面對到整體的創業環境並不穩定以及不確定性加劇，新創資訊公司在掌握關鍵資訊技術後，發現不熟悉的領域具有潛在市場機會，為了避免被市場淘汰，必須持續與潛在市場的環境互動達成相互依存性，將目標階段性地完成，並且以自身的優勢幫助潛在市場中其他參與者，同時更透過其他參與者彌補自身不足的地方，形成穩固的商業生態系統。此外，潛在市場的特性不同也會影響著新創資訊公司階段性目標的達成，形成不同的決策制定過程。
本研究透過個案研究的方式，藉由制定歷程來觀察新創資訊公司以資訊科技創新掌握關鍵資訊技術後，在不同組織域的情況下，如何制定相互依存性與市場及合作夥伴結合，並達成階段性目標，解決新創資訊公司在發展過程中資源限制的困境；同時觀察在不同組織域的特性之下，如何去影響其相互依存性的制定歷程。歷經持續的循環達成不同面向的相互依存性，逐漸形成商業生態系統。
本研究探討對象為獵戶科技、東詣科技與翔探科技，觀察三間新創資訊公司的發展過程，並將其歷程分為三階段，探討不同組織域的特性所達成的階段性之相互依存性為何，如何影響相互依存性的制定歷程，並逐漸打造出商業生態系統。經由分析後，本研究提出一套「商業生態之相依性制定歷程」之架構，作為其他新創資訊公司對於相同情況下的策略參考。

In the face of the unstable entrepreneurial environment and heightened uncertainty, information startups find potential market opportunities in unfamiliar fields after mastering key information technologies. To avoid being eliminated by the market, they must interact continuously with the environment of potential market to achieve the interdependence, complete the goal in stages and help other participants in the potential market with their own advantages. They make up for their own shortcomings through other participants at the same time and form stable business ecosystems. Besides, the different characteristics of potential markets will also affect the achievement of the staged goals of the information startups and then result in different decision-making processes.
Through the method of case study, this research observes how information startups enact interdependences with markets and partners in different organizational fields and achieve phased goals after mastering key information technologies to solve the dilemma of resource constraints in the development. Simultaneously, this research observes how the characteristics of different organizational fields affect the interdependency enactment process. After a continuous cycle to achieve the interdependence of different aspects, the business ecosystem is gradually formed.
The research objects of this research are MMXtion Technology, Oriongo Technology and Aeroprobing Technology and divide the development process into three stages. This research explores which interdependency aspects achieved in three developing stages respectively in the different characteristics of organizational fields and how to influence the interdependency enactment process, then create a business ecosystem gradually. After analyzing the cases, this research proposes a framework of "The Interdependency Enactment of Business Ecosystem" as a strategic reference for other information startups in the same situation.

中文部分
1. 郭文良、林素甘（2001）。質化與量化研究方法之比較與分析。資訊傳播與圖書管學，7(4)，頁1-14。
2. 陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。臺北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
3. 阮怡禎（2018）。資訊新創企業創新數位產品之實踐歷程－以學悅科技公司為例。國立臺灣科技大學資訊管理系研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
4. 郭彥廷（2020）。數位化服務之生態的制定歷程＿以東詣科技Petzzo為例。國立臺灣科技大學資訊管理系研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
5. 楊子賢（2020）。實現數位創新跨界靈巧能力之多重個案比較 — 以臺北智慧城市專案 空氣盒子、WeMo Scooter 威摩科技與 UnaBiz 優納比為例。國立臺灣科技大學資訊管理系研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
6. 黃秋霞（2016）。淺談量化與質性研究的反思。臺灣教育評論月刊，5（9），頁149-154
英文部分
1. Abolafia, M. Y., & Kilduff, M. (1988). Enacting market crisis: The social construction of a speculative bubble. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(2), 177–193.
2. Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of management, 43(1), 39-58.
3. Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic management journal, 31(3), 306-333.
4. Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic management journal, 39(8), 2255-2276.
5. Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard business review, 71(3), 75-86.
6. Newman, W. L., & Kreuger, L. W. (2003). Social work research methods: Qualitative and quantitative applications. Boston: Allyn and Barron.
7. Sætre, A. S., Soemes, J.-O., Browning, L. D., & Stephens, K. K. (2007). Enacting media use in organizations. Journal of Information, Information Technology, and Organizations, 2, 133–158.
8. Straus, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.
9. Strauss, A., &Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of qualitative research, 17(1), 273-285.
10. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (Topics in social psychology series). Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Humanities.
12. Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of management studies, 25(4), 305-317.
13. Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study. Method in evaluation research. Evaluation practice, 15(3), 283-290.
14. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.
15. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.
16. Boudreau, M. C., & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization science, 16(1), 3-18.
17. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization science, 16(4), 409-421.
18. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of management review, 9(2), 284-295.
19. Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method. Jurnal kemanusiaan, 5(1).
20. Peltoniemi, M., & Vuori, E. (2004, September). Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive business environments. In Proceedings of eBusiness research forum (Vol. 2, No. 22, pp. 267-281).
21. Senyo, P. K., Liu, K., & Effah, J. (2017). Towards a methodology for modelling interdependencies between partners in digital business ecosystems.
22. Fichman, R. G. (2004). Going beyond the dominant paradigm for information technology innovation research: Emerging concepts and methods. Journal of the association for information systems, 5(8), 11.
23. Bagdonienė, L., & Hopenienė, R. (2013). Interdependence and trust in business relationships development: The differences of Lithuanian professional services providers’ and clients’ approaches. Inžinerinė ekonomika, 160-168.
 
24. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. B. E., Scheer, L. K., & Kumar, N. (1996). The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A trans-Atlantic study. International Journal of research in marketing, 13(4), 303-317.
25. Van Lange, P. A., & Balliet, D. (2015). Interdependence theory.
26. Björkman, I., & Kock, S. (1995). Social relationships and business networks: The case of Western companies in China. International business review, 4(4), 519-535.
27. Lundin, M. (2007). Explaining cooperation: How resource interdependence, goal congruence, and trust affect joint actions in policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 651-672.
28. Capaldo, A., & Giannoccaro, I. (2015). Interdependence and network-level trust in supply chain networks: A computational study. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 180-195.
29. Parolia, N., Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Sheu, T. S. (2011). The contribution of resource interdependence to IT program performance: A social interdependence perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3), 313-324.
30. Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization studies, 26(3), 351-384.
31. Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative science quarterly, 55(2), 189-221.
32. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems research, 2(3), 192-222.
33. Clark, T. H., & Lee, H. G. (2000). Performance, interdependence and coordination in business‐to‐business electronic commerce and supply chain management. Information Technology and Management, 1(1), 85-105.
34. Kenis, P., & Knoke, D. (2002). How organizational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 275-293.
35. Needle, D., & Burns, J. (2010). Business in context: An introduction to business and its environment. Boston: South-Western Cengage Learning.
36. Todeva, E. (2006). Business networks: strategy and structure. Routledge.

網路部分
1. 廖家宜（2019）。新創陣亡率超過90% 失敗是創業必修課。DIGITIMES。檢自：https://www.digitimes.com.tw/iot/article.asp?cat=158&cat1=20&id=0000574712_esd8d7mb0bdg1r3bv9zhf
2. 獵戶科技官網。檢自：https://oriongo.me/
3. 李佳樺（2021）。室內定位大突破！獵戶科技將室內定位精準度提升51%，欲前進意想不到的商業場域。Meet創業小聚。檢自：https://meet.bnext.com.tw/articles/view/48131
4. 郭靜芝（2020）。獵戶科技「室內定位」進軍智慧城市生態系統。工商時報。檢自：
https://ctee.com.tw/industrynews/technology/327305.html
5. 台北訊（2020）。獵戶科技推出「去硬體化」AI 室內定位技術。DIGITIMES。檢自：
https://www.digitimes.com.tw/iot/article.asp?cat=130&cat1=40&cat2=15&id=0000590373_1po4sow66hb4dd4dxdkom
6. 劉芳妙（2021）。數位轉型+遠端需求 全球智慧製造市場規模達3050億美元。聯合報。檢自：
https://udn.com/news/story/7240/5682568
7. 東詣科技官網。檢自：https://www.mmxtion.com.tw/
8. Petzzo好好寵官網。檢自：https://www.petzzo.com.tw/
9. 盛宇創新股份有限公司官網。檢自：https://rainmaking.io/
10. 盛宇創新股份有限公司104人力平台公司介紹。檢自：https://www.104.com.tw/company/1a2x6bkzft
11. 中華民國寵物食品及用品商業同業公會官網。檢自：http://www.cpfaa.org.tw
12. 尤子彥（2018）。毛小孩經濟學。商業週刊。檢自：https://www.businessweekly.com.tw/magazine/Article_page.aspx?id=36007
13. 黑傑克（2021）。寵物商機迎來黃金交叉！！台灣犬貓數量超過15歲以下孩童　投資人別缺席「毛小孩概念股」。今周刊。檢自：https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/80401/post/202105040008
14. 黃惠聆（2021）。結合雲端 寵物險三天內即理賠。工商時報。檢自：https://ctee.com.tw/news/insurance/396703.html
15. 陳依旻（2020）。明台產險推寵物險「一鍵理賠」　解決醫療費標準不一的痛點！。ETtoday新聞雲。檢自：https://www.ettoday.net/news/20201229/1886730.htm
16. 陳怡慈（2021）。區塊鏈在寵物險應用首例！明台產險打造寵物生態圈。聯合報。檢自：
https://udn.com/news/story/7239/5153314
17. 翔探科技官網。檢自：https://aeroprobing.com/
18. 翔探科技股份有限公司104人力平台公司介紹。檢自：https://www.104.com.tw/company/1a2x6bkkg8
19. 吳俊儀（2021）。翔探科技由寶島出發 深耕海內外商業無人機服務市場。工商時報。檢自：
https://ctee.com.tw/industrynews/401955.html
20. 呂怡韻（2016）。[Meet創業之星]台灣團隊打造！翔探無人機盼活絡整體產業。數位時代。檢自：
https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/39749/BN-2016-05-30-113901-194
21. 維基百科，商業生態系統。檢自：https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%95%86%E6%A5%AD%E7%94%9F%E6%85%8B%E7%B3%BB%E7%B5%B1
22. MBA智庫百科，組織域。檢自：
https://wiki.mbalib.com/zh-tw/%E7%BB%84%E7%BB%87%E5%9F%9F