近年來，以商業力量解決社會問題是趨勢，而社會企業就是這樣的存在，也於世界各地越來越蓬勃發展。然而，相較於歐美國家，台灣的社會企業起步較晚，生態圈形成的也較緩慢，同時，也面臨各種挑戰。其中，相較於一般以營利為目的的企業，社會企業要能有效的解決社會問題，更需要獲得利害關係人（例如：民眾、政府或合作夥伴等）對該議題的認同與支持，換句話說，社會議題需要以共創的方式來解決。因此，企業該如何獲得利害關係人的認同並共同參與價值共創歷程是值得研究的議題，本研究以疆界物件結合價值共創的概念，並探討企業如何運用疆界物件，以促進行動者共創價值。
本研究透過質性研究的單一個案研究法，以訪談、觀察和實作的方式深入探究台南市容器界的UBike－好盒器與其利害關係人共同打造「環保外帶杯新文化」的歷程，而從中也發現好盒器要能實現「以環保容器取代免洗容器，改變外帶杯使用習慣」的價值主張，過程中與維持容器租借服務的核心行動者（包括咖啡店家與消費者）有著非常密切且相當重要的互動關係，而物件更是串連彼此的重要角色。因此，本研究決定以疆界物件(Boundary Object)理論觀點探討服務主導邏輯(Service-Dominant Logic)下的價值共創(Value Co-Creation)概念，除了彌補目前服務主導邏輯的理論缺口外，也希望提供企業在與行動者共創價值的過程中有一個更具體的依循方向。
而透過理論和個案的來回激盪，本研究發現企業若要能有效運用、管理疆界物件，以促進行動者共創價值，首先必須先拆解價值共創的重點階段，並釐清各階段的本質課題與所屬疆界類型，接著，評估現有的疆界物件以及其展現的功能，最後，再根據疆界管理3-T架構作出最洽當的適配，修正、強化或刪減疆界物件。如此一來，也能使企業在資源的運用上更有效率，成功與行動者共創價值。

This research deeply explores the operation of Good to Go, a social enterprise who provide reusable container rental service and aim to lower people’s dependence on disposable containers, reduce the waste and stop the vicious circle. Comparing to other enterprise, a successfully social enterprise needs more supports and recognitions from other stakeholders, in other words, social issues need to be solved in a co-created way. Therefore, in order to have a more concrete depth understanding on the interaction between actors, this research tries to combine the theory of boundary object with service-dominant logic, figuring out the detail co-created process between Good to Go, coffee shop and consumers. And in addition to compensating for the theoretical gap in the current service-oriented logic findings, also hopes to provide enterprises with a more specific direction in the process of co-creating value with actors.
By using single case study of qualitative research, this research have a more deeply understanding on the interaction between actors. If enterprises want to be able to effectively use and manage boundary objects to promote value co-creating, they must first break down the key stages of value creation and clarify the essential issues of each stage and the types of boundary they belong to. And then assessing existing boundary objects and the functions it demonstrated. Finally, revising, enhancing, or deleting the boundary objects according to the boundary management 3-T framework.

Akaka, M. A., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Technology as an operant resource in service (eco) systems. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 12(3), 367-384.
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of educational research, 81(2), 132-169.
Bechky, B. A. (2003). Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3), 720-752.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization science, 12(2), 198-213.
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.
Cartwright, N., & Mendell, H. (1984). What makes physics' objects abstract.
Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames exchange. Marketing theory, 11(1), 35-49.
Constantin, J. A., & Lusch, R. F. (1994). Understanding resource management: How to deploy your people, products, and processes for maximum productivity.
De Gregori, T. R. (1987). Resources are not; they become: An institutional theory. Journal of economic issues, 21(3), 1241-1263.
Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575-632.
Frost, L., Reich, M. R., & Fujisaki, T. (2002). A partnership for ivermectin: social worlds and boundary objects. Public-private partnerships for public health, 87-113.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration: Univ of California Press.
Haeckel, S. H. (1999). Adaptive enterprise: Creating and leading sense-and-respond organizations: Harvard business press.
Levitt, T. (1960). Marketing myopia: Harvard Business Review.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2008). The service-dominant mindset. In Service science, management and engineering education for the 21st century (pp. 89-96): Springer.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities: Cambridge University Press.
MacGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise (Vol. 21): New York.
Madhavaram, S., & Hunt, S. D. (2008). The service-dominant logic and a hierarchy of operant resources: developing masterful operant resources and implications for marketing strategy. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 36(1), 67-82.
Myers, M. D. (2013). Qualitative research in business and management: California: Sage Publications.
Nonaka, I. (2000). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. In Knowledge, groupware and the internet (pp. 3-42): Elsevier.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization science, 3(3), 398-427.
Ormston, R., Spencer, L., Barnard, M., & Snape, D. (2014). The foundations of qualitative research. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, 1-26.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (2001). A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, 5(1), 3-55.
Smith, A. (1776). The wealth of nations, Book 1. London, Methuen & Co.
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.
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.
Vargo, S. L. (2009). Toward a transcending conceptualization of relationship: a service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 24(5/6), 373-379.
Vargo, S. L., & Akaka, M. A. (2012). Value cocreation and service systems (re) formation: A service ecosystems view. Service Science, 4(3), 207-217.
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. (2011). It's all B2B… and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial marketing management, 40(2), 181-187.
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. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.001
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.
Vargo, S. L., & Morgan, F. W. (2005). Services in society and academic thought: an historical analysis. Journal of Macromarketing, 25(1), 42-53.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity: Cambridge university press.
Wieland, H., Polese, F., Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2012). Toward a service (eco) systems perspective on value creation. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology, 3(3), 12-25.
Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of economic literature, 38(3), 595-613.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods). London and Singapore: Sage.
Zimmermann, E. W. (1951). World resources and industries.
卞涛, 周成礼, & 岳爱东. (2009). 英国社会企业的发展经验及其对我国的启示. 未來與發展, 30(9), 85-87.
林淑馨. (2013). 臺灣社會企業的現況與困境: 以公益創投型社會企業為例. 社 區發展季刊(143), 68-77.
鄭勝分. (2008). 社會企業: 市場, 公共政策與公民社會的交叉點. 公共行政學報(27), 199-206.
蕭瑞麟. (2007). 不用數字的研究: 鍛鍊深度思考力的質性研究: 臺灣培生教育出版.
瞿海源, & 張苙雲. (2005). 台灣的社會問題. 台北: 巨流圖書公司.