服務生態系統,不是一夕之間所形成的,而是長期動態演化的結果。本研 究以『安平劍獅文創生態系統的發展歷程』為研究標的,探究散落於產業環境 中的制度、操作性與被操作性資源是如何透過行動者間互動以形成一個如此蓬 勃的文創服務生態系統?以及釐清服務生態系統內的資源,是如何在行動者進 行資源整合的實務中有了本質上的轉變?
為了能清楚的了解上述研究問題,本研究透過以服務主導邏輯(Service dominant logic)的理論視角,結合資源與服務生態系統的概念形成理論框架。 在此框架的引導之下,本研究採用實證型質性研究個案,配合深度訪談與次級 資料的收集,以期深入了解本研究所欲探究的對象。
最後,研究者得以藉由本篇實證型質性研究個案的深入探討獲得了以下幾 點發現。一、原先散落於文創生態系統內的行動者,因價值主張得以進行資源 的交換與整合,使得原先鬆散的安平劍獅文創生態系統得以持續的擴大、緊密 的串連。二、除了資源的整合與交換之外,制度也是影響行動者行動、形塑系 統成形的重要因素。三、在經過『發掘』、『認識』、『認同』與『歸屬』四種實 務操作手法下,系統內的資源得以有了本質上的轉變。

ABSTRACT
This research deeply explored the formation of Anping Sword-Lions’ cultural and creative value system in Tainan. By employing a processual (or longitudinal) single case study, this method allow the researcher to explore the developmental process of a service ecosystem that is driven by resource interaction spanning organizational and institutional boundaries. Through exploration, this research found the practices of resources and institution interaction would affect the formation of Anping Sword-Lions’ cultural and creative value system. Therefore, this research tries to use service-dominant logic and service ecosystem perspectives which are less applied in cultural and creative industry to analyze how these actors shaping the ecosystem by applying difference resources through specific practices in the context of the development of Anping Sword Lion’s cultural and creative value system.

INTRODUCTION
With the election of “New Labor” in Britain in 1997, the concept of cultural and creative industries was firstly articulated through the Creative Industries Taskforce under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Due to this potential to fuel economic growth and to spur the regeneration of regions as well as nations, promoting the development of cultural and creative industries has become a worldwide fad in the recent years. With this wave of creative economy Taiwan has been attempting to enhance it’s
national power through cultivating cultural and creative industries. A significant move was the Ministry of Culture (MOC) established- a lager governmental organization with a vision to ensure the cultural right of citizens, create an aesthetic environment, build and maintain cultural values, and bolster the cultural and creative industries’ competitiveness.
Despite the crucial moves that promote the development of the Taiwanese cultural and creative industries, there are still many deficiencies need to be improved. For example, Taiwan's cultural and creative industries environment lack of resources, making the small and medium enterprises / entrepreneurs is not easy to survive. Furthermore, it must to establish a platform that helps resource interaction among enterprises, so that the cultural and creative enterprises could be sustainable and towards becoming a perennial ecosystem.
On the other hand, the most research and discussion on cultural and creative industries are confined to the main findings of cultural, political fields. There are few studies in the field of business management for cultural and creative industry, especially with the lens of ecosystem and service-dominant logic. The purpose of this research is to address these questions: how is a service ecosystem in the cultural and creativity industries formed through the interaction between operand and operant resources and institutional boundaries? And how the nature of resourceness change through the practices of resource integration? To address the research questions this research draw on a service-dominant perspective and resources, institutional, service-ecosystem as the central theoretical lens.
We believe that by deeply explored the formation of Anping Sword Lions’ cultural and creative ecosystem, could provide more constructive recommendations for government policy and the managerial practice in cultural and creative industry as well.

MATERIALS AND MEHODS
This research employs a processual (or longitudinal) single-case study to explore the developmental process of an ecosystem that is driven by resource interaction spanning organizational and institutional boundaries. This methodical employment is rationalized by the followings. Firstly, a single case study not only retains the complexities of business interaction under infestation but also permit a holistic and deep understanding towards the research phenomenon. Secondly, case study method allows researchers to use diverse data sources, including interviews, reviews, magazines, books, newspapers, etc., then by triangulation method to verify the primary and secondary data to come out a firmly conclusion.

DISCUSION AND CONCLUSION
By finding this case, we could find that with service-dominant logic point of view through a more holistic lens to comprehend the causes and appearance of Anping Sword Lions’ service ecosystem.
From the beginning to identify actors, which are scattered in various subsystems, interconnected by value propositions in each stage of ecosystem. Actors, in order to achieve the same goal (which is the value proposition) continuing invited other actors to exchange service and integrate resources. All of these efforts making the original loosely network to become a more close and expand service exchange ecosystem.
However, the generation of ecosystem services is not only because of the integration of resources, we must rely on the institutional logic- providing norms and standards for resource integration actions. For example, "shopping district" is the most classical institutional standard to impact (be affected) the Anping Sword Lions’ service ecosystem.
Furthermore, the study has found significant finding by deeply explore the service ecosystem historical process. That is the resources with S-D logic perspective has the nature of evolution. By different ways of operation practices, resources could transit form unintentionally symbol to be become an operand resources which could generate economic profit and finally sublimated into an operant resource which has the ability to affecting the formation of service ecosystem.

