工業設計師自我績效評估

Abstract

以目前工業設計績效考核的內容來看，個人績效評估可區分為兩部分：主要是設計管理者評估部分；另一部份是員工自我評估部分。所謂自我評估是指在過去一年的表現中，設計師針對自己的工作配合度、完成度、學習態度…等評量項目，做整體表現之評估。就設計師特殊的工作性質而言，主管的認知與員工本身的認知差異，存在於設計工作本身的過程，並非全然「結果論」。因此設計師自我績效評估，會反應出在從事設計工作時所遭遇的瓶頸，以及設計師對自我的認知；這些反應對於設計管理者是十分重要的，設計管理者能藉著設計師的自我評估了解下屬，以達到溝通的目的。 本研究的目的係針對不同性質，不同規模的設計部門，分別對設計管理者，工業設計師訪談其對整體績效評估，與自我評估之看法與意見。本研究將採用深度訪談法，以事先準備的相關問題進行訪談。訪談的對象，包括產品設計公司設計管理者及企業界工業設計部門之主管，其目的是了解在現今工業設計師的績效考核制度下，現行自我績效評估執行的概況，以及主管與設計師對於現行做法之意見。依據這些訪談內容，彙整出適合工業設計師自我績效評估的原則，並選定一家企業的設計部門，針對其現行的考績表中的自我評估部分，進行修正與實地驗證，完成合適之自我評估表，最後提出結論與建議。 經過本研究的訪談結果與分析之後，得到以下的結論：1.國內各設計組織的自我評估制度並不分健全，且內容差異性大。2.企業設計部門績效制度下的自我評估部分，多數受限於公司的規模與體制；而設計公司因為公司規模不大，因此較沒有採制度化的自我評估。3.各設計組織中的自我評估部分，皆是著重於「發展工具」。4.自我評估之後的「回饋」是十分重要的，目的是在溝通於主管與設計師之間的認知差異。5.自我評估的問題型式，「評估工具」的自評著重使用量化的評估方式，而「發展工具」的自評則著重於開放性敘述問題。

The items usually used to appraise the achievement of an industrial designer, at present, can be categorized into two parts, the evaluation appraised by the design manager and evaluation by the designer himself. The self-evaluation is appraised on the base of the work achievement in the prior year; a designer evaluates his or her performance by using some criteria, such as working attitude, design achievement, and learning attitude, etc. Due to the specialty of design profession, some discrepancy can be found between the manager’s and designer s’ perception on design achievement; moreover, the discrepancy is not totally “causal driven.” Designers’ self-appraisement on achievement may clearly reflect the bottleneck they have met on a design project, and the self-awareness of themselves. This reflection is important for design managers to better understand and communicate with the front-line designers. The goal of this study is to reveal the designers’ and the managers’ attitudes and opinions on the approach of achievement appraising and self-evaluation, with respect to design divisions of different types and scales. The in-depth interview was implemented mainly in this study. According to the well prepared interview guide with a list of relevant questions, a series of interviews to design managers as well as industrial designers of different companies were conducted, respectively, to understand their attitudes and opinions on the approach of achievement appraising and self-evaluation currently adopted in their own company. The interviewees include mangers and designers from the industrial design departments at four information and appliance manufacturing companies and the mangers and designers of three design companies. Additionally, in order to reveal an overall situation of self-evaluation on achievement of an industrial designer conducted in Taiwan, the evaluation forms and contents used in various companies were collected and analyzed. Based on the result of the analysis of the interviews and evaluation formats, some principles for establishing an appropriate approach for self-evaluation on industrial designer were summarized. Then, a design department of manufacturing company was selected to verify the applicability of these principles. Finally, these principles were further revised according to the result of verification, and the conclusion and suggestion of this study were concluded. The result of this research was summarized as follows: (1) The approaches of self-evaluation among design organizations are quite different, and are not flawless in Taiwan; (2) The self-evaluation as part of the achievement appraising system in a corporation is conditioned by the organization and magnitude of the company in general; and the magnitude of design companies in Taiwan are too small to institutionalize a self-evaluation system; (3) The self-evaluation is treated more as “developmental tools” than “evaluation tools” by all design organizations investigated in this study; (4) The “feedback” response to self-evaluation is essential for mutual understanding the discrepancy between the managers and designers on achievement appraising and for filling the gap of this discrepancy; (5) Regarding the type of evaluation items in the self-evaluation form, quantitative evaluation were expected to be used for “evaluation tools” aspect of a self-evaluation system, whereas items with open and descriptive response were expected for “developmental tools” aspect.