我國在發展離岸風電時，為了使相關產業的供應鏈在地化，同時兼顧環保團體訴求、促成綠色能源發展、區域經濟合作，以及風電開發業者的商業目標，價值共創概念可提供很好的思考方向。本研究透過深度訪談離岸風電相關業者、環保團體、能源相關公部門及再生能源需求者等角色，利用價值共創的架構進行質性分析，描繪離岸風電業者的供應鏈管理模式與策略。政府最重要的是提供穩定的政策環境，產業規則跟標準也必須明確、完備，產業鏈上的利害關係者才會有一致的標準。而環保團體對於再生能源的價值主張策略重點包括：第一，綠電是更好的；第二，綠電是必要的；第三，這是一種未來可回收更多的投資。
以開發商的角度來說，離岸風電主要的價值除了提升企業形象，還是以能否為公司帶來經濟效益為出發。另外，其配合的供應鏈廠商也必須具有設計能力及施工技術，同時符合開發商S公司的合約規範，才能達到價值共創的目標。
統包商在離岸風電價值創造過程中扮演關鍵角色，對扶植本土產業鏈可產生直接助益。不過，風電產業國產化的立意雖好，但是台灣組裝廠較分散，缺乏群聚效應，而且著重在風機設備零組件的製造供應鏈。其實水下基礎的設施也很重要，可是相對受重視的程度卻反而較低。政府應該積極扶植台灣本土傳統產業精進水下基礎施工技術，以滿足離岸風電在這方面的需求。
以再生能源需求面來看，政府躉購電價在再生能源發展初期雖然很重要，但是當產業發展成熟後，大型企業的綠電採購合約對於開發商的經營將愈來愈重要。

In order to localize the related industrial supply chain, while taking into account the demands of environmental protection groups, promoting green energy development, regional economic cooperation, and the business goals of the offshore wind farm developers, the concept of value co-creation can provide a good thinking framework as developing offshore wind power.
Through in-depth interviews with offshore wind farm developers-related stakeholders such as developers, suppliers, environmental protection groups, energy-related public sector, and renewable energy demanders, this research adopts the value co-creation framework to conduct qualitative analysis and describes the supply chain management models and strategies of offshore wind industry players.
The most important thing for the government is to provide a stable policy environment. Industry rules and standards must also be clear and comprehensive so that stakeholders in the industry chain can have consistent standards. The critical points of the environmental protection group's value proposition strategy for renewable energy include:
1. Green electricity is better in comparison;
2. Green electricity is necessary;
3. It is a valuable investment that can be recovered more in the future.
From the offshore wind farm developer's point of view, the principal value of developing offshore wind power is improving the corporate social reputation and bringing economic benefits to the company. In addition, the supply chain manufacturers must also have design capabilities and construction technology and meet the contractual obligations of the developer so that they can achieve the goal of value co-creation.
The EPC contractor plays a crucial role in the value co-creation process of offshore wind power and directly fosters the local industrial chain. However, although the intention of localization of the offshore wind power industry is good, Taiwan's assembly plants are relatively scattered and lack cluster effect. Instead, the focus is on the manufacturing supply chain of the wind turbine components. The underwater infrastructure is also very critical, but the degree of attention is relatively low. The government should actively support Taiwan's local traditional heavy industries to improve underwater infrastructure construction technology to meet the requirements of offshore wind farm developers.
Although the government's electricity Price Purchase Agreement (PPA) is essential in the early stage of renewable energy dmand, when the industry develops mature, the Corporate Price Purchase Agreement (CPPA) will become more and more essential critical for the operation of developers.

1. 吳彥儒(2019)，亞洲離岸風電市場建立在地供應鏈之發展與課題，臺灣經濟研究月刊，42(6)，85-93。
2. 吳綜璠(1997)，資訊管理個案研究方法，資訊管理學報，4(1)，7-17。
3. 李美華(1998)，社會科學研究方法，台北，時英出版社。
4. 李際偉、武彤、郭定謀(2011)，輸入型供應鏈風險分析，運輸計劃季刊， 40(2)，185-212。
5. 杜鵬、李慶芳、周信輝、方世杰(2017)，「（創）串新」的服務模式：以價值共創觀點探索尚品宅配的服務流程與本質，管理學報，34(3)，401-430。
6. 林依瑾、李際偉(2017)，運用失效模式和效應分析探討輸入型供應鏈風險管理之個案研究－以一中小型成衣製造業為例，商管科技季刊，18(2)，123-141。
7. 邱榆淨、邱守序(2018)，汽車製造商自中國採購之供應鏈風險關鍵因素分析，台大管理論叢，28(2)，1-36。
8. 張保隆、陳文賢、蔣明晃、姜齊、盧昆宏、王瑞琛與黃明官(2006)，生產管理(第3 版)，臺北，臺灣：華泰文化出版社。
9. 陳中舜(2018)，臺灣風電產業的回顧與展望，經濟前瞻，179，117-122。
10. 陳萬淇(1992)，個案研究法，台北，華泰文化。
11. 經濟部能源局(2017)，風力發電四年推動計畫。
12. 葉長城、陳馨蕙、鄭睿合、吳中書(2019)，從國內外離岸風電發展經驗論我國離岸風電之推動與啟示，國家發展研究，18(2)，1-53。
13. 鄒逸錚(2019)，推動台灣成為亞洲離岸風電產業樞紐之策略與挑戰，臺灣經濟研究月刊，42(6)，104-112。

