在產業急速變遷及競爭激烈的環境下，為開發出創新之商品及服務，產業創新的方向逐漸由製造研發轉變成以設計主導的品牌創新時代，以往注重造型、功能等狹隘方向的設計行為已無法跟上時代進步，對於擁有設計思考能力人才的需求也迫切增加，設計思考著重於了解設計師如何進行設計，而設計方法的使用提供了設計師概念性上輔助工具，能夠快速有效地組之設計程序，而目前臺灣各大學之工業設計科系皆有設立「設計方法」之課程，運用適當的教學方法和技術，能夠鼓勵學生在難易適中的環境中學習思考，幫助創造思考能力的養成。
　　本研究從使用不同設計方法的觀點切入，探討工業設計科系學生在進行設計時，不同設計方法對於設計的影響。實驗採用設計方法為：情境故事法(scenario)、腦力激盪法(brainstorming)以及關聯法(synectics)，經由系統化口語分析，了解受測者的思考結構，進一步了解不同設計方法是否造成設計思考過程的差異，以及對設計成果的影響。
分為三個步驟進行：第一步驟為以大二工業設計系學生為受測者，利用三種設計方法執行合作式設計競賽實驗，並邀請專家為設計成果進行評量；第二步驟是編碼分析實驗所取得之口語資料；第三步驟為透過設計過程之觀察、FBS思考類別數量與專家評鑑分數，比較設計方法的思考變化狀況與設計成果優劣。
　　研究結果發現：(1)不同設計方法會改變思考過程之結構，但對設計成果之優劣無顯著性差異。(2)三種設計方法表現出不同特性：腦力激盪法偏重於創新性與功能思考類別；情境故事法藉由大量地預想情境之模擬，使得產品更為貼近使用者；關聯法透過隨機文字表的具象詞彙輔助，增加了對於產品結構及運作方式上的描述。而妥善使用設計方法之特性可以幫助設計者達到理想的產品需求。研究所得到的結論與口語分析資料，將可對於設計教育及設計思考領域有所幫助，協助此領域設計研究之發展。

The direction for developing innovative products and service in a fast evolving and highly competitive industrial environment has been shifted from manufacturing and R&D focuses to a design-focused brand innovation era. Consequently, design has gradually become a popular and prominent major at schools. From a pedagogical aspect, design method, a course offered by industrial design faculty at universities across Taiwan, encourages students to learn thinking in environments with moderate difficulty and uses appropriate teaching approaches and techniques to help students developing critical thinking capacity. Design method is also a conceptual aid for organizing design process quickly and effectively. This study is interested in how these various design methods learned by students can facilitate the process of product design.
This study investigated the effect of adopting different design method by industrial design major students on designing. Three design methods applied in this experiment were: scenario, brainstorming and synectics. Systemic protocol analysis and function-behavior-structure coding scheme were employed to comprehend the thinking structure of the study subjects and to further examine whether the type of design method is responsible for inducing different design thinking processes and design outcomes.
This study proceeded in three steps. In the first step, industrial design sophomores were recruited to participate in this experiment. A collaborative design competition was carried out for testing the three design methods, and experts of this field were invited to evaluate the designed products. In the second step, protocol data obtained from the experiment was coded and analyzed. In the third step, changes in thinking as well as the strength and weakness of the design outcomes of these three design methods were compared based on the observation made during the designing process, the number of FBS thinking categories, and the score given by the experts.
This study has found: 1) Type of design method can affect the structure of thinking process but not the successfulness of the outcome of the design. 2) Different features were exhibited by these three design methods. Brainstorming was more oriented toward the innovative and functional thinking category. Scenario facilitated the design of customer-oriented products by simulating various expected contexts. Synectics enhanced the description on product structure and the operation method by applying concrete auxiliary terms from the random text table. A good use of the features of these design methods can help designers to attain the ideal product demand. The conclusion and protocol analysis data of this study can be used as a reference for design education and design thinking. It can also assist the development of design research of these fields.

