciplinary collaboration design team and design pedagogy. Our research methods were interviews and questionnaires. The results showed multidisciplinary collaboration design can improve the cognition of teamwork and the maturity of products.
Finding common ground or language is the most challenging issue, and it influences building common goal for multidisciplinary team. The application of scenario approach can help multidisciplinary team to think and communicate effectively on concepts, and help engineers get involved into the process of design successfully. The scenario approach also provides a common language for designer and engineer on multidisciplinary cooperation. User study is the key factor for application of scenario approach, affecting the maturity of innovation and efficiency of products. User study also provides a definite goal for multidisciplinary team, and helps team members to produce better design.

Barnard, C. I. (1968). the functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Campbell, R.L. (1992). Will the real scenario please stand up? SIGCHI Bulletin, 24 (2), 6-8.
Carroll, J.M. (2000). Five reasons for scenario-based design. Design studies, 13, 43-60.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.
Cotton, J. L. (1993). Employee involvement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497-509.
Edward E. Lawler III (1994). From Job-Based to Competency-Based Organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, No. 1, 3-15
Forsythe, D.R. (1999). Group dynamics. Belmont. CA: Brooks/Cole.
Gabriela G. (1974). Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion- Israel Institute of Technology. Haifa 32000, Israel
Gabriela Goldschmidt (1995). The designer as a team o f one. Design Studies, 16, 189-209.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J.W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 315-342
Holt, K. (1990). The Nature of the Design Process. Oakley, M.(ed.) Design Management , BasilBlackwell Inc(1st edition).
Jackson, S. E. , May, K. E. , & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas, & Associates (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision-making in organizations, 204-261. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Joachim S. and Petra B. S. (2004). Thinking in deaign teams-an analysis of team communication. Design studies, 23, 473-496.
John M. C. (1995). Scenarios-Base Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development. New York: Wiley.
John M. C. (2000). Making use: Scenario-Base Design of Human-Computer Interaction. Boston : MIT Press.
Jason D. Shaw (200). Interdependence and Preference for Group Work: Main and Congruence Effects on the Satisfaction and Performance of Group Members. Journal of Management, Vol. 26, 2, 259-279
Kramer, M. , Kuo, C. L., & Dailey, J. C. (1997). The impact of brainstorming techniques on subsequent group processes: Beyond generating ideas. Small Group Research, 28, 218-242.
Liu, Y. T. (1998). Restructuring Shapes. National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.
Oakley, M. (1990). Design and Design Management. Oakley, M.(ed.) Design Management , BasilBlackwell Inc(1st edition)..
Parker, G. M., 1996, Team Players and Teamwork: The New Competitive Business Strategy, Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series, Paperback Reprint edition.
Paul. Q. L., Geoff J. (1997). Knowledge management：A Strategic agend. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 385-391.
Paul B. Paulus (2000). Groups, Teams, and Creativity: The Creative Potential of Idea-generating Groups. University of Texas at Arlington, USA, 49 (2), 237-262
Paulus. P. B. (1989). Psychology of group influence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L. M. (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 78-89.
Petre, M. (2004). How expert engineering teams use disciplines of innovation. Design Studies, 25, 477-493.
Roozenburg, N.F.M. and Eekels, J. (1995). Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Shanon, C. E. & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana Univ of Illinois Press, 5.
Shepperd, J.A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67-81.
Simon, R. J. (1976). Administrative Behaviour. N. Y.: the free.
Smith, S. M. & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative Cognition. R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of creativity , 190–212. Cambridgepp , Cambridge University Press.
Nigel, C. & Anita, C.C. (1995). Observation of teamwork and social processes in deaign. Design studies, 16, 143-170.
Nigel C. & Anita C. C. (2001). Design Discipline. Faculty of Technology. The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
Warr, A.. & O'Neill, E. (2006). The effect of group composition on divergent thinking in an interaction design activity. Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on Designing Interactive systems. University Park, PA, USA ACM Press, New York, USA, 122-131.
Zeisel, J. (1991), Inquiry by Design. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 2nd edition.
Boyett, J. (1999)。管理大師聖經 (Guru Guide: The Best Ideas of the TopManagement Thinkers)(劉清彥譯)。台北：商業周刊商。
湯姆．凱利 (2002)。IDEA物語 (徐鋒志譯)。台北：大塊。
黃麗芬 (2002)。情境故事法應用於產品創新設計育教學之探討。國立台北科技大學創新設計研究所碩士論文。
柯建志 (2005)。情境設計與使用者中心設計於發展互動系統之比較性研究。國立交通大學傳播所碩士論文碩士論文。
馬玉 (2005)。整合生活型態與情境故事法應用於產品設計之研究─以居家電動床為例。長庚大學工業設計研究所碩士論文。
楊義銘 (2002)。情境故事法與電腦中界溝通應用於協同創新設計企劃之探討。國立台北科技大學創新設計研究所碩士論文。
姚正威 (2002)。體驗劇本設計-震旦與神腦合作設計之接力式工作營研究。國立台北科技大學創新設計研究所碩士論文。
丁崇寬 (2003)。情境故事法應用於創新概念設計之探討以室內工作戰力輪椅為例。國立台北科技大學創新設計研究所碩士論文。
余德彰、林文琦、王介邱(2001) 。劇本導引-資訊時代產品與服務設計新法。台北：田園城市。
董雅菁 (2006)。跨功能研發團隊中溝通模式對設計知識整合之影響。大同大學工業設計所碩士論文。
鄧成連 (1999)。設計管理-產品設計之組織、溝通與運作。台北：亞太圖書。
涂崇俊 (1977)。國民中學校長-教師溝通問題研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
徐木蘭 (1994)。行為科學與管理。台北：三民書局，增訂三版。
單承剛 (2002)。設計經理人與跨領域設計團隊之傳達研究。設計學報第8卷第1期。
蘇照彬 (1994)。Scenario在人機互動中之理論與應用:以互動電視節目表的發展與評估為例。國立交通大學傳播所碩士論文。