政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/140714
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 113822/144841 (79%)
造访人次 : 51785773      在线人数 : 388
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧：
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据
    •  进阶搜寻


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/140714


    题名: 雲端伺服器產業平台生態系中的競合策略 —以HPE GreenLake平台生態為例
    The Coopetition Strategies in the Platform Ecosystem in Taiwanese Cloud Server Industry : A Case Study of HPE GreenLake Platform
    作者: 李嘉俞
    Lee, Chia-Yu
    贡献者: 吳豐祥
    Wu, Feng-Shang
    李嘉俞
    Lee, Chia-Yu
    关键词: 雲端伺服器產業
    即服務
    平台
    平台策略
    互補者策略
    平台覆蓋策略
    競合策略
    平台生態系
    生態系統發展
    慧與科技
    Cloud computing industry
    As a Service mode
    Business platform
    Platform strategy
    Complementors strategy
    Platform envelopment
    Coopetition
    Platform ecosystem
    Ecosystem development
    Hewlett Packard Enterprise
    日期: 2022
    上传时间: 2022-07-01 16:32:06 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 2020年年初的新冠疫情引發的遠端辦公浪潮、5G技術應用趨於成熟、數位驅動世代來臨、亞洲企業數位轉型需求遽增，以及2021年「數位雲服務主題式研發補助計畫」之政策支持等，都對雲端產業蓬勃發展上產生了重大影響。
    過往企業用戶選擇雲端服務會遇上兩大痛點。第一，企業用戶往往同時會擁有基礎設施即服務 (IaaS)、平台即服務 (PaaS)與軟體及服務(SaaS)等多元的需求，但雲端產業之廠商卻通常僅提供單一產品，使得企業客戶需自行處理繁雜的雲端架構與設施；第二，雲端基礎設施造價昂貴，使得企業用戶需在建置雲端基礎設施初期便承擔極高的資金壓力。為了滿足顧客的異質需求，近年來雲端廠商開始以整合IaaS、PaaS與SaaS的即服務 (as-a-service, 簡稱aaS)向企業用戶提供解決方案，並以訂閱而非以往的賣斷模式來進行販售。
    不過，雲端業者若要能提供整合性的即服務解決方案，那麼其原先的單一服務模式(如：IaaS)尚須納入其他互補廠商，才能提供一站式的即服務，以讓用戶更進一步享受多方位的雲端服務 (包括：公有雲、虛擬主機、實體伺服器、企業內部管理軟體等)，若雲端業者要發展更完整的雲端產業價值鏈，那麼，他們便需要建立一個穩固的平台生態系統，也就是即服務平台生態圈，讓參與廠商可透過此平台來提供或享受服務。
    由於雲端產業的疆界模糊，平台主和即服務中的參與廠商時常處於同時競爭與合作的互動關係，因此，會需要競合策略的思維。而且，因為此處競合的場域是平台，也需要平台策略的思考，不過，過往有關競合策略與行為的研究，大多僅聚焦於競合的層級、競合關係的種類與競合策略的類型等方面的探討，缺乏連結平台策略的相關研究；此外，過往的研究雖然有論及到生態系統內參與角色間的競合關係，但是卻甚少探討到平台生態系發展對於競合策略與行為的影響。另外，雲端產業中興起的「即服務」模式解決方案，為近三年才興起的，故相關領域的研究自然較為匱乏。
    為了補足上述的研究缺口，本研究以我國雲端伺服器產業中首先推出「即服務」平台生態系之慧與科技公司 (Hewlett Packard Enterprise，簡稱HPE) 為深入研究的對象，並從平台生態系的平台主之視角切入，探討此雲端伺服器業者與現今平台生態系的參與廠商之競合行為，以及這些行為對其平台策略與生態系統發展的影響 (該公司為外商，本研究所論及的市場以台灣為主)。另外，本研究所探討的議題具有探索性之本質，故採單一個案研究法。本研究的資料來源同時包括初級與次級資料，前者主要是深入訪談個案公司的五位經理人，後者則參考自期刊、報章雜誌以及個案公司的內部資訊。
    本研究最後得到的結論如下：
    結論一、雲端伺服器平台生態系統之平台主在行使平台策略時，會傾向於以「推銷」的方式行使互補者策略；在行使平台覆蓋策略時，與核心業務有關的互補資源方面，會以「OEM授權」、「合作銷售」、「投資」(新創公司)與「併購」(技術成熟企業)等方式為主，而在非核心業務方面，則會採取「架設中介」的方式。

    結論二、雲端伺服器產業之平台主在生態系統發展期間，於「誕生階段」與「擴展階段」時，會納入「價值鏈角色者」，以提升核心業務競爭力，同時，會與其形成「合作驅動競合」之關係；於「領導階段」時，則會納入和非核心業務相關的「支配者」(一種寄生者)，以提升即服務競爭優勢，同時，會與其形成「共性驅動競合」之關係。

    結論三、雲端伺服器產業之平台主在「核心業務」的競合管理活動上，對以「OEM授權」方式的「價值鏈角色者」而言，會為了與其建立緊密的連結而形成「合作驅動競合」之關係，並對其投入分離、整合及「分離與整合」等三種競合管理活動；對以「合作銷售」方式的「價值鏈角色者」來說，則僅會投入整合活動。

    結論四、雲端伺服器產業之平台主在「非核心業務」的競合管理活動上，對以「建立中介」方式的「寄生者」而言，會有較高的防備心，並會與其形成「共性驅動競合」之關係，進而投入「整合」與「分離與整合」活動。

    結論五、雲端伺服器產業之平台主在發展平台生態系統時，在平台覆蓋策略上，會採取互補品覆蓋或弱替代覆蓋的策略，以達成平台創立初期鞏固核心業務與領導階段提升整體生態系競爭力的目標。
    本研究最後提出對於實務與學術上的建議，並提出後續研究者可參考的研究方向。
    Cloud Computing Industry has flourished thanks to the advanced development of economics and policies in recent years. For instance, interest in working remotely has surged during the Covid-19 pandemic, the 5G has been commercially available, the digital-drive transformation trend in Asia has thrived, and the “Digital Cloud Service Subsidy Program (數位雲服務主題式研發補助計畫)” was announced in 2021. These factors have shaped the prestigious development of the Taiwanese Cloud Computing industry
