在台灣經濟發展過程中，中小企業扮演著極為重要的關鍵角色，為台灣開創了許多經濟奇蹟，引領台灣經濟向上發展，其中，由於台灣傳統中小企業皆以製造業為主，其企業發展之方向聚焦於產品的生產與製造上，此種以製造產品為核心概念的生產方式，輕忽服務所蘊含的價值，導致其難以提升顧客之價值。此外，因為全球化的越趨盛行，導致全球市場互通，身處於此局勢下的各家中小企業，面臨著競爭者急遽增加、顧客大幅銳減的企業困境，再者，由於生產成本越趨攀升，中小企業利潤不再，亦導致中小企業陷入營運危機。在此困境下的中小企業，為求永續經營，紛紛致力於企業轉型，希望透過企業轉型，以此突破企業瓶頸，開創企業新局面。而鑒於服務越趨重要，透過服務創新可以有效開創企業新價值，大幅提升企業競爭力與企業績效，從而幫助企業達成永續經營之目的，是故，中小企業希冀透過服務創新從事企業轉型，以此開創新的服務價值，帶給顧客新的服務體驗，從而提高企業之價值，開創企業新局面。有鑑於此，本研究之目的，主要藉著探討中小企業目前所面臨的產業困境，以此探究出影響服務創新的關鍵之因素，並透過深入探究服務創新對企業成效之影響，從而發展出一套服務創新衡量機制，透過此機制可有效幫助中小企業管理者了解哪些關鍵因素有助於企業建立服務創新能力，協助中小企業管理者，能在越趨變化的產業環境中，掌握服務創新此利器，提升中小企業服務創新轉型的成效，協助中小企業得以在越趨競爭的產業環境中生存。本研究透過深入訪談目前有在從事服務創新轉型的中小企業管理者，探究出目前中小企業產業困境的主要原因，乃為營業額下滑、原物料成本上漲、與競爭越趨激烈此三大問題，並依據訪談所蒐集到的數據資料，運用系統動力學，從而建構出符合中小企業營運困境的因果循環圖，以此更深入了解中小企業營運環境中各變數間的互動關係，進而發展出實驗一的模擬模型：中小企業困境存量流量圖，透過此模型之模擬結果，協助本研究具體了解中小企業在生產成本、競爭者、營業額上，其數值之變動幅度與趨勢，以此分析中小企業在未導入服務創新前，其在時間的推演變化下，企業營運會產生什麼樣的變化，並從中分析企業未來可能面臨的營運狀況，進而分析企業應採取何種策略加以應對。

此外，為求有效解決中小企業營運之困境，且鑒於服務創新有助於企業提升服務之價值，開創企業新契機，提升企業之績效，是故，本研究採用服務創新以此做為政策模擬之方針，並依據中小企業營運困境的因果循環圖為基礎，結合資源基礎理論，深入探討影響服務創新成效的關鍵影響因素，並運用系統動力學，將各項有助於企業培育服務創新能力的關鍵影響資源納入考量，從而建構出服務創新因果循環圖，以此協助本研究更深入的了解各項關鍵因素與服務創新的互動關係，進而延伸發展出實驗二的模擬模型：服務創新存量流量圖，透過此模擬模型，以此探究各項企業資源是否有助於中小企業建置服務創新能力，並探討其對企業之影響成效，並依據模擬之結果，具體觀察服務創新對於中小企業營業額、生產成本、競爭者數之影響，從而協助本研究建構出一套系統性的服務創新衡量機制，此套機制認為企業在導入服務創新時，其可透過培育透過跨部門協調、顧客資訊與競爭者資訊此三項關鍵資源，培養企業的市場應用能力；透過培育知識擷取、知識散佈與知識應用此三項關鍵資源，培養企業的知識整合能力；透過顧客參與、夥伴契合度、夥伴專業知識此三項關鍵企業資源，培養企業的協同合作能力；資訊科技與資訊科技經驗此兩項關鍵資源，培養企業的科技應用能力；透過此四大企業獨特性能力，從而孕育出企業的服務創新能力，創造出新的企業服務型態，從而開創新的企業服務價值，激發企業發展之潛能，孕育出有別於其他競爭者的企業競爭優勢。本研究亦依循此服務創新機制，提供一套企業管理方針，以此協助中小企業透過服務創新轉型時，能夠有所依循，幫助企業能在有限的資源中，做最妥適的運用，提高中小企業服務創新成功的機會，解決中小企業所面臨到的經營困境與績效不彰的狀況。此外，本研究所建構的實驗模擬模型，其在生產成本、營業額、競爭者之模擬結果，皆與中小企業歷史資料相符，此兩者間的趨勢變動極為相符，且數值範圍亦極為相似，可以見得本研究實驗一、實驗二所建構的模擬模型，符合真實中小企業營運之運作，實驗模型合乎真實狀況，是故，實驗模擬之結果具有一定可信度。

本研究有以下幾點之發現：(1)中小企業在尚未推廣、施行服務創新之前，其面臨生產成本越趨上升、競爭越趨激烈、營業額日漸下滑的營運問題，致使其陷入營運危機之中，是故，中小企業有其必要性導入服務創新，以此在越趨低迷的市場環境中，尋求蛻變與轉機。(2)本研究建構出一套服務創新機制，此機制協助中小企業探究出影響服務創新的關鍵影響因素與關鍵能力，幫助中小企業管理者在有限的投資中，得到最大的效益。(3)企業可有效透過服務創新，提升企業之績效，協助企業在越趨競爭的產業環境中，突破企業瓶頸，達到永續經營之企業目標。(4)中小企業在導入服務創新的過程中，其成本雖會有所增長，但相較於企業績效來說，企業營業額的成長更為可觀、更為顯著，可大幅紓解中小企業營運不彰的企業窘境，幫助中小企業開創新的企業績效，是故，中小企業有投資服務創新的經濟效益存在，協助其得以在低迷不振的市場環境中化危機為轉機。在研究限制方面，由於本研究的重點主著重在企業內部所能控制的關鍵因素，將焦點聚焦在中小企業所能控制的變因上，是故，有些外部影響因素，諸如像是政府政策等，其雖與真實世界之系統動態有所關連，但由於其範圍過於廣泛，故將其排除在本研究範疇之外。最後，本研究所建構的服務創新衡量機制，其乃針對中小企業中的製造業所建構、發展而成，為求此服務創新衡量機制更加多元化，能多方應用於各產業之中，本研究建議後續研究學者，能依據不同產業的營運環境，建構出符合其營運環境的服務創新機制，以此提升不同產業的服務創新導入成效。

Small and medium enterprises play an important role to influence the economy development of Taiwan. Small and medium enterprises which traditionally focus on the manufacture in Taiwan pay attention to the product manufacturing process. However, small and medium enterprises do not understand the importance of services which difficultly lead customers to increase values. Besides, the trend of the globalization enables enterprises to