臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在過去評估業主經驗與評價時，最常被使用的方法即為顧客滿意度的量度。然而，量測滿意度只能提供靜態的業主經驗與評價，卻忽略了整體連續的業主價值，以及業主在過程中感受的變化，滿意度量測並不能讓我們一覽業主的全程觀點。因此，本研究通過服務主導邏輯(Service-Dominant Logic, S-D Logic)的觀點，提出了建構工程專案的服務生態系統(Service Ecosystems)，展示了工程專案的價值共同創造如何呈現視覺化並且被具體評估。另一方面，有別於過去的靜態滿意度，本研究將業主在工程專案過程的完整價值歷程，結構化成模擬分析的模式，可進一步評估業主價值。

此模式可用以探討行動者(施工廠商)經由不同評選方式選出之後，在施工與保固階段的特定事件發生以後，受益方行動者(業主)的價值會如何改變，並且分析業主之交換價值與使用價值之差異，進而提供業主在未來廠商評選之決策輔助。 經過分析後發現，依照傳統廠商評選方式所評選出的廠商，其價值在專案開始至保固結束後，並非一貫維持最為出色的表現，造成廠商價值前後不一的主要原因為，傳統之商品主導邏輯會使得業主過於聚焦競標當下的交換價值。因此，本研究所應用之服務主導邏輯概念，以重視使用價值之觀點進行檢視，發現能夠避免傳統評選方式所產生之盲點，找出專案生命週期中整體價值最高的營造廠商，以利後續提供業主進行廠商評選之決策輔助。

In the past, the most commonly used method in evaluating owner experience and evaluation was a measure of customer satisfaction. However, measurement of customer satisfaction can only provide static owner experience and evaluation, but ignored the overall continuous owner value, as well as the difference of experience of owner in the process. Therefore, this study proposes a service ecosystem for building construction projects from the perspective of Service-Dominant Logic, S-D Logic. This service ecosystem demonstrates how the co-created value of the project is specifically visualized and evaluated. On the other hand, unlike the static satisfaction in the past, this study transfers the complete value process of the owner in the project into a structure that is a simulation analysis model to further evaluate the owner's value.

This model can be used to explore how the value of the beneficiary actor (owner) will change after the specific events occurred in the construction and warranty phase. In addition, it can also analyze the difference between the exchange value and use value after the actor (the contractor) is selected by different methods. Thus, it can provide the owner a decision-making assistance in the future manufacturer selection. After analysis, it is found that the value of selected contractor which is according to the traditional selection method does not always maintain the best performance from the beginning to the end of the warranty phase. Resulting in the inconsistent performance of the selected contractor mainly because the traditional Goods-Dominant Logic (G-D Logic) will make the owner too focused on the current exchange value in the bidding process. Therefore, this study found the owner that applied the concept of S-D Logic could avoid the blind spot generated by traditional selection method and successfully select the contractor who has the highest overall value in the project life cycle.