    Selecting the cloud service, most business clients possess multiple types of demand, such as Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS) and Software as a Service (SaaS), which single cloud supplier is unable to fulfil at the same time. Additionally, business clients should initially invest great efforts to deploy the cloud infrastructure. To resolve these problems, a few amounts of cloud suppliers have contingently delivered “as-a-Service (aaS),” by combining IaaS, PaaS and SaaS to a solution in a subscription model, to lower business clients’ initial investment in cloud service and satisfy their heterogeneous needs. To deliver such aaS solution, existing cloud suppliers who have expertise in single service mode (i.e., IaaS) should engage other suppliers and construct the service portfolio, a solid platform ecosystem, to cluster different partners. Conversely, business clients could receive multiple services (public cloud, vertical server, dedicated server, business management software, etc.) at once.
    It is arduous to clarify the frontier of aaS service for it contains multiple services in the form of cooperative and competitive relationships among the platform owner (who constructed the aaS ecosystem) as well as its partners, namely “Coopetition.”
    As “coopetition” exists in a platform or business ecosystem, platform strategy and ecosystem development are highly related to coopetition. However, prior research on “Coopetition” has mainly focused on the “Cooptition Level”, “Cooptition Relationship” or “Cooptition Mode” as there has been relatively little research into the factor that brings up such outcomes. Moreover, aaS solution has prospered in recent three years while few investigations have been placed on this topic.
    The researcher addresses this knowledge gap and extends previous research by investigating the case of a cloud server enterprise, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, which launched aaS model as a pioneer from the perspective of the platform owner. A qualitative research method was employed (Five interviewees were invited to engage) to assess the impact of platform strategy and ecosystem development on the “coopetition” among the Taiwanese enterprise server, the platform owner, as well as the participants in aaS platform ecosystem. The results demonstrate as following statements：
    I. Deploying platform strategy to access complements, the platform owner of cloud server industry tended to enact “Complementors Strategy” by promoting the complements, employed “Platform Envelopment” with “OEM (original equipment manufacturer) authorization” and “Collaborated Cross-selling”, invested startup companies or integrate (through M&A) developed corporation, and build up intermediary for non-core business partners.
    II. As developing the platform ecosystem, the platform owner of cloud server industry has firstly devoted to bringing "Value-chain Roles” into the ecosystem in the “Birth” stage to build up “Collaboration-driven co-opetition” and consolidate the core business. Afterwards, in the “Expand” stage, it built up “Commonality-driven Coopetition” with “Parasite” to be more competitive in aaS market.
