進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-2601201918241300
論文名稱(中文) 跨界合作好夥伴:疆界物件在共創中的角色扮演
論文名稱(英文) Need a hand? Investigate the role of boundary object in co-creation process
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 企業管理學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Business Administration
學年度 107
學期 1
出版年 108
研究生(中文) 洪雪芳
研究生(英文) Hsueh-Fang Hong
學號 R46054123
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 100頁
口試委員 指導教授-周信輝
口試委員-方世杰
口試委員-李慶芳
口試委員-蔡依倫
中文關鍵字 疆界物件  服務交換  行動者  資源整合  制度邏輯  個案研究 
英文關鍵字 boundary objects  service exchange  actor-to-actor  resource integration  institutional logic  case method 
學科別分類
中文摘要   「共創」近年來已受到學術與產業界的雙重重視,且因專業分工的日漸盛行和理論界越趨完整的發展,隔行如隔山之感越趨沉重,也由此更加依賴於合作與交換;可若要與他人合作或交換,無可避免的是由信使協助的跨界合作,也因此「邊界」以及「可協助在邊界間來回以協助成功互動的角色」的概念更為重要。學術界上有一既存概念描述此角色,是為「疆界物件(boundary object)」。
  本文旨在探討「疆界物件在共創過程中扮演何種角色以協助互動」,其中共創部分更著重於行動者、資源整合、制度邏輯,此三項與疆界物件的互動。理論概念將於第二章完整回顧。本研究採質性研究方法的多個案研究,採用共四個個案以呈現不同情境下的互動,希望盡可能探討疆界物件在共創過程中的不同面相。本研究提出理論貢獻兩點:疆界物件作為共創資源在共創研究中的適用性,與疆界物件旅程之觀點之適用性於共創研究。實務貢獻提供使用疆界物件觀點完善共創前提的觀點。本文最後也提供研究限制與未來研究建議。
英文摘要   Boundaries present as sameness and discontinuity to distinguish systems. Every (eco)system as well as the social world constrains and coordinates itself through institutions – “the rule of the game” – in its own domain. However, boundary-crossing activities are inevitable in value-creating service exchanges. In the sense of reaching a successful service exchange, it signals collision, negotiation, and consensus appropriation between boundaries under a specific context. Thus, possibility of going back and forth among aforementioned elements in the process of value co-creation is conjointly considered. This further suggests the adaptable characteristic of boundaries.
  However, rare existing studies discuss the inconsistency of boundaries along co-creating process. To address this deficiency, this study employs service-dominant logic and boundary objects – a sort of arrangement that allow different groups who wish to cooperate to work together – as the lens to investigate cross-system co-creating process. This study adopts case study method to provide empirical evidence performing dynamism. Four cases are employed with consistent analyzing and presentation process to address abundance and integrity.
  Moreover, this study aims to respond to Vargo and Lusch’s (2017) call for midrange theories concerning service-dominant logic, and intentions to contribute to value co-creating practices with the roles and usability of boundary objects. The discussion, theoretical and managerial implications, and conclusions as well as limitations and suggestions, are stated in the last chapter. Interplays between boundary object and actor, resource integration, and institutions are in discussion. Theoretically contributes to boundary object as contextual resource, and the concept of boundary object journey to investigate in co-creation process; managerial implication provides insights to utilize co-creation. This research concludes with urging the adoption of boundary object’s view in investigating interaction among co-creation process with the adoption of boundary object’s journey view among co-creation process.
論文目次 中文摘要 I
Abstract II
Content IV
Table VI
Figure VII
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Chapter 2 Literature Review 6
2.1 Value co-creation and service dominant logic 6
2.1.1 Actor-to-actor service exchange 10
2.1.2 Resource integration 12
2.1.3 Service systems 15
2.1.4 Institutions 17
2.2 Boundary object 20
2.3 Conclusion 25
Chapter 3 Research Method 30
3.1 Qualitative research method 30
3.2 Case study method and case identification 32
3.3 Research design 34
3.4 Data collection 36
3.5 Data analysis and data presentation 38
Chapter 4 Case Findings 41
4.1 Case 1 (System 1) – Teaching case as boundary object 41
4.1.1 Context: AMBA class – Qualitative Research Method 41
4.1.2 Co-creation process: In-class interaction 42
4.1.2.1 Warming up – Into the material 43
4.1.2.2 Get to the point – Elements of a good case 45
4.1.2.3 Comprehending – Back to the material 45
4.1.3 Summary 48
4.2 Case 2 (System 2) – Teaching case as boundary object 51
4.2.1 Context: CPC Internal training class for executive managers 51
4.2.2 Co-creation process: In-class interaction 52
4.2.3 Summary 57
4.3 Case 3 (System 3) – Nursing record as boundary object 60
4.3.1 Context: On nursing – Comprehensive clinical nursing practice 60
4.3.2 Co-creation process: In-class interaction 61
4.3.3 Summary 65
4.4 Case 4 (System 4) – ‘The silent teacher’ as boundary object 68
4.4.1 Context: On doctoring – Gross anatomy 68
4.4.2 Co-creation process: In-class interaction 69
4.4.3 Summary 75
4.5 Case findings summary 77
Chapter 5 Discussions, Implications, and Conclusions 83
5.1 Discussions: Addressing the research question 83
5.2 Implications 87
5.2.1 Theoretical implications 87
5.2.2 Managerial implications 88
5.3 Conclusions, limitations and future research 90
5.3.1 Conclusions 90
5.3.2 Limitations and future research 90
References 93
Appendix 100
參考文獻 Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Jaakkola, E. (2012). Value co-creation in knowledge intensive business services: A dyadic perspective on the joint problem solving process. Industrial marketing management, 41(1), 15-26.
