根據資策會(MIC)2010的研究統計報告，2009年我國資訊服務相關產業產值（包括系統整合、資訊委外、商用軟體、資訊安全及嵌入式軟體）為新台幣1,442億元，與2008年相比，微幅衰退0.2%。預估2010年產值達新台幣1,563億元，2011年將達新台幣1,707億元，2012年更達1,865億元，維持8-9%的成長率。

而在如此大的商機上，本土資訊服務業者能獲取多少的利潤？還是如同業界戲言：原廠吃肉，SI喝湯這樣的不公平分配。本土資訊服務業者面對資源豐沛的原廠僅能完全地配合，亦或是善用自己的企業生態利基及運用競合策略，去贏得客戶的信任及獲得應得的報酬。

本研究以銀行客戶四個個案來做分析，採用企業生態地位觀點及競合關係來觀察這四個個案，原廠和SI廠商如何在資源規模的比較外，另外找出彼此合作的機會？或是競爭的挑戰？SI廠商的資源生態利基足於獲得客戶的信任去左右原廠的合作夥伴選擇。甚或具有整合生態利基可以另尋其他原廠合作。

According to the statistics made by MIC, the output value of domestic technological service related industry in 2009 is NT$114.2 billion. These technological service related industry are comprised of system integration, information outsourcing, information security and embed software. Compared to 2008, the output value in 2009 is decline at the rate of 0.2%. As for the year of 2010, 2011 and 2012, their output value is estimated around NT$156.3 billion, NT$170.7 billion and NT$186.5 billion respectively. The growth rate is kept at 8% to 9% per year.

How many information service provider in Taiwan can get profit in such a huge business opportunity? It becomes as a rule that the source provider dominates all the profit and the system integration providers in Taiwan only share a little return. This situation is not fair. If the system service providers would like to get more profit return, they have to make use of their ecological niche and co-opetition to make profit instead of following the rule made by the source provider.

There are four cases from banking industry in this thesis have been collected and analyzed using ecological niche and co-opetition. Not only the resource scale between source provider and system integration provider will be compared in this thesis but the co-opetition between them will be discussed also. Can the system integration provider make use of its own ecological niche to suffice what its customer need and dominate who will be the only source provider’s partner? Furthermore, the system integration provider that owns ecological niche will be the first one who is considered to be chosen by other source providers.

一、中文部分
1. 2010資訊服務產業年鑑(2011)，MIC
2. 資訊服務與軟體市場發展趨勢(2011)，MIC
3. 台灣金融業資訊解決方案採用分析(2011)，MIC
4. 2011年台灣金融業資訊應用與投資分析(2011)，MIC
5. 蔡承遠(2009)，從企業生態地位觀點探討本土競爭優勢-以壽險資訊服務廠商為例，國立台灣科技大學資訊管理學系研究所碩士論文
6. 李秀珠(1999)，閱聽人滿足效用觀點下電子報之競爭利基，國立交通大學傳播研究所碩士論文
7. 廖晏毅(2003)，探討互動式電視對數位資訊服務產業生態之影響，國立中央大學企業管理學系研究所碩士論文
8. 沈秀蓉(2009)，從組織生態學觀點探討個體組織競爭優勢－以電信服務提供廠商為例，國立台灣科技大學資訊管理學系研究所碩士論文
9. 郭國泰．司徒達賢、于卓民(2000)，商業生態系統中利基者策略之變遷：以資訊安全軟體公司為例，
10. 許恩得譯(2004)，競合策略，培生教育出版集團
11. 翁偉修(2011)，透視IBM發展策略，MIC
12. 胡自立(2011)，剖析Symantec之雲端運算發展策略，MIC

