服務主導邏輯相關的研究早已成為許多學者廣泛的研究方向，不論是生態系統上的建構以及治理相關議題，都有發展出重要的理論觀點。然而，大部分服務生態系統都以資訊科技相關產業進行探討，對於金融相關的服務生態系統卻缺乏相關深入的論述，以致於難以全面了解服務生態系統運作的本質與意涵，同時，也讓實務上的金融服務生態系統應用缺乏相對應的參考依據。本研究將透過服務主導邏輯的觀點，並採用質性研究方法的個案研究法，透過初級資料以及次級資料的蒐集與分析，來詮釋金融相關服務的異質行動者，如何在主管機關嚴格監管之下，透過各方角色的互動關係及集體協作，以達到服務生態系統的價值共創。本研究以與金融服務各方行動者具有高度互動關係的銀行為主軸，描繪集體協作的共享制度、行動及學習。本研究所得到的研究結果為：在受嚴格管制的服務生態系統裡，資訊透明與誠實揭露是服務生態系統得以持續性價值共創的關鍵要素，先決條件是作為制裁者需要有足夠的約束力加以制裁刻意隱瞞資訊的行動者，實務上，也給予金融服務生態系統的行動者一些建議，最後，再提出相關後續研究的方向。

The research related to Service-Dominant Logic has been broadly conducted by many scholars. Both the construction of ecosystem and the governance related issues have developed important theoretical perspectives. However, most of research related the service ecosystem were discussing the information technology industry. As to financial service ecosystem, there are lack of discussion, so that it is difficult to fully understand the nature and implications of service ecosystem. At the same time, in the practice, there are lack of applications of financial service ecosystem corresponding reference basis. This study, from Service-Dominant Logic perspective, explains how heterogeneous actors of the financial related services under strict control, through interaction between each other and collective collaboration, in order to co-create the value of service ecosystem. this study use qualitative research method and case study method, collecting and analyzing the primary data and secondary data. to This study focuses on a bank that have a high degree of interaction with other actors in financial service ecosystem to draw shared institutions, actions, and learning of collective collaboration. This study findings are that information transparency is the key element of the sustainable growth of the service ecosystem, and the prerequisite is the coordinator need to have enough power to punish those withhold information deliberately. In practice, this study gives some suggestions to financial service ecosystem actors. In the end, this study also gives future relevant research direction.

一、英文參考文獻
Brown, J. S., & Hagel, J. (2005). Disruptive management. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 34.
Christensen, C. M., Hall, T., Dillon, K., & Duncan, D. S. (2016). Know Your Customers’ “Jobs to Be Done”. Harvard Business Review(9), 54-62.
Haselton, M. G., Nettle, D., & Murray, D. R. (2015). The evolution of cognitive bias. The handbook of evolutionary psychology, 1-20.
Mason, J. (2017). Qualitative researching: sage.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.": ERIC.
Myers, M. D. (2019). Qualitative research in business and management: Sage.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers: sage.
Tongco, M. D. C. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research and applications, 5, 147-158.
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. (2006). Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing theory, 6(3), 281-288.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 36(1), 1-10.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods: Sage publications.
二、中文參考文獻
方世杰. (2020). 價值共創的迷思與省思. MII 金屬情報網智庫專欄(119).
蕭瑞麟. (2007). 不用數字的研究: 鍛鍊深度思考力的質性研究: 臺灣培生教育出版.