政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/145747

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/145747

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | 全文筆數/總筆數 : 113325/144300 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51185404 線上人數 : 924

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

搜尋範圍

查詢小技巧：

您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果

若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料

進階搜尋

主頁 ‧ 登入 ‧ 上傳 ‧ 說明 ‧ 關於政大典藏 ‧ 管理

到手機版

政大機構典藏 > 商學院 > 科技管理與智慧財產研究所 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/145747

請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/145747

題名:	文化科技中創新生態系的價值共創 - 以叁式有限公司為例 Exploring Value Co-Creation of the Innovation Ecosystem in Cultural Technology: A Case Study of Ultra Combos
作者:	顏融 Yen, Jung
貢獻者:	張瑜倩 Chang, Yu-Chien 顏融 Jung Yen
關鍵詞:	文化科技創新生態系價值共創利害關係人 Cultural Technology Innovation Ecosystem Value Co-creation Stakeholders
日期:	2023
上傳時間:	2023-07-06 16:23:41 (UTC+8)
摘要:	伴隨著科技進步，愈來愈多創作者嘗試跳脫傳統框架，以科技作為媒介催生出精彩作品。當文化與科技跨域融合，文化科技一詞也逐漸為大眾熟知，觀眾更願意嘗試多元的體驗型態。因應此發展浪潮，許多科技業者、中介角色也順勢加入創作環節。從學術角度來看，目前談論創新生態系的相關研究仍是以科技產業為主，將科技應用在文化創意產業的案例則很少被討論。服務主導邏輯的觀點認為，個人或單個公司較缺乏足夠的知識和人力達成創新，所以成功的創新及創新的擴散仰賴所有行動者在開放的過程共同創造價值，而價值共創就在行動者互動的過程中發生。然而，即使價值共創理論已應用於不同領域，聚焦於跨領域的利害關係人仍十分稀缺。而臺灣文化科技領域中，利害關係人之間的互動關係幾乎未被提及，更缺少人文與科技兩個領域的跨域對話。本研究旨在結合創新生態系與價值共創理論的觀點，從文化科技領域，探討創新生態系中的價值共創，並以「品牌知名度」、「作品知名度」及「作品多元性」作為篩選標準，選擇了「叁式」作為研究個案。本研究藉由參與式觀察、深度訪談及網路民族誌等研究方法收集資料，深入探討文化科技領域利害關係人間的互動和關係。本研究提出三項理論貢獻：第一、提出文化科技領域適用於創新生態系理論。第二、描繪價值共創四階段，並從中發現利害關係人在價值共創的參與度高低與其對於組織的影響力有所關聯。第三，提出利害關係人的互動模式，確立「文化科技業者」的角色，並確認生態系擁有共同的價值基礎，且利害關係人們具體分享自身的知識和資源，是行動者積極參與價值共創過程的關鍵要素。 With the development and applications of technology, more and more creators are trying to break free from traditional frameworks and to use technology as a medium to create exciting projects. As culture and technology converge in recent years, the term "cultural technology" is becoming more widely known, and audiences are more willing to try diverse experiential forms. In response to this trend, many technology companies and intermediaries have joined the creative process. From the academic perspective, current research on innovation ecosystems mainly focuses on the technology industry, and lacks of discussions on the application of technology in the cultural and creative industries. Additionally, there is little connection with theories such as dynamic capabilities and value co-creation. Although the theory of value co-creation has been applied in different fields, there is still little research on value co-creation among stakeholders in cross-disciplinary fields. Furthermore, the interaction between stakeholders in the current cultural technology field in Taiwan is rarely mentioned. This study explores value co-creation in the innovation ecosystem of cultural technology from perspectives of innovation ecosystems and value co-creation. The well-known team - Ultra Combos was chosen as a case study based on criteria such as brand awareness, works awareness, and diversity of projects. Through participatory observation, in-depth interviews, and netnography, the interactions and relationships among stakeholders in the cultural technology are explored. This study proposes three theoretical contributions. Firstly, it proposes the applicability of the innovation ecosystem theory to the cultural technology field. Secondly, it delineates the four stages of value co-creation and identifies a correlation between stakeholders` level of involvement in value co-creation and their influence on the organization. Thirdly, it presents an interaction model of stakeholders, and affirms that the ecosystem possesses a shared value foundation, with stakeholders actively sharing their knowledge and resources as crucial elements in the process of value co-creation.
