1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
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 6-Jul-2023 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
dc.contributor.advisor 張瑜倩zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chang, Yu-Chienen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 顏融zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Jung Yenen_US
dc.creator (作者) 顏融zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Yen, Jungen_US
dc.date (日期) 2023en_US
dc.date.accessioned 6-Jul-2023 16:23:41 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 6-Jul-2023 16:23:41 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 6-Jul-2023 16:23:41 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0110364105en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/145747-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 科技管理與智慧財產研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 110364105zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (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。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機 5
第三節 研究問題與目的 7
第四節 研究方法 8

第二章 文獻回顧 10
第一節 文化科技 10
第二節 創新生態系 14
第三節 價值共創 19
第四節 研究架構 25

第三章 研究方法 29
第ㄧ節 研究流程 29
第二節 研究個案選擇 30
第三節 研究設計 35
第四節 訪綱設計 42

第四章 研究發現 46
第一節 文化科技定義及領域發展 46
第二節 文化科技創新生態系 60
第三節 文化科技領域中各利害關係人重視之價值 66
第四節 文化科技創新生態系中的價值共創 82

第五章 結論與建議 91
第一節 研究結論 91
第二節 研究貢獻 96
第三節 研究限制及未來建議 98

參考文獻 100
一、中文文獻 100
二、英文文獻 104

附錄一、工作報表範例 113
附錄二、訪綱 114
 		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 3262114 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110364105en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 文化科技zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 創新生態系zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 價值共創zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 利害關係人zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Cultural Technologyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Innovation Ecosystemen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Value Co-creationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Stakeholdersen_US
dc.title (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zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Exploring Value Co-Creation of the Innovation Ecosystem in Cultural Technology: A Case Study of Ultra Combosen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (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		zh_TW