充電樁標準是實現電動車市場高效和廣泛相容性的關鍵，隨著各種電動車品牌和型號湧現，確保這些車輛能夠輕鬆接入同一充電設施變得至關重要。標準會建立起互補性，然而其也有好處與壞處。過去研究主要集中在行業級價值鏈(Industry-Level Value Chains) 中的互補性資產，例如與製造、銷售、行銷和分銷相關的領域，鮮少研究針對生態系中的互補性資產加以討論。因此本研究旨在探討標準對企業帶來的利弊，以及如何降低負面影響。本研究從互補性的觀點加以解釋，說明企業應如何制定策略以增強自身的互補性，並針對上述研究缺口提供進一步的分析。本研究框架提出標準創造出互補性，且互補性是相互依存(Interdependence)，但是並非都是對稱性的關係，其可以從移動性(Mobility)的構面加以思考。標準對於企業產生移動性的影響，此時不同的標準類型能夠影響其創造的互補性，同時為企業帶來不同的利益。作者藉由訪談A公司的個案研究方法，分析特定充電樁廠商開發項目，研究結果表明，標準不僅提高了技術的互操作性和安全性，也為充電樁廠商創造了清晰的技術路徑和市場機會。論文結論強調，有效的標準設置和互補資產管理是推廣電動汽車充電基礎設施的關鍵，並建議未來研究應進一步探討不同市場條件下互補資產策略的影響，以促進生態系統的可持續發展。

With the rapid growth of the electric vehicle market, establishing an efficient charging infrastructure has become a key factor in the industry's development. Past research has focused on the cooperation and competition between electric vehicle manufacturers and charging station manufacturers, yet has overlooked the strategies that charging station manufacturers, as complementary asset providers, can adopt in the development of the entire innovation ecosystem. Therefore, this study aims to explore the advantages and disadvantages that standards bring to enterprises, and how to mitigate negative impacts. This research is explained from a complementarity perspective, detailing how enterprises should strategize to enhance their complementarity, and provides further analysis of the research gap. The study framework proposes that standards create complementarity, which is mutually adapted but not necessarily symmetrical, and can be considered through the dimension of "mobility." The impact of standards on enterprise mobility varies depending on the type of standards, affecting the complementarity created and bringing different benefits to enterprises. By employing a case study method with interviews at Company A, the research analyzes specific development projects by charging station manufacturers. The findings indicate that standards not only enhance technical interoperability and safety but also create clear technological paths and market opportunities for charging station manufacturers. The conclusion emphasizes that effective standard setting and complementary asset management are key to promoting the infrastructure of electric vehicle charging and suggests that future research should further explore the impact of complementary asset strategies under different market conditions to promote the sustainable development of the ecosystem.

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.
Agarwal, S., & Kapoor, R. (2023). Value creation tradeoff in business ecosystems: Leveraging complementarities while managing interdependencies. Organization science, 34(3), 1216-1242.
Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1990). Complementarity and external linkages: the strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 361-379.
Baldwin, C. Y. (2020). Design Rules, Volume 2: how Technology Shapes Organizations: Chapter 2 Transactions in a Task Network. Harvard Business School.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99-120.
Brusoni, S., & Prencipe, A. (2001). Unpacking the black box of modularity: technologies, products and organizations. Industrial and corporate change, 10(1), 179-205.
Carlaw, K. I., & Lipsey, R. G. (2002). Externalities, technological complementarities and sustained economic growth. Research policy, 31(8-9), 1305-1315.
Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management science, 52(1), 68-82.
Claussen, J., Kretschmer, T., & Mayrhofer, P. (2013). The effects of rewarding user engagement: The case of Facebook apps. Information Systems Research, 24(1), 186-200.
Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research policy, 32(2), 333-350.
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing research, 17(4), 364.
Goldfarb, B. (2005). Diffusion of general-purpose technologies: understanding patterns in the electrification of US Manufacturing 1880–1930. Industrial and corporate change, 14(5), 745-773.
Helfat, C. E. (1997). Know‐how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: the case of R&D. Strategic management journal, 18(5), 339-360.
Helfat, C. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004). Inter‐temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic management journal, 25(13), 1217-1232.
Helfat, C. E., & Lieberman, M. B. (2002). The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre‐history. Industrial and corporate change, 11(4), 725-760.
Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2000). Product sequencing: co‐evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products. Strategic management journal, 21(10‐11), 961-979.
Hoetker, G. (2006). Do modular products lead to modular organizations? Strategic management journal, 27(6), 501-518.
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.
Jacobides, M. G., Knudsen, T., & Augier, M. (2006). Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures. Research policy, 35(8), 1200-1221.
Kapoor, R., & Agarwal, S. (2017). Sustaining superior performance in business ecosystems: Evidence from application software developers in the iOS and Android smartphone ecosystems. Organization science, 28(3), 531-551.
Kapoor, R., & Furr, N. R. (2015). Complementarities and competition: Unpacking the drivers of entrants' technology choices in the solar photovoltaic industry. Strategic management journal, 36(3), 416-436.
Khan, S. N. (2014). Qualitative research method: Grounded theory. International journal of business and management, 9(11), 224-233.
Lee, C. H., Venkatraman, N., Tanriverdi, H., & Iyer, B. (2010). Complementarity‐based hypercompetition in the software industry: Theory and empirical test, 1990–2002. Strategic management journal, 31(13), 1431-1456.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills. In: Ca: Sage.
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1990). Rationalizability, learning, and equilibrium in games with strategic complementarities. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1255-1277.
Mitchell, W. (1989). Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbents' entry into emerging industrial subfields. Administrative science quarterly, 208-230.
Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition: leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. (No Title).
Neubauer, J., & Wood, E. (2014). The impact of range anxiety and home, workplace, and public charging infrastructure on simulated battery electric vehicle lifetime utility. Journal of power sources, 257, 12-20.
Prencipe, A., Davies, A., & Hobday, M. (2003). The business of systems integration. OUP Oxford.
Qian, L., Agarwal, R., & Hoetker, G. (2012). Configuration of value chain activities: The effect of pre-entry capabilities, transaction hazards, and industry evolution on decisions to internalize. Organization science, 23(5), 1330-1349.
Rothaermel, F. T., & Hill, C. W. (2005). Technological discontinuities and complementary assets: A longitudinal study of industry and firm performance. Organization science, 16(1), 52-70.
Staudenmayer, N., Tripsas, M., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Interfirm modularity and its implications for product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(4), 303-321.
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research policy, 15(6), 285-305.
Teece, D. J. (2006). Reflections on “profiting from innovation”. Research policy, 35(8), 1131-1146.
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). Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Research policy, 47(8), 1367-1387.
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Research commentary—Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675-687.
Tripsas, M. (1997). Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic management journal, 18(S1), 119-142.
Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Cano Giner, J. L. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization science, 25(4), 1195-1215.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.