隨著開放銀行政策的推動，互操作性能力已成為台灣銀行業數位競爭的核心議題。然而，台灣銀行業內部資源條件高度異質，本土中小型銀行與外資銀行之間在資本規模、技術基礎與全球資源網路上存在顯著的結構性差距。在此背景下，一個值得深入探究的現象是：資源條件差異顯著的銀行，在採取不同的策略路徑後，能在台灣金融監督管理委員會框架下達成一定程度的互操作性能力。現有研究多以資源豐沛程度直接預測能力水準，較少關注資源條件與策略選擇之間的配適關係如何共同決定能力的達成效果，此一缺口構成本研究的核心動機。
本研究以「如何配適資源與策略以實現開放銀行互通性」為核心問題，採質性研究取向，運用跨個案研究設計，以本土銀行與外資銀行各一家作為比較對象。研究整合資源拼湊與策略配適兩個分析框架，並透過深度訪談與次級資料蒐集建立多元資料來源，以主題編碼法與跨案比較矩陣進行系統性分析。
研究發現顯示三項主要結論。第一，資源條件的差異並不阻礙互操作性基本目標的達成，但決定了配適路徑的型態與能力延伸的深度：資源稀缺的銀行透過約束型配適達成互操作性基本目標，能力延伸空間相對受限；資源豐沛的銀行則透過擴張型配適超越基本門檻，進一步發展出生態系層次的深度互操作性能力。第二，決定上述差異的核心機制並非資源的絕對量，而是資源條件與策略選擇之間的內部一致性，即本研究所稱的資源策略配適程度。第三，台灣財金制度框架在兩種配適路徑的收斂過程中，同時扮演降低進入門檻與設定能力基準的雙重結構角色，是不同資源條件銀行均能達成互操作性基本目標的重要外部條件。
本在理論層次整合制度壓力、資源拼湊與策略配適三個理論框架，提出資源策略配適為連結資源管理、生態策略選擇與互操作性能力的中介機制，補充了現有理論在受監理產業數位能力形成機制上的不足。在實務層次，本研究說明資源稀缺的中小型銀行應聚焦於配適精準度而非資源規模，約束型配適在制度框架支撐下仍能達成互操作性基本目標；同時提醒資源豐沛的銀行，豐沛資源是擴張型配適的必要條件而非充分條件，唯有策略選擇與資源條件形成實質配適，方能發展出生態系層次的深度互操作性能力。

This study investigates how banks with heterogeneous resource conditions develop interoperability capability when facing identical institutional pressures under open banking policies. Existing digital banking literature frequently assumes a linear relationship where resource wealth directly translates into superior digital capability, thereby failing to explain why resource-constrained banks can also achieve basic interoperability, or how institutional pressure shapes the strategic feasibility space for different organizations. To address this theoretical gap, this study proposes resource-strategy fit as its central analytical concept, integrating Institutional Pressure Theory, Resource Bricolage Theory, and Venkatraman (1989) Strategic Fit Theory, which defines fit as the internal consistency between organizational choices. Methodologically, the study employs a qualitative cross-case analysis using theoretical replication logic to examine two institutions that have successfully achieved interoperability within Taiwan's regulatory framework despite their contrasting resource profiles. Primary empirical data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with the Deputy General Manager of a domestic bank and the Vice President of a foreign bank subsidiary, supplemented by regulatory documents and industry reports. The findings reveal that differences in resource conditions do not prevent the achievement of basic interoperability goals but determine the specific type of fit pathway and the depth of capability extension. Resource-constrained banks achieve basic interoperability through a constrained fit pairing scarce resources with compliance-oriented strategies, whereas resource-abundant banks develop deep, ecosystem-level capabilities through an expansionary fit pairing abundant resources with ecosystem expansion strategies. The core mechanism driving these distinct outcomes is the internal consistency between resource conditions and strategic choices, while institutional pressure plays an indispensable dual structural role by driving both pathways and providing the standardized technical infrastructure that makes baseline goals achievable for all institutions.

Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative science quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99–120.
Boot, A., Hoffmann, P., Laeven, L., & Ratnovski, L. (2021). Fintech: what’s old, what’s new? Journal of financial stability, 53, 100836.
Chen, S.-S., Ou-Yang, C., & Chou, T.-C. (2017). Developing SCM framework associated with IT-enabled SC network capabilities. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 47(9), 820–842.
Chen, Y., Bellavitis, C., & Zajac, E. J. (2018). Table of Contents. Strategic Management Journal, 39(5), 1237–1237.
Ciborra, C. U. (1996). The platform organization: Recombining strategies, structures, and surprises. Organization science, 7(2), 103–118.
Cortet, M., Rijks, T., & Nijland, S. (2016). PSD2: The digital transformation accelerator for banks. Journal of Payments Strategy & Systems, 10(1), 13–27.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. sage.
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.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25–32.
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research policy, 32(2), 277–300.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity.
Gottschalk, P. (2009). Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government information quarterly, 26(1), 75–81.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American sociological review, 149–164.
Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, H. (1999). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM systems journal, 38(2.3), 472–484.
Lai, Y.-I., Chou, T.-C., & Huang, L.-P. (2025). A Design-Fit Approach to Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Digitalization: Leveraging Big Data and Real-Scene Imaging in Landscape Projects. IT Professional, 27(6), 81–86.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Harvard Business School Press.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. University of Chicago Press.
Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Information technology and organizational performance: an integrative model of it business value1. MIS quarterly, 28(2), 283–322.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. sage.
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74, 61–78.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations (Vol. 2). sage Thousand Oaks, CA.
Senyard, J., Baker, T., Steffens, P., & Davidsson, P. (2014). Bricolage as a path to innovativeness for resource‐constrained new firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 211–230.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of management review, 14(3), 423–444.
Vernadat, F. B. (2010). Technical, semantic and organizational issues of enterprise interoperability and networking. Annual Reviews in Control, 34(1), 139–144.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Sage Thousand Oaks, CA.