Description Detail

Vol.23, No.3(2016-4)(165-170) 
Application of Evaluation Grid Method and Quantification Type I to Attractiveness of for Uniform Design
應用評價構造法與數量化I類於制服設計之魅力研究
Chun-hui Juan, Chia-hsu Lin
阮春慧, 林家旭
Enterprises usually use uniforms to present brand image and enhance the brand awareness brand management. Therefore, uniforms play an important role in business management. This study took the graphic card of uniform design collected by yahoo search engine as research samples, exploring the attractive elements in uniform design. First, the purposive sampling is conducted on 1O interviewers. Through Miryoku Engineering Evaluation Grid Method(EGM), we constructed the evaluation base for uniform design attractiveness according to the graphic card samples. Then we extracted some attractive elements in uniform design and applied these extracted attractive elements in uniform design. This study utilized Quantification Type I analysis to analyze the weights of these attractive elements. The research results showed the importance of elements for uniform design, from high to low are respectively: skirt, shirt, belt, neckpiece and overcoat. The results show a statistically significant positive effect.
企業在品牌經營中常運用制服對外呈現品牌形象與提高知名度,由此可見,制服在企業組織經營中扮演相當重要的角色。近年來制服設計相關的量化研究中多數著重於市場產品銷售量的研究,有關制服設計情感認知的研究,除了一般說的風格或是意象認知的研究之外,極少著墨在有關制服設計的認知研究,或是主題的魅力研究。因此設計者或穿著制服者很難將設計主題的概念具體陳述,打動企業組織經營者的心促進訂製慾望。本研究以雅虎網路搜尋引擎蒐集而來的制服設計圖卡作為研究樣本,首先透過魅力工學評價構造法((Evaluation Grid Method, EGM),的方式,針對本研究的圖卡樣本,建構制服設計之魅力因子。再以數量化I類量化分析這些魅力因子之權重。最後將這些魅力因子應用於制服設計。制服設計樣本之篩選結果顯示,經由10位受測者將樣本圖卡分成5至8個類群,分群結果根據制服設計的感性差異予以命名,最後為以下六個分群:「公主」、「法官」、「空姐」、「銀行員」、「巨星」、「日本武士」;制服設計魅力因子萃取結果顯示,對於制服設計之重要性依高至低依序為「下裙」、「襯衫」、「腰帶」、「領飾」及「外套」;制服設計魅力評價與數量化I類結果顯示,「合身裙」、「花襯衫」、「細腰帶」、「領帶」、「無領外套」具有統計上顯著性的正向影響關係。本研究價值與貢獻在於應用制服設計魅力因子分析的結果,轉化為制服設計師在設計創作的設計方案,以建立制服設計的參考模式。
Uniform Design, Evaluation Grid Method, Quantification Type I, Miryoku Engineering
制服設計、評價構造法、數量化I類、魅力工學
Year Volume
2020 27.1 | 27.2
27.3 |
2019 26.1 |
2018 25.1 |
2017 24.1 | 24.2
24.3 | 24.4
24.5 | 24.6
24.7 | 24.8
24.9 |
2016 23.1 | 23.2
23.3 | 23.4
23.5 | 23.6
23.7 | 23.8
2015 22.1 | 22.2
22.3 | 22.4
22.5 |
2014 21.1 | 21.2
21.3 |
2013 20.1 | 20.2
20.3 | 20.4
2012 19.1 | 19.2
19.3 | 19.4
2011 18.1 | 18.2
2010 17.4