隨著資訊科技時代的發達，藉由資訊軟體與其相關資訊服務簡化企業營運模式及提升應變能力，並建立彈性工作環境，加上企業大量投入雲端系統，這是新工作模式的展現，將替資訊相關應用帶來轉變與契機。過去企業較為依賴人與人的面對面談話，或是以傳統買斷的資訊系統為主。由於時代的演變，各式的雲端資訊串接平台進入成熟及更高發展的階段，並透過價值共創的方式，將各式各樣的參與者納入平台系統，提供公司同仁與外部協作人員共享並減少溝通成本，亦或是透過雲端行動辦公協助企業建立標準化品質管理，使行動辦公帶著走，打造出一個生態系統創造出更好更高的效益。

以價值共創理論觀點，將本研究問題定為：「如何透過價值共創建立平台生態系統的建構，並與平台參與者之間集體的協作方式，進而提升平台生態系統的價值」。

從個案研究法探尋，個案公司的U-Office Force雲端辦公室-EIP資訊系統如何以原先的平台，慢慢延伸到U-Office Force價值共創平台的設計建構，連結公司內部或外部各個參與者之間的共享與交流，如何更有效的提供商業活動價值，而在價值共創的概念之下，將各個參與者皆視為行動者，從各方面的進行研究，更藉由平台生態系統的建構，建立企業對於共享自身優勢資源的概念，打破過去企業對於獨佔的想法，共創新成果，藉由「服務主導邏輯思維」，讓參與者透過平台進行交流、分享，更藉由意見的提供決定產品功能，創造平台價值等平台的建構策略。

最後，根據一等一科技的個案研究結果發現，各個平台生態系統之參與者，可透過彼此間的互動及共創價值，將會更強化此資訊串接平的平台生態系統之建構，並替平台創造更多的效益與正面影響。本研究結果可能僅限於所選本案例從一等一科技的U-Office Force資訊平台，希望本研究在未來的發展實務中，有助於資訊串接平台生態系統之價值供創研究提供參考。

With the development of the information technology era, this is the demonstration of a new working mode, how simplifies the business model and improves the resilience of enterprises through information software and services, also establishes a flexible working environment.

Additionally, coupled with a large number of enterprises investing in cloud systems, will bring development opportunities for information software and services. In the past, companies relied more on face-to-face conversations or on traditional buyout information systems. Due to the evolution of the times, various cloud information connection platforms have entered a stage of maturity and higher development.

Then through the way of value co-creation, incorporating a wide variety of participants into the platform system. Providing a platform for internal employees and external customers to share and communicate, or it is to assist enterprises in establishing standardized quality management with a cloud mobile office. So that the mobile office can be taken away, and to build an ecosystem that can create better and higher benefits.

For the perspective of value co-creation theory, the research question is defined as: "How to create an ecosystem platform through value co-creation, and a collective method of collaboration with platform participants, to enhance the value of the platform ecosystem.”

From the design and construction of the information linkage platform, the sharing and communication between various participants within or outside the company, how to more effectively provide the value of business activities, and under the concept of value co-creation, each participant is considered as an actor. Research from all aspects, such as the construction of an ecosystem platform, how to break the exclusive mindset of enterprises on resources, share each other's superior resources and create new results together, also through "service-oriented logic thinking," participants can communicate with each other with the platform and determine product functions, to create platform value and other platform construction strategies.

Finally, according to the case study results of an EDE' UOF platform. It is found that through the interaction and co-creation of value among the participants of the ecosystem platform, it will strengthen the construction of the ecosystem platform of this information linkage platform and create more benefits and positive impacts for the platform.

The conclusion of this study may be limited to the selected case information linking platform. Hoped that this study will contribute to the value of the information linking ecosystem platform in the future development practice for reference.

Böhme, R., Christin, N., Edelman, B., & Moore, T. (2015). Bitcoin: Economics, technology, and governance. Journal of economic Perspectives, 29(2), 213-238.
Brusoni, S., & Prencipe, A. (2013). The organization of innovation in ecosystems: Problem framing, problem solving, and patterns of coupling. In Collaboration and competition in business ecosystems. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
Cennamo, C., & Santaló, J. (2019). Generativity tension and value creation in platform ecosystems. Organization Science, 30(3), 617-641.
Coff, R. W. (1999). When competitive advantage doesn't lead to performance: The resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization science, 10(2), 119-133.
Commons, J. R. (1932). The problem of correlating law economics and ethics. Wis. L. Rev., 8, 3.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of management journal, 34(3), 555-590.
Eisenmann, T. R. (2008). Managing proprietary and shared platforms. California management review, 50(4), 31-53.
Feller, J., Finnegan, P., Hayes, J., & O’Reilly, P. (2012). ‘Orchestrating’sustainable crowdsourcing: A characterisation of solver brokerages. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(3), 216-232.
Jackofsky, E. F., & Peters, L. H. (1983). Job turnover versus company turnover: Reassessment of the March and Simon participation hypothesis. Journal of applied psychology, 68(3), 490.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic management journal, 39(8), 2255-2276.
Kang, S.-C., Morris, S. S., & Snell, S. A. (2007). Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and value creation: Extending the human resource architecture. Academy of management review, 32(1), 236-256.
Klein, P. G., Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., & Pitelis, C. N. (2019). Organizational governance adaptation: Who is in, who is out, and who gets what. Academy of management review, 44(1), 6-27.
Lee, S.-H., Peng, M. W., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Bankruptcy law and entrepreneurship development: A real options perspective. Academy of management review, 32(1), 257-272.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing theory, 6(3), 281-288.
Mahoney, J. T., & Qian, L. (2013). Market frictions as building blocks of an organizational economics approach to strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 34(9), 1019-1041.
Michel, S., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Reconfiguration of the conceptual landscape: a tribute to the service logic of Richard Normann. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 36(1), 152-155.
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard business review, 71(3), 75-86.
Myers, M. D. (2019). Qualitative research in business and management. Sage.
Neuman, W. L., & Kreuger, L. (2003). Social work research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Allyn and Bacon.
Nickerson, J. A., Silverman, B. S., & Zenger, T. R. (2007). Theproblem'of creating and capturing value. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 211-225.
Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. WW Norton & Company.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Technology and competitive advantage. Journal of business strategy.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advonioge of notions. Harvard business review, 73, 91.
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sauter-Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford University Press.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. J. (2010). The power of co-creation: Build it with them to boost growth, productivity, and profits. Simon and Schuster.
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.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
Tongco, M. D. C. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research and applications, 5, 147-158.
van Astyne, M. W., Parker, G. G., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy. Harvard business review, 94(4), 16.
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. (2011). It's all B2B… and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial marketing management, 40(2), 181-187.
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.
Vargo Stephen, L., & Lusch Robert, F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing, 68(1), 1-17.
Williamson, O. E. (2005). The economics of governance. American Economic Review, 95(2), 1-18.
Yin, J., Cao, Y., Li, Y.-H., Liao, S.-K., Zhang, L., Ren, J.-G., Cai, W.-Q., Liu, W.-Y., Li, B., & Dai, H. (2017). Satellite-based entanglement distribution over 1200 kilometers. Science, 356(6343), 1140-1144.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Designing case studies. Qualitative research methods, 5(14), 359-386.
Zhu, F., & Furr, N. (2016). Products to platforms: Making the leap. Harvard business review, 94(4), 72-78.