英文部分
1. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Hove Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Campbell, R. L. (1992). Will the Real Scenario ,Please Stand up? SIGCHI Bulletin, 24, 2, 6-8.
3. Carroll, J. (2000). Five reasons for scenario-based design. Interacting with computers, 13, 1, 43-60.
4. Craig, D. L. (2001). Stalking Homo Faber: A comparison of research strategies for studying design behaviour. In C. Eastman, M. McCracken and W. Newstetter (Eds), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education. (pp. 13-36). Georgia Institute of Technology: Elsevier.
5. Cross, N. (1999). Natural intelligence in design. Design Studies, 20, 25-39.
6. Eckersley, M. (1988). The form of design process: a protocol analysis study. Design Studies, 16, 86-94.
7. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data MA. Cambridge: MIT Press.
8. Gero, J. S. (1990). Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine, 11, 26-36.
9. Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design Studies, 25, 373-391.
10. Gero, J. S., & Tang, H. H. (2001). Differences between retrospective and concurrent protocols in revealing the process-oriented aspects of the design process. Design Studies, 21, 283-295.
11. Gordon, W. J. J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity. New York: Harper & Row.
12. Kelley, T. (2001). The Art of Innovation. New York: Doubleday.
13. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
14. Mitchell, W. J. (1990). The design studio of the future:the electronic design studio. Cambridge, MA: MITpress.
15. Nardi, B. A. (1992). The Use of Scenarios in Design. SIGCHI Bulletin, 24, 2, 13-14.
16. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17. Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination(Rev. ed). New York: Scribner.
18. Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (Third Revised Edition). New York: Charles Scribner’s Son.
19. Simon, H. A. (1966). Scientific discovery and the psychology of problem solving, Mind and Cosmos. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
20. Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181-201.
21. Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1962). Computer simulation of human thinking and problem solving, though in the young child. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
22. VanGundy, A. B. (1988). Techniques of Structured Problem Solving (2nd edition). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
23. Wong, V. (2009). How to Nurture Future Leaders: Design thinking brings creative techniques to business. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/sep2009/id20090930_806435.htm
中文部分
1. Brown, T. (2010)。設計思考改造世界(Change by Design: How Design Thinking)。(吳莉君譯)。台北市：聯經。
2. Jones, J. C. (1994)。設計方法。(張建成譯)。台北市：六合。
3. Michalko, M. (2007)。創意的技術：100位天才的9種思考習慣(謝佩妏譯)。台北市：究竟。
4. Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Eekels, J. (1995)。產品設計─設計基礎和方法論。(張建成譯)。台北市：六合。
5. Rowe, P. G. (1999)。設計思考。(王昭仁譯)。台北市：建築情報季刊雜誌社。
6. 丁崇寬(2003)。應用情境故事法於創新概念設計之探討-以室內工作站立輪椅為例。未出版之碩士論文，台北科技大學創新設計研究所，臺北。
7. 余德彰，林文綺，王介丘(2001)。劇本引導－資訊時代產品與服務方法。台北：田園城市。
8. 張玉成(1988)。開發腦中金礦的教學策略。台北市：心理。
9. 陳致綱(2003)。台灣工業設計業界常用之設計方法探討。未出版之碩士論文，台灣科技大學設計研究所，臺北。
10. 曾坤明(1979)。工業設計的基礎。台北：六合出版社。
11. 黃麗芬(2001)。情境故事法應用於產品創新設計與教學之探討。未出版之碩士論文，台北科技大學創新設計研究所，臺北。
12. 奧出直人(2008)。為什麼你的公司生產不出iPOD：設計思考才是關鍵。(賴惠鈴譯)。台北市：大雁。
13. 蘇照彬(1994)。Scenario在人機介面互動中之理論與應用-以互動電視（ITV）節目表的發展與評估為例。未出版之碩士論文，交通大學傳播科技所碩士論文，新竹。