時序邁入二十一世紀，隨著科技與技術的日新月異，市場環境與消費者需求更加瞬息萬變，企業如何在追求自我成長的同時，迅速回應外在環境的快速變化，不被淘汰，是現今企業面對的最大課題，亦是學術界與實務界向來熱衷討論的命題。James F. Moore最早提出「商業生態系統」的概念，建議以商業生態系統取代產業，打破過去產業的界線，認為若要成功回應環境與顧客需求，已不再只是依賴單一組織與單一產業，而需透過跨領域的協同合作來完成。 本研究以電子商務為主體結合商業生態系統概念，透過個案研究法分析個別企業參與商業生態系統所扮演的角色。最後，本研究提出以下結論：個別企業參與者在商業生態系統中的各生命週期發展階段可能經歷角色轉變；個別企業參與者在原生商業生態系統可逐步打造以自身為主體的商業生態次系統並對原生商業生態主系統產生影響。

本研究運用質性研究方法，加以個案研究方式，對於第三方支付模式和實體信用卡虛擬化之非第三方支付模式進行個案分析，以探討在超競爭下，行動支付業者如何透過競爭以及合作策略，形成行動支付生態系統發展模式。本研究所得結論如下： 一、中國和肯亞等開發中國家之金融體系尚不發達，交易雙方出現信任缺口，銀行服務並不健全，金融資源分配不均，因此透過破壞傳統支付體系架構，發揮網路外部性之雙邊市場效應，打造出第三方支付模式之行動支付生態系統，以達到普惠金融發展目標。 二、歐美日等已開發國家之金融體系已臻健全，金融匯兌服務普及，金融監理重視市場公平與金融穩定，因此未破壞傳統支付體系架構，而是透過跨產業競合方式修改現有支付面前端程序，型塑出實體信用卡虛擬化支付模式之行動支付生態系統，以達到優化金融服務目標。 綜合上述結論，可歸納出二項管理意涵：第一項為在金融服務普及率較低的體系，傾向於發展填補信任缺口之第三方支付模式，而在金融服務普及率較高的體系，則傾向於發展提高安全性之實體信用卡虛擬化支付模式。第二項為企業藉由競合策略，既爭取價值也創造價值，其中爭取價值的本質是競爭，而創造價值的本質則是合作，以達到雙贏。 台灣傳統金融服務與超商密集度高，客戶需求被高度重視及滿足，銀行、超商與第三方支付業者形成跨產業競合關係，發展出多元支付方式，因此建構使用單一裝置即可提供多元支付功能之行動支付平台，可做為台灣行動支付生態系統健全發展之解決方案。具體建議為尋求跨產業競合，金融監管持開放態度，培訓金融科技人才，加強資訊安全，以建構完善的行動支付生態系統。 / In the view of hyper-competition, sustainable competitive advantage does not exist, and only by constant innovation in order to obtain a series of short-term competitive advantage. However, business ecosystem could clarify the competition and cooperation relationship between businesses. In this study, qualitative research and case study methodologies are used to find the adoptable mobile payment ecosystem. The third-party payment would fill the trust gap between the parties. Therefore, developing countries should adopt third party mobile payment ecosystem, in order to achieve financial inclusion. The non-third party payment would improve the security of cardholder transactions and reduce the risk of banking. Therefore, developed countries should adopt non-third party mobile payment ecosystem, in order to optimize financial services. The above conclusions can be summarized as two management implications: First, low penetration of financial services tends to develop third-party payment, and high penetration of financial services tends to develop non-third party payment. Second, business co-opetition strategy has the nature of value creation and value capture to achieve win-win situation. Taiwan’s financial service-intensive, customer needs are met, banks, stores can be formed with the third-party payment industry co-opetition relations, the development of a diverse payment methods, and therefore the construction using a single device to provide pluralistic payment function of mobile payment platform, will be suitable for robust development of Taiwan’s mobile payment ecosystem. Suggestions include cross-industry co-opetition, open-minded financial supervision, training financial technology professionals, and strengthen information security.

