在全球氣候變遷與農業環境日益複雜的背景下，如何透過組織間協作與制度整合，提升產業韌性與永續發展，已成為當代農業治理的核心議題。臺灣蘭協作為臺灣蘭花產業具代表性之中介平台，長期透過展會策劃、資源媒合與制度治理，成功構築出一個多元參與、技術密集且開放協作的產業生態系統。該協會不僅有效因應市場與政策變動，更展現出在價值創造與社會參與層面的高度整合能力與創新動能。
本研究以臺灣蘭協主導之「臺灣國際蘭展」及其相關組織實踐為核心，採單一個案研究法與深度訪談，從「價值共創」與「生態系統」兩大理論視角出發，探討其如何在多變環境中整合產官學研資源，形塑多邊互動與治理機制，進而推動產業升級與共好發展。研究指出，臺灣蘭協扮演制度建構者、資源轉譯者與社會擴散媒介等多重角色，透過展會制度、技術服務團、病蟲害檢疫制度與園區聚落等機制，促進價值交換與知識共享。其橫向的服務整合與縱向的政策鏈結，不僅提升產業資訊流通與應變能力，更建構出一套具備動態調整力的農業生態網絡。
此外，透過與文創、觀光等領域的異業合作，以及導入在地青年參與，臺灣蘭協成功拓展農業平台作為社會創新與文化實踐的載體，使農業轉化為公共治理與生活美學的一環。研究結果顯示，臺灣蘭協不僅展現出作為中介平台在治理整合上的關鍵角色，更具體體現價值共創與生態系建構的實踐樣態，為未來農業治理、平台策略與多元利害關係人協作提供具體可行的理論依據與實務參照。

Amid the intensifying impacts of global climate change and the increasing complexity of agricultural systems, enhancing industry resilience and promoting long-term sustainable development through inter-organizational collaboration and institutional integration has emerged as a core challenge in contemporary agricultural governance. Traditional top-down governance approaches or production-centric industrial strategies are increasingly seen as insufficient in addressing the multifaceted pressures posed by environmental uncertainty, market volatility, and stakeholder fragmentation. In this context, intermediary platforms that connect diverse actors and facilitate ecosystem-based collaboration are gaining strategic importance.

The Taiwan Orchid Growers Association (TOGA) represents a pioneering example of such an intermediary platform within Taiwan’s orchid industry. Over the years, TOGA has built a multi-stakeholder, technology-intensive, and openly collaborative ecosystem by orchestrating exhibition events, matching resources, coordinating policies, and establishing institutional mechanisms that foster knowledge circulation and collective innovation. It has successfully aligned production, research, marketing, and regulatory objectives, thereby navigating policy transitions and market disruptions with flexibility and foresight. Through its long-standing leadership in organizing the Taiwan International Orchid Show and promoting value chain coordination, TOGA has emerged as a central orchestrator in shaping the orchid industry’s sustainable future.

This study centers on TOGA’s ecosystem governance practices, particularly focusing on the institutional operations behind the Taiwan International Orchid Show. Adopting a qualitative single-case study approach supported by in-depth interviews and document analysis, the research engages the theoretical frameworks of value co-creation and ecosystem thinking to explore how TOGA integrates actors from government, industry, academia, and research institutions. The study investigates the organization’s capacity to construct horizontal collaboration networks and vertical policy linkages that promote industrial upgrading, inclusive development, and adaptive capacity. The findings identify TOGA as a hybrid actor that simultaneously performs roles as an institutional designer, knowledge translator, policy intermediary, and agent of social diffusion. Key mechanisms such as annual exhibition routines, technical service corps, pest and disease quarantine systems, and regional clustering initiatives underpin TOGA’s success in enhancing interaction, trust-building, and dynamic coordination across the ecosystem.

Moreover, TOGA’s proactive outreach beyond the agricultural sector—such as its collaboration with the creative industries, tourism platforms, media outlets, and educational institutions—has redefined the agricultural platform not only as a vehicle for production and commerce, but also as a catalyst for social innovation and cultural engagement. Through participatory projects that involve local youth, community artists, and public audiences, TOGA has reframed agriculture as an inclusive and aestheticized space that contributes to public governance, lifestyle cultivation, and sustainable livelihoods. The case demonstrates how agriculture can evolve into a transdisciplinary platform capable of driving civic participation, cultural regeneration, and environmental stewardship.

Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of management, 43(1), 39-58.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic management journal, 31(3), 306-333.
Akaka, M. A., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Technology as an operant resource in service (eco) systems. Information Systems and e-business Management, 12, 367-384.
Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. The American economic review, 62(5), 777-795.
Brandenburger, A. M., & Stuart Jr, H. W. (1996). Value‐based business strategy. Journal of economics & management strategy, 5(1), 5-24.
Burström, T., Lahti, T., Parida, V., Wartiovaara, M., & Wincent, J. (2023). A definition, review, and extension of global ecosystems theory: trends, architecture and orchestration of global VCs and mechanisms behind unicorns. Journal of business research, 157, 113605.
Cennamo, C., & Santaló, J. (2019). Generativity tension and value creation in platform ecosystems. Organization Science, 30(3), 617-641.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Darke, P., Shanks, G., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Successfully completing case study research: combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Information systems journal, 8(4), 273-289.
Dattée, B., Alexy, O., & Autio, E. (2018). Maneuvering in poor visibility: How firms play the ecosystem game when uncertainty is high. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 466-498.
Demetry, D. (2019). How organizations claim authenticity: The coproduction of illusions in underground restaurants. Organization Science, 30(5), 937-960.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 23(4), 660-679.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 39, 327-339.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
Fjeldstad, Ø. D., Snow, C. C., Miles, R. E., & Lettl, C. (2012). The architecture of collaboration. Strategic management journal, 33(6), 734-750.
Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A., & Storbacka, K. (2015). Managing co‐creation design: A strategic approach to innovation. British journal of management, 26(3), 463-483.
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy. In: London: Verso.
Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 41, 133-150.
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.
Gupta, S., Navare, J., & Melewar, T. (2011). Investigating the implications of business and culture on the behaviour of customers of international firms. Industrial marketing management, 40(1), 65-77.
Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic management journal, 31(1), 58-74.
Hein, A., Schreieck, M., Riasanow, T., Setzke, D. S., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2020). Digital platform ecosystems. Electronic markets, 30, 87-98.
Holton, E. F., & Burnett, M. F. (2005). The basics of quantitative research. Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry, 29-44.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard business review, 82(3), 68-78, 126.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic management journal, 39(8), 2255-2276.
Klein, M. O., Battagello, D. S., Cardoso, A. R., Hauser, D. N., Bittencourt, J. C., & Correa, R. G. (2019). Dopamine: functions, signaling, and association with neurological diseases. Cellular and molecular neurobiology, 39(1), 31-59.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge University Press.
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard business review, 71(3), 75-86.
Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition: leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. (No Title).
Myers, M. D. (2019). Qualitative research in business and management.
Nonaka, L., Takeuchi, H., & Umemoto, K. (1996). A theory of organizational knowledge creation. International journal of technology Management, 11(7-8), 833-845.
Olson Jr, M. (1971). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, with a new preface and appendix (Vol. 124). harvard university press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American economic review, 100(3), 641-672.
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. science, 284(5412), 278-282.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Vol. 3). Sage.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 36, 83-96.
Pitelis, C. (2012). Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appropriability: a conceptual framework. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(6), 1359-1388.
Prahalad, & Ramaswamy. (2004a). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
Prahalad, & Ramaswamy. (2004b). Co‐creating unique value with customers. Strategy & leadership, 32(3), 4-9.
Prahalad, & Ramaswamy. (2004c). The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Harvard Business Press.
Ramaswamy, V. (2011). It's about human experiences… and beyond, to co-creation. Industrial marketing management, 40(2), 195-196.
Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2018). What is co-creation? An interactional creation framework and its implications for value creation. Journal of business research, 84, 196-205.
Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: concept and measurement. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 44, 290-315.
Tansley, A. G. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16(3), 284-307.
Tantalo, C., & Priem, R. L. (2016). Value creation through stakeholder synergy. Strategic management journal, 37(2), 314-329.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). The four service marketing myths: remnants of a goods-based, manufacturing model. Journal of service research, 6(4), 324-335.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 36, 1-10.
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, 5-23.
Vargo, S. L., Wieland, H., & Akaka, M. A. (2015). Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective. Industrial marketing management, 44, 63-72.
Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Cano Giner, J. L. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1195-1215.
West, J., & Wood, D. (2014). Evolving an open ecosystem: The rise and fall of the Symbian platform. In Collaboration and competition in business ecosystems (pp. 27-67). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Vol. 5). SAGE.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: design and methods. In: SAGE.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of marketing, 52(3), 2-22.
方世杰. (2016). 打造價值共創的平台：營造互動的氛圍. Retrieved Mar 8 from
方世杰. (2024). 廿一世紀的策略新典範：價值共創的理論與實踐. 工業技術研究院產業科技國際策略發展所. https://www.if.itri.org.tw/ArticleView.aspx?v=205
方世杰, & 李慶芳. (2016a). 「平台商業模式」治理之決策、運作、運用. Retrieved Mar 8 from https://teamwork0035.blogspot.com/2016/11/blog-post_17.html
方世杰, & 李慶芳. (2016b). 平台策略：價值共創之實踐. Retrieved Mar 7 from https://teamwork0035.blogspot.com/2016/11/blog-post.html
方世杰, & 李慶芳. (2016c). 價值共創的五個思維邏輯. Retrieved Mar 7 from https://teamwork0035.blogspot.com/2016/04/blog-post_14.html
方世杰, & 李慶芳. (2016d). 「價值共創模式」之運作. Retrieved Mar 8 from https://teamwork0035.blogspot.com/2016/04/blog-post_73.html
方世杰, & 李慶芳. (2017a). 共創組織之本質：持續開創價值綜效. Retrieved Mar 8 from https://teamwork0035.blogspot.com/2017/07/blog-post.html
方世杰, & 李慶芳. (2017b). 價值共創的三要件：互信、互動、互惠. Retrieved Mar 8 from https://teamwork0035.blogspot.com/2017/04/blog-post.html
李宜映, 邱智聖, & 黃文政. (2014). 國際因應氣候變遷之農業風險評估與調適策略. 國際農業科技新知(64), 7-11.
周信輝, 方世杰, 李慶芳, 蔡馥陞, & 劉亭蘭. (2022). 與機器共舞: 以交織理論探索人機協作的能動性. 中山管理評論, 30(5), 857-897.
農業部. (2024). 臺灣蘭花驚艷全球 2023蘭花出口總值近2億美元. https://reurl.cc/1OxpQD
潘淑滿. (2022). 質性研究: 理論與應用. 心理.