中文摘要·································································I
英文摘要·································································III
致 謝·································································V
第一章 緒論·····························································1
1.1 研究動機.····················································1
1.2 研究目的.····················································1
1.3 研究架構與流程.··············································2
第二章 文獻回顧·························································5
2.1 服務主導邏輯·················································5
2.1.1 商品主導邏輯之檢視與超越··································5
2.1.2 服務主導邏輯的公理與基本前提······························11
2.1.3 服務生態系統··············································16
2.2 服務生態系統之可行性.········································21
第三章 工程服務生態系統之建置···········································25
3.1 工程服務生態系統之基礎架構.··································25
3.1.1 行動者、資源、資源整合····································26
3.1.2 工程廠商的價值主張與工程服務交換··························27
3.1.3 工程專案的價值共同創造····································27
3.1.4 動態的工程服務生態系統····································28
3.2 工程服務生態系統之建模.······································29
3.2.1 工程服務生態系統之元件與行為介紹··························29
3.2.2 工程服務生態系統之元件與行為建模··························33
3.3 工程服務生態系統之模擬模型.··································40
3.3.1 工程服務生態系統之流程····································40
3.3.2 工程服務生態系統之動態模擬································42
3.3.3 工程服務生態系統之模擬模型建構····························42
第四章 個案建模與實作···················································46
4.1 個案背景.····················································46
4.2廠商評選方式建模··············································48
4.2.1 最低標之評選方式建模······································48
4.2.2 評分及格最低標之評選方式建模······························49
4.2.3 最有利標之評選方式建模····································50
4.3 建構個案生態系統.············································52
4.3.1 施工階段之事件············································52
4.3.2 保固階段之事件············································54
4.4 個案競標廠商差異之建模.······································58
4.4.1 投標價格建模··············································58
4.4.2 管理成本建模··············································60
4.4.3 事件成本建模··············································60
4.4.4 逾期成本建模··············································66
4.4.5 保固範圍內發生之建物損壞成本建模··························67
第五章 模擬結果分析與討論················································70
5.1 業主價值.····················································70
5.1.1 量化業主之交換價值········································72
5.1.2 量化業主之使用價值········································73
5.1.3 業主價值與決策行為········································73
5.2 Simul8實際操作過程···········································75
5.2.1 個案生態系統之參數設定····································75
5.2.2 個案生態系統之模擬過程····································76
5.3 個案生態系統模擬結果.········································77
5.3.1 各評選方式之分析··········································77
5.3.2 業主價值之階段差異········································78
5.3.3 業主價值之足跡············································82
5.3.4 影響業主價值的成本組合····································84
第六章 結論與建議························································88
6.1 研究成果.····················································88
6.2 研究限制與未來研究建議.······································90
參考文獻·································································91

[1] 池熙璿，2016，「服務主導邏輯」，中國生產力中心
[2] 蘇怡如，2008，「工程專案管理服務品質與顧客滿意度研究」，碩士論文，國立交通大學土木工程學系。
[3] 陳耀南，2008，「台灣統包工程業主滿意度之研究」，碩士論文，國立高雄第一科技大學營建工程學系。
[4] 許淑麗，2016，「工程異質採購最低標決標制度施行成效之探討」，碩士論文，國立宜蘭大學土木工程學系。
[5] 翁紹仁，Paul Savory，2013，「系統模擬與Simul8教戰手冊」。
[6] 勞動部勞工保險局，2018，「107年勞動檢查年報」。
[7] Tax S. S., McCutcheon D, Wilkinson F. I., 2013, “The Service Delivery Network (SDN): A Customer-Centric Perspective of the Customer Journey” Journal of Service Research, 16(4), 454-470.
[8] Vargo L. S., Lusch F. R, 2014, “Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[9] Frow P., McColl-Kenedy R. J., Hilton T., Davidson A., Payne A., and Brozovic D., 2016, “Value Propositions: A Service Ecosystems Perspective”, Marketing Theory, 14(3), 327-351.
[10] Vargo L. S., Maglio P. P., Akaka A M., 2008, “On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective”
[11] Vargo L. S., Lusch F. R, 2008, “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1-10.
[12] Vargo L. S., Lusch F. R., Wessels G., 2008, “Toward a conceptual foundation for service science: Contributions from service-dominant logic” IBM Systems Journal, 47(1), 5-14.
[13] Fujita S., Vaughan C., Vargo L. S.., 2018, “Service Ecosystem Emergence from Primitive Actors in Service Dominant Logic: An Exploratory Simulation Study”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(9), 2361-2376.
[14] Normann, R, 2001, “Reframing Business: When the Map Changes the Landscape” Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
[15] Chandler, Jennifer D. and Lusch F. R., 2015, “Service Systems: A Broadened Framework and Research Agenda on Value Propositions, Engagement, and Service Experience” Journal of Service Research, 18(February), 6-22.
[16] Diener, Ed, Wirtz D., Tov W., Chu K. P., Choi D. W., Oishi S., and Biswas-Diener R., 2010, “New Well-being Measures: Short Scales to Assess Flourishing and Positive and Negative Feelings” Social Indicators Research, 97(June), 143-156.
[17] Grönroos, Christian and 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.
[18] Stuart, Ian F. and Tax S., 2004, “Toward an Integrative Approach to Designing Service Experiences Lessons Learned from the Theatre” Journal of Operations Management, 22(December), 609-627.