隨著工業4.0與虛實整合系統的快速發展，數位孿生（Digital Twin,DT）已從單一機台模擬演變為企業建構平台生態系的策略核心，然而過去文獻多侷限於技術中心視角，鮮少運用制度邏輯探討技術發展背後的策略移轉，亦缺乏針對不同規模企業在生態系中角色分工的樣本量化實證。為彌補此理論缺口，本研究以2014至2024年間之美國專利商標局（USPTO）共406筆數位孿生專利為樣本，引入結構化主題模型（STM）與階層迴歸分析，探討技術生命週期與組織異質性對企業專利策略邏輯之動態影響。實證結果發現：第一，數位孿生領域潛藏四大制度邏輯：市場與生態系、製造與效率、基礎設施與標準，以及資安與技術防護;第二，在時間演化上，專利策略焦點隨生態系瓶頸轉移呈現顯著變化，由早期旨在克服虛實聯網風險的資安與技術防護邏輯，逐漸轉向建立跨系統互操作性的基礎設施與標準及市場生態系邏輯;第三，在組織異質性上，大型在位企業顯著傾向佈局市場與生態系邏輯以掌握平台架構控制權，而中小型企業則發揮數位創業之敏捷性，深耕大型企業難以兼顧的資安與技術防護邏輯，兩者在生命週期中呈現截然不同且互補的平行演化軌跡，形成高度穩定的生態系共生結構。本研究成功將抽象的制度邏輯轉化為量化變數，不僅為文本探勘提供實證範本，更強力證實了生態系瓶頸與資源分割理論，為中小型企業在深科技領域中提供了利基生存法則，並為各規模企業之專利資源配置提供實務指引。

With the rapid advancement of Industry 4.0 and Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), Digital Twin (DT) technology has evolved from single-machine simulation into a strategic asset for building platform ecosystems. However, the existing literature remains largely techno-centric, with limited exploration of strategic shifts through the lens of institutional logics and a lack of quantitative evidence on the strategic division of labor among firms of varying sizes. To address these gaps, this study analyzes 406 DT patents from the USPTO (2014-2024). By introducing the Structural Topic Model (STM), this research investigates the dynamic impact of the technology life cycle and organizational heterogeneity on patent strategic logics. The findings reveal four latent institutional logics: Market & Ecosystem, Manufacturing Efficiency, Infrastructure & Standards, and Cyber Security & Protection. Results indicate a significant shift from "
Cyber Security" to "Market & Standards" logics as ecosystem bottlenecks transfer over time. Furthermore, large incumbents favor "Market & Ecosystem Logics" for platform control, while SMEs specialize in "Cyber Security Logics," creating a stable "Parallel Evolution" trajectory. This study provides a methodological template for text mining in management and offers strategic guidance for firms within the DT ecosystem.

1. Adner, R. (2021). Winning the right game: How to disrupt, defend, and deliver in a changing world. MIT Press.
2. Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016a). Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re‐examining technology S‐curves. Strategic management journal, 37(4), 625-648.
3. Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016b). Right tech, wrong time. Harvard business review, 94(11), 60-67.
4. Aheleroff, S., Zhong, R. Y., & Xu, X. (2020). A digital twin reference for mass personalization in industry 4.0. Procedia Cirp, 93, 228-233.
5. Akroyd, J., Mosbach, S., Bhave, A., & Kraft, M. (2021). Universal digital twin-a dynamic knowledge graph. Data-Centric Engineering, 2, e14.
6. Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604-634.
7. Antons, D., Grünwald, E., Cichy, P., & Salge, T. O. (2020). The application of text mining methods in innovation research: current state, evolution patterns, and development priorities. R&D Management, 50(3), 329-351.
8. Arora, A., & Ceccagnoli, M. (2006). Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms’ incentives for technology licensing. Management science, 52(2), 293-308.
9. Baines, T. (2015). Exploring service innovation and the servitization of the manufacturing firm. In (Vol. 58, pp. 9-11): Taylor & Francis.
10. Berisha, G., & Pula, J. S. (2015). Defining Small and Medium Enterprises: a critical review. Academic Journal of Business, Administration, Law and Social Sciences, 1(1), 17-28.
11. Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of management review, 39(3), 364-381.
12. Boone, C., Brdcheler, V., & Carroll, G. R. (2000). Custom service: Application and tests of resource-partitioning theory among Dutch auditing firms from 1896 to 1992. Organization studies, 21(2), 355-381.
13. Cai, Y., & Mountford, N. (2022). Institutional logics analysis in higher education research. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1627-1651.
14. Carroll, G. R. (1985). Concentration and specialization: Dynamics of niche width in populations of organizations. American journal of sociology, 90(6), 1262-1283.
15. Cenamor, J., Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2019). How entrepreneurial SMEs compete through digital platforms: The roles of digital platform capability, network capability and ambidexterity. Journal of business research, 100, 196-206.
16. Chun, H., & Sauder, M. (2022). The logic of quantification: Institutionalizing numerical thinking. Theory and Society, 51(2), 335-370.
17. Cusumano, M. A. (2019). 'Platformizing'a bad business does not make it a good business. Communications of the ACM, 63(1), 23-25.
18. Cusumano, M. A., Gawer, A., & Yoffie, D. B. (2019). The business of platforms: Strategy in the age of digital competition, innovation, and power. HarperBusiness.
19. Daunfeldt, S.-O., Johansson, D., & Halvarsson, D. (2015). Using the Eurostat-OECD definition of high-growth firms: a cautionary note. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 4(1), 50-56.
20. Dihan, M. S., Akash, A. I., Tasneem, Z., Das, P., Das, S. K., Islam, M. R., Islam, M. M., Badal, F. R., Ali, M. F., & Ahamed, M. H. (2024). Digital twin: Data exploration, architecture, implementation and future. Heliyon, 10(5).
21. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 48(2), 147-160.
22. Elia, G., Margherita, A., & Passiante, G. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119791.
23. Euchner, J. (2015). Declining barriers to innovation. In (Vol. 58, pp. 10-11): Taylor & Francis.
24. Friedland, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, 232-263.
25. Gan, J., & Qi, Y. (2021). Selection of the optimal number of topics for LDA topic model—taking patent policy analysis as an example. Entropy, 23(10), 1301.
26. Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research policy, 43(7), 1239-1249.
27. Gawer, A. (2022). Digital platforms and ecosystems: remarks on the dominant organizational forms of the digital age. Innovation, 24(1), 110-124.
28. Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of product innovation management, 31(3), 417-433.
29. Glaessgen, E., & Stargel, D. (2012). The digital twin paradigm for future NASA and US Air Force vehicles. 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference 20th AIAA/ASME/AHS adaptive structures conference 14th AIAA.
30. Grieves, M., & Vickers, J. (2016). Digital twin: Mitigating unpredictable, undesirable emergent behavior in complex systems. In Transdisciplinary perspectives on complex systems: New findings and approaches (pp. 85-113). Springer.
31. Grieves, M. W. (2005). Product lifecycle management: the new paradigm for enterprises. International Journal of Product Development, 2(1-2), 71-84.
32. Hannah, D. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2019). Bottlenecks, cooperation, and competition in nascent ecosystems. Strategic management journal, 40(9), 1333-1335.
33. Hein, A., Schreieck, M., Riasanow, T., Setzke, D. S., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2020). Digital platform ecosystems. Electronic markets, 30(1), 87-98.
34. Helfat, C. E. (2022). Strategic organization, dynamic capabilities, and the external environment. Strategic Organization, 20(4), 734-742.
35. Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2018). Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research policy, 47(8), 1391-1399.
36. Henkel, J. (2022). Licensing standard-essential patents in the IoT–A value chain perspective on the markets for technology. Research policy, 51(10), 104600.
37. Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and organization, 28(1), 52-61.
38. Holgersson, M., Granstrand, O., & Bogers, M. (2018). The evolution of intellectual property strategy in innovation ecosystems: Uncovering complementary and substitute appropriability regimes. Long Range Planning, 51(2), 303-319.
39. Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic management journal, 39(8), 2255-2276.
40. Jones, D., Snider, C., Nassehi, A., Yon, J., & Hicks, B. (2020). Characterising the Digital Twin: A systematic literature review. CIRP journal of manufacturing science and technology, 29, 36-52.
41. Kaplan, S., & Vakili, K. (2015). The double‐edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic management journal, 36(10), 1435-1457.
42. Kapoor, R. (2018). Ecosystems: broadening the locus of value creation. Journal of Organization Design, 7(1), 1-16.
43. Kretschmer, T., Leiponen, A., Schilling, M., & Vasudeva, G. (2022). Platform ecosystems as meta‐organizations: Implications for platform strategies. Strategic management journal, 43(3), 405-424.
44. Kritzinger, W., Karner, M., Traar, G., Henjes, J., & Sihn, W. (2018). Digital Twin in manufacturing: A categorical literature review and classification. Ifac-PapersOnline, 51(11), 1016-1022.
45. Kurtmollaiev, S. (2023). In total smartness: the institutional logics perspective on the Internet of things and people. Consumption Markets & Culture, 26(4), 258-279.
46. Liang, K., Ma, L., Liu, Z., & Yi, C. (2023). Successfully operating patent digital platforms in China: A configurational perspective. Managerial and Decision Economics, 44(8), 4544-4558.
47. Liu, W., Wu, M., Wan, G., & Xu, M. (2024). Digital twin of space environment: Development, challenges, applications, and future outlook. Remote Sensing, 16(16), 3023.
48. Liu, X., Jiang, D., Tao, B., Xiang, F., Jiang, G., Sun, Y., Kong, J., & Li, G. (2023). A systematic review of digital twin about physical entities, virtual models, twin data, and applications. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 55, 101876.
49. Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective1. MIS quarterly, 39(1), 155-175.
50. Minerva, R., Lee, G. M., & Crespi, N. (2020). Digital twin in the IoT context: A survey on technical features, scenarios, and architectural models. Proceedings of the IEEE, 108(10), 1785-1824.
51. Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard business review, 71(3), 75-86.
52. Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 41(6), 1029-1055.
53. Nambisan, S., Siegel, D., & Kenney, M. (2018). On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship. Strategic entrepreneurship journal, 12(3), 354-368.
54. Nativi, S., Mazzetti, P., & Craglia, M. (2021). Digital ecosystems for developing digital twins of the earth: The destination earth case. Remote Sensing, 13(11), 2119.
55. Ocasio, W., Loewenstein, J., & Nigam, A. (2015). How streams of communication reproduce and change institutional logics: The role of categories. Academy of management review, 40(1), 28-48.
56. Onaji, I., Tiwari, D., Soulatiantork, P., Song, B., & Tiwari, A. (2022). Digital twin in manufacturing: conceptual framework and case studies. International journal of computer integrated manufacturing, 35(8), 831-858.
57. 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.
58. Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of management journal, 56(4), 972-1001.
59. Pölzlbauer, G., & Auer, E. (2021). Applied patent mining with topic models and meta-data: A comprehensive case study. World Patent Information, 67, 102065.
60. Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard business review, 92(11), 64-88.
61. Rasheed, A., San, O., & Kvamsdal, T. (2020). Digital twin: Values, challenges and enablers from a modeling perspective. IEEE access, 8, 21980-22012.
62. Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization studies, 30(6), 629-652.
63. Reay, T., & Jones, C. (2016). Qualitatively capturing institutional logics. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 441-454.
64. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Lucas, C., Leder‐Luis, J., Gadarian, S. K., Albertson, B., & Rand, D. G. (2014). Structural topic models for open‐ended survey responses. American journal of political science, 58(4), 1064-1082.
65. Ross, P. K., & Blumenstein, M. (2015). Cloud computing as a facilitator of SME entrepreneurship. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(1), 87-101.
66. Schmiedel, T., Müller, O., & Vom Brocke, J. (2019). Topic modeling as a strategy of inquiry in organizational research: A tutorial with an application example on organizational culture. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 941-968.
67. Semeraro, C., Lezoche, M., Panetto, H., & Dassisti, M. (2021). Digital twin paradigm: A systematic literature review. Computers in industry, 130, 103469.
68. Shapiro, C. (2000). Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. Innovation policy and the economy, 1, 119-150.
69. Singh, M., Fuenmayor, E., Hinchy, E. P., Qiao, Y., Murray, N., & Devine, D. (2021). Digital twin: Origin to future. Applied System Innovation, 4(2), 36.
70. Somaya, D. (2012). Patent strategy and management: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of management, 38(4), 1084-1114.
71. Sung, K., Park, K.-T., & Lee, H. (2024). Landscaping the digital twin technology: Patent-based networks and technology reference model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 206, 123576.
72. Tao, F., Cheng, Y., Cheng, J., Zhang, M., Xu, W., & Qi, Q. (2017). Theories and technologies for cyber-physical fusion in digital twin shop-floor. 計算機集成製造系統-CIMS (Computer integrated manufacturing systems), 23(8), 1603-1611.
73. Tao, F., Xiao, B., Qi, Q., Cheng, J., & Ji, P. (2022). Digital twin modeling. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 64, 372-389.
74. Tao, F., & Zhang, M. (2017). Digital twin shop-floor: a new shop-floor paradigm towards smart manufacturing. IEEE access, 5, 20418-20427.
75. Tavalaei, M. M., & Cennamo, C. (2021). In search of complementarities within and across platform ecosystems: Complementors’ relative standing and performance in mobile apps ecosystems. Long Range Planning, 54(5), 101994.
76. Teece, D. J. (2006). Reflections on “profiting from innovation”. Research policy, 35(8), 1131-1146.
77. Teece, D. J. (2018). Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Research policy, 47(8), 1367-1387.
78. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 840(2008), 99-128.
79. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
80. Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (2018). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. In Organizational innovation (pp. 345-372). Routledge.
81. VanDerHorn, E., & Mahadevan, S. (2021). Digital Twin: Generalization, characterization and implementation. Decision support systems, 145, 113524.
82. Vermeulen, I., & Bruggeman, J. (2001). The logic of organizational markets: thinking through resource partitioning theory. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 7(2), 87-111.
83. Wang, K.-J., Lee, T.-L., & Hsu, Y. (2020). Revolution on digital twin technology—a patent research approach. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 107(11), 4687-4704.
84. Weston, S. J., Shryock, I., Light, R., & Fisher, P. A. (2023). Selecting the number and labels of topics in topic modeling: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(2), 25152459231160105.
85. Wu, C., Zhou, Y., Pessôa, M. V. P., Peng, Q., & Tan, R. (2021). Conceptual digital twin modeling based on an integrated five-dimensional framework and TRIZ function model. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 58, 79-93.
86. Yao, J.-F., Yang, Y., Wang, X.-C., & Zhang, X.-P. (2023). Systematic review of digital twin technology and applications. Visual computing for industry, biomedicine, and art, 6(1), 10.
87. Yoo, Y., Boland Jr, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization science, 23(5), 1398-1408.
88. Zhao, W., Chen, J. J., Perkins, R., Liu, Z., Ge, W., Ding, Y., & Zou, W. (2015). A heuristic approach to determine an appropriate number of topics in topic modeling. BMC bioinformatics, 16(Suppl 13), S8.