管理課程若只是進行理論探究，會讓學生不知其所以然，於是愈來愈多的研究者開始嘗試撰寫個案，但初期的個案多半是平鋪直敘的呈現企業問題、與可能的解決方式，屬於分析型的個案，往往會造成學生不知道實務真正的狀況，更何論該怎麼解決了！
2005年開始，哈佛大學商學院積極在亞洲地區推動個案教學，透過實例的建構，來讓學生有身歷其境的感覺，站在執行長、董事長、或是其他角色來思考，在職場上每個位階領導者的想法，同時，也可套用管理學課程的理論與應用方式，透過課前的閱讀、分組與課堂討論，體驗到管理決策的制定與分析過程。
由此，本研究利用哈佛式個案撰寫法，陳述現今友瑜總經理Jack在導入KM時所碰到的各個狀況、與情境，期待讀者可藉由個案的內容和教師手冊學習到理論與實務的結合，進而累積企業電子化、知識管理系統在導入時可能會碰到的問題與解決方案。
Jack在代理商已經經營超過20年，有鑒於代理商的毛利多操在他人手上，造成經營上的限制，而積極找尋新的市場與發展機會。在2009年年底，Jack發現成效不如預期，員工工作量不但增加，還產生跟上下游客戶系統不相容的狀況，同時，詢問EMBA同學與其他對象後也發現，KM系統在每個公司來說，成效均不彰，在這樣的情況下，誰能告訴Jack現在發生什麼事情？該怎麼解決？
本論文包含個案內容和教師手冊兩部分，透過本論文可讓讀者了解企業進行企業電子化、知識管理等概念，進而在日後碰到相同狀況時，能知道應對的方式，並做出最佳的決策。

If the teachers just illustrate the theory explorations in the management classes, the students will have no idea with the lectures. For the reason, more and more researchers begin trying to write the case studies. However, most of early case studies, which describe the business issues in simple direct ways and show the possible solutions, are belong to the type of analytical ones. Hence, the students often neither understand the real practical situations nor find the solutions.
Since 2005, Harvard University Business School has been actively promoting the case study teaching in Asia. With the actual cases, the students can experience the situations as if they were in the momenta, thinking of the solutions in CEO, chairman, or others’ sides. At the same time, the students can apply the theories they’ve learned in the management courses to the practices by pre-class reading, group discussions and in-class discussions so as to experience the managerial decision-making and the process of analysis.
Therefore, this study, which employs the Harvard-style case writing, describing that the Yiyu general manager, Jack, encounters with the problems in different situations when introducing the KM into his company, aims to help the students put the theory into practice through the content of this case, so that they can accumulate the concepts of e-business and knowledge management systems to solve the problems when facing the similar situations next time.
Jack has been working as agent for over 20 years. Considering that the margin decided by others causes numerous