在國家經濟發展中，不動產開發產業扮演關鍵角色，其中住宅建設更是影響社會安定與民生需求的重要環節。近年來，隨著房價上漲與消費者意識抬頭，購屋糾紛頻繁發生，建設公司逐漸重視售後服務與整體顧客體驗。然而，優質的售後服務必須建立於良好產品品質的基礎上，而住宅品質的高低，很大程度取決於營造廠的施工能力與管理成效。因此，建設公司若欲強化顧客服務與品牌信譽，除應建立完善的售後維護體系外，亦須與營造廠密切合作，自源頭確保建築品質，以降低後續糾紛並提升市場競爭力。

本研究以服務主導邏輯（Service-Dominant Logic, S-D Logic）為理論基礎，探討建設公司與營造廠在建築專案中如何透過互動、合作與資源整合，共同創造價值。S-D Logic 有別於傳統商品主導邏輯（Goods-Dominant Logic），主張價值並非由生產者單方面創造，而是在多方參與者之間，透過服務交換與協作過程中共同產生。為深入瞭解建設公司與營造廠之間的價值共創機制，本研究採用質性研究方法，選擇C建設公司與S營造廠作為個案研究對象，透過深度訪談與文件資料分析，探討雙方在建築專案推動中的互動模式與價值創造歷程。

研究結果顯示，建設公司與營造廠的合作關係對建築專案的成果具有深遠影響，且價值共創並非集中於特定階段，而是在專案歷程中持續發生、相互交織。合作品質的高低，取決於雙方對「服務」之本質認知，以及在溝通協調、資源整合與問題解決上的實踐能力。當雙方能建立基於互信與共同目標的協作關係，將有助於提升營造品質、減少爭議、強化顧客滿意度，進而創造更具整體價值的建築專案成果。本研究成果除可補足既有文獻對建設公司與營造廠協作機制的不足外，亦為實務界提供促進專案價值共創的具體建議與參考依據。

The real estate development industry plays a pivotal role in national economic development, with residential construction serving as a critical component that impacts social stability and meets essential housing needs. In recent years, rising housing prices and increased consumer awareness have led to frequent home purchase disputes, prompting construction firms to place greater emphasis on after-sales services and overall customer experience. However, high-quality after-sales service must be built upon superior product quality, and the quality of residential buildings largely depends on the construction capabilities and management effectiveness of contractors. To enhance customer service and brand reputation, construction companies must not only establish comprehensive after-sales maintenance systems but also collaborate closely with contractors to ensure construction quality from the outset, thereby minimizing disputes and strengthening market competitiveness.

Grounded in Service-Dominant Logic (S-D Logic), this study examines how construction firms and contractors interact, collaborate, and integrate resources to co-create value in building projects. Unlike traditional Goods-Dominant Logic (G-D Logic), S-D Logic posits that value is not unilaterally created by producers but emerges through service exchange and collaboration among multiple stakeholders. To gain an in-depth understanding of value co-creation mechanisms between construction companies and contractors, this qualitative research employs a case study approach, focusing on Company C (a construction firm) and Company S (a contractor). Through in-depth interviews and document analysis, the study investigates interaction patterns and value creation processes throughout project implementation.

Findings reveal that the collaborative relationship between construction firms and contractors significantly influences project outcomes. Value co-creation occurs not in isolated phases but as an ongoing, intertwined process throughout the project lifecycle. The quality of collaboration depends on both parties' conceptualization of "service" and their practical abilities in communication, resource integration, and problem-solving. When mutual trust and shared objectives form the foundation of collaboration, construction quality improves, disputes decrease, and customer satisfaction strengthens, ultimately yielding projects with greater holistic value. This study not only addresses gaps in existing literature regarding collaboration mechanisms between construction firms and contractors but also provides practical recommendations for enhancing value co-creation in construction projects.

方世杰.(2024). 廿一世紀的策略新典範：價值共創的理論與實踐. 產業與管理論壇, 26卷(第3期). https://www.if.itri.org.tw/ArticleView.aspx?v=205

方世杰.(2020). 價值共創的迷思與省思 金屬工業網大師專欄之智庫專欄

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames exchange. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35–49.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252308
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1189–1208.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0
Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th ed.). PMI.
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE Publications.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Turner, J. R. (2009). Handbook of project-based management (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3