近年來，台灣工具機床產業面臨數位化浪潮的衝擊，在傳統製造模式下，多數企業仍以產品為核心進行價值創造，遵循以銷售產品為核心精神的產品主導邏輯。然而，隨著數位科技的技術進程與迅速發展，這種主導邏輯在數位化的趨勢下，逐漸顯現出其局限性。工具機床製造業者逐漸意識到單純強化創新產品的硬體功能，已不足以應對市場的快速變遷和工廠顧客需求的多元化。工具機床製造業者面臨的問題包含但不限於韌體版本管理的不相容、機台控制器通訊協定的不一致、資料格式的不易對接等等。種種雲端服務建置的技術挑戰、資料數位化的整合挑戰，以及來自上下游供應鏈的面對資訊共享的信任挑戰，等等多重的邊界管理議題，都加劇了其數位轉型過程中的難度。在此過程中，該如何去轉換其思維模式的機制並突破困境，使工具機床製造業者重新定位其角色及企業核心精神與文化，從單純的生產者，轉型為整供應鏈的生態系統的協作者。
本研究旨在探討工具機床製造業如何透過主導邏輯的轉換，克服種種邊界限制進行跨界管理，以推動實現數位轉型的歷程。選擇使用質性研究方法中之個案研究法，本文個案以中台灣鋸床產業的典型代表「合濟工業股份有限公司」為研究對象，探討分析其推動實踐數位轉型歷程中的種種做法。研究將透過「互動控制系統」的理論基礎，及合濟工業的多次深度訪談，分析「工具機床製造業者如何轉換主導邏輯進行跨界管理，以突破其數位轉型歷程中的困境」，形塑出以服務為核心的價值共創模式。
本研究發現，在產品主導邏輯的框架下，業者往往專注於提升產品功能及市場佔有率，但忽略了其內部邏輯對數位化轉型的阻礙。這種模式使製造商難以有效應對數位轉型中不可避免的技術、資料與信任等邊界挑戰。而服務主導邏輯則提供了一種新的價值創造模式，強調跨部門協作和與顧客的共同參與，促進數位科技與傳統製造流程的深度融合。
其跨界機制的設計與實施，使其能夠有效跨越技術與信任的邊界，整合內外部資源，並在數位化環境中建立起供應鏈中和諧且有效的生態系統，也為其他傳統製造業提供了實踐參考。

This study explores how Taiwan's machine tool industry adapts to digital transformation through cross-boundary mechanisms and interactive control systems. Using Everising, a leading company in the Taichung sawing machine industry, as a case study, the research examines strategies to overcome technical, data, and trust challenges and enhance ecosystem orchestration.
Traditionally, machine tool manufacturers focused on product sales, but digital transformation requires data-driven services, interoperability, and ecosystem coordination. Challenges like firmware incompatibility, fragmented communication protocols, and supply chain integration barriers necessitate new models beyond hardware innovation. This study highlights boundary-spanning mechanisms as critical enablers of collaboration and information transparency. Strategies such as data-sharing frameworks, cloud integration, and supply chain partnerships improve interoperability and digital resilience.
This study finds that businesses can effectively respond to diverse market demands by redefining their value creation models. In the Taichung sawing machine industry, the core of digital transformation lies in shifting from selling equipment to providing comprehensive solutions, thereby ensuring sustained customer value.
1. The Role of Boundary Spanning Mechanisms in Digital Transformation:
Boundary-spanning mechanisms—such as ecosystem collaboration, data sharing, and platform-based management—have proven to be effective in breaking industry boundaries. These mechanisms not only enhance internal resource integration but also accelerate co-innovation between firms and external partners.
2. The Synergy Between Control Systems and Boundary Control:
This study validates the critical role of control systems in fostering technological development and innovation within organizations, particularly in highly complex technical environments. Additionally, boundary control mechanisms serve as effective constraints on cross-industry interactions, ensuring that companies maintain core competitiveness throughout the digital transformation.
The findings provide strategic insights for machine tool enterprises and SMEs, demonstrating how cross-industry collaboration and data-driven ecosystems drive sustainable digital transformation.