face the serious challenge of the global competitors and the huge decrease of the customers in the market. Hence, small and medium enterprises gradually understand the importance of services and attempt to implement enterprise transformation in order to deal with the proposed challenges and difficulties. When small and medium enterprises focus on the service businesses, service innovation can lead them to create valuable merits, increase the competence and business performances. Service innovation is regarded as the key to maintain the long term sustainability. This study aims to interview several senior managers of small and medium enterprises that are implementing enterprise transformation. The interview results show that the key problems of small and medium enterprises include profits decreasing, cost increasing and market competing. This study tries to build a causal loop diagram to represent the three problems for small and medium enterprises based on system dynamics. This study can explore the relations and the influences among these problems to model the stock and flow diagram for experiment one. The stock and flow diagram can effectively reveal the variations and the trends of profits decreasing, cost increasing and market competing. The simulation results are to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed model and are similar to the real historical data.

Furthermore, in order to deal with the proposed problems, small and medium enterprises attempt to implement service innovation to increase business values and performances. This study adopts resource-based theory and the perspective of service innovation to build the other causal loop diagram to show the influences of service innovation for small and medium enterprises based on system dynamics. This study can explore the relations and the factors of service innovation to model the other stock and flow diagram for experiment two. This stock and flow diagram is to examine the levels of existing resources influencing service innovation and to be a systematic service innovation measurement mechanism. The simulation results show that applying proper resources can increase the success of service innovation. That is, customer orientation, competitor orientation and inter-functional coordination resources can raise the adjustability ability to the market. Knowledge acquisition, knowledge dissemination and knowledge responsiveness resources can increase the ability of applying knowledge. Collaboration, customer participation and partner expertise resources can increase the ability of collaboration. Information technology facilities and information technology experiences resources can raise the ability of applying information technology. The four abilities can achieve the success of service innovation for small and medium enterprises.

