Hi-Tele公司於2009年底開始執行交通部所屬單位主辦之公車動態資訊系統專案(以下簡稱eBus專案)，期間需針對全國約1,200條公路客運路線、10萬餘個站牌進行現場調查工作，Hi-Tele公司將該工作項目委由本案四家委外廠商之一的TS公司執行，而TS公司又將該工作委由IA公司執行，站位調查工作共分為三期，第一期工作於2010年7月初次驗收時未通過，其後是在Hi-Tele公司員工協助調查之下才通過複驗。第二期工作於2010年9月初次驗收時仍未通過驗收，此時Hi-Tele公司除了必須面臨第二期站位調查的改善工作，還必須面臨工作量更大的第三期站位調查工作。
TS公司經歷了第一期及第二期站位調查工作後，再也承受不住這超乎預期的龐大工作量，經歷了人員流失的損失，TS公司總經理Tom正式向Hi-Tele公司提出修改合約的請求，希望第三期的站位調查工作能自合約中刪除，負責帶領團隊執行eBus專案的Lisa處長接到了這個訊息後傷透了腦筋，看著TS公司因著這個專案受到了不小的影響，心中也有些不忍。
Lisa處長經過與內部同仁的討論後，認為有三個方案較為可行，她請專案經理David協助深入分析三個方案的可行性，希望所決定的方案能夠儘量顧及各相關廠商、單位的立場，當然，最重要的是希望第三期的站位調查工作能夠順利進行並通過驗收。到底要依照原合約規定，要求TS公司繼續執行？還是接受TS公司的請求，修訂雙方合約？但若接受了TS公司的請求，那第三期的工作誰來做呢？將龐大的站位調查工作收回，請求公司內部相關單位協助完成，合適嗎？還是使用與TS公司間合約條款所賦予的權利，逕行找其他協力廠商辦理，其費用由TS公司負責？每個方案似乎都有其優缺點，她該如何決定呢?
在個案討論部分，首先藉由Hi-Tele公司將eBus專案部份工作委外的決策，探討企業將工作委外之目的及所面臨之風險，並探討與委外相關之代理理論。另外，也從Hi-Tele將站位調查工作委由TS公司承作之背景，探討關係治理議題；從雙方合作之本質，探討組織間之資源依賴關係、權力對於組織間資源依賴的影響及如何趨避資源依賴。最後，藉由Hi-Tele公司E分公司與內部單位及外部廠商之互動關係，探討組織間跨界活動(Boundary Spanning)之特性及跨界協調者之職責，並認識組織間跨職能協作能力之重要性。

Hi-Tele Company started to execute a project of dynamic bus information system (hereinafter referred to as eBus project), owned by an affiliated unit of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, in late 2009. The eBus project includes a task of on-site investigation on more than 100 thousand bus stops, belonging to about 1,200 highway bus routes in Taiwan. Hi-Tele outsourced this investigation task to TS Company, one of Hi-Tele’s four outsourcing vendors of this project. TS then outsourced this task to IA Company. The bus stops investigation task was divided into three phases. The results in the first phase of investigation failed to meet the acceptance criteria in July 2010. Hi-Tele then added its own manpower to assist and improve the investigation task before passing re-inspection. The results of bus stops investigation in second phase also failed to pass the acceptance inspection in September 2010. Now Hi-Tele had to face the improvement work of the second-phase investigation and also face a greater workload in the third phase of bus stops investigation task.
After experiencing the failure of the first and second phase of bus stops investigation task, many employees of TS resigned due to the stress caused by heavier workloads than expected. TS could no longer withstand the enormous amount of work than expected in this situation and Tom, the general manager of TS, requested Hi-Tele to amend the contract to remove the bus stops investigation work in the third phase. After receiving the request of TS, Hi-Tele’s director Lisa, responsible for the eBus project, felt anxious though she also sympathized with TS’s situation.
After discussions with Hi-Tele’s team members of the eBus project, Lisa thought that there are three possible solutions to Hi-Tele’s problem. She asked project manager David to do an in-depth analysis of the feasibility of the three solutions. She hoped that the final decision will take into consideration the needs of all relevant company and Hi-Tele’s three branches, and most especially that the third phase of the bus stops investigation task could pass the acceptance inspection smoothly. Should Hi-Tele simply choose to insist that TS continually execute the bus stops investigation task according to the contract? Or should Hi-Tele accept the TS's request for contract amendment? However, if Hi-Tele accepts TS’s request, then who will continue to investigate the bus stops? Should Hi-Tele just continue the bus stops investigation task by using its own resources? Or should Hi-Tele find another outsourcing vendor to continue the bus stops investigation task and pass the costs on to TS according to the contract? Each solution seems to have its advantages and disadvantages. What solution should Lisa choose?
The teaching notes section discussed some management issues and theories behind this case. To begin with, through understanding Hi-Tele’s outsourcing strategy, we explored the reasons why companies outsourced parts of a project. The risks of outsourcing and agency theory would be discussed. Then the issue of relational governance was explored through reviewing the background information on the cooperation between Hi-Tele and TS. Furthermore, from the nature of cooperation between Hi-Tele and TS, we discussed resource-dependence relations between organizations, power related to resource dependence and strategies for avoiding resource dependence. Finally, according to the interaction between Hi-Tele’s E Branch, two other branches and outsourcing vendors, we discussed the characteristics of boundary spanning between organizations, the responsibilities of a boundary spanner and importance of collaboration across functions.

一、 英文部分
1. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
2. Daft, R.L. (1989). Organization theory and design, St. Paul, West Publsihing Company.
3. Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31-41.
4. Heide, J. B. and John, G. (1992). Do norms matter in marketing relationships. Journal of Marketing, 56(4), 32−44.
5. Jensen MC and Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305–360.
6. Macneil, Ian R. (1980), The New Social Contract. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7. Manev, I. M., Stevenson, W. B. (2001). Balancing ties: boundary spanning and influence in the organization´s extended network of communication. Journal of business communication, 38, 183-205
8. Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. NY: Harper and Row.
9. Poppo, L. and T. Zenger (2002). Do Formal Contracts and Relational Governance Function as Substitutes or Complements? Strategic Management Journal, 23 (8), 707-725.
10. Salancik, G. R. (1979). Interorganizational Dependence and Responsiveness to Affirmative Action: The Case of Women and Defense Contractors. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 375-394.
11. Takac, P. F. (1993). Outsourcing technology. Management Decision, 13(1), 26-37.
12. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies. New York: Free Press.
14. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
15. Yip, J., Ernst, D., & Campbell, M. (2009). Boundary spanning leadership: Mission Critical perspectives from the executive suite. A Center for Creative Leadership Organizational Leadership White Paper. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

二、 中文部分
1. MBA智庫百科網站 (http://wiki.mbalib.com/wiki/)。
2. 王穆衡等(2011)，先進科技運用於公共運輸系統之整體發展架構、指標與推動策略規劃，交通部運輸研究所。
3. 李清潭、楊斯琦、冷澤森(2008)，中華管理評論國際學報，2008年5月第11卷第2期。
4. 范永平(2012)，中菲電腦證券軟體事業部－沒有簽約的系統開發案，國立台灣科技大學管理研究所EMBA碩士論文。
5. 陳郁雯(2000)，委外、再造競爭優勢，人力發展月刊，第75期，頁39-42。
6. 俞慧芸(譯)(2007)，組織的外部控制：資源依賴觀點，臺北市：聯經。(Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R., 2003)