一、中文參考文獻
紐文英 (2016)。質性研究方法與論文寫作。
陳向明 (2002)。社会科學質的硏究。
歐宜佩與陳信宏 (2018)。〈近期數位轉型發展趨勢之觀察〉。《經濟前瞻》，178，94-99。
潘淑滿 (2022)。質性研究: 理論與應用。
蕭瑞麟 (2020)。不用數字的研究: 質性研究的思辯脈絡。
二、英文參考文獻
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of management, 43(1), 39-58.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management review, 25(3), 472-491.
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72-95.
Bertalanffy, L. v. (1968). General systems theory as integrating factor in contemporary science. Akten des XIV. Internationalen Kongresses für Philosophie, 2, 335-340.
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. v. (2013). Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS quarterly, 471-482.
Bloomfield, B. P., & Coombs, R. (1992). Information technology, control and power: The centralization and decentralization debate revisited. Journal of management studies, 29(4), 459-459.
Brennen, S., & Kreiss, D. (2014). Digitalization and digitization. Culture digitally, 8(2), 10-19.
Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (2000). Beyond computation: Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. Journal of Economic perspectives, 14(4), 23-48.
Caputo, A., Pizzi, S., Pellegrini, M. M., & Dabić, M. (2021). Digitalization and business models: Where are we going? A science map of the field. Journal of business research, 123, 489-501.
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.
Crabtree, B. F. (1999). Doing qualitative research: sage.
Downes, L., & Nunes, P. (2013). Big bang disruption. Harvard business review, 44-56.
Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2008). Fast strategy: How strategic agility will help you stay ahead of the game: Pearson Education.
Drucker, P. F. (1988). The coming of the new organization.
Du, W., & Pan, S. L. (2012). Boundary spanning by design: toward aligning boundary-spanning capacity and strategy in it outsourcing. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(1), 59-76.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25-32.
Frank, A. G., Dalenogare, L. S., & Ayala, N. F. (2019). Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. International journal of production economics, 210, 15-26.
Ghemawat, P. (2007). Redefining Global Strategy: Crossing Borders in a World Where Differences Still Matter: Harvard Business School Press.
Hedrick, T. E., Bickman, L., & Rog, D. J. (1993). Applied research design: A practical guide: Sage Publications.
Henriette, E., Feki, M., & Boughzala, I. (2015). The shape of digital transformation: A systematic literature review.
Johnston, H. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1988). Creating competitive advantage with interorganizational information systems. MIS quarterly, 153-165.
Karimi, J., & Walter, Z. (2016). Corporate entrepreneurship, disruptive business model innovation adoption, and its performance: The case of the newspaper industry. Long range planning, 49(3), 342-360.
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1974). Organization and Management: A Systems Approach: McGraw-Hill.
Lawrence Neuman, W. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. In: Pearson.
Legner, C., Eymann, T., Hess, T., Matt, C., Böhmann, T., Drews, P., . . . Ahlemann, F. (2017). Digitalization: opportunity and challenge for the business and information systems engineering community. Business & information systems engineering, 59, 301-308.
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1-51.
Loebbecke, C., & Picot, A. (2015). Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. The journal of strategic information systems, 24(3), 149-157.
Merz, M. A., He, Y., & Vargo, S. L. (2009). The evolving brand logic: a service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 37, 328-344.
Pan, S. L., & Tan, B. (2011). Demystifying case research: A structured–pragmatic–situational (SPS) approach to conducting case studies. Information and organization, 21(3), 161-176.
Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The blinders of dominant logic. Long range planning, 37(2), 171-179.
Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic management journal, 7(6), 485-501.
Simons, R. (1995). Control in an age of empowerment. Harvard business review, 73(2), 80-88.
Stake, R. (1995). Case study research: Springer.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15): sage Newbury Park, CA.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1991). Cultural leadership in organizations. Organization science, 2(2), 149-169.
Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of management journal, 24(2), 289-305.
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, 1-10.
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of business research, 122, 889-901.
Vial, G. (2021). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Managing digital transformation, 13-66.
Westerman, D., Spence, P. R., & Van Der Heide, B. (2012). A social network as information: The effect of system generated reports of connectedness on credibility on Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 199-206.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5): sage.