Akaka, M.A., & Chandler, J. D. (2011). Roles as resources: A social roles perspective of change in value networks. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 243-260.
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of educational research, 81(2), 132-169.
Allee, V. (2000). Reconfiguring the value network. Journal of Business strategy, 21(4), 36-39.
Allen, D. (2009). From boundary concept to boundary object: the practice and politics of care pathway development. Social Science & Medicine, 69(3), 354-361.
Andersson, P., Aspenberg, K., & Kjellberg, H. (2008). The configuration of actors in market practice. Marketing Theory, 8(1), 67-90.
Austin, T., Larson, E., & Ernst, D. (2002). SimpleScalar: An infrastructure for computer system modeling. Computer, 35(2), 59-67.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as exchange. The Journal of Marketing, 32-39.
Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California Press.
Bowker, G., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out. Classification and its consequences.
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252-271.
Callon, M. (1999). Actor‐network theory—the market test. The Sociological Review, 47(S1), 181-195.
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization science, 13(4), 442-455.
Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization science, 15(5), 555-568.
Chae, B. K. (2012). An evolutionary framework for service innovation: Insights of complexity theory for service science. International journal of production economics, 135(2), 813-822.
Chandler, J. D., & Lusch, R. F. (2015). Service systems: a broadened framework and research agenda on value propositions, engagement, and service experience. Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 6-22.
Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames exchange. Marketing theory, 11(1), 35-49.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Chapter 8: Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of research in education, 24(1), 249-305.
Commons, J. R. (1931). Institutional economics. The American economic review, 648-657.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications.
CPC Training Center (2019), Introduction of Training Center. Retrieved January 4, 2019, from Chinese Petroleum Corporation, Training Center Website: https://web.cpc.com.tw/division/tc/
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
De Gregori, T. R. (1987). Resources are not; they become: An institutional theory. Journal of economic issues, 21(3), 1241-1263.
Díaz-Méndez, M., & Gummesson, E. (2012). Value co-creation and university teaching quality: Consequences for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Journal of Service Management, 23(4), 571-592.
Edvardsson, B., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Tronvoll, B., McHugh, P., & Windahl, C. (2014). Institutional logics matter when coordinating resource integration. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 291-309.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327-339.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
Fenton, E. M. (2007). Visualising strategic change: the role and impact of process maps as boundary objects in reorganisation. European Management Journal, 25(2), 104-117.
Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Ye, Y., Sutcliffe, A. G., & Mehandjiev, N. (2004). Meta-design: a manifesto for end-user development. Communications of the ACM, 47(9), 33-37.
Foster, I., Kesselman, C., Nick, J. M., & Tuecke, S. (2003). The physiology of the grid. Grid computing: making the global infrastructure a reality, 217-249.
Genrich, H. J., & Lautenbach, K. (1981). System modelling with high-level Petri nets. Theoretical computer science, 13(1), 109-135.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structure. Berkeley.
Grönroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing theory, 11(3), 279-301.
Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 41(2), 133-150.
Grubb, E. L., & Grathwohl, H. L. (1967). Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market behavior: A theoretical approach. The Journal of Marketing, 22-27.
Gummesson, E. (2008). Extending the service-dominant logic: from customer centricity to balanced centricity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 15-17.
Gummesson, E., & Mele, C. (2010). Marketing as value co-creation through network interaction and resource integration. Journal of Business Market Management, 4(4), 181-198.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2010). Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for brand governance. Journal of Brand Management, 17(8), 590-604.
Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2009). Engaging the consumer: The science and art of the value creation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 100-114.
Hume, D. (2003). A treatise of human nature. Courier Corporation.
Jaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2014). The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-creation: a service system perspective. Journal of service research, 17(3), 247-261.
James, C. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Jost, J., & Hunyady, O. (2003). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European review of social psychology, 13(1), 111-153.
Judson, K. M., & Taylor, S. A. (2014). Moving from marketization to marketing of higher education: The co-creation of value in higher education. Higher Education Studies, 4(1), 51-67.
Lawrence, T. & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. CleggC.

Hardy & T. B. Lawrence The SAGE handbook of organization studies (pp. 215-254). London: SAGE Publications Ltd
Leigh Star, S. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601-617.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing theory, 6(3), 281-288.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge University Press.
Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 36(1), 18-20.