The research findings can be detailed as follows: 1) small and medium enterprises have to apply service innovation to overcome the difficulties of profits decreasing, cost increasing and market competing 2) this study aims to explore and examine the key factors and problems to build a service innovation measurement mechanism 3) implementing service innovation can lead small and medium enterprises to acquire the profits and the competitive advantages 4) small and medium enterprises can increase the business profits by applying service innovation even though the cost for service innovation is high. There are several research limitations. This study focuses on the key factors that really cause the difficulties and influence and the success of service innovation for small and medium enterprises. Hence, this study has to select the important factors influencing small and medium enterprises and ignore the external factors (e.g., government policies or natural disasters) to define the research boundary. This study is to build the service innovation measurement mechanism by applying small and medium enterprises. Further researchers can continuously design appropriate models for measuring service innovation in different fields.

目錄
中文摘要	i
Abstract	iv
目錄	vi
表目錄	viii
圖目錄	ix
壹、緒論	1
1.1、研究背景	1
1.2、研究動機	4
1.3、研究問題	5
1.4、研究目的	7
1.5、研究流程	9
貳、文獻探討	11
2.1、服務科學	11
2.1.1、服務科學定義	11
2.1.2、服務科學的特色	12
2.1.3、小結	16
2.2、資源基礎理論	16
2.3、服務創新	19
2.3.1、服務創新定義	19
2.3.2、影響服務創新的關鍵因素	22
2.3.3、服務創新對企業績效之影響	33
2.3.4、小結	37
2.4、中小企業	37
2.4.1、中小企業目前的現況與發展	38
2.4.2、企業轉型與轉型困境	40
2.4.3、小結	42
參、研究方法	43
3.1、系統動力學	43
3.1.1、系統動力學的基本運作方式	45
3.1.2、系統基模	54
3.2、案例公司描述	60
3.2.1、A公司案例描述	60
3.2.2、B公司案例描述	62
3.2.3、C公司案例描述	64
3.2.4、小結	65
3.3、模式建立	68
3.3.1.、中小企業困境因果循環圖	68
3.3.2、資源基礎理論觀點之因果循環圖	73
3.3.3、服務創新因果循環圖	75
肆、模擬實驗	82
4.1、系統動力學之存量流量圖	83
4.2、模擬實驗一：建構中小企業面臨營運困境之模型	85
4.2.1、實驗目的	86
4.2.2、實驗設計	86
4.2.3、實驗結果分析	89
4.3、模擬實驗二：建構中小企業導入服務創新之模型	95
4.3.1、實驗目的	95
4.3.2、實驗設計	96
4.3.3、實驗結果分析	98
4.4討論	105
伍、結論	115
5.1、研究發現	115
5.2、研究貢獻	120
5.3、研究限制與未來研究建議	122
參考文獻	124
附錄一：「服務創新」研究計畫邀請函暨計劃參與同意書	138
附錄二：感謝狀	139
附錄三：訪談大綱	140
附錄四：逐字稿	142
附錄五：模型公式(實驗一)	161
附錄六：模型公式(實驗二)	164


 
表目錄
表2-1：服務導向邏輯與產品導向邏輯比較表	15
表2-2：各學者服務創新定義彙整	21
表2-3：各學者對知識管理定義彙整	26
表2-4：各學者對知識管理活動內容彙整	28
表2-5：服務創新與企業績效關係之文獻彙整	35
表2-6：中小企業經營面臨之困境	40
表3-1：因果關係示意圖	49
表3-2：因果關係示意圖	51
表3-3：時間延遲因果關係示意圖	53
表3-4：成長的上限系統基模	55
表3-5：捨本逐末系統基模	56
表3-6：飲鴆止渴系統基模	58
表3-7：目標侵蝕系統基模	59
表3-8：各產業目前產業情況	67
表3-9：中小企業獲利減少之原因	68
表4-1：中小企業面臨營運困境之參數設定表	89
表4-2：中小企業導入服務創新之參數設定表	98
 
圖目錄
圖1-1：研究流程	10
圖2-1：服務科學	13
圖2-2：服務導向邏輯與產品導向邏輯的概念	15
圖2-3：資源基礎理論示意圖	18
圖2-4：服務創新關鍵影響變數(構面一)	24
圖2-5：服務創新關鍵影響變數(構面二)	29
圖2-6：服務創新關鍵影響變數(構面三)	31
圖2-7：服務創新關鍵影響變數(構面四)	32