    III. To consolidate the core business, the platform owner of the cloud server industry brought in a “Value-chain Role” and became “Collaboration-driven Coopetition” with these partners. First, the platform owner has a closer relationship with “OEM Authorization” partners and executes “Separate,” “Integrate” and “Separate and Integrate” coopetition management activities. Second, the platform owner only inputs “Integration Activities” to those partners with “collaborated cross-selling”
    IV. The platform owner of the cloud server industry was wary of the “Parasite” in its non-core business which it has “built up the intermediary” to construct “Commonality-driven Coopetition” relationship. Therefore, it inputted “Integration” as well as “Separation and Integration Activities.”
    V. As constructing the platform ecosystem in the cloud server industry, the platform owner exerted “Complements Platform Envelopment” or “Weak Substitutes Platform Envelopment” to consolidate the core business in the “Birth” stage, and improved the competitiveness in aaS market in the “Expand” stage.
    Finally, the researcher addresses suggestions and implications for further research and business practices.
    參考文獻: 一、英文文獻
    Adhabi, E., & Anozie, C. B. (2017). Literature review for the type of interview in qualitative research. International Journal of Education, 9(3), 86-97.
    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
    Alshenqeeti, H. (2014). Interviewing as a data collection method: A critical review. English Linguistics Research, 3(1), 39-45.
    Arizton. (2021). Taiwan Data Center Market - Investment Analysis & Growth Opportunities 2021-2026.
    Armstrong, M., & Wright, J. (2007). Two-sided markets, competitive bottlenecks and exclusive contracts. Economic Theory, 32(2), 353-380.
    Asheim, B. T., & Coenen, L. (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, 34(8), 1173-1190. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013
    Auge-Dickhut, S. (2019). Ecosystems - Positionierungsmöglichkeiten in der Finanzindustrie. https://ccecosystems.news/ecosystems-positionierungsmoeglichkeiten-fuer-die-finanzindustrie/
    Bahar, V. S., Nenonen, S., & Starr Jr, R. G. (2022). Coopetition with platforms: Balancing the interplay of cooperation and competition in hospitality. Tourism Management, 88, 104417.
    Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
    Bengtsson, M., Eriksson, J., & Wincent, J. (2010). Co‐opetition dynamics–an outline for further inquiry. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal.
    Bengtsson, M., Hinttu, S., & Kock, S. (2003). Relationships of cooperation and competition between competitors. 19th Annual IMP Conference, Lugano,
    Bengtsson, M., Johansson, M., Näsholm, M., & Raza-Ullah, T. (2013). A systematic review of coopetition: Levels and effects on different levels. The 13th Annual Conference of the European Academy of Management (EURAM 2013), Istanbul, Turkey, June 26-29, 2013,
    Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). ” Coopetition” in business networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411-426.
    Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 180-188.
    Bengtsson, M., & Raza-Ullah, T. (2016). A systematic review of research on coopetition: Toward a multilevel understanding. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 23-39.
    Blosch, M. (2016). Architecting platform ecosystems is key to integrate people, business and things. www.gartner.com/doc/3196533?ref=SiteSearch&sthkw=Platform%20Business%20Model%20Orchestration&fnl=search&srcId=1-3478922254
    Boudreau, K. J., & Hagiu, A. (2009). Platform rules: Multi-sided platforms as regulators. Platforms, Markets and Innovation, 1, 163-191.
    Bouncken, R., Gast, J., & Kraus, S. (2015). Coopetition: A systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science, 9(3).
    Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, B. (1998). Co-opetition. Doubleday. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=TBlPAAAAMAAJ
    Bresnahan, T. F., & Greenstein, S. (1999). Technological competition and the structure of the computer industry. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 47(1), 1-40.
    Burström, T. (2012). Understanding PMs` activities in a coopetitive interorganizational multi‐project setting. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.
    Caillaud, B., & Jullien, B. (2003). Chicken & egg: Competition among intermediation service providers. RAND Journal of Economics, 309-328.
    Cennamo, C., & Santalo, J. (2013). Platform competition: Strategic trade‐offs in platform markets. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11), 1331-1350.
    Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.
    Chim-Miki, A. F., & Batista-Canino, R. M. (2017). The coopetition perspective applied to tourism destinations: A literature review. Anatolia, 28(3), 381-393.
    Crick, J. M., & Crick, D. (2020). The yin and yang nature of coopetition activities: non-linear effects and the moderating role of competitive intensity for internationalised firms. International Marketing Review.
    Crick, J. M., & Crick, D. (2021). Internationalizing the coopetition construct: quadratic effects on financial performance under different degrees of export intensity and an export geographical scope. Journal of International Marketing, 29(2), 62-80.
    Cusumano, M. A., & Gawer, A. (2002). The elements of platform leadership. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 51.
    Cusumano, M. A., Nobeoka, K., & Kentaro, N. (1998). Thinking beyond lean: How multi-project management is transforming product development at Toyota and other companies. Simon and Schuster.
    Czakon, W. (2018). Network coopetition. The Routledge Companion to Coopetition Strategies, 47-57.
    Czakon, W., & Czernek, K. (2016). The role of trust-building mechanisms in entering into network coopetition: The case of tourism networks in Poland. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 64-74.
    Dagnino, G., & Padula, G. (2007). Untangling the rise of coopetition. International Studies of Management and Organization, 37(2), 32-52.
    Dedehayir, O., Mäkinen, S. J., & Roland Ortt, J. (2018). Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: A literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 18-29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.028
    Deloitte. (2018). The cloud is here: Embrace the transition How organizations can stop worrying and learn to “think cloud”.
    Eisenmann, T. (2007). Managing networked businesses: Course overview for educators. Harvard Business School, 4, 807-104.
    Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2011). Platform envelopment. Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), 1270-1285.
    Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2006). Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Business Review, 84(10), 92.
    Estrada, I., & Dong, J. Q. (2020). Learning from experience? Technological investments and the impact of coopetition experience on firm profitability. Long Range Planning, 53(1), 101866.
    Evans, D. S., Hagiu, A., & Schmalensee, R. (2008). Invisible engines: How software platforms drive innovation and transform industries. The MIT Press.
    Fernandez, A.-S., Le Roy, F., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 222-235.
    Franck, J.-U., & Peitz, M. (2019). Market definition and market power in the platform economy. Centre on Regulation in Europe asbl (CERRE).
    Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (1997). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Pinter. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=jAwaOpEELhcC
    Garud, R. (1994). Cooperative and competitive behaviors during the process of creative destruction. Research Policy, 23(4), 385-394.
    Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43(7), 1239-1249.
    Gnyawali, D. R., He, J., & Madhavan, R. (2006). Impact of co-opetition on firm competitive behavior: An empirical examination. Journal of Management, 32(4), 507-530.
    Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B.-J. R. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650-663.
    Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. j. (2009). Co‐opetition and technological innovation in small and medium‐sized enterprises: A multilevel conceptual model. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 308-330.
    Gnyawali, D. R., & Ryan Charleton, T. (2018). Nuances in the interplay of competition and cooperation: Towards a theory of coopetition. In (Vol. 44, pp. 2511-2534): SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.
    Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 203-215.
    Hagel, J. I. (1996). Spider versus spider. The McKinsey Quarterly(1), 4.
    Hagiu, A. (2009). Two‐sided platforms: Product variety and pricing structures. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(4), 1011-1043.
    Hannah, D. P., &Eisenhardt, K. M. (2018 ). How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3163–3192. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2750
    Hox, J. J., & Boeije, H. R. (2005). Data collection, primary vs. secondary. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 1(1), 593-599.
    IDC. (2021). Worldwide Semiannual Public Cloud Services Tracker. https://www.idc.com/tracker/showproductinfo.jsp?containerId=IDC_P29737
    IDC. (2022). IDC Quarterly Server Tracker, 2021Q3.
    Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255-2276.
    Jäckle, A., Roberts, C., & Lynn, P. (2006). Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing: mode effects on data quality and likely causes: Report on phase II of the ESS-Gallup mixed mode methodology project.
    Kapoor, R. (2014). Collaborating with complementors: What do firms do? In Collaboration and competition in business ecosystems. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1994). Systems competition and network effects. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2), 93-115.
    Kim, J. (2016). The platform business model and business ecosystem: Quality management and revenue structures. European Planning Studies, 24(12), 2113-2132.
    Kim, J. (2016). The platform business model and strategy: A dynamic analysis of the value chain and platform business. The University of Manchester (United Kingdom).
    Kim, K. H. (2020). Coopetition: Complexity of cooperation and competition in dyadic and triadic relationships. Organizational Dynamics, 49(2), 100683.
