隨著數位科技的進步，智慧產品發展出整合線上線下服務的智慧產品服務系統(Smart product-service system)，是智慧互聯產品(Smart connected product)與數位服務的結合，而顧客與相關使用者作為產品和服務開發的核心，企業可以藉由共創的方式來瞭解其需求，並配合共創工具的運用引導他們說出想法，進而共同開發出更符合使用者本身需要的產品。
本研究開發了一套應用於智慧健康產品領域的共創工具- SmarKit，藉由線上問卷招募智慧健康產品使用者，然後舉辦共創工作坊，將他們依照主觀健康態度差異分群，實際運用共創工具分享各自經驗與想法，再依照質性訪談與共創成果彙整他們的需求，了解不同類群使用者的想法，進而探討出智慧健康產品未來的相關發展建議，也透過參與者工具使用體驗，了解SmarKit的使用性問題、用於共創活動之效用。
彙整研究結果發現，智慧健康產品未來的發展建議主要有兩項參考：(1) 高感知控制度使用者重視直覺操作感受；(2) 低感知控制度使用者著重全面監測。SmaKit的使用性內容為：(1) 激發共創參與者從使用情境出發思考；(2) 提供創意與想法生成的框架；(3) 透過蒐集想法轉化為設計方向。

With the advancement of digital technology, a smart product-service system that integrates online and offline services has developed. It is a combination of smart connected products and digital services. Customers and related users are the core of product and service development; companies can understand their needs through co-creation, use co-creation tools to guide them to express their ideas, and then jointly develop products that better meet the needs of users.
This study developed a set of co-creation toolkits for smart healthcare products-SmarKit: smart healthcare product users are recruited through online questionnaires, and then co-creation workshops are held to group them according to differences in subjective health attitudes, in which co-creation tools are practically applied for them to share their own experiences and ideas, and then summarize their needs according to qualitative interviews and co-creation results to understand the feedbacks of different groups of users. Furthermore, relevant development suggestions for the future of smart healthcare products are discussed. Through usage experience of users and usability issues of SmarKit, its application on co-creation activities is further explored.
The aggregated results of the research are: there are two main references for the future development of smart healthcare products: (1) users with a high degree of perceptual control attach importance to intuitive operation experience; (2) users with a low degree of perceptual control focus on comprehensive monitoring. The usable content of SmarKit is: (1) to stimulate co-creation participants to think from the context of use; (2) to provide a framework for creativity and idea generation; (3) to transform ideas into design directions by collecting ideas.

1. Bakırlıoğlu, Y., & Doğan, Ç. (2020). Exploring Product/Part Longevity in Open Design of Small Kitchen Appliances. The Design Journal, 23(6), 885-905. doi:10.1080/14606925.2020.1826635
2. Bloem, S., Stalpers, J., Groenland, E. A. G., van Montfort, K., van Raaij, W. F., & de Rooij, K. (2020). Segmentation of health-care consumers: psychological determinants of subjective health and other person-related variables. BMC Health Serv Res, 20(1), 726. doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05560-4
3. Chang, D., Gu, Z., Li, F., & Jiang, R. (2019). A user-centric smart product-service system development approach: A case study on medication management for the elderly. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 42. doi:10.1016/j.aei.2019.100979
4. Carneiro, G., Barros, G., & Costa, C. Z. (2012). I|o cards: A tool to support the design of interactive artifacts. In Proceedings DRS2012 Design Research Society conference, 1e4 July. Bangkok, Thailand: Bangkok Chulalongkorn University.
5. Drain, A., & Sanders, E.B.-N. (2019). A collaboration system model for planning and evaluating participatory design projects. International Journal of Design. 13(3), 39-52.
6. Ehn, P. (2008) Participation in Design Things. Proc. PDC 2008, 92-101.
doi:10.1145/1795234.1795248
7. Fuller, J., (2010). Refining virtual co-creation from a consumer perspective. California Management Review, 52, 98-122.
8. Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A., & Storbacka, K. (2015). Managing Co-creation Design: A Strategic Approach to Innovation. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-483. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12087
9. Frow, P., & Payne A. (2013). Co-creation: a typology and framework. Working Paper, Discipline of Marketing, University of Sydney.
10. Freire, K. & Sangiorgi, D. (2010). Service design and Healthcare innovation: from consumption, to co-production to co-creation. Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation, 39- 49.
11. Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of marketing, 46(2), 60-72.
12. Goldenberg, M. A., Klenosky, D. B., O'Leary, J. T., & Templin, T. J. (2000). A means-end investigation of ropes course experiences. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(2), 208-224.
13. Galabo, R., & Cruickshank, L. (2021). Making it better together: a framework for improving creative engagement tools. CoDesign, 1-23. doi:10.1080/15710882.2021.1912777
14. Gianni, F., Mora, S., & Divitini, M. (2018). Rapid Prototyping Internet of Things Applications for Augmented Objects: The Tiles Toolkit Approach. In Ambient Intelligence (pp. 204-220).
15. Haritaipan, L. (2019). Towards the Creation of Creativity Tools for Real-practice: A Review of 112 Design Tools in the Market. The Design Journal, 22(4), 529-539. doi:10.1080/14606925.2019.1613800
16. Kotler, P. (2002). Marketing Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17. Kassarjian, H. H., (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of consumer research, 4(1), 8-18.
18. Levine, R., Locke, C., Searls, D., & Weinberger, D. (2001). The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
19. Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & Wessels, G. (2008). Toward a conceptual foundation for service science:Contributions from service-dominant logic. IBM systems journal, 47(1), 5-14.
20. Moller, O. (2014). 81 creativity card decks. MethodKit. 28 March. From: https://methodkit.com/research-method-cards/.
21. McLuhan, M., & Nevitt, B. (1972). Take Today:the Executive as Dropout. New York, NY：Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
22. Mavroudi, A., Divitini, M., Mora, S., & Gianni, F. (2018). Game-Based Learning for IoT: The Tiles Inventor Toolkit. In Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning (pp. 294-305).
23. Mora, S., Gianni, F., Nichele, S., & Divitini, M. (2018). Introducing IoT Competencies to First-Year University Students With The Tiles Toolkit. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th Computer Science Education Research Conference on ZZZ - CSERC '18.
24. Mora, S., Gianni, F., & Divitini, M. (2017). Tiles: A Card-based Ideation Toolkit for the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (DIS ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064699
25. Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (Eds.) (1986). User centered system design: New perspectives on human- computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Nambisan, S. (2002). Designing Virtual Customer Environments for New Product Development: Toward a Theory. The Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 392-413. doi:10.2307/4134386
27. Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 28(1), 11–31.
28. Prahalad, C.K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
29. Roy, R., & Warren, J. P. (2019). Card-based design tools: a review and analysis of 155 card decks for designers and designing. Design Studies, 63, 125-154. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2019.04.002
30. Rothstein, A. (2012). White paper: Open deck card standard. Poszu. From. www.poszu.com/open-card-deck-standard.html.
31. Rijsdijk, S.A., & Hultink, E.J., (2009). How today's consumers perceive tomorrow's smart products, J. Prod. Innov. Manage, 26 (1) 24–42.
32. Stafford, T. F. (2003). E-Services. Communications of the ACM, 46(6), 26-28.
33. Sanders, E.B.-N. (1999). Postdesign and Participatory Culture. In Presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference “Useful and critical” – The Position of Research in Design. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.
34. Sanders, E.B.-N. (1992). Converging perspectives: product development research for the 1990s. Design management journal, 3 (4), 49-54.
35. Smith, R. C., Bossen, C., & Kanstrup, A. M. (2017). Participatory design in an era of participation. CoDesign, 13(2), 65-69. doi:10.1080/15710882.2017.1310466
36. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign, 10(1), 5-14. doi:10.1080/15710882.2014.888183
37. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(1), 5-18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068
38. Sheth, J. N., & Uslay, C. (2007). Implications of the revised definition of marketing: from exchange to value creation. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 26(2), 302-307. doi:10.1509/jppm.26.2.302
39. Tofler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. New York, NY：William Morrow.
40. Valencia, A., Mugge, R., Schoormans, J. P. L., & Schifferstein, H. N. J (2015). The design of smart product-service systems (PSSs): An exploration of design characteristics. International Journal of Design, 9(1), 13-28 .
41. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2007). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1-10. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6
42. Zheng, P., Lin, T.-J., Chen, C.-H., & Xu, X. (2018). A systematic design approach for service innovation of smart product-service systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 657-667. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.101