圖2-8：服務創新關鍵影響變數(整合圖)	36
圖3-1：線性思考邏輯	45
圖3-2：線性思考邏輯範例	46
圖3-3：非線性邏輯思考	47
圖3-4：非線性邏輯思考範例	47
圖3-5：中小企業困境因果循環圖之一	69
圖3-6：中小企業困境因果循環圖之二	70
圖3-7：中小企業困境因果循環圖之三	71
圖3-8：中小企業困境因果循環圖之四	73
圖3-9：資源基礎理論觀點之服務創新因果循環圖	74
圖3-10：服務創新因果循環圖之一	76
圖3-11：服務創新因果循環圖之二	77
圖3-12：服務創新因果循環圖之三	78
圖3-13：服務創新因果循環圖之四	80
圖3-14：服務創新因果循環圖之五	81
圖4-1：存量示意圖	84
圖4-2：流量示意圖	84
圖4-3：箭號示意圖	85
圖4-4：中小企業面臨營運困境之存量流量圖	88
圖4-5：營業額之模擬結果	90
圖4-6：中小企業歷年營業額資料	90
圖4-7：生產成本之模擬結果	92
圖4-8：中小企業歷年生產成本資料	92
圖4-9：競爭者之模擬結果	94
圖4-10：中小企業歷年營競爭者資料	94
圖4-11：中小企業導入服務創新之存量流量圖	97
圖4-12：營業額之模擬結果	99
圖4-13：中小企業歷年營業額資料	99
圖4-14：生產成本之模擬結果	100
圖4-15：中小企業歷年生產成本資料	101
圖4-16：競爭者之模擬結果	102
圖4-17：中小企業歷年競爭者資料	102
圖4-18：中小企業面臨營運困境之增強型迴圈	106
圖4-19：中小企業面臨營運困境之平衡型迴圈	107
圖4-20：協同合作能力之增強型迴圈	108
圖4-21：市場應用能力之增強型迴圈	109
圖4-22：知識整合能力之增強型迴圈	110
圖4-23：科技應能力之增強型迴圈	111

參考文獻
1.	Aas, T. H., & Pedersen, P. E. (2011). The impact of service innovation on firm-level financial performance. The Service Industries Journal, 31(13), 2071-2090.
2.	Ackoff, R. L. (2010). From data to wisdom. Journal of applied systems analysis,16, 3-9.
3.	Agarwal, S., Erramilli, M. K., & Dev, C. S. (2003). Market orientation and performance in service firms: Role of innovation. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(1), 68-82. 
4.	Alam, I. (2006). Removing the fuzziness from the fuzzy front-end of service innovations through customer interactions. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(4), 468-480.
5.	Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the AIS, 1(2), 1-7.
6.	Alter, S. (2012). Challenges for service science. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 13(2), 22-38.
7.	Amsden, A. H. (1991). Big business and urban congestion in Taiwan: the origins of small enterprise and regionally decentralized industry (respectively). World Development, 19(9), 1121-1135.
8.	Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 82(1), 150-169.
9.	Auh, S., Bell, S. J., McLeod, C. S., & Shih, E. (2007). Co-production and customer loyalty in financial services. Journal of retailing, 83(3), 359-370.
10.	Avlonitis, G. J., Papastathopoulou, P. G., & Gounaris, S. P. (2001). An empirically‐based typology of product innovativeness for new financial services: Success and failure scenarios. Journal of Product Innovation Management,18(5), 324-342.
11.	Barlas, Y. (1996). Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. System dynamics review, 12(3), 183-210.
12.	Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: Creating and sustaining competitive advantage Oxford University Press Oxford.
13.	Bassi, L. J. (1997). Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Capital. Training and development, 51(12), 25-30.