本研究採用「商業生態系統」觀點，以「利基者」的角度出發，來探討利基型軟體公司經營模式的變遷。研究對象為屬於「利基者」的資訊安全軟體公司，以及其所處的環境。研究分為「歷史分析」與「探索性個案研究」兩大部分。首先，本研究以「歷史分析」作為前導研究，探討資訊安全軟體由1986年至2007年的發展沿革，並釐清防毒軟體廠商、防火牆軟體廠商，以及入侵偵測/防禦軟體廠商所處的商業生態系統，以及廠商在其中的角色。此外，在歷史分析中，本研究也探討了主要商業生態系統之間的關係。而「探索性個案研究」，則選擇了五個成功的資訊安全軟體公司，以及五個失敗的資訊安全軟體公司，探討這些廠商在1986年至2000年之間經營模式的變遷，以了解成功及失敗的因素為何。此外，也描述繼續存活的成功廠商，如何在2001年之後，因應環境「擾動」而動態調整其經營模式。 在「歷史分析」的部份，本研究首先發現，資訊安全軟體自1986年開始出現，此時的資訊安全軟體廠商，主要為防毒軟體廠商，而廠商在「個人電腦商業生態系統」以及「區域網路商業生態系統」中扮演「利基者」的角色。在1994年後，「Internet商業生態系統」蓬勃發展，除了防毒軟體廠商之外，防火牆軟體廠商以及入侵偵測軟體廠商開始出現。而資安軟體廠商在「Internet商業生態系統」中扮演「利基者」的角色。之後，資訊安全軟體廠商逐漸形成了一個「邊界安全商業生態次系統」。在這個「次系統」中，不同的廠商分別扮演了次系統中的「關鍵者」、「支配者」，以及「利基者」。另一方面，三個「主系統」之間，存在「演替」的現象，後者的重要性，逐漸超越前者。而到了2001年之後，由於環境中的劇烈「擾動」，產生了新的生存空間，也改變了既有「物種」的「種間關係」。而另一方面，主要商業生態系統中「關鍵者」的跨入，也嚴重壓縮了既有「利基者」的生存空間。 「探索性個案研究」中，本研究又分為「規範性個案研究」與「描述性個案研究」兩部分。「規範性個案研究」探討五個成功的資訊安全軟體公司，包括Symantec、Trend Micro、McAfee、Check Point，以及Internet Security Systems(ISS)，在1986年至2000年之間，調整經營模式的動態過程，並與五個失敗的公司，包括ACSI、ESaSS、EliaShim/eSafe、Raptor，以及Axent進行比較。研究首先發現，成功的「利基者」，充分「借助」了「關鍵者」的資源，包括「技術」、「夥伴」、「聲譽」，並透過學習，運用關鍵者的「知識」，提升組織的能力。其次，成功的「利基者」，都能建立以自己為中心的「商業生態次系統」，包括「通路次系統」或是「技術平台次系統」。此外，成功的「利基者」，也都能及時參與新興的商業生態系統，並察覺商業生態系統「演替」(亦即「消長」)的狀況，進而調整參與的重心。而失敗的五個「利基者」，均於2000年之前被其他公司購併，主要因為較欠缺這些作為，或在這些方面未能成功。「描述性個案研究」則描述在2001年之後繼續存活的成功「利基者」，如何因應環境「擾動」與其他廠商行為的改變，動態調整經營模式。這些廠商調整經營模式，以鞏固既有的生存空間，並掌握新的生存空間。同時，也多方參與由不同的「關鍵者」所主導，未來可能成為「主流設計」的技術架構。 綜合來說，成功的利基型軟體公司，由創立開始，隨著成長的過程，「參與」以其他關鍵者為中心的商業生態系統，同時也致力於「建立」以自己為中心的商業生態系統。「參與」及「建立」二者與時並進，並適時調整，利基者才得以維持長久生存。 / This study takes the view of niche players to explore their business model changes in the software business ecosystem. Software firms in the information security software industry and their environments are selected as research context. The research is comprised of two main parts: a historical analysis and an exploratory case study. The historical analysis serves as a pilot study, in which information security software industry’s historical development is scrutinized to clarify which business ecosystems these security software firms, including antivirus software firms, firewall software firms, and intrusion detection/prevention software firms, participate in as they grow, as well as these firms’ roles within the business ecosystems. Relationships between different busines ecosystems are also studied in the historical analysis. In the exploratory case study, five successful security software firms and five failed security software firms are selected as case companies. The case study explores how successful firms and failed firms, from 1986 to 2000, differ in the way they changed their business models, in order to understand why successful firms remain in existence after 2000. The case study also describes how these surviving firms have, responding to “disturbance” in the environments, been adjusting their business models dynamically since 2001. The historical analysis reveals that the “PC business ecosystem”, the “LAN (local area network) business ecosystem”, and the “Internet business ecosystem” are involved as security software firms grow. Information security software firms have participated in the “PC business ecosystem”, when antivirus software was brought to the world in 1986. Antivirus software firms played the role of “niche players” in the “PC business ecosystem” at that time. Later when local area network was getting prevalent, a few antivirus firms participated in the “LAN business ecosystem”, playing the role of “niche players” as well. When the Internet commercialized around 1994, firewall software firms and intrusion detection software firms emerged. All