在工業4.0與智慧製造的浪潮下，全球工具機產業面臨高度自動化與資訊整合的壓力，工具機製造設備不僅為單一硬體機台，而是需要與感測器、雲端平台與數據分析服務緊密整合，以因應客戶對即時監控與預測維護的需求。在此轉型過程中，若機台本身未能與資訊服務有效銜接，將導致韌體版本管理不相容、通訊協定不一致與資料格式混亂等管理困境，嚴重阻礙製造流程的數位升級。
為了因應此挑戰，本研究聚焦於臺灣具代表性的鋸床機工具機製造商—合濟工業，探討其如何在2010至2025年間，面對數位科技快速演進與製造邏輯轉變的背景下，推動數位服務的校準。研究發現合濟工業初期採取徵用策略，借境資訊服務與刀具廠商等上下游產業經驗，轉化為自身的資訊管理與營運邏輯，逐步建立企業內部新的數位能力。
為了解決產業環境快速變動與市場需求高度的不確定性，企業也需要持續優化其科技技術與服務模式，才能維持公司的競爭力。因此本研究進一步以動態能力理論架構為分析視角，拆解合濟工業數位服務的發展軌跡。本研究指出個案公司在面對數據整合、跨部門協作與人機互動等關鍵環節時，發展出公司一系列的具體互動，展現企業在發展數位服務的歷程中，如何透過內部協調與外部合作，有效解決資訊與系統實作的落差，為臺灣工具機製造業提供數位服務實務發展的重要借鏡。

In the context of Industry 4.0 and smart manufacturing, the global machine tool industry faces increasing pressure to adopt automation and integrate information systems. Today's manufacturing equipment must go beyond being standalone hardware; it must be seamlessly connected to sensors, cloud platforms, and data analytics services to meet customer demands for real-time monitoring and predictive maintenance. However, this transformation comes with significant challenges. If machines fail to interface with digital services effectively, it can lead to problems such as firmware version incompatibility, inconsistent communication protocols, and non-standardized data formats, all of which can severely hinder the advancement of digital manufacturing processes.
This study focuses on the well-known Taiwanese bandsaw machine manufacturer, EVERISING Machine Company, to address these challenges. It examines how the company has navigated digital service alignment amid rapid technological evolution and shifting production paradigms from 2010 to 2025. The findings reveal that EVERISING Machine initially adopted an Appropriation theory, drawing from experiences within upstream and downstream industries—particularly insights from information service providers and cutting tool manufacturers. This allowed the company to translate those insights into its own information management and operational practices, gradually building its internal digital capabilities.
Companies must continuously refine their technological deployment and service models to maintain competitiveness, considering the fast-evolving industry landscape and uncertain market demands. The study employs the Dynamic Capabilities framework to analyze EVERISING Machine’s development trajectory in digital services. It highlights how the company addressed critical challenges related to data integration, cross-departmental collaboration, and human-machine interaction through a series of concrete adjustments and response mechanisms. These efforts exemplify how firms can bridge the gap between information strategies and system implementation through internal coordination and external collaboration, providing valuable insights for traditional manufacturers pursuing digital service transformation.

陳向明. (2002). 社会科學質的硏究. 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
蕭瑞麟. (2020). 不用數字的研究: 質性研究的思辯脈絡. 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
Alcácer, V., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2019). Scanning the Industry 4.0: A Literature Review on Technologies for Manufacturing Systems. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, 22(3), 899-919.
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management? International journal of management reviews, 11(1), 29-49.
Ashley, K. M., & Plesch, V. (2002). The Cultural Processes of" Appropriation". Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 32(1), 1-15.
Baets, W. (1992). Aligning information systems with business strategy. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 1(4), 205-213.
Bal, M., Benders, J., & Vermeerbergen, L. (2022). ‘Bringing the Covert into the Open’: A Case Study on Technology Appropriation and Continuous Improvement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10), 6333.
Bar, F., Pisani, F., & Weber, M. (2007). Mobile technology appropriation in a distant mirror: Baroque infiltration, creolization and cannibalism. Seminario sobre Desarrollo Económico, Desarrollo Social y Comunicaciones Móviles en América Latina, 20-21.
Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of management, 36(1), 256-280.
Benbya, H., Pachidi, S., & Jarvenpaa, S. (2021). Special issue editorial: Artificial intelligence in organizations: Implications for information systems research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(2), 10.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Carroll, J. (2004). Completing design in use: closing the appropriation cycle. ECIS 2004 Proceedings, 44.
Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1992). Getting around the task-artifact cycle: How to make claims and design by scenario. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 10(2), 181-212.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
Davis, G. B. (1982). Strategies for information requirements determination. IBM systems journal, 21(1), 4-30.
Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2010). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications. Routledge.
De Leoz, G., & Petter, S. (2018). Considering the social impacts of artefacts in information systems design science research. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(2), 154-170.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic management journal, 21(10‐11), 1105-1121.
Elnadi, M., & Abdallah, Y. O. (2024). Industry 4.0: critical investigations and synthesis of key findings. Management Review Quarterly, 74(2), 711-744.
G., R., Sreedharan V., R., P., A., Persis, J., & K.M., S. (2019). Industry 4.0: key findings and analysis from the literature arena. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(8), 2514-2542.
Grabowska, S. (2020). Smart Factories in the Age of Industry 4.0. Management Systems in Production Engineering, 28(2), 90-96.
Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS quarterly, 337-355.
Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory.
Hancock, D. R., Algozzine, B., & Lim, J. H. (2021). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers.
Hedrick, T. E., Bickman, L., & Rog, D. J. (1993). Applied research design: A practical guide. Sage Publications.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS quarterly, 75-105.
Huang, C.-H., Chou, T.-C., & Wu, S.-H. (2021). Towards convergence of AI and IoT for smart policing: A case of a mobile edge computing-based context-aware system. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 29(6), 1-21.
Kamble, S. S., Gunasekaran, A., & Gawankar, S. A. (2018). Sustainable Industry 4.0 framework: A systematic literature review identifying the current trends and future perspectives. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 117, 408-425.
Keen, P. G. (1980). MIS research: Reference disciplines and a cumulative tradition.
Lee, A. S., Thomas, M., & Baskerville, R. L. (2015). Going back to basics in design science: from the information technology artifact to the information systems artifact. Information Systems Journal, 25(1), 5-21.
Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them. Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world, 25(10), 1093.
Newman, W. L. (2014). Newman, W. Lawrence (2003). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.(584pp.). KASEM BUNDIT JOURNAL, 15(2), 103-106.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization science, 13(3), 249-273.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information systems research, 12(2), 121-134.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods 3rd. ed. Sage publications.
Salovaara, A., Höök, K., Cheverst, K., Twidale, M., Chalmers, M., & Sas, C. (2011). Appropriation and creative use: linking user studies and design. In CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 37-40).
Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decision.
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). sage Newbury Park, CA.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long range planning, 51(1), 40-49.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The qualitative report, 3(3), 1-19.
Thurmond, V. A. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of nursing scholarship, 33(3), 253-258.
Williams, C. (2011). Research methods. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 5(3).
Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic management journal, 24(10), 991-995.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Sage Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization science, 13(3), 339-351.