14.	Beckman, T. (1997). A methodology for knowledge management. IASTED.
15.	Behara, R. S. (2000). Process innovation in knowledge-intensive service. New Service Design.4(1), 138-151.
16.	Berry, L. L. (2006). Creating new markets through service innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(2), 56-63.
17.	Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76-88. 
18.	Boisot, M. H. (1998). Knowledge Assets: Securing Competitive Advantage in the Information Economy: Securing Competitive Advantage in the Information Economy. Oxford University Press.
19.	Bolwijn, P. T., & Kumpe, T. (1996). About facts, fiction and forces in human resource management. Human Systems Management, 15(3), 161-172.
20.	Braun, W. (2002). The system archetypes. System, 20(2), 1-10.
21.	Chaiprasit, S., PhD. (2008). The effect of corporate strategy on level of globalization and technology development in thai firms. The Business Review, Cambridge, 11(2), 99-106.
22.	Chambost, V., McNutt, J., & Stuart, P. R. (2009). Partnerships for successful enterprise transformation of forest industry companies implementing the forest biorefinery. Pulp & Paper Canada, 110(5), 1-6.
23.	Chen, C., & Huang, J. (2009). Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance—The mediating role of knowledge management capacity.Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 104-114. 
24.	Chen, J. S. J., & Tsou, H. T. (2006). Information technology adoption for service innovation practices and competitive advantage: the case of financial firms. Information Research, 12(3), 314-321.
25.	Chen, J. S., Tsou, H. T., & Ching, R. K. (2011). Co-production and its effects on service innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8), 1331-1346.
26.	Chen, W. H. (1999). The manufacturing strategy and competitive priority of SMEs in Taiwan: A case survey. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 16(3), 331-349.
27.	Cheng, C. C., & Krumwiede, D. (2010). The effects of market orientation and service innovation on service industry performance: An empirical study.Operations Management Research, 3(3), 161-171.
28.	Cheng, C. C., & Krumwiede, D. (2012). The role of service innovation in the market orientation—new service performance linkage. Technovation, 32(7), 487-497.
29.	Collins, R. D., de Neufville, R., Claro, J., Oliveira, T., & Pacheco, A. P. (2013). Forest fire management to avoid unintended consequences: A case study of Portugal using system dynamics. Journal of environmental management, 130(1), 1-9.
30.	Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1995). Competing on resources. Harvard business review, 73(4), 118-128.
31.	Dao, V., Langella, I., & Carbo, J. (2011). From green to sustainability: Information technology and an integrated sustainability framework. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20(1), 63-79. 
32.	Darroch, J. (2003). Developing a measure of knowledge management behaviors and practices. Journal of knowledge management, 7(5), 41-54.
33.	Darroch, J. (2005). Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance.Journal of knowledge management, 9(3), 101-115.
34.	Dayan, R. & Evans, S. (2006) “KM Your Way to CMMI,” Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 69-80. 
35.	De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Nervo, M. L., & Rafele, C. (2012). Using System Dynamics to assess the impact of RFID technology on retail operations.International journal of production economics, 135(1), 333-344.
36.	De Souza, R., Zice, S., & Chaoyang, L. (2000). Supply chain dynamics and optimization. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 11(5), 348-364.
37.	Dewett, T., & Jones, G. R. (2001). The role of information technology in the organization: a review, model, and assessment. Journal of Management, 27(3), 313-346.
38.	Dominguez-Pery, C., Ageron, B., & Neubert, G. (2013). A service science framework to enhance value creation in service innovation projects. an RFID case study. International Journal of Production Economics, 141(2), 440-451.
39.	Dorner, N., Gassmann, O., & Gebauer, H. (2011). Service innovation: Why is it so difficult to accomplish? The Journal of Business Strategy, 32(3), 37-46.
40.	Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California Management Review, 41(2), 79-94. 
41.	Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345-367. 
42.	Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 97-108.
43.	Fiedler, K. D., Grover, V., & Teng, J. T. (1996). An empirically derived taxonomy of information technology structure and its relationship to organizational structure. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(1), 9-34.
44.	Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics . Martino Fine Books. 