英文部分
1. Babbie, E., 1999, The Basics of Social Research, Thomson Wadsworth
2. Carroll, Glenn R. and Anand Swaminathan, 1991, Density Dependent Organizational Evolution in the American Brewing Industry From 1633 to 1988, Acta Sociologica. 34:3, pp. 155-175.
3. Carroll, Glenn R. and Anand Swaminathan, 2000. Why the Microbrewery Movement? Organizational Dynamics of Resource Partitioning in the U.S. Brewing Industry, American Joumal of Sociology. 106:3, pp, 715-762.
4. Carroll, Glenn R., 1985, Concentration and Specialization: Dynamics of Niche Width in Populations of Organizations, American Journal of Sociology, May, 90, pp. 1262-1283.
5. David J. Teece, Gary Pisano and Amy Shuen, 1997, Danamic Capabilities and Strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18:7, 509–533.
6. Dimmick, John (1993). “Ecology, Economics, and Gratification Utilities,” Media economics: theory and practice (pp. 135-156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7. Dobrev, Stanislav D., Tjii-Young Kim and Michael T. Hannan, 2001, Dynamics of Niche Width and Resource Partitioning, American journal of Sociology, 106:5, pp, 1299-1337.
8. Eisenhardt, K. M., 1989, Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, 14:4, 532-550.
9. Freeman, John and Michael T. Hannan, 1983, Niche Width and the Dynamics of Organizational Populations, American Journal of Sociology, 88:6, pp, 1116-1145.
10. Freeman, John, Glenn R. Carroll and Michael T. Hannan, 1983, The Liability of Newness: Age Dependence in Organizational Death Rates, American Sociological Review, October, 48, pp. 692-710.
11. Gossain, S. & Kandiah, G., "Reinventing Value: The New Business Ecosystem. ", Strategy & Leadership, 26(5), 1998, pp. 28-33.
12. Hannan, 2005, Ecologies of Organizations Diversity and Identity, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 19, Number 1, Winter, Pages 51-70.
13. Hannan, Michael T. and John Freeman, 1987, The Ecology of Organizational Founding: American Labor Unions, 1836-1985, American
14. Hannan, Michael T. and John Freeman, 1988, The Ecology of Organizational Mortality: American Labor Unions, 1836-1985. American Journal of Sociology, 94:1, pp. 25-52.

15. Hannan, Michael T. and John Freeman, 1989, Organizational Ecology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
16. Hannan, Michael T., Glenn R. Carroll and Laszlo Polos, 2003, The Organizational Niche, Sociological Theory, 21:4, pp, 511-540.
17. Hannan, Michael T., Glenn R. Carroll, Stanislav D. Dohrev andjoon Han, 1998, Organizational Mortality in European and American Automobile Industries, Part I: Revisiting the Effects of Age and Size, European Sociological Review, 14:3, pp, 279-303.
18. Hannan, Michael T., Glenn R. CarroU, Elizabeth A. Dundon and John C. Torres, 1995, Organizational Evolution in a Multinational Context: Entries of Automobile Manufactures in Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, American Sociological Review, 60:4, pp. 509-528.
19. Hannan, Michael T., Laszlo Polos and Glenn R. Carroll, 2003, Cascading Organizational Change, Organization Science, 14:5, pp, 463-482.
20. Hsinnan, Michael T. and John Freeman, 1977, The Population Ecology of Organizations, American Journal of Sociology, March, 82, pp, 929-964.
21. Journal of Sociology, 92:4, pp, 910-943.
22. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt and Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000, Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They?, Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1105-1121.
23. Moore, J.F., 「Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition.」, Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 1993, pp.75–86.
24. Moore, J.F., The Death of Competition: Leadership & Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems , New York: Harper Business, 1996.
25. Myers, M. D., 1997, Qualitative Research in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, 21:2, 241-242.
26. Piore, M. J., 2006, Qualitative research: does it fit in economics? European Management Review. 3, 17-23
27. Shapiro, Michael, 1999, Customer Connections, Best's Review, Vol.100, P91-p93.
28. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., 1990, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage Publications.
29. Swaminathan, Anand and Glenn R. Carroll, 1995, Beer Brewers, in Organizations and Industries. G. R. Carroll and M. T, Hannan, eds. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 223-243.
30. Tansley, A. G. , 「The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms」, Ecology, 16, 3, 1935, pp. 284-307.
31. Wimmer, R. D. and Dominick, J. R., 1995, Mass Media Research: An Introduction, Thomson Wadsworth.
32. Yang Wenbing and Xu Haibo, 2008, The Present Status and Future Trends of Organizational Niche Theory, Journal of Shaoxing University, Vol. 28, No.9, Sep.
33. Yin, R. K., 1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications.

網站
1. http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%95%86%E6%A5%AD%E7%94%9F%E6%85%8B%E7%B3%BB%E7%B5%B1
2. http://wiki.mbalib.com/zh-tw/%E5%95%86%E4%B8%9A%E7%94%9F%E6%80%81%E7%B3%BB%E7%BB%9F
3. http://wiki.mbalib.com/zh-tw/%E5%88%A9%E5%9F%BA%E8%90%A5%E9%94%80%E7%90%86%E8%AE%BA
4. http://wiki.mbalib.com/zh-tw/%E4%BB%B7%E5%80%BC%E7%BD%91%E6%A8%A1%E5%9E%8B
5. http://wiki.mbalib.com/zh-tw/%E6%A0%B8%E5%BF%83%E8%83%BD%E5%8A%9B
6. http://wiki.mbalib.com/wiki/%E5%AD%A6%E4%B9%A0%E5%9E%8B%E7%BB%84%E7%BB%87