    Kock, S., Nisuls, J., & Söderqvist, A. (2010). Co‐opetition: a source of international opportunities in Finnish SMEs. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal.
    Kraus, S., Meier, F., Niemand, T., Bouncken, R. B., & Ritala, P. (2018). In search for the ideal coopetition partner: An experimental study. Review of Managerial Science, 12(4), 1025-1053.
    Kumar, A., Connell, J., & Bhattacharyya, A. (2021). Co-opetition, corporate responsibility and sustainability: Why multi-dimensional constructs matter. Social Responsibility Journal.
    Lee, E., Lee, J., & Lee, J. (2006). Reconsideration of the winner-take-all hypothesis: Complex networks and local bias. Management Science, 52(12), 1838-1848.
    Levien, M. I. R. (2004). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Harvard Business Review, 272.
    Liebowitz, S. J., & Margolis, S. E. (1994). Network externality: An uncommon tragedy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2), 133-150.
    Loch, C. H., Galunic, D. C., & Schneider, S. (2006). Balancing cooperation and competition in human groups: The role of emotional algorithms and evolution. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27(2‐3), 217-233.
    Lorgnier, N., & Su, C.-J. (2014). Considering coopetition strategies in sport tourism networks: A look at the nonprofit nautical sports clubs on the northern coast of France. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14(1), 87-109.
    Luo, Z., Chen, X., & Wang, X. (2016). The role of co-opetition in low carbon manufacturing. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(2), 392-403.
    Madhavan, R., Gnyawali, D. R., & He, J. (2004). Two`s company, three`s a crowd? Triads in cooperative-competitive networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 918-927.
    Mariani, M. M. (2007). Coopetition as an emergent strategy: Empirical evidence from an Italian consortium of opera houses. International Studies of Management & Organization, 37(2), 97-126.
    Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social forces, 63(2), 482-501.
    Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. ERIC.
    Meyer, H. (1998). My enemy, my friend. Journal of Business Strategy, 19(5), 42-47.
    Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75-86.
    Moore, J. F. (1997). The Death of Competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. Harper Collins.
    Morris, M. H., Kocak, A., & Ozer, A. (2007). Coopetition as a small business strategy: Implications for performance. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 18(1), 35-56.
    Nachira, F. (2002). Towards a network of digital business ecosystems fostering the local development.
    Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. M. (1997). Co‐opetition: Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy. Strategy & Leadership.
    Nguyen, T. Q. T., Johnson, P., & Young, T. (2022). Networking, coopetition and sustainability of tourism destinations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management.
    Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum: Qualitative social research.
    Panico, C., & Cennamo, C. (2022). User preferences and strategic interactions in platform ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 43(3), 507-529.
    Parker, G., & Alstyne, M. V. (2008). Managing platform ecosystems. ICIS 2008 Proceedings, 53.
    Parker, G. a. V. A., M. . (2014). Platform strategy. Encyclopedia of Strategic Management. (Palgrave Macmillan, London)
    Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, & W, M. (2005). Two-sided network effects: A theory of information product design. Management Science, 51(10), 1494-1504.
    Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, W, M., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. W. W. Norton. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=Bvd1CQAAQBAJ
    Parylo, O. (2012). Qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods: An analysis of research design in articles on principal professional development (1998–2008). International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6(3), 297-313.
    Peltoniemi, M., & Vuori, E. (2004). Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive business environments. Proceedings of eBusiness research forum,
    Phillips, D. C., Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Rowman & Littlefield.
    Power, T., & Jerjian, G. (2001). Ecosystem: Living the 12 principles of networked business. FT.com. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=aDFEAAAAYAAJ
    Quintana-Garcia, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. (2004). Cooperation, competition, and innovative capability: A panel data of European dedicated biotechnology firms. Technovation, 24(12), 927-938.
    Rademakers, M. F., & McKnight, P. J. (1998). Concentration and inter‐firm co‐operation within the Dutch potato supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.
    Rietveld, J., Schilling, M. A., & Bellavitis, C. (2019). Platform strategy: Managing ecosystem value through selective promotion of complements. Organization Science, 30(6), 1232-1251.
    Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990-1029.
    Rodrigues, F., Souza, V., & Leitao, J. (2011). Strategic coopetition of global brands: A game theory approach to ‘Nike+ iPod Sport Kit’co-branding. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 3(4), 435-455.