參考文獻:	一、中文文獻 HTC VIVE ORIGINAL（2021）。病玫瑰〔附圖〕。2023年4月9日，取自https://viveoriginals.com/portfolio/the-sick-rose-zh/ Lin, Ronnie（2020年8月6日）。電影中的逐格手工藝：費時耗力卻擁有迷人節奏感的製作手法——定格動畫。關鍵評論網。2023年4月20日，取自https://everylittled.com/article/138509 Tsai, Stella（2020年7月15日）。專訪「叁式UltraCombos」創意總監：人若太執著於科技，就會變得與機器無異。關鍵評論網。2023年4月22日，取自https://www.thenewslens.com/article/137247/page2 VR幼幼班（2015年10月8日）。一次搞懂虛擬實境VR、混合實境MR、擴增實境AR。INSIDE。2023年3月19日，取自https://www.inside.com.tw/article/5118-what_are_vr_mr_ar 文化內容策進院、拓墣產業研究院（2020年7月1日）。創新科技結合內容產業發展之國際動態。2023年2月5日，取自https://taicca.tw/article/72242677 文化部（2017）。2017年全國文化會議大會：文化超越力議題。2023年1月6日，取自https://www.moc.gov.tw/information_302_88426.html 文化部（2018）。2018文化政策白皮書。2023年3月10日，取自https://mocfile.moc.gov.tw/files/201812/14d1ea3d-2188-4f8e-baca-0dbe74edae5f.pdf 文化部（2018）。關於文化科技。文化科技網。2023年3月10日，取自https://tech.culture.tw/home/ zh-tw/about 王文科、王智弘（2010）。質的研究的信度和效度。彰化師大教育學報，17，29-50。https://doi.org/10.6769/JENCUE.201006.0029 王仕圖、吳慧敏（2003）。深度訪談與案例演練。在齊力、林本炫（主編），質性研究方法與資料分析（頁95-114）。嘉義：南華大學社會學研究所。王柏偉、蔡淳任（2022）。臺灣數位與科技藝術相關政策梳理－從「科技藝術」到「文化科技」。表演藝術年鑑，308-324。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=P20110711002-202209-202210210006-202210210006-308-324 王逸萍（2016）。探究產學合作中的價值共創-以跨領域新產品開發專案為例﹝未出版之碩士論文﹞。國立成功大學高階管理碩士在職專班。安娜琪舞蹈劇場 AnarchyDanceTheatre（無日期）。永恆的直線〔附圖〕。2023年4月20日，取自https://anarchydancetheatre.com/works/13 吳忠育、林嘉慧（2020）。我國文化科技發展近況。經濟前瞻，187，39-42。吳思華（2022）。尋找創新典範3.0：人文創新H-EHA模式。臺北市：遠流。李正通（2019）。淺談文化科技與跨域創新。Research Portal 科技政策觀點。2023年4月3日，取自https://portal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/article/10467 叁式 Ultra Combos （2022年10月19日）。LOG ING 最後登入時間〔附圖〕〔動態更新〕。Facebook。2023年4月9日，取自https://www.facebook.com/ultracombos/posts/pfbid0ojQ4KrE8dNa7SfuLizytyHhBZefuzjSRtuxi2jDKrCqMpMHFToic9Xnte1iMuoNYl 叁式 Ultra Combos （2022年12月25日）。哈囉 2023！臺北大兔襲正發生〔附圖〕〔動態更新〕。Facebook。2023年4月9日，取自https://www.facebook.com/ultracombos/posts/pfbid02EygrQTMS3cfc8cygSnCS5P62278AuJk8jz8eqWXw4Rf3tWWYEq6acWutCYn46JYBl 叁式 Ultra Combos（2023a）。2022台灣設計展LOG ING —— 登入元宇宙。2023年4月9日，取自https://ultracombos.com/LOG-ING 叁式 Ultra Combos（2011）。第七感官〔附圖〕。2023年4月9日，取自https://ultracombos.com/Seventh-Sense-1 叁式 Ultra Combos（2021）。臺北時裝週開幕秀 SS22〔附圖〕。2023年4月9日，取自https://ultracombos.com/SS22-Taipei-Fashion-Week-SS22 叁式 Ultra Combos（2023b）。關於叁式。2023年4月9日，取自https://ultracombos.com/LOG-ING 叁式 Ultra Combos（2023c）。Second Body。2023年4月9日，取自https://ultracombos.com/Second-Body 林月雲、吳思華、徐嘉黛（2020）。教育創新生態系統的生成與演化。清華教育學報，37(1)，1-39。https://doi.org/10.6869/THJER.202006_37(1).0001 林本炫（2007）。不同質性研究方法的資料分析比較。在周平、楊弘任（主編），質性研究方法的眾聲喧嘩（頁127-150）。高雄市：高雄復文。林秀芬（2021）。文化科技展演平台經營模式之研究一資源整合觀點〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣師範大學高階經理人碩士管理在職專班。林金定、嚴嘉楓、陳美花（2005）。質性研究方法：訪談模式與實施步驟分析。身心障礙研究季刊，3(2)，122-136。https://doi.org/10.30072/JDR.200506.0005 林嘉華（2021）。國際文化科技政策發展趨勢及對台灣的啟示。臺灣經濟研究月刊，44(2)，113-119。https://doi.org/10.29656/TERM.202102_44(2).0015 侯勝宗（2012）。見所未見：詮釋性個案研究方法探索。組織與管理，5(1)，111-153。https://doi.org/10.6792/OM.201202.0111 柯惠晴、吳欣瑀、錢又琳（2016年11月30日）。文化科技政策研究與擬定輔導案結案報告書。國立臺灣藝術大學研發處、臺灣文化政策智庫中心。2023年1月6日，取自https://tttcp.ntua.edu.tw/zh_tw/Reviews/ResearchReports/文化科技政策研究與擬定輔導-65918315 柯惠晴、劉俊裕（2018年8月28日）。文化與科技共融：浮現中的臺灣文化科技政策。臺灣數位藝術。2023年3月8日，取自https://www.digiarts.org.tw/DigiArts/DataBasePage/4_115410750937010/Chi 胡木成、李秀玉（2017）。公司利害關係人相關問題之探討。華人經濟研究，15(2)，頁1-11。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=17282055-201709-201711240009-201711240009-1-11 高雄電影節 Kaohsiung Film Festival（2022）。無法離開的人〔附圖〕。2023年4月9日，取自：https://www.kff.tw/film/content/2249 崔世娟、林秀妮（2015）。文化科技融合的支持政策研究。在於平、李鳳亮、牛奔、周建新、周志民（主編），文化科技藍皮書：文化科技創新發展報告（2015）（頁289-306）。北京市：社會科學文獻出版社。陳玉婷（2023）。2023年文化創意產業景氣趨勢調查報告-摘要版。台灣經濟研究院。2023年3月8日，取自https://tie-tier-org-tw.proxyone.lib.nccu.edu.tw:8443/db/content/index.aspx?sid=0M271628567368898201&mainIndustryCategorySIds=0A007646512724907379 陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。臺北市：五南。陳明輝（2020）。中介者的創新演化歷程 -以台灣文化創意產業的三個個案為例〔未出版之博士論文〕。國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所。陳鈞煥（2022年4月11日）。懂藝術還要會寫程式！獨特演算法讓「生成藝術」成為NFT新趨勢。1%Style。2023年4月22日，取自https://onepercent.storm.mg/article/4264517 黃亭瑋（2020）。以價值共創觀點探討圖文插畫家與利害關係人之互動〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所。黃瑞琴（2021）。質性教育研究方法。新北市：心理出版社。黃寶園（2006）。心理教育與研究法。臺北市：華立圖書。楊惠嵐（2017）。文化科技：文化與科技融合發展之模式。臺灣經濟研究月刊，40(9)，35-42。https://doi.org/10.29656/TERM.201709.0006 廖珮妏（2015）。從量化與質化研究信效度探討社會科學領域的研究品質。中華科技大學學報，62，69-88。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=a0000585-201504-201511060002-201511060002-69-88 廖婉鈞、林月雲、虞邦祥（2009）。知覺組織利害關係人重要程度與組織績效之關係：企業責任作為之中介效果。管理學報，26(2)，213-232。https://doi.org/10.6504/JOM.2009.26.02.06 潘淑滿（2022）。質性研究：理論與應用（第二版）。新北市；心理出版社。鄭雅心、施翔云（2017）。文化科技產業化與建構文化創意融合帶。臺灣經濟研究月刊，40(12)，67-74。https://doi.org/10.29656/TERM.201712.0010 蕭元哲（2009）。利害關係人對互動管理的瞭解與應用。文官制度季刊（考試院八十周年慶特刊），145-158。https://www.exam.