Adam, S. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edwin Cannan's annotated edition.
Akaka MA, C. J. (2010). Practice, process, positions, and propositions: A resource-based approach to value co-creation in value networks. Paper presented at the The Forum on Market and Marketing, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Anderson, J. C., Håkansson, H., & Johanson, J. (1994). Dyadic business relationships within a business network context. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 1-15.
Araujo, L., Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2003). The multiple boundaries of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 40(5), 1255-1277.
Araujo, L., & Harrison, D. (2002). Path dependence, agency and technological evolution. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(1), 5-19.
Ballantyne, D., Frow, P., Varey, R. J., & Payne, A. (2011). Value propositions as communication practice: Taking a wider view. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 202-210.
Baraldi, E., Gressetvold, E., & Harrison, D. (2012). Resource interaction in inter-organizational networks: Foundations, comparison, and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 266-276.
Bettencourt, L. A., & Ulwick, A. W. (2008). The customer-centered innovation map. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 109.
Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. (2011). On network theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1168-1181.
Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames exchange. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35-49.
Chung, H.-L. (2012). Rebooting the dragon at the cross-roads? Divergence or convergence of cultural policy in Taiwan. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 18(3), 340-355.
Cooke, P., & De Propris, L. (2011). A policy agenda for EU smart growth: the role of creative and cultural industries. Policy Studies, 32(4), 365-375.
DCMS. (1998). DCMS Mapping Document. Lodon.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: an abductive approach to
case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553-560.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and
sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of
Management Review, 23(4), 660-679.
Galloway, S., & Dunlop, S. (2007). A critique of definitions of the cultural and
creative industries in public policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy,
13(1), 17-31.
Giddens, A. (1986). The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Greg Guest, E. E. N., Marilyn L. Mitchell. (2013). Collecting Qualitative Data: A
Field Manual for Applied Research. London: Thousand Oaks: SAG. Håkansson, H. (Ed.). (1982). International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial
Goods. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Håkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Snehota, I., & Waluszewski, A. (2009).
Business in Networks. Chichester: John Wiley.
Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1989). No business is an island: the network concept
of business strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 4(3), 187-200. Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing Relationships in Business
Networks. London: Routledge.
Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (2002). Managing Technological Development:
IKEA, the Environment and Technology. New York: Routledge. Halinen, A., & Törnroos, J.-Å. (1995). The Meaning of Time in the Study of
Industrial Buyer-Seller Relationships. In K. Möller & D. Wilson (Eds.), Business Marketing: An Interaction and Network Perspective (pp. 493-530). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Halinen, A., & Törnroos, J.-Å. (2005). Using case methods in the study of contemporary business networks. Journal of Business Research, 58(9), 1285-1297.
Henry, C., & de Bruin, A. (Eds.). (2011). Entrepreneurship and the Creative Economy: Process, Practice and Policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Howkins, J. (2002). The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas. London: Allen Lane.
Hunt, S. D. (1991). Modern marketing theory: Critical issues in the philosophy of
marketing science: South-Western Publishing Company Cincinnati, OH.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review,
82(9), 69-78.
Johanson, J., & Mattsson, L.-G. (1992). Network Positions and Strategic Action - An
Analytical Framework. In B. Axelsson & G. Easton (Eds.), Industrial
Networks: A New View of Reality (pp. 205-217). London: Routledge. Kothandaraman, P., & Wilson, D. T. (2001). The future of competition:
Value-creating networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(4), 379-389. Lanning, M. J., & Michaels, E. G. (1988). A business is a value delivery system.
Staff paper: McKinsey& Company.
Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension
of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31(3),
638-658.
Li, Y.-R. (2009). The technological roadmap of Cisco's business ecosystem.
Technovation, 29(5), 379-386.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Competing through service:
Insights from service-dominant logic. Journal of retailing, 83(1), 5-18. 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.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching (2nd ed.). London: SAGE. McKinsey. (2000). Delivering value to customer., from
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/delivering_value_to_customers,2 013-10-10
Möller, K., & Rajala, A. (2007). Rise of strategic nets - New modes of value creation. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(7), 895-908.
Möller, K., & Svahn, S. (2006). Role of knowledge in value creation in business nets. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 985-1007.
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75-86.
Moore, J. F. (2006). Business ecosystems and the view from the firm. The Antitrust Bulletin, 51(1), 31-75.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. (1999). Relationship-based competitive advantage: The role of relationship marketing in marketing strategy. Journal of Business Research, 46(3), 281-290.
Myers, M. D. (2013). Qualitative Research in Business and Management. London: Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Normann, R., & Ramirez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 65-77.
Parolini, C. (1999). The Value Net: A Tool for Competitive Strategy. Chichester: John Wiley.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Robert F. Lush, S. L. V. (2014a). Service dominant logic: premises, perspectives, possibilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Robert F. Lush, S. L. V. (2014b). Service-Dominant Logic: Permises, Perspectives, Possibilities. United States of America, New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Snape, D., & Spencer, L. (2003). The foundations of qualitative research.
Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and
researchers, 11.
Snehota, I. (2004). Perspectives and Theories of Market. In H. Håkansson, D.
Harrison & A. Waluszewski (Eds.), Rethinking marketing: Developing a new
understanding of markets (pp. 15-32). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Stephen L. Vargo, M. A. A. (2012). Value Cocreation and Service Systems
(Re)Formation: A service Ecosystems View. Service Science, 4(3), 207-217. Turnbull, P., Ford, D., & Cunningham, M. (1996). Interaction, relationships and
networks in business markets: An evolving perspective. Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, 11(3/4), 44-62.
UNCTAD. (2010). Creative Economy Report 2010. New York.
Vargo, S. L. (2011). Market systems, stakeholders and value propositions: Toward a
service-dominant logic-based theory of the market. European Journal of
Marketing, 45(1/2), 217-222.
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.
Wang, B. C., Liu, S. C., & Chou, F. Y. (2009). National policy and promotion model of cultural and creative industry in Taiwan. International Journal of Business Research, 10(1), 121-132.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press.
Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of economic literature, 595-613.
Wu, Y.-H. (2011). The research of cultural and creative industry to future of Taiwan. Journal of Chinese Trend and Forward, 7(1), 113-119.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). London: Sage.