Maglio, P. P., Vargo, S. L., Caswell, N., & Spohrer, J. (2009). The service system is the basic abstraction of service science. Information Systems and e-business Management, 7(4), 395-406.
McCarthy, J. D., & Wolfson, M. (1996). Resource mobilization by local social movement organizations: Agency, strategy, and organization in the movement against drinking and driving. American Sociological Review, 1070-1088.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. Sage.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing research, 40(2), 120-123.
NCKU AMBA (2019), Introduction of NCKU AMBA. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from National Cheng Kung University, Advanced Master of Business Administration Website: http://www.amba.ncku.edu.tw/main.php
NCKU Course Inquiry Website (2019), Syllabus. Retrieved January 10, 2019, from National Cheng Kung University, Course Inquiry Website: http://course-query.acad.ncku.edu.tw/qry/index.php
NCKU MD (2019), Introduction of NCKU MD. Retrieved January 5, 2019, from National Cheng Kung University, Department of Medicine Website: http://med.hosp.ncku.edu.tw/index.aspx
NCKU ND (2019), Introduction of NCKU ND. Retrieved January 7, 2019, from National Cheng Kung University, Department of Nursing Website: http://www.nursing.ncku.edu.tw/index.php?Lang=zh-tw
Nolen, S. B., Horn, I. S., Ward, C. J., & Childers, S. A. (2011). Novice teacher learning and motivation across contexts: Assessment tools as boundary objects. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 88-122.
North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of economic perspectives, 5(1), 97-112.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 36(1), 83-96.
Pincus, S. M. (1991). Approximate entropy as a measure of system complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 88(6), 2297-2301.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard business review, 78(1), 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.
Ramaswamy, V. (2009). Leading the transformation to co-creation of value. Strategy & Leadership, 37(2), 32-37.
Sajtos, L., Kleinaltenkamp, M., & Harrison, J. (2018). Boundary objects for institutional work across service ecosystems. Journal of Service Management, 29(4), 615-640.
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5-18.
Sawhney, M., & Prandelli, E. (2000). Beyond customer knowledge management: customers as knowledge co-creators. In Knowledge management and virtual organizations (pp. 258-281). IGI Global.
Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative science quarterly, 493-511.
Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Sage.
Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage Publications.
Shah, D., Rust, R. T., Parasuraman, A., Staelin, R., & Day, G. S. (2006). The path to customer centricity. Journal of service research, 9(2), 113-124.
Siltaloppi, J., Koskela-Huotari, K., & Vargo, S. L. (2016). Institutional complexity as a driver for innovation in service ecosystems. Service Science, 8(3), 333-343.
Sklair, L. (2000). The sociology of the global system. Routledge.
Smith, L. M. (1978). 8: An Evolving Logic of Participant Observation, Educational Ethnography, and Other Case Studies. Review of research in education, 6(1), 316-377.
Solomon, M. R. (1983). The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic interactionism perspective. Journal of Consumer research, 10(3), 319-329.
Solomon, M. R. (1988). Mapping Product Constel-lations: A Social Categorization Approach to Consumption Symbolism. Psychology & Marketing (1986-1998), 5(3), 233.
Spohrer, J., & Maglio, P. P. (2008). The emergence of service science: Toward systematic service innovations to accelerate co‐creation of value. Production and operations management, 17(3), 238-246.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social studies of science, 19(3), 387-420.
Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information systems research, 7(1), 111-134.
Stigler, G. J. (1950). The development of utility theory. I. Journal of political economy, 58(4), 307-327.
Storbacka, K., Brodie, R. J., Böhmann, T., Maglio, P. P., & Nenonen, S. (2016). Actor engagement as a microfoundation for value co-creation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3008-3017.
Suchman, L. (1993). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2(1-2), 21-39.
Talcott, P. (2013). The social system. Routledge.
Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California management review, 40(3), 55-79.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1999). The institutionalization of institutional theory. Studying Organization. Theory & Method. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, 169-184.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of management Journal, 41(4), 464-476.

Vallacher, R. R., Read, S. J., & Nowak, A. (2002). The dynamical perspective in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(4), 264-273.
Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative science quarterly, 24(4), 520-526.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing, 68(1), 1-17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 36(1), 1-10.
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.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46-67.
Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European management journal, 26(3), 145-152.
Vinson, D. E., Scott, J. E., & Lamont, L. M. (1977). The role of personal values in marketing and consumer behavior. The Journal of Marketing, 44-50.
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333-1357.
Wieland, H., Polese, F., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2012). Toward a service (eco) systems perspective on value creation. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology (IJSSMET), 3(3), 12-25.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.
Yori Nagibin (2019), Winter Oak. Retrieved January 3, 2019, from Internet Archive Website: https://archive.org/stream/WinterOak-English-YoriNagibin/winter-oak_djvu.txt
Zimmermann, E. W. 1951. World resources and industries.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: an activity system perspective. Long range planning, 43(2-3), 216-226.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2024-01-28起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2024-01-28起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw