未來研究展望

基於使用者對於使用者介面設計的差異化需求，如何在使用者需求和設計師設計 專業間，求取較為客觀而精準的元件偏好權重值(weight value)，藉以調整各項使用需 求映對設計元件的優先順序，並降低其誤差。有學者主張利用 AHP 或 Fuzzy logic 模 式予以改善，可作為後續研究的一個重要方向。

針對使用者實際操作的需求調查部分，因大多數使用者不熟悉資訊系統的介面設 計元件。在問卷調查上，常會出現相同問題，所得到的答案卻呈現極大的差異。建議 在實施問卷調查之前，可先針對使用者進行資訊系統介面設計元件的說明，並以模糊 問卷方式修正調查結果落差過大的問題。

使用本研究所提出的 ISM-MICMAC 方法分析層級結構中的組成元件，研究發現 位於第一象限的傳遞性因素，即層級架構中間變動層級的元件，彼此具備互動關聯

性，易形成複雜的模組，並具有次級系統的特性。由於這類因素具備高度變異性，容 易產生不確定性的變化。若未能有效注意與控制，可能導致整個系統設計產生不可預 期的演變，甚至造成系統的崩解。針對複雜系統中所存在的次級系統，後續將嘗詴以 系統工程中的其他相關方法，研究分析次系統中，可能隱藏的變異性與不確定性。

由於系統的設計品質與使用者滿意度有著密切的關連性，後續可藉由 Kano’s model (Kano, 1984) 探討如何評估：

1. 使用者對於多元件組成系統的需求滿意程度 2. 使用者對設計元件的偏好程度

3. 使用者需求映對設計元件的品質績效

參考文獻

Arcade, J., Godet, M., Meunier, F., & Roubelat, F. (1999). Structural Analysis with The MICMAC Method & Actor's Strategy with MACTOR Method. Paris: CNAM.

Arya, D. S., & Abbasi, S. A. (2001). Identification and classification of key variables and their role in environmental impact assessment: Methodology and software package INTRA. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 27(3), 277-296.

Badre, A. N. (2002). Shaping Web Usability: Interaction Design in Context. Boston, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development Applications.

New York: George Braziller.

Bharat, K., Chang, B. W., Henzinger, M. R., & Ruhl, M. (2001). Who Links to Whom:

Mining Linkage between Web Sites. Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Data Mining, Washington, DC, USA.

Bolanos, R., Fontela, E., Nenclares, A., & Pastor, P. (2005). Using interpretive structural modelling in strategic decision-making groups. Management Decision, 43(6), 877-895.

Cheng, Y. L., Chiu, A. S. F., Tseng, M. L., & Lin, Y. H. (2007). Evaluation of worker productivity improvement using ISM and FAHP. Proceedings of 2007 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Singapore.

Christiernin, L. G., & Christiernin, S. M. (2005). Early investment in user oriented design vs. long time usability robustness. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on Applied Computing, Algarve, Portugal.

Christiernin, L. G., Lindahl, F., & Torgersson, O. (2004). Designing a multi-layered image viewer. Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Tampere, Finland.

Clark, B., & Matthews, J. (2005). Deciding layers: Adaptive composition of layers in a

multi-layer user interface. Proceedings of HCI International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Cohen, L. (1995). Quality Function Deployment: How to Make QFD Work for You. MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., & Beale, R. (1997). Human-Ccomputer Interaction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Duperrin, J. C., & Godet, M. (1973). Methode De Hierarchisation Des Elements D’un Systeme (pp. 45-51). Paris: Rapport Economique du CEA.

Eiron, N., & McCurley, K. S. (2004). Link Structure of Hierarchical Information Networks.

Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Algorithms and Models for the Web-Graph, Rome, Italy.

Fink, J., Kobsa, A., & Nill, A. (1998). Adaptable and Adaptive Information Provision for All Users Including Disabled and Elderly People. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 4, 163-188.

Fontela, E., & Castro A. J. (2006). Structural Analysis of NBIC Convergence. Proceedings of the Second International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA), Seville, Spain.

Fontela, E., & Gilli, M. (1977). The causal structure of economic models. Futures, 9(6), 211-221.

Godet, M. (1979). The Crisis in Forecasting and The Emergence of The "Prospective"

Approach: With Case Studies in Energy and Air Transport. New York: Pergamon Press.

Godet, M. (1993). From Anticipation to Aaction. A Handbook of Strategic Prospective.

Paris: Unesco Publishing.

Hauser, J. R., & Clausing, D. (1988). The house of quality. Harvard Business Review, 66(3), 63-73.

Hsiao, S. W., & Liu, E. (2005). A structural component-based approach for designing

product family. Computers in Industry, 56, 13-28.

Jin, C. (2000). Design and Implementation of a Web-based Email System. Retrived January 2000, from http://www.eveandersson.com/arsdigita/doc/design/webmail.

Kang, H., Plaisant, C., & Shneiderman, B. (2003). New approaches to help users get started with visual interfaces: multi-layered interfaces and integrated initial guidance. Proceedings of the 2003 annual national conference on Digital government research, Boston, MA, USA.

Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu, 14, 39-48.

Kanungo, S., Duda, S., & Yadlapati, S. (1999). A structured model for evaluating information systems effectiveness. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16 (6), 495-518.

Kitamura, T. (1999). A computer-aided approach to the structural analysis and modification of a large circulatory system model. IEEE Transaction on Biomedical Engineering, 46, 485-493.

Lee, Y. C., Chao, Y. H., & Lin, S. B. (2010). Structural approach to design user interface. Computers in Industry, 61(7), 613-623.

Malone, D.W. (1975). An introduction to the application of interpretive structural modeling.

Proceedings of the IEEE, 63(3), 397-404.

Millen, D. R. (1999). Remote usability evaluation: User participation in the design of a Web-based email service. SIGGROUP Bull, 20(1), 40-45.

Norman, D. A. (2000). The Invisible Computer: Why Good Products Can Fail, the Personal Computer Is So Complex, and Information Appliances Are the Solution.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Paterno, F., & Mancini, C. (1999). Designing web user interfaces adaptable to different types of use. Proceedings of Museums and the Web, New Orleans, LA, USA.

Petrie, H., & Kheir, O. (2007). The relationship between accessibility and usability of websites. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing

Systems, San Joes, CA, USA.

Qureshi, M. N., Kumar, D., & Kumar, P. (2008). An integrated model to identify and classify the key criteria and their role in the assessment of 3PL services providers.

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(2), 227-249.

Sharma, H. D., Gupta, A. D., & Gupta, S. (1995). The objectives of waste management in India: A futures inquiry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 48, 285-309.

Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2005). Designing The User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Shneiderman, B. (2003). Promoting universal usability with multi-layer interface design.

Proceedings of the ACM conference on universal usability, Vancouver, Brithish Columbia, Canada.

Simon, H. A. (1981). The Sciences of The Artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Singh, M. Singh, Narain, R., & Kant, R. (2007). Critical factors for successful implementation of knowledge management: An interpretive structural modeling approach. Proceedings of International conf. on Innovation and Knowledge Management of Social and Economic Issues: International Perspective, J.N.U., New Delhi, India.

Sommerville, I. (2001). Software Engineering (6th ed.). Edinburgh Gate, England:

Addison -Wesley Pearson Educational Limited.

Szulanski, F. H. (1999). SD and Prospective: A marriage of convenience. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society and the 5th Australian & New Zealand Systems Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.

Thakkar, J., Deshmukh, S. G., Gupta, A. D. & Shankar, R. (2007). Development of a balanced scorecard: An integrated approach of Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and Analytic Network Process (ANP). International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56(1), 25-59.

Voronin, A. N. (2007). A Method of Multi-criteria Evaluation and Optimization of Hierarchical System. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis, 43(3), 384-390.