產業國際化、產品高值化一直以來是政府在產業經濟上聚焦的方向，因此政府在推動產學研合作上行之多年，不遺餘力，期待透過多利害關係人的互動、不同資源的交換，協助國內各產業進行產業升級，也期待為台灣整體產業帶來更具競爭力的優勢。一般而言，在三方創新的合作模式中，法人研究單位扮演重要角色。透過法人研究單位作為媒合平台，可以解決學界對企業需求了解不足，不易與企業需求接軌之問題；同時，也能協助企業因管道不足而無法在學界找到合適對象之限制。藉由篩選機制組合成為多樣且利益目標不一的研發聯盟，提升科技創新能量與各產業之競爭力。因此，產學研研發聯盟可做為價值共創的實務運用，而在這樣一個多利害關係人互動的網絡中，多元邏輯共存的衝突與協調影響著最終合作的成果。
本研究採用質性研究方法的單一個案研究法，將制度邏輯視為影響價值共創過程的邊界條件，透過訪談參與特殊金屬個案的產、學、研三方，了解在不同階段的合作過程中，三方的制度邏輯在各流程中的作用力以及如何在協調中進行價值共創，個案研究發現參與者擁有的關鍵資源影響著制度邏輯的作用力，而多元邏輯共存的型態是會改變的，在特殊金屬合作案中，由疏離轉為結盟再轉為主導。並歸納出制度邏輯觀點下的價值共創: (1)主導邏輯的重要性 (2)參與者制度邏輯的相似性 (3)研發聯盟參與者對於不同制度邏輯的開放程度，透過上述三點的配合，才能協調不同的邏輯觀點，並為價值共創帶來正向的結果。

Institutional logics provide the organizing principles for a field, they are the basic rules guiding behaviors of field-level actors. The multiple institutional logics in the organization means that there are two or more different logics exist in the same field and the organizations must respond to multiple institutional demands. Many scholars recognized conflicting perspectives on this issue, but in fact, it will cause various results by the degree of centrality and degree of compatibility.

The research took the institutional logic as boundary condition which affects the value
co-creation process. Also, use the Special Metals Cooperation Case for example to discuss the interactions in multiple stakeholders organization.

The research summarized the value co-creation from the perspective of institutional logic: (1) the importance of dominant logic (2) the similarities of participants’ logic (3) the participants’ openness of different logics in consortia. Through the coordination of these three points, it may create the positive results of value co-creation.

中文文獻
1.陳向明. (2002). 社会科學質的硏究: 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.

英文文獻
1.Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2012). Multiple logics within organizations: An integrative framework and model of organizational hybridity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University working paper.
2.Bronte, V., Brandau, S., Chen, S.-H., Colombo, M. P., Frey, A. B., Greten, T. F., . . . Ostrand-Rosenberg, S. (2016). Recommendations for myeloid-derived suppressor cell nomenclature and characterization standards. Nature communications, 7, 12150.
3.Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. (1998). Analyzing foreign market entry strategies: Extending the internalization approach. Journal of international business studies, 29(3), 539-561.
4.Burnside, B., & Witkin, L. (2008). Forging Successful university–industry collaborations. Research-Technology Management, 51(2), 26-30.
5.Clarke, L., Weyant, J., & Birky, A. (2006). On the sources of technological change: Assessing the evidence. Energy Economics, 28(5-6), 579-595.
6.DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
7.Doz, Y. L. (1996). The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 55-83.
8.Doz, Y. L., Olk, P. M., & Ring, P. S. (2000). Formation processes of R&D consortia: Which path to take? Where does it lead? Strategic Management Journal, 239-266.
9.Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 114-149.
10.Estrada, I., Faems, D., Cruz, N. M., & Santana, P. P. (2016). The role of interpartner dissimilarities in Industry-University alliances: Insights from a comparative case study. Research policy, 45(10), 2008-2022.
11.Etzkowitz, H., & Klofsten, M. (2005). The innovating region: toward a theory of knowledge‐based regional development. R&D Management, 35(3), 243-255.
12.Fonti, F., Maoret, M., & Whitbred, R. (2017). Free‐riding in multi‐party alliances: The role of perceived alliance effectiveness and peers' collaboration in a research consortium. Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), 363-383.
13.Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions.
14.Gibson, D. V., Rogers, E. M., Prologue By-Norris, W. C., & Prologue By-Kozmetsky, G. (1994). R&D collaboration on trial: The microelectronics and computer technology corporation: Harvard Business School Press.
15.Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293-317.
16.Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta‐organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571-586.
17.Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zhelyazkov, P. (2012). The two facets of collaboration: Cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 531-583.
18.Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers' Personal Values as Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33-44. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000020964.80208.c9
19.Ingham, M., & Mothe, C. (1998). How to learn in R&D partnerships? R&D Management, 28(4), 249-261.
20.Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137-159.
21.Kolbehdari, S., & Sobhiyah, M. H. (2014). Effects of negotiations about the formation of construction consortium on consortium successful performance in Iran’s construction industry. International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 1(5), 371-388.
22.Lazerson, M. H. (1988). Organizational growth of small firms: An outcome of markets and hierarchies? American Sociological Review, 330-342.
23.Lopez-Berzosa, D., Gawer, A., & Camarillo, G. (2016). Navigating the Patent Minefield Through Consortia. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(4), 18.
24.Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions: Routledge.
25.Malmberg, A. (1996). Industrial geography: agglomeration and local milieu. Progress in Human Geography, 20(3), 392-403.
26.Malshe, A., & Friend, S. B. (2017). Initiating value co-creation: Dealing with non-receptive customers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1-26.
27.Malshe, A., & Friend, S. B. (2018). Initiating value co-creation: Dealing with non-receptive customers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1-26.
28.Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research: Sage publications.
29.McCarter, M. W., Mahoney, J. T., & Northcraft, G. B. (2011). Testing the waters: Using collective real options to manage the social dilemma of strategic alliances. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 621-640.
30.McCarter, M. W., Rockmann, K. W., & Northcraft, G. B. (2010). Is it even worth it? The effect of loss prospects in the outcome distribution of a public goods dilemma. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(1), 1-12.
31.Motohashi, K. (2005). University–industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the National Innovation System. Research policy, 34(5), 583-594.
32.Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455-476.
33.Pfitzer, M., Bockstette, V., & Stamp, M. (2013). Innovating for shared value. Harvard business review, 91(9), 100-107.
34.Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard business review, 89(1), 2.
35.Powell, W. W., & Sandholtz, K. W. (2012). Amphibious entrepreneurs and the emergence of organizational forms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(2), 94-115.
36.Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
37.Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. J. (2010). The power of co-creation: Build it with them to boost growth, productivity, and profits: Simon and Schuster.
38.Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2014). The co-creation paradigm: Stanford University Press.
39.Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: concept and measurement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 290-315.
40.Tantalo, C., & Priem, R. L. (2016). Value creation through stakeholder synergy. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 314-329.
41.Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research policy, 15(6), 285-305.
42.Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843.
43.Van Alstyne, M. W., Parker, G. G., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy. Harvard Business Review, 94(4), 54-62.
44.Xia, M., Zhao, K., & Mahoney, J. T. (2011a). Enhancing value via cooperation: firms’ process benefits from participation in a standard consortium. Industrial and Corporate Change, dtr056.
45.Xia, M., Zhao, K., & Mahoney, J. T. (2011b). Enhancing value via cooperation: firms’ process benefits from participation in a standard consortium. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(3), 699-729.