Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146610
|
| Title: | 平台生態系之價值創造研究 －以開放銀行下金融服務生態系為例
Value Creation of Platform Ecosystem: Case study of Financial Service Ecosystem under Open Banking |
| Authors: | 黃琳
Lin, Huang |
| Contributors: | 邱奕嘉
Ciou, Yi-Jia
黃琳
Lin, Huang |
| Keywords: | 平台生態系
價值創造
開放銀行
開放應用程式介面
Platform Ecosystem
Value Creation
Open Banking
Open Application Programming Interface |
| Date: | 2023 |
| Issue Date: | 2023-08-02 14:13:12 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 過去，討論平台生態系之相關文獻，多著重於一般民營企業之發展策略，例如討論與傳統價值鏈之差異、樞紐平台如何透過參與者或跨產業互補廠商之加入來建立緊密的網絡關係並形成平台生態系並達到價值創造等。而本研究選擇的個案樞紐平台為Open API管理平台，由於其為台灣政府為跟隨國際金融科技趨勢，推動開放銀行發展而委託財金資訊公司成立之，因此有其特殊性。
隨著平台、生態系等概念在學術上有更多的討論與研究，加上金融科技趨勢早已為國際間金融產業的發展重點。本研究透過個案分析的方式來討論個案公司平台生態系內的參與者、位置、鏈結與活動，並輔以生態系領導力來說明樞紐平台如何影響、控制和約束其他生態系參與者，最後探討生態系成員間如何協作並達到價值創造。
本研究最後得出以下結論：一、樞紐平台為生態系協調者不影響其吸引跨產業互補成員的成效，並以感知、獲取與重構三種能力建構成的領導力來引導成員達成共同目標。二、平台生態系內的鏈結與合作關係網絡是多方向、多元且不一定存在一對一關係，且鏈結不須皆與樞紐平台有直接聯繫。三、生態系成員的價值主張不一定相同，樞紐平台以校準成員間主張，有助於順利合作與滿足各自價值主張。四、樞紐平台降低合作門檻與成本，並有網路外部性之外，共享跨產業資源帶來更大的集體價值。此外，生態系有內部及外部誘因使參與者持續留於生態系內時，成員間有更大的機會實現價值創造。可見平台生態系建立一個友善集體協作與價值創造的環境，兼顧了個別的價值創造的同時也創造集體生態系甚是生態系外的價值。
總結來說，本研究透過拆解此平台生態系基本要素、互動關係及其結構，加上研究Open API管理平台之生態系領導力來觀察樞紐平台如何協調各參與者，進一步討論各參與者之價值主張為何，最後如何達成價值創造。
In the past, when discussing the relevant literature of platform ecosystems, most of them focused on the development strategies of general private enterprises, such as discussing the differences from traditional value chains, how platforms can establish close network relationships through the participation of participants or cross-industry complementary manufacturers, and form an ecosystem to achieve value creation, etc. The platform selected in this study is the Open API management platform, which has its own particularity because it was commissioned by the Taiwan government to establish it by a Financial Information Service CO (FISC). in order to follow the international fintech trend and promote the development of open banking.
With more academic discussions and research on concepts such as platforms and ecosystems, and the trend of fintech has long been the focus of the development of the international financial industry. This study discusses the actors, positions, links and activities in the platform ecosystem of FISC through the method of case analysis as well as the ecosystem leadership to explain how the platform influences, controls and constrains other ecosystem participants, and finally explore how ecosystem members can collaborate and achieve value creation.
This study finally draws the following conclusions: 1. The role of the platform as the orchestrator of the ecosystem does not affect its effectiveness in attracting cross-industry complementary members, and guides members to achieve common goals with the leadership formed by the three capabilities of sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring . 2. The links and cooperative relationships in the ecosystem is multi-directional, diverse and does not necessarily have a one-to-one relationship, and all links do not have to be directly connected to the hub. 3. The value propositions of ecosystem members are not necessarily the same. The platform can align the propositions among members, which is conducive to smooth cooperation and satisfying their respective value propositions. 4. The platform reduces the threshold and cost of cooperation, and in addition to network externality, sharing cross-industry resources brings greater collective value. Plus, when the ecosystem has internal and external incentives to keep participants in the ecosystem, members have greater opportunities to realize value creation. It can be seen that the platform ecosystem establishes an environment of friendly collective collaboration and value creation, taking into account individual value creation while also creating value in the ecosystem and beyond.
