台灣的建築設計許可審議是一個多人多準則的決策程序，此決策程序異於傳統單一設計者的「黑箱」設計思考程序與依據法令進行單一建管審查程序；取而代之的，是透過眾多專業領域的參與，期望在有效溝通下，經由審議完成設計方案的評價與許可決策。因此，如何降低溝通干擾，以獲取最佳化的設計成果並提升建築許可的行政效率，實為建築專業領域的重要課題。然而，建築設計方案是由設計者依據其「個體經驗」產出設計結果並據以進行設計溝通；而此程序卻容易在溝通過程中，因參與溝通者認知差異產生「溝通干擾」。本研究以需經審議許可的案件為範疇，除探討現行台灣許可審議程序面臨的課題外，更進一步利用決策分析方法，檢證建築設計許可審議程序是否因認知差異而產生因決策傾向差異，甚至導致決策失靈的狀況。本研究在徵得建管行政人員、建築師、學者以及開發商等參與建築設計審議的4個領域群組共16位專家的同意下，對於設計指標進行意見表達，並利用模糊德爾菲法分析指標評價結果，藉此探討設計方案決策過程中，是否因認知差異產生的決策溝通障礙。經兩階段檢證分析後發現，不同類組的專家群對指標評價的重視程度迥異，確實產生「個體經驗差異」的溝通干擾，同時在運用模糊德爾菲法進行兩階段評價的分析過程中，確實發現個人會因群體結果調整決策傾向，進而因「從眾現象」而影響決策結果。在此研究架構下，期望更進一步探討利用量化及圖像化準則取代文字化準則以及程序精進改善傳統審議機制的問題，並透過自動化輔助審議系統解決審議認知落差等的可能性。

Architectural design review and approval is a communication and decision-making procedure that requires numerous people to participate, integrate their values and opinions, and facilitate optimizing the architectural design product. Therefore, architectural design and review were crucial topics for the present study. This study investigated how different experiences and abuse of group communication rules and resources influenced the application of text-based design guidelines to graphic architectural design and caused communication failure. In the first stage of this study, we explored whether review committee members had their own preferences because of their different experiences. After identifying twelve assessment indicators, we used a two-stage Fuzzy Delphi Method to invite four groups of professionals with sixteen experts in architectural design to assess design indicators; we also investigated whether various professionals interpreted Taiwan Building Technical Regulations differently and whether various professionals with various experiences interpreted text-based design guidelines differently, thereby causing communication failure as presented in the Schramm communication model. The results showed that various professionals assessed design indicators differently because of their varying experiences. In addition, the results of the two-stage Fuzzy Delphi Method survey showed that for some highly-ranked assessment indicators, various professionals reached a compromise during a group decision-making procedure in spite of different understandings between different groups. In order to enhance communication effectiveness in the architectural design review and approval procedure, this study suggests that the group review process should not only use quantitative and graphic design guideline to instead the literal guideline but also utilize the automatic review system to assist decision making during approval process.

1. 王价巨（1998）。台北市都市設計審議經驗之研究。國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文，台北市。
2. 王菀玲（2010）。建築教育中的合作式設計學習－以遊戲作為知識交易的機制。國立臺灣科技大學建築系博士論文，台北市。
3. 江南志（2014），建築專業的矛盾與對話。建築師雜誌，台北市。
4. 吳沛頤（2013）。台北市都市設計審議程序探討-業主開發權益與都市設計審議之衡量。國立臺灣科技大學建築系碩士論文，台北市。
5. 吳建德（2005）。台南市都市設計審議制度之研究。國立成功大學建築學系碩博士班碩士論文，台南市。
6. 吳義隆（2009）。都市設計審議機制運作型式之研究－以高雄市內惟埤文化園區特定區為例。國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩博士班博士論文，台南市。
7. 吳麗珍，1998，評估理論—文獻與回顧，警學叢刊，第二十八卷，第四期，pp.137-162。
8. 翁振益等（2006）。決策分析：方法與應用。華泰文化，台北市。
9. 曹書生（2014）。新北市都市設計審議制度之研究。中國文化大學建築及都市設計學系碩士在職專班碩士論文，台北市。
10. 潘淑滿，2003，質性研究:理論與應用，心理出版社，台北。
11. 邱茂林，顏蘇禎（1998）。建築設計過程中設計表現形式與視覺溝通現象之研究，設計學報，第三卷第二期，冬季號，pp.87-111。
12. Asch, S. E. (1955) Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American 193, pp.31-35.
13. Berlo, David (1960). The process of communication. New York,. New York: Rinehart, & Winston.
14. Dunn, William N. (1994). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. 2nd ed.. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc..
15. Ishikawa, A.; Amagasa, M.; Shiga, T.; Tomizawa, G.; Tatsuta, R.; Mieno, H. The max–min Delphi method and Fuzzy Delphi Method via Fuzzy Integration. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1993, 55, 241–253.
16. Liu, Y.T., 1995, Some phenomena of seeing shapes in design, Design Studies, 16, No.3, p.367-385.
17. Mesarovic, M. D., 1964, Views on General Systems Theory. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
18. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 101(2), 343-352.
19. Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1962). The processes of creative thinking. In H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), The Atherton Press behavioral science series. Contemporary approaches to creative thinking: A symposium held at the University of Colorado (pp. 63-119). New York, NY, US: Atherton Press.
20. Osgood, C. E. and Sebeok, T. A. (eds.) (1954) Psycholinguistics: A survey of theory and research problems. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Suppl. 49, pp.1-203.
21. Perkins, P. N. (1981), The Mind’s Best Work. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
22. Rowe, P.G., 1987, “Design Thinking”, MIT Press.
23. Schramm, W. (ed.) (1954) The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
24. Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Champaign, IL: The University of Illinois Press.
25. Wei-I Lee & Nan-Chih Chiang (2016) An Investigation of the Methods of Logicalizing the Code-Checking System for Architectural Design Review in New Taipei City. Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 407.
26. Wei-I Lee & Nan-Chih Chiang (2017) Application of Text-Based Design Guidelines to Building Permit Review Communication - Part I: The Influence of Field of Experience, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 16:3, 495-502, DOI: 10.3130/jaabe.16.495
27. Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-Behavior Research, Cambridge University Press.