單一設計師對於每個個案的發想和創作，有時容易流於一時的偏執。透過群體智慧發現設計新思維達到創新和創意的目的，以合作設計的優勢來提昇創意的品質，是協同設計的內涵。所以如何以協同設計團隊合作的方式，透過設計師腦力激盪所得出的創意，達到創新的目的，是目前設計從業人員的新嘗試。
本創作研究透過專家與新手各自組成的專家設計團隊與新手設計團隊，互為對照組。專家團隊依其過往的知識與經驗，而新手團隊依其對設計的學識與抱負，再將各團隊協同設計實驗的結論做口語編碼，並以Linkography研究方法的圖像分析，找出新手團隊與專家團隊協同設計的創意值之差異。所得之結論，將為本創作研究之創作依據。本創作研究採用Linkography的圖像分析法，將印象中無法被量化的創意值，以圖像形式與數據分析的科學方法呈現。再加上「Torrance創意性思維測驗法」發散性思維的四項指標的創造力分析法，二者以不同角度對創意值及創造力加以分析，以為本創作研究架構。本創作研究以Linkography將創意值圖像化與量化的創意分析模式，希望能成為未來對創意相關研究的參考並做出貢獻。本創作研究以專家團隊與新手團隊之創意值差異為研究主題，並擷取兩者之不同優點做為創作依據，創作出結合專家與新手在協同設計環境下的創意而成的室內設計作品。

A couple of professional designers working as a team is a new trend that provides group brain storming and eliminates bias opinions and preferences by an individual. Thus a better quality of design is expected by collaborative design than by a single designer.
This study compares creativity level of design process from two teams organized by experts and novices. The intension of the study is to testify the difference of creativity level represented by two collaborative design teams. Throughout the literature review, I decide to choose the entropy as indicator of creativity level enclosed in Linkography. With two design topics assigned, each team generated two Linkographys with different number of moves. The interconnection of moves forms a link which is the resource of entropy within layer in Linkography. Furthermore, the results of design works completed by two teams are compared in four creative thinking perspectives which are originated from Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Based on the merits provided by two teams, this research makes an interior design creation and the author hopes to contribute her study in collaborative interior design.

1.Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1989). Independence and cognitive ability in gifted and exceptionally gifted boys. Joumal of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 221-230.
2.Amabile, T. M., Burnside, R. M. & Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1999). Users manual for assessing the dimate for creativity: A survey from the center for creative leadership. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
3.Anumba, C. J., Ugwu, O. O., Newnham, L., & Thorpe, A. (2002). ”Collaborative design of structures using intelligent agents”, Automation in Construction, 11, 89-103.
4.Butterfoss, F. D. (2007). Coalitions and partnerships in community health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.Chou, S. B. (2007). A method for evaluating creativity for Linkography. Retrieved from. http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/026/088/ecp0726088.pdf
6.Chou, S. B., Chou, H. W., & Chen, Y. L. (2014). Thinking Skills and Creativity. Elsevier, 14, 11-19.
7.Cropley, A. J. (1999). Creativity and cognition:producing effective novelty. Roeper Review, 21(4),253-265.
8.Cross, N., & Clayburn-Cross, A. (1996). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. In Cross N., Christiaans H. and Dorst K. Analysing design activity J. Wiley and Sons , 291–317, Wiley, Chichester, UK
9.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.), Handbook of Creativity. 16, 313-338. Cambridge University Press.
10.Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: the power of human intuition and expertise in the year of computer. New York: Free Press.
11.Goldschmidt, G. (1990). Linkography: assessing design productivity, Cyberbetics and System90, R. Trappl. World Scientific, Singapore: 291-298.
12.Goldschmidt, G. (1995). The designer as a team of one. Design Studies, 16(2), 189-209.
13.Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence.
14.Hanna, R., & Barber. T. (2001). An inquiry into computers in design: attitude before-attitudes after. Design Studies 22(3), 255-281.
15.Harris, A. (1996). The conceptual power of multiplicity. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 32, 537-552.
16.Kan, J. W., & Gero, J. S. (2005). Entropy measurement of linkography in protocol studies of designing. In J.S. Gero & N. Bonnardel, (Eds.), Studying Designers’, 5, 229-245.
17.Keating, D. P. (1980). Four faces of creativity: The continuing plight of the intellectually underserved. Gifted Child Quarteriy, 24, 56-61.
18.Kvan, T. (2000). Collaborative design: what is it? Automation in Construction, 9, 409-425.
19.Kwan, A. Y., & Ofori, G. (2001). Chinese culture and successful implementation of partnering in Singapore’s construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 19(6), 619-632.
20.Lee, Y. C., & Gilleard, J. D. (2002). Collaborative design: A process model for efurbishment. Automation in Construction, 11(5), 535-544.
21.Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work. St. Paul: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
22.Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity, 449-460. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied Imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. NY: CharlesScribner’s Sons.
25.Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea Generation in Groups: A Basis for Creativity in Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87.
26.Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.
27.Rogers, C. (1959). Toward a theory of creativity. In H.H. Anderson(Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation. New York:Harper & Row.
28.Runco, M. A. (1988). Creativity research: Originality, utility, and integration. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 1-7.
29.Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity:Theories and themes:Research, development, and practice. New York:Academic Press.
30.hen, W. (2000). Web-Based Infrastructure for Collaborative Product Design：An Overview. Proceedings of the fifth International Conference on Computer upported Cooperative Work in Design. 239-244.
31.Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press, Inc.
32.alkenburg, R. C. (1998). Shared understanding as a condition for team design, Automation in Construction, 7, 111-121.
33.Van der Lugt, R. (2000). Developing a graphic tool for creative problem solving in design groups. Design Studies, 21(5), 505-522.
34.allas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt. Brace.
35.Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativiry. A cademy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321
36.James, C. K. & Robert, J. S.（2014） 。創造力理論與當代議題面面觀（黃曉嵐、蔡淑君、胡翠茵、張芝萱譯）。台北：華騰文化。（原著出版於2010）
37.Peter, G. R. (1999)。設計思考（王昭仁譯）。台北：建築情報季刊。（原著出版於1987）
38.Young, J. W. (2015)。創意，從無到有（許晉福譯）。台北：經濟新潮社。（原著出版於1965）
39.中衛中心產業經營部 （2010）。協同設計應用實務：營運模式創新的秘笈。台北：中衛發展中心。
40.毛連塭、郭有遹、陳龍安、林幸台（2000）。創造力研究。台北：心理出版社。
41.周賢彬（2010）。動態圖像評價研究。台北：師大書苑。
42.易彥伶 、曾誰我（2011）。專家及生手詮釋模糊圖形之差異研究。設計學研究，39（1），P70–75。
43.邱茂林（1995）。國際合作式建築設計在台灣之案例探討。第八屆建築研究成果發表會，建築學會。台北：淡江大學。
44.陳慧霞、游萬來（2007）。紙筆與電腦工具對設計專家與設計生手草圖行為的評估與分析。藝術教育研究，14，61-95。
45.楊朝陽（1988）。企業實用創意法-發想的新潮流。台北：朝陽堂。
46.鍾皓宇（1995）。生手與專家的設計行為模式解析（碩士論文）。台南：國立成功大學建築系。
47.藍儒鴻（2004）。設計資訊採礦支援建築設計協同作業之研究（博士論文）。台南：國立成功大學建築系。