45.	Forrester, J. W., & Senge, P. M. (1996). Tests for building confidence in system dynamics models. Modelling for management: simulation in support of systems thinking, 14(2), 414-434.
46.	Fu, H. P., Chang, T. H., & Wu, M. J. (2001). A case study of the SMEs’ organizational restructuring in Taiwan. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 101(9), 492-501.
47.	Fu, Y. (2010). New product success among small and medium enterprises (SMEs): An empirical study in taiwan. Journal of International Management Studies, 5(1), 147-153.
48.	Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J. (1997). Strategic orientation of the firm new product performance. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 77-90.
49.	Ghapanchi, A. H., Wohlin, C., & Aurum, A. (2014). Resources contributing to gaining competitive advantage for open source software projects: An application of resource-based theory. International Journal of Project Management,32(1), 139-152.
50.	Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective. J. of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214.
51.	Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation California Management Review, University of California.
52.	Grawe, S. J., Chen, H., & Daugherty, P. J. (2009). The relationship between strategic orientation, service innovation, and performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(4), 282-300. 
53.	Greenspan, A. (2004). Globalization and innovation. Vital Speeches of the Day, 70(15), 450-454.
54.	Gustafsson, A., Kristensson, P., & Witell, L. (2012). Customer co-creation in service innovation: a matter of communication?. Journal of Service Management, 23(3), 311-327.
55.	Hippel, E. v. (1978). Successful industrial products from customer ideas. Journal of Marketing, 42(1), 39-49. 
56.	Hirsch, G. B., Levine, R., & Miller, R. L. (2007). Using system dynamics modeling to understand the impact of social change initiatives. American journal of community psychology, 39(3-4), 239-253.
57.	Hjorth, P., & Bagheri, A. (2006). Navigating towards sustainable development: A system dynamics approach. Futures, 38(1), 74-92.
58.	Hoegl, M., & Schulze, A. (2005). How to Support Knowledge Creation in New Product Development:: An Investigation of Knowledge Management Methods.European Management Journal, 23(3), 263-273.
59.	Huang, C., & Chi-Pang, L. (2003). Using postponed manufacturing to reconfigure the supply chain in the desktop personal company industry: The case of taiwan. International Journal of Management, 20(2), 241-256.
60.	Huang, L., & Lai, C. (2014). Knowledge management adoption and diffusion using structural equation modeling. Global Journal of Business Research, 8(1), 39-56.
61.	Hulland, J., Wade, M. R., & Antia, K. D. (2007). The impact of capabilities and prior investments on online channel commitment and performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(4), 109-142. 
62.	Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429-438. 
63.	Kim, H. (2009). Service science for service innovation. Journal of Service Science, 1(1), 1-7. 
64.	Kindstrom, D., Kowalkowski, C., & Sandberg, E. (2013). Enabling service innovation: a dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1063-1073.
65.	Kuo, H. C., & Li, Y. (2003). A dynamic decision model of SMEs' FDI. Small Business Economics, 20(3), 219-231.
66.	Larsen, E. R., van Ackere, A., & Warren, K. (1997). The growth of service and the service of growth: Using system dynamics to understand service quality and capital allocation. Decision Support Systems, 19(4), 271-287. 
67.	Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of management information systems, 20(1), 179-228.
68.	Lemke, J., & Łatuszyńska, M. (2013). Validation of System Dynamics Models–a Case Study. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 9(2), 45-59.
69.	Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Claycomb, V. C., & Inks, L. W. (2000). From recipient to contributor: examining customer roles and experienced outcomes. European Journal of Marketing, 34(3), 359-383.
70.	Liao, S., & Wu, C. (2010). System perspective of knowledge management, organizational learning, and organizational innovation. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(2), 1096-1103. 
71.	Lightfoot, H. W., & Gebauer, H. (2011). Exploring the alignment between service strategy and service innovation. Journal of Service Management, 22(5), 664-683. 
72.	Lin, C. (1998). Success factors of small-and medium-sized enterprises in Taiwan: an analysis of cases. Journal of Small Business Management, 36(4), 43-56.
73.	Liu, P. L., Chen, W. C., & Tsai, C. H. (2005). An empirical study on the correlation between the knowledge management method and new product development strategy on product performance in Taiwan’s industries.Technovation, 25(6), 637-644.