1. Bakutyte, S., & Grundey, D. (2012). Identifying the gap in value creation at universities: The consumer's perspective. Economics & Sociology, 5(1), 96-110.
2. Benbasat et al. (1987). The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369-388
3. Bogataj, D., & Bogataj, M. (2007). Measuring the supply chain risk and vulnerability in frequency space. International Journal of Production Economic, 108(1-2), 291-301.
4. Bosse, D. A., & Coughlan, R. (2016). Stakeholder relationship bonds. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1197-1222.
5. Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. (2014). Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 107-125.
6. Cooper, Martha, Lambert & Pagh. (1998). Supply Chain Management: Implementation Issues & Research Opportunities. The International Journal of Logistics Management,9(2),1-19.
7. Dehning, B., Richardson, V. J., & Zmud, R. W. (2007). The financial performance effects of IT-based supply chain management systems in manufacturing firms. Journal of Operations Management, 25 (4), 806-824.
8. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
9. Fontana, A. and Frey, J. H. (1998). Collecting Interpreting Qualitative Materials. London: Sage Publications.
10. Foroughi, A., Albin, M., & Kocakulah, M. (2006). Perspectives on global supply chain supply-side risk management. 2006 Technology Management for the Global Future-PICMET 2006 Conference, 6, 2373-2740.
11. Garcia‐Castro, R., & Aguilera, R. V. (2015). Incremental value creation and appropriation in a world with multiple stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal, 36(1), 137-147.
12. Herzog,T. (1996). Research Methods and Data Analysis in the social Science. New York : Wesley Logman Publichers Inc.
13. Jaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2014). The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-creation: A service system perspective. Journal of Service Research, 17(3), 247-261.
14. Kvale, Steinar (1996), Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, London: Sage Publication.
15. McCutcheon, D. M.,and Meredith. J. R. (1993). Conducting case study research in operations management. Journal of Operations Management. 11, 239-256.
16. Miemczyk, J., & Holweg, M. (2004). Building cars to customer order-what does it mean for inbound logistics operations? Journal of Business Logistics, 25 (2), 171-197.
17. Min, Hokey & Zhou, Gengui. (2002). Supply chain modeling: past, present and future. Computer and Industrial Engineering, 43, 231-249.
18. Neigera, D., Rotarua, K., & Churilov, L. (2009). Supply chain risk identification with value-focused process engineering. Journal of Operations Management, 27(2), 154-168.
19. Neigera, D., Rotarua, K., & Churilov, L. (2009). Supply chain risk identification with value-focused process engineering. Journal of Operations Management, 27(2), 154-168.
20. Normann, R. (2001). Reframing business: When the map changes the landscape. West Sussex, England: Wiley.
21. Ordanini, A. & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Service innovation viewed through a service-dominant logic lens: A conceptual framework and empirical analysis. Journal of Service Research, 14(1), 3-23.
22. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Harvard Business Press.
23. Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. (2010). Building the cocreative enterprise. Harvard Business Review, 88(10), 100-109.
24. Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: concept and measurement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 290-315.
25. Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: concept and measurement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 290-315.
26. Saarijärvi, H., Kannan, P. K., & Kuusela, H. (2013). Value co¬creation: Theoretical approaches and practical implications. European Business Review, 25(1): 6- 19.
27. Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9-38.
28. Steinar Kvale. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London:SAGE.
29. Tantalo, C., & Priem, R. L. (2016). Value creation through stakeholder synergy. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 314-329.
30. Tantalo, C., & Priem, R. L. (2016). Value creation through stakeholder synergy. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 314-329.
31. Thomas, D. J. & Griffin, P. M. (1996). Coordinated Supply Chain Management. European Journal of Operation Research, 94, 1-15.
32. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing, 68(1), 1-17.
33. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254-259.
34. 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.
35. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd Ed. Newbury Park, CA：Sage.
36. Zsidisin, G. A. (2003). Managerial perceptions of supply risk. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 39(4), 14-26.
37. Zsidisin, G. A., Ellram, L. M., Carter, J. R., & Cavinato, J. L. (2003). A Grounded Definition of Supply Risk, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 9(5), 217-224.

1. APICS. (2017), Supply Chain Operations Reference Model, Retrieved from: http://www.logsuper.com/ueditor/php/upload/file/20190530/1559181653829933.pdf
2. 行政院農業委員會(2014)，〈預告訂定「中華白海豚野生動物重要棲息環境之類別及範圍〉，http://conservation.forest.gov.tw/latest/0045579