    Rong, K., Lin, Y., Shi, Y., & Yu, J. (2013). Linking business ecosystem lifecycle with platform strategy: A triple view of technology, application and organisation. International Journal of Technology Management, 62(1), 75-94.
    Schilling, M. A. (2002). Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: The impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 387-398.
    Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). The art of standards wars. California Management Review, 41(2), 8-32.
    Shapiro, C., Varian, H. R., Carl, S., & Press, H. B. (1998). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Harvard Business School Press. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=aE_J4Iv_PVEC
    Shu, C., Jin, J. L., & Zhou, K. Z. (2017). A contingent view of partner coopetition in international joint ventures. Journal of International Marketing, 25(3), 42-60.
    Siciliani, P., & Giovannetti, E. (2019). Platform competition and incumbency advantage under heterogeneous switching cost—exploring the impact of data portability. Bank of England Working Paper.
    Song, M. (2010). A study on platform`s new strategy in media 2.0 era-based on “Keystone” concept & Google case. Ecostone.
    Stake, R. E. (2008). Qualitative case studies.
    Stergiades, E., Scaramella, J., & Marden, M. (2020). The business value of HPE GreenLake management services. IDC.
    Stuckey, H. L. (2013). Three types of interviews: Qualitative research methods in social health. Journal of Social Health and Diabetes, 1(02), 056-059.
    Sullivan, J. R. (2012). Skype: An appropriate method of data collection for qualitative interviews? The Hilltop Review, 6(1), 10.
    Tan, B., Pan, S. L., Lu, X., & Huang, L. (2015). The role of IS capabilities in the development of multi-sided platforms: The digital ecosystem strategy of Alibaba. com. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16(4), 2.
    Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
    Teece, D. J. (2018). Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Research Policy, 47(8), 1367-1387.
    Thomas, L., & Autio, E. (2020). Innovation ecosystems in management: An organizing typology. In. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.203
    Visnjic, I., & Nelly, A. (2013). Collaborate to innovate: How business ecosystems unleash business value. Semantic Scholar.
    von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O., Kuhn, H. W., & Rubinstein, A. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior: 60th anniversary commemorative Edition. Princeton University Press. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=jCN5aNJ-n-0C
    Wen, W., & Zhu, F. (2019). Threat of platform‐owner entry and complementor responses: Evidence from the mobile app market. Strategic Management Journal, 40(9), 1336-1367.
    Wieninger, S., Conrad, R., Bittner, M., & Wiesmann, A. (2020). Framework for business ecosystem roles. 2020 IEEE European Technology and Engineering Management Summit (E-TEMS),
    Wilhelm, M. M. (2011). Managing coopetition through horizontal supply chain relations: Linking dyadic and network levels of analysis. Journal of Operations Management, 29(7-8), 663-676.
    Wilke, E. P., Costa, B. K., Freire, O. B. D. L., & Ferreira, M. P. (2019). Interorganizational cooperation in tourist destination: Building performance in the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 72, 340-351.
    Zhu, F. (2019). Friends or foes? Examining platform owners’ entry into complementors’ spaces. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 28(1), 23-28.



    二、中文文獻
    林君達。2020。訂閱制之策略行銷分析：以 HPE GreenLake 對 W 電信為例。國立政治大學經營管理碩士學程碩士論文。
    林彥希。2016。台灣伺服器廠商產品行銷與國際市場進入發展策略。國立政治大學商管專業學院碩士學位學程碩士論文。
    葉子綾&王昱凱。2015。「台灣伺服器產業由代工轉型至白牌之商業模式」，科際整合管理研討會，310-324。
    端木偉葶。2016。「雲端儲存服務的發展與未來： 個案分析」。國立政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。

    三、網路資料
    AWS，什麼是雲端運算？，上網日期2022年 3月20日，檢自：https://aws.amazon.com/tw/what-is-cloud-computing/?nc2=h_ql_le_int_cc
    行政院智慧國家推動小組，林百里談AI：發展比我想的快幾十倍，上網日期2022年3月20日，檢自： https：//digi.ey.gov.tw/Page/1538F8CF7474AB4E/b790da0b-b2d8-4dc0-b8d2-07cfc5abca56
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    科技管理與智慧財產研究所
    109364103
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109364103
    数据类型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202200468
    显示于类别:[科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 描述 大小格式浏览次数
    410301.pdf10524KbAdobe PDF20检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    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 ©   - 回馈