participating information software firms played the role of “niche players” in the “Internet business ecosystem”. In 1996, a “sub-system”—“perimeter security sub-system” —was formed within the “Internet business ecosystem” by various security software firms and hardware companies. This “sub-system” had its own “keystones”, “dominators”, “hub landlords”, and “niche players”. In addition, “ecosystem succession” phenomenon is observed between the three “main system” —the “PC business ecosystem”, the “LAN business ecosystem”, and the “Internet business ecosystem”. Importance of the latter gradually surpassed the former. Furthermore, “disturbance” has emerged since 2001, creating new living space, but at the same time altered the “inter-species relationship” between existing species. Some “keystones” in the main ecosystems turned into “dominators”, highly decreased existing niche players’ living space. The exploratory case study is divided into a “normative case study” and a “descriptive case study”. In the “normative case study”, five successful security software firms, including Symantec, Trend Micro, McAfee, Check Point, and Internet Security Systems (ISS) are compared with five failed firms—ACSI, ESaSS, EliaShim/eSafe, Raptor, and Axent in the way they adjusted their business models from 1986 to 2000. Evidences revealed that successful niche players sufficiently leveraged resources provided by keystones. Resources include technologies, partners, and reputation. Successful niche players also learn from keystones to acquire knowledge, which further improves niche players’ organization capabilities. In addition, successful niche players are capable of building up their own “sub-systems,” which can be “channel sub-systems” or “technological platform sub-systems.” Furthermore, successful niche players, in time, participate in every promising business ecosystems, and sense the “ecosystem succession” phenomenon when it takes place to adjust their efforts on different business ecosystems. Five unsuccessful case companies fail to achieve similar accomplishments. Consequently, all of them have been acquired or merged by other firms by 2000. Meanwhile, in the “descriptive case study,” I describe how five successful firms keep surviving after 2001, adjusting their business models to secure existing living space and seize emerging opportunities. These successful niche players also participated in all information security architectures proposed by different keystones, expecting that one of these architectures will turn out to be the “dominant design” in the future. Overall, successful niche players, as they grow, participate in business ecosystems led by other keystones, and build up their own business ecosystem as well. They advance and adjust both their “participating” and “builing up” activities to secure long-term survival.

邁入21世紀，許多環境趨勢與變動如全球化浪潮、時基競爭、快速回應的壓力等，使現代組織面臨另一波的典範轉移。面對如此動盪的環境，近年來一些組織為了得以快速地感知與因應環境變動，開始由單一組織的營運活動逐漸轉變為「跨組織」、甚至「跨產業」的連結與互動，透過組織間價值利益交換與共同演化，產生高度的適應性與多樣性，得以與複雜不確定的動盪環境共存。組織間連結關係的普遍，使得學術界與實務界開始將關於企業競爭力的探討，由組織內在能力之強調轉移至與組織生存攸關之外部資源的管理上。而對於企業來說，發展的關鍵就是如何與其他企業相互協調、將資源集中起來為消費者創造價值。 本研究從複雜適應系統(Complex Adaptive Systems)角度出發，試圖剖析一「組織間連結」群體之現有樣貌與未來可能樣貌。本研究首先針對相關文獻、研究進行整理，由系統觀點找出複雜適應系統的組織發展光譜，並提出其中商業生態系統(Business Ecosystem)與混序式組織(Chaordic Organization)兩個組織類型將座落於此組織發展光譜之兩端，而混序式組織將可視為一複雜適應系統的最終理想境界，如同相關文獻所述。 本研究更進一步針對兩種組織類型內涵進行解構，並佐以現行個案：台積電公司與Visa國際組織進行實例驗證，歸納出「生態型」與「混序型」兩種經營模式，並於共同特徵與對稱差異分析下，得出以下結論與管理意涵： 1)未來動盪環境之下，組織協議力量(protocal)將取代傳統控制力量，促成網絡內部之複雜與多樣性；2) 協議力量下，未來組織之創新將發生在價值活動的任何一端，屬「激發創新」；3) 面對動盪環境，組織複雜與適應性的建立，將會是不斷重複且持續循環的任務與挑戰。