74.	Lu, I., & Tseng, C. (2010). A study of the service innovation activities of tourist hotels in taiwan. The International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 3(1), 156-172.
75.	Luo, C. M., & Chang, H. F. (2011). SME competitive strategy: learning from Taiwan's ODM industry. Business Strategy Series, 12(3), 107-114.
76.	Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281-288. 
77.	Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic. Journal of retailing, 83(1), 5-18.
78.	Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & Wessels, G. (2008). Toward a conceptual foundation for service science: Contributions from service-dominant logic. IBM Systems Journal, 47(1), 5-14.  
79.	Lyons, R., Chatman, J., & Joyce, C. (2007). Innovation in services: Corporate culture and investment banking. California Management Review, 50(1), 174-191.
80.	Lyu, J., Huang, Y., & Li, S. (2010). A synthetic assessment of E-business for SMEs' in taiwan. Contemporary Management Research, 6(4), 291-304. 
81.	Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 18-20.      
82.	Marais, K., Saleh, J. H., & Leveson, N. G. (2006). Archetypes for organizational safety. Safety science, 44(7), 565-582.
83.	March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision support systems, 15(4), 251-266.
84.	Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning organization. McGraw-Hill Companies.
85.	Mayall, J. (1998). Globalization and international relations. Review of International Studies, 24(2), 239-250.
86.	McDermott, C. M., & Prajogo, D. I. (2012). Service innovation and performance in SMEs. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32(2), 216-237.
87.	McKenna, U. (1995). Real-time marketing. Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 87-95.
88.	Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (2007). Organization theory and supply chain management: an evolving research perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 459-463.
89.	Mirchi, A., Madani, K., Watkins Jr, D., & Ahmad, S. (2012). Synthesis of system dynamics tools for holistic conceptualization of water resources problems. Water resources management, 26(9), 2421-2442.
90.	Monica Hu, M., Horng, J., & Christine Sun, Y. (2009). Hospitality teams: Knowledge sharing and service innovation performance. Tourism Management, 30(1), 41-50.
91.	Mulhern, A. (1995). The sme sector in europe-a broad perspective. Journal of Small Business Management, 33(3), 83-87.
92.	Muller, A., Hutchins, N., & Miguel, C. P. (2012). Applying open innovation where your company needs it most. Strategy & Leadership, 40(2), 35-42
93.	Naghi, R. I., & Para, I. (2013). The effects of globalization on marketing. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 2(3), 168-173.
94.	Newman, V. (1997). Redefining knowledge management to deliver competitive advantage. Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2), 123-128.
95.	Ngah, R., & Ibrahim, A. R. (2009). The relationship of intellectual capital, innovation and organizational performance: A preliminary study in malaysian SMEs. International Journal of Management Innovation Systems, 1(1), 1-13.
96.	o'Connor, J., & McDermott, I. (1997). The art of systems thinking . Thorsons.
97.	Oke, A. (2007). Innovation types and innovation management practices in service companies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(6), 564-587.
98.	Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (2005). The performance implications of fit among business strategy, marketing organization structure, and strategic behavior. Journal of Marketing, 9(1),49-65. 
99.	Ostrom, A. L., Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., Burkhard, K. A., Goul, M., Smith-Daniels & Rabinovich, E. (2010). Moving forward and making a difference: research priorities for the science of service. Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 4-36.
100.	Panayides, P. (2006). Enhancing innovation capability through relationship management and implications for performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(4), 466-483. 
101.	Paulson, L. D. (2006). Services science: A new field for today's economy. Computer, 39(8), 18-21. 
102.	Penrose, E. T. (1995). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press.
103.	Polese, F., Di Nauta, P.(2013),“A Viable Systems Approach to Relationship Management in SD Logic and Service Science”, in Business Administration Review, Schaffer-Poeschel, 73(2), 113-129.
104.	Powell, T. C., & Dent-Micallef, A. (1997). Information technology as competitive advantage: the role of human, business, and technology resources. Strategic management journal, 18(5), 375-405.
105.	Qudrat-Ullah, H., & Seong, B. S. (2010). How to do structural validity of a system dynamics type simulation model: The case of an energy policy model. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2216-2224.
106.	Richmond, B. (1993). Systems thinking: critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond. System dynamics review, 9(2), 113-133.
107.	Ross, J. W., Beath, C. M., & Goodhue, D. L. (1996). Develop long-term competitiveness through IT assets. Sloan management review, 38(1), 31-42.
108.	Rouse, W. B. (2005). A theory of enterprise transformation. Systems Engineering, 8(4), 279-295.
109.	Santamaria, L., Jesus Nieto, M., & Miles, I. (2012). Service innovation in manufacturing firms: Evidence from Spain. Technovation, 32(2), 144-155.
110.	Sarin, S., & McDermott, C. (2003). The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application, and performance of Cross‐Functional new product development teams. Decision Sciences, 34(4), 707-739. 
111.	Senge, P. M. (1997). The fifth discipline. Measuring Business Excellence, 1(3), 46-51.
112.	Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior .Free Press.
113.	Snehota, I., & Hakansson, H. (Eds.). (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. Cengage Learning EMEA.
114.	Spohrer, J., & Kwan, S. K. (2009). Service science, management, engineering, and design (SSMED): an emerging discipline--outline and references.International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector, 1(3).2-67.
115.	Sterman, J. D. (1994). Learning in and about complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 10(2‐3), 291-330. 
116.	Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world . McGraw-Hill.
117.	Sterman, J. D. (2001). System dynamics modeling. California management review, 43(4), 8-25.
118.	Swinerd, C., & McNaught, K. R. (2012). Design classes for hybrid simulations involving agent-based and system dynamics models. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 25, 118-133.
119.	Szeles, M. R. (2008). On the decline of middle class as an effect of globalization. Evidence from developed countries. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov.Economic Sciences.Series , 1, 289-294.
120.	Tai, D. W. S., & Hung, C. E. (2006). A study on relations between industrial transformation and performance of Taiwan’s small and medium enterprises. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 8(2), 216-221.
121.	Tako, A. A., & Robinson, S. (2012). The application of discrete event simulation and system dynamics in the logistics and supply chain context. Decision Support Systems, 52(4), 802-815.
122.	Thoumrungroje, A. (2004). The effects of globalization on marketing strategy and performance. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 30(1), 60-159.
123.	Tseng, F. C., & Fan, Y. J. (2011). Exploring the influence of organizational ethical climate on knowledge management. Journal of business ethics, 101(2), 325-342.
124.	Vang, J., & Zellner, C. (2005). Introduction: innovation in services. Industry & Innovation, 12(2), 147-152.
125.	Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17. 
126.	Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Why “service”? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 25-38.
127.	Vlachos, D., Georgiadis, P., & Iakovou, E. (2007). A system dynamics model for dynamic capacity planning of remanufacturing in closed-loop supply chains.Computers & Operations Research, 34(2), 367-394.
128.	Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management science, 32(7), 791-805.
129.	 Voss, C. A. (1992). Measurement of INNOVATION and DesignPerformance IN SERVICES. Design Management Journal, 3(1), 40-46.
130.	Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). Review: The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 107-142. 
131.	Weng, M., Ha, J., Wang, Y., & Tsai, C., PhD. (2012). A Study of the relationship among service innovation, customer value and customer satisfaction: an empirical study of the hotel industry in Taiwan. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 4(3), 98-112.
132.	Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
133.	Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 1-14.
134.	Wiig, K. M. (2007). Effective societal knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(5), 141-156. 
135.	Yen, H. R., Wang, W., Wei, C., Hsu, S. H., & Chiu, H. (2012). Service innovation readiness: Dimensions and performance outcome. Decision Support Systems, 53(4), 813-824. 
136.	Yli‐Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001). Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology‐based firms.Strategic Management Journal, 22(6), 587-613. 
137.	Yu, M. (2010). High-performance human resource practices, entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial performance: A study in taiwanese SMEs. The Business Review, Cambridge, 15(2), 117-124.
138.	Zaim, H., Tatoglu, E., & Zaim, S. (2007). Performance of knowledge management practices: A causal analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(6), 54-67. 
139.	經濟部中小企業處, 2007, 中小企業白皮書
140.	經濟部中小企業處, 2009, 中小企業白皮書
141.	經濟部中小企業處, 2012, 中小企業白皮書
142.	經濟部中小企業處, 2013, 中小企業白皮書