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=620&s=21930 二、英文文獻 Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Ritala, P. (2017). Network management in the era of ecosystems: Systematic review and management framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 23–36. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.010 Ackermann, Fran & Eden, Colin. (2011). Strategic management of stakeholders: Theory and practice. Long Range Planning, 44, 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.08.001 Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 98. Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451 Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 306-333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.821 Autio, E. (2022). Orchestrating ecosystems: A multi-layered framework. Innovation, 24(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2021.1919120 Bakhshi, H., & Throsby, D. (2012). New technologies in cultural institutions: Theory, evidence and policy implications. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 18, 205-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2011.587878 Brancati, Dawn. (2018). Social scientific research. London: Sage. Bujor, A., & Avasilcai, S. (2014). Creative entrepreneurship in Europe: A framework of analysis.Annals of the Oradea University: Fascicle Management and Technological Engineering, 23, 151-156 Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). `Mode 3` and `quadruple helix`: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3-4), 201-234. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374 Caroll, A. B. (1989). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management., Cincinatti, OH: South Western. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press. Clarkson, M. B. E. (2008). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117. https://doi.org/10.2307/258888 Department of Culture, Media, Sport (2016). The culture white paper. London: Department of Culture, Media, Sport Publishing. European Commission (2021). Transforming the creative and cultural industries with advanced technologies. Brussel: European Union Publishing. Fagerberg, J. (2004). Innovation: A guide to the literature, In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson, (Eds.), The oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 1-26). Walton Street, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston, MA. Freeman, R. E. (1997). A Stakeholder theory of the modern corporation, In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie, (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (pp. 55-64). Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442673496-009 Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815768 Galateanu (Avram), E. and Avasilcai, S (2017). Emerging creative ecosystems: Platform development process. Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, 3, 5-10. https://doi.org/10.15660/AUOFMTE.2017-3.3296 Galateanu (Avram), E., & Avasilcai, S. (2018). Co-creators in innovation ecosystems. Part I: The case of creative industries. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 400(6), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/400/6/062009 Galbrun, J., & Kijima, K. (2009). A co-evolutionary perspective in medical technology: Clinical innovation systems in Europe and in Japan. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 17(2), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2009.9668679 Galvagno, M., & Dalli, D. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: A systematic literature review. Managing Service Quality, 24(6), 643–683. https://doi.org/10.1108/msq-09-2013-0187 Garvare, R., & Johansson, P. (2010). Management for sustainability – A stakeholder theory. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(7), 737–744. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2010.483095 Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36(3), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.2307/2573808 Gomes, L. A. de V., Facin, A. L. F., Salerno, M. S., & Ikenami, R. K. (2018). Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.009 Grönroos, C. (2008). Service logic revisited: Who creates value? And who co-creates?. European Business Review, 20, 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340810886585 Grönroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408177 Gummesson, E. (2008) Extending the service-dominant logic: From customer centricity to balanced centricity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 15-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0065-x Gummesson, E., & Mele, C. (2010). Marketing as value co-creation through network interaction and resource integration. Journal of Business Market Management, 4, 181-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12087-010-0044-2 Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2019). Ethnography: Principles in practice (4th ed.). New York: Routledge. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715-728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005 Kahn, K. B. (2018). Understanding innovation. Business Horizons, 61(3), 453–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.011. Ketonen-Oksi, S., & Valkokari, K. (2019). Innovation ecosystems as structures for value co-creation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(2), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1216 Kijima, K., & Arai, Y. (2016). Value co-creation process and value orchestration platform. In S. Kwan, J. Spohrer & Y. Sawatani, (Eds.), Global Perspectives on Service Science: Japan (pp. 137–154). New York: Springer. Kijima, K., Rintamäki, T., & Mitronen, L. (2014). Value orchestration platform: Model and strategies. In Annual Conference of Japan Society for Management Information 2014 Autumn (pp. 13–16). The Japan Society for Management Information (JASMIN). https://doi.org/10.11497/jasmin.2014f.0_13 Klamer, A. (1995). The value of culture: On the relationship between economics and arts. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Kozinets R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2010.00142_11.x Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 39(1). 155-171. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.07 Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & Tanniru, M. (2010). Service, value networks and learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0131-z Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. Family Health International (FHI), USA. Mangematin, V., Sapsed, J., & Schüßler, E. (2014). Disassembly and reassembly: An introduction to the special issue on digital technology and creative industries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 83, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.002 Mele, C., Colurcio, M., & Russo-Spena, T. (2014). Research traditions of innovation: Goods-dominant logic, the resource-based approach, and service-dominant logic. Managing Service Quality, 24(6), 612–642. https://doi.org/10.1108/MSQ-10-2013-0223 Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247 Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and Prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10126156/ Musante, K., & DeWalt, B. R. (2010). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman Altamira. Nath, K., Dhar, S., & Basishtha, S. (2014). Web 1.0 to Web 3.0 - Evolution of the web and its various challenges. –In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Reliability, Optimization and Information Technology (pp. 86-89). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICROIT.2014.6798297 NESTA (2015). Digital culture 2015. London: NESTA. Network of European Museum Organisations (2017). Money matters: The economic value of museums. Greece: NEMO Publishing. Ng, I., Parry, G., Phillips, L., Maull, R., & Briscoe, G. (2012). Transitioning from a goods-dominant to a service-dominant logic: Visualising the value proposition of Rolls-Royce. Journal of Service Management, 23, 416-439. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231211248480 Novani, S., Putro, U. S., & Hermawan, P. (2015). Value orchestration platform: Promoting tourism in Batik industrial cluster solo. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 169, 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.304 Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2015). Value proposition design: How to create products and services customers want. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-Opting Customer Competence. Harvard Business Review, 78, 79-90. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015 Priem, R. L., Butler, J. E., Li, S., (2013). Toward reimagining strategy research: Retrospection and prospection on the 2011 AMR decade award article. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 471–489. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43699220 Ramírez, R. (1999). Value co-production: Intellectual origins and implications for practice and research. Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), 49–65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3094231 Ritala, P., Golnam, A., & Wegmann, A. (2014). Coopetition-based business models: The case of Amazon.com. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 236-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.11.005 Rong, K., Lin, Y., Shi, Y., & Yu, J., (2013). Linking business ecosystem lifecycle with platform strategy: A triple view of technology, application and organization. International Journal of Technology Management, 62, 75–94. https://doi.org/ 10.1504/IJTM.2013.053042 Salerno, M. S., Gomes, L. A., Silva, D. O., Bagno, R. B., & Freitas, S. D. (2015). Innovation processes: Which process for which project?. Technovation, 35, 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.012 Schroth, F., & Häußermann, J. J. (2018). Collaboration strategies in innovation ecosystems: An empirical study of the German microelectronics and photonics industries. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(11), 4–12. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1195 Shin, H. (2009). Reconsidering transnational cultural flows of popular music in East Asia: Transbordering musicians in Japan and Korea searching for ‘Asia.’ Korean Studies, 33, 101-123. http://doi.org/10.1353/ks.0.0023 Smorodinskaya, N., Russell, M., Katukov, D., & Still, K. (2017, January 4-7). Innovation ecosystems vs. innovation systems in terms of collaboration and co-creation of value. [Paper presentation]. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, United States. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/41798 Thomas, L., Llewellyn, N., & Autio, E. (2020). Innovation ecosystems in management: An organizing typology. In J. M. Cooper & J. W. Mellor (Eds.), The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2015). Cultural times. The first global map of cultural and creative industries. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2017). Re \| Shaping cultural policies. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Vargo, S. L. & Lusch, R. F. (2006) Service-dominant logic: What it is, what it is not, what it might be. In R. F. Lush, and S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions (pp. 43-56). New York: Routledge. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008a). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6 Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008b). From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.07.004 Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2014). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. In S. L. Vargo & R. F. Lusch (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions (pp. 21-46). New York: Routledge. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3 Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.001 Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008a). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003 Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. F. (2008b). Why “service”?. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 25-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0068-7 Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.30.1.108 Youngblood, D. (2007). Interdisciplinary studies and the bridging disciplines: A matter of process. Journal of Research Practice, 3(2), 1-8. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/104/101
描述:	碩士國立政治大學科技管理與智慧財產研究所 110364105
資料來源:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110364105
資料類型:	thesis
顯示於類別:	[科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文

文件中的檔案:

檔案	描述	大小	格式	瀏覽次數
410501.pdf		3185Kb	Adobe PDF2	0	檢視/開啟

在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - 回饋