教育人才培訓一直是政府與企業的一大課題，而台灣產業面臨環境劇烈變化，關於產業必須面臨的升級或轉型，產業適用的人才如何培訓，也面臨考驗，政府對於這樣的課題一直相當重視，除了在祭出許多政策，相關的執行計畫也不勝枚舉，其中，又以產業人才方案最具代表性，由於跨產業眾多且執行多年，許多表現亮麗的執行培訓單位值得做更深入的研究，期能從中獲取參考的價值，藉此做為日後的典範移轉或成功模式學習。
本研究將透過質性研究的單一個案研究法，詳細探究由成大研究發展基金會知識管服務中心參與產業人才投資方案的運作現況，從中觀察知識中心在產投中的表現卓越，與政府，勞工，南部企業，和講師群的互動情形有極大關聯性，又其中制度影響力所扮演的角色，又有關鍵性的作用，因此本研究決定採用服務主導邏輯與服務系統在與價值共創的觀點，分析在哪些制度影響力與特殊情境脈絡下，系統提出價值主張，整合資源提供服務，進而達成價值共同創造的結果。本研究根據知識中心的個案發現，實証了服務主導邏輯在教育培訓產業中的展演，制度影響力形塑了大部份系統運用資源的樣態，而制度影響力也確實扮演了關鍵性主導資源整合的起源，系統透過回應或消弭制度影響力，最終達成了價值共創的結果，也強化了在系統互動中的體質，可提供給學術界新的理論價值之外，也給予實務界做決策的參考。

Human capital training policy has been an important issue to government and enterprises, and Taiwan industry facing a drastic changing surrounding. They have to promote their industry & need an industry transformation. The most reprehensive. Case of the government’s policy is the Industry Human Capital Investment Plan .because of the case duration is long, and many great performance executing units of the plan, capturing the value of reference. This researching could be seem as a transformation of model and successful model learning.
This research deeply explores NCKU Research and Development Foundation operating the Industry Human Capital Investment Plan and the interactions with government .customer and teachers by qualitative research. Through exploration, this research finds some strong relevance between NCKU Research and Development Foundation success and its interaction with customer, government and teachers. During the observation of interaction, we find that institution influence is most critical factor for the role playing in the process of interaction. Therefore, this research tries to use service-dominant logic and service system perspectives analysis how NCKU Research and Development Foundation and these actors co-create value by applying their own resources to provide service for each other under different value proposition in specific context. Otherwise, from an institutional logic, we try to analysis what and how the institutional influence interacting with those players in the value co-creation process.
The research results imply that service-dominant logic is workable and proved in education domain. Furthermore, to reach value co-creation, it is necessary to propose a value proposition which is meet the specific context and accepted by each other. Finally we proved that Value co-creation is coordinated through actor-generated institutions and institutional arrangements. and the institutional influence play a key role in the value co-creation process. Institutional influence shaping almost every integrating way of resources. The service system respond to the positive or negative institutional influence to their value proposition, and getting the goal of value co-creating.

Bastiat, F. (1860). Harmonies of political economy, J. Murray.
Constantin, J. A. and R. F. Lusch (1994). Understanding resource management, Oxford, OH: The Planning Forum.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration, Univ of California Press.
Hardy, C. and S. Maguire (2008). "Institutional entrepreneurship." The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 198-217.
Lawrence, T. B. and R. Suddaby (2006). "1.6 institutions and institutional work." The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies: 215.
Lounsbury, M. and E. T. Crumley (2007). "New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation." Organization studies 28(7): 993-1012.
Maglio, P. P., S. L. Vargo, et al. (2009). "The service system is the basic abstraction of service science." Information Systems and e-business Management 7(4): 395-406.
Maglio, P. P., S. L. Vargo, et al. (2009). "The service system is the basic abstraction of service science." Information Systems and e-business Management 7(4): 395-406.
Meuter, M. L., M. J. Bitner, et al. (2005). "Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: An investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies." Journal of Marketing 69(2): 61-83.
Mill, J. S. (1973). Principles of political economy,
Nicolini, P. (2009). "Noncommutative black holes, the final appeal to quantum gravity: a review." International Journal of Modern Physics A 24(07): 1229-1308.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Cambridge university press.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations, Sage.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1985). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Environmental Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis, Springer: 107-129.
Vargo, S. L. and M. A. Akaka (2009). "Service-dominant logic as a foundation for service science: clarifications." Service Science 1(1): 32-41.
Vargo, S. L. and R. F. Lusch (2004). "The four service marketing myths remnants of a goods-based, manufacturing model." Journal of service research 6(4): 324-335.
Vargo, S. L. and R. F. Lusch (2008). "Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution." Journal of the Academy of marketing Science 36(1): 1-10.
Vargo, S. L., R. F. Lusch, et al. (2006). "Historical perspectives on service-dominant logic." The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, ME Sharpe, Armonk, NY: 29-42.
Vargo, S. L., H. Wieland, et al. (2015). "Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective." Industrial Marketing Management 44: 63-72.
Wieland, H., K. Koskela-Huotari, et al. (2015). "Extending actor participation in value creation: an institutional view." Journal of Strategic Marketing: 1-17.
Vargo, S. L. and R. F. Lusch (2016). "Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 44(1): 5-23.

Zietsma, C., B. McKnight, et al. (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of org