To sum up, this research disassembles the elements, interactive relationship and structure of the platform ecosystem, and studies the ecosystem leadership of the Open API management platform to observe how the platform coordinates the participants. Plus, this study discusses participants’ value proposition, and how to achieve value creation. |
| Reference: | 外文文獻
Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem.
Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 98-107.
Adner, R. & Rahul. K. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306-333.
Adner, R. (2012). The wide lens: A new strategy for innovation. (New York, NY:
Portfolio Penguin.)
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of management, 43(1), 39-58.
Adner. (2021). Winning the Right Game: How to Disrupt, Defend, and Deliver in a Changing World. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Boudreau, K. (2008). Opening the platform vs. opening the complementary good? The effect on product innovation in handheld computing. HEC Working Paper available on SSRN.
Brown, P. A. (2008). A review of the literature on case study research. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 1(1).
Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. (2012). Co-creation of value in a
platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise soft-ware. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 263-290.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. London: Sage Publications.
Foss N.J., Schmidt J. & Teece D.J.(2022). Ecosystem leadership as a dynamic capability, Long Range Planning, 56(1)
Frow, P., & Payne, A. (2011). A stakeholder perspective of the value proposition concept. European journal of marketing.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of
business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability, Harvard Business Press.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255-2276.
Jacobson D., G. Brail & D. Woods (2011). APIs: A Strategy Guide. California:
Oreilly & Associates Inc.
Lanning, M. J., & Michaels, E. G. (1988). A business is a value delivery
system. McKinsey staff paper, 41(July).
Linder M., & Sundberg A. (2018). Strategic actions to regulatory change: How banks adapt to PSD2.
Marshall W. V. A., Geoffrey G. P. & Sangeet P. C. (2016) Pipelines, Platforms, and the New Rules of Strategy. Harvard Business Review, Issue April 2016, 54-60.
Mason, J. (2017). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage Publications.
Moore, G. A. (1991). Cross the chasm. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75-86.
Normann, R., & Ramirez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 65.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., and Smith, A. (2014). Value
Proposition Design: How to create products and services customers want. Hoboken: Wiley.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Creating and sustaining superior performance. Competitive
advantage, 167, 167-206.
Radziwon, A., Bogers, M., & Bilberg, A. (2017). Creating and capturing value in a regional innovation ecosystem: a study of how manufacturing SMEs develop collaborative solutions. International Journal of Technology Management, 75(1-4), 73-96.
Stabell, C. B., & Fjeldstad, O. D. (1998). Configuring value for competitive advantage: On chains, shops, and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 413-437.
Tansley, A. G. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16(3), 284-307.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical
contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It`s all B2B... and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial marketing management, 40(2), 181-187.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
中文文獻
AI金融科技協會。2021。你知道什麼是開放銀行（Open Banking）嗎？。引用日期：2023年3月12日，取自https://www.aifintechtw.com/article?article=42
安怡芸。2020。開放銀行相關問題之研析。引用日期：2023年3月18日，取自https://www.ly.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=6590&pid=191267
沈大白。2019。開放銀行的發展趨勢與因應之道，會計研究月刊，第398期，頁 42-45。
李靜宜。2019。臺灣開放銀行大進展！首版Open API標準出爐，2大準則5項安控13家銀行先支援。引用日期：2023年4月2日，取自https://www.ithome.com.tw/news/131648
翁禮祺。2022。金融科技2.0：數位金融與科技創新。（台北市：雙葉書廊）
許士軍。1996。定性研究在管理研究上的重要性。中原學報，24(2)，頁1-3。
陳信宏。2005。建構使用者導向之產品價值需求模型研究。國立雲林科技大學工業設計系研究所碩士論文。
陳英慧。2018。Open Banking對金融業之機會與挑戰。彰銀資料，第67卷，第12期。
臧正運。2020。開放銀行與消費者賦權，消費者報導，第471期，頁15-18。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
110364120 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110364120 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 412001.pdf | | 3120Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
