根據聯合國估計，在2050年全球將會有約70%的人口居住在都市，如果城市建設與管理無法因應人口成長的速度，會為城市帶來許多挑戰，因此各國的城市治理者將發展智慧城市視為解決都市問題的手段，期待透過在智慧城市中發展創新的解決方案，使城市變得更得宜居永續，同時帶動產業創新與升級。Smart Taipei臺北智慧城市即是在這樣的需求下由臺北市政府所推行的政策，透過公私合作的機制在城市中探索創新應用機會，以切合市民的需求。然而許多與臺北市政府合作的民間業者，往往因為無法契合臺北市發展智慧城市的需求，使彼此無法形成好的公私合作，導致合作失敗，加上過去學者們對於公私夥伴關係(Public Private Partnership, PPP)的研究著重在探討公私之間透過正式的契約建立夥伴關係後，合作的效益評估、治理與規範、關鍵成功因素等，鮮少學者從公私之間是否適合作為合作對象，是否能形成好的公私合作進行探究，因此本研究欲透過個案研究的方式，探究臺北市政府在推行智慧城市計畫如何透過與民間業者在資源、價值、商業模式以及生態系統，這四個構面的配適形成好的公私合作，使臺北市能實踐智慧城市計畫，落實城市智慧化。
本研究以與臺北市政府合作的WeMo Scooter 以及空氣盒子專案作為研究對象，兩個個案專案屬於不同類型，並分別基於Top-down和Bottom-up兩種機制與臺北市政府合作，透過分析這兩個專案與臺北市政府間的合作，探討臺北市在推動智慧城市計畫時，如何與私部門間形成好的公私合作，才能實踐其城市智慧化的目的。經由歸納與分析後，本研究提出「臺北智慧城市公私合作配適架構圖」，作為未來臺北市篩選與其合作之民間業者的參考依據;亦可作為欲與臺北市政府合作之民間業者審視自己是否能與臺北市發展智慧城市的需求契合，使彼此能形成好的公私合作，實踐與臺北市政府合作的目的。

According to the United Nations, an estimated 70% of the world’s population will be living in urban areas by 2050. If local governments can’t find a way to keep up with the extra demands on both resources and services brought by the growing populations, challenges will soon arise. Therefore, many countries are turning to the concept of Smart Cities as the solution, hoping to develop innovative ways to create a more livable and sustainable city. Taipei Smart City is a policy promoted by the Taipei City Government under this background. It explores innovative application opportunities in the city through public-private collaboration to better satisfy the needs of the citizens. However, many of the private sectors chosen to participate often fail to meet the requirements of Taipei Smart City, resulting in a bad partnership, which in turn leads to failure. In addition, most studies on Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) focus on discussing the benefits, governance and guidelines, critical success factors, etc., of PPPs, after the contracts are signed and partnerships built. Few scholars discuss whether the public and private sectors in question are suitable collaborators or whether they have the potential to create a successful partnership. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore, through two case studies, how the Taipei City Government and private sectors can form good partnerships and carry out the Taipei Smart City policy, considering the fit of the following four key aspects – resource, value, business model and ecosystem.
The two private sectors researched in this study are WeMo Scooter and Airbox. They are different types and respectively collaborate with the Taipei City Government based on two different mechanisms – Top-down and Bottom-up. Through inductive analysis, this study proposes a “Taipei Smart City Public-Private Partnership Fit Structure” as a reference for the Taipei City Government to search for suitable partners, while private sectors looking to collaborate can also use it to examine whether they can meet the needs of the government, in hopes of bringing more successful public-private partnerships in the future.

陳向明. (2002). 社会科學質的硏究: 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
Akintoye, A., Beck, M., & Hardcastle, C. (2008). Public-private partnerships: managing risks and opportunities: John Wiley & Sons.
Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of urban technology, 22(1), 3-21.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation. 2012.
Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M., . . . Portugali, Y. (2012). Smart cities of the future. European Physical Journal-Special Topics, 214(1), 481-518. doi:10.1140/epjst/e2012-01703-3
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of applied psychology, 87(5), 875.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Enterprise. Cambridge. In: MA: The MIT Press.
Cocchia, A. (2014). Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review. In Smart city (pp. 13-43): Springer.
Cui, C., Liu, Y., Hope, A., & Wang, J. (2018). Review of studies on the public–private partnerships (PPP) for infrastructure projects. International journal of project management, 36(5), 773-794.
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative science quarterly, 514-539.
Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., & Evans, S. (2018). Sustainable business model innovation: A review. Journal of cleaner production, 198, 401-416.
Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., Van Fossen, K., & Evans, S. (2018). Product, service, and business model innovation: A discussion. Procedia Manufacturing, 21, 165-172.
Harrison, T. M., Pardo, T. A., & Cook, M. (2012). Creating open government ecosystems: A research and development agenda. Future Internet, 4(4), 900-928.
Herriott, R. E., & Firestone, W. A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability. Educational researcher, 12(2), 14-19.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability: Harvard Business Press.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1-47.
Lindgardt, Z., Reeves, M., Stalk, G., & Deimler, M. S. (2009). Business model innovation. When the Game Gets Tough, Change the Game, The Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA.
Liu, D. Y., Chen, S. W., & Chou, T. C. (2011). Resource fit in digital transformation. Management Decision.
LR, G. (1992). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. In: Florida: International Universe.
Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. In: Harvard Business School Boston, MA.
Mitchell, D. W., & Coles, C. B. (2004). Establishing a continuing business model innovation process. Journal of business strategy.
Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic management journal, 15(2), 135-152.
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard business review, 71(3), 75-86.
Naphade, M., Banavar, G., Harrison, C., Paraszczak, J., & Morris, R. (2011). Smarter Cities and Their Innovation Challenges. Computer, 44(6), 32-39. doi:10.1109/mc.2011.187
Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F. (2014). Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities, 38, 25-36.
Osei-Kyei, R., & Chan, A. P. (2015). Review of studies on the Critical Success Factors for Public–Private Partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013. International journal of project management, 33(6), 1335-1346.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2012). Designing business models and similar strategic objects: the contribution of IS. Journal of the Association for information systems, 14(5), 3.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods: SAGE Publications, inc.
Richardson, J. (2008). The business model: an integrative framework for strategy execution. Strategic change, 17(5‐6), 133-144.
Smith, T. M., & Reece, J. S. (1999). The relationship of strategy, fit, productivity, and business performance in a services setting. Journal of Operations Management, 17(2), 145-161.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). 質性研究概論 (徐宗國譯). 台北: 巨流. In: 原著出版於.
Tansley, A. G. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16(3), 284-307.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long range planning, 43(2-3), 172-194.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Velez, B. L., & Moradi, B. (2012). Workplace support, discrimination, and person–organization fit: Tests of the theory of work adjustment with LGB individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 399.
Washburn, D., & Sindhu, U. (2010). Helping CIOs Understand “Smart City” Initiatives, Forrester Research, Inc. 2010. In.
Xu, S., Cavusgil, S. T., & White, J. C. (2006). The impact of strategic fit among strategy, structure, and processes on multinational corporation performance: a multimethod assessment. Journal of International Marketing, 14(2), 1-31.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods.
Zajac, E. J., Kraatz, M. S., & Bresser, R. K. (2000). Modeling the dynamics of strategic fit: A normative approach to strategic change. Strategic management journal, 21(4), 429-453.
Zanella, A., Bui, N., Castellani, A., Vangelista, L., & Zorzi, M. (2014). Internet of things for smart cities. IEEE Internet of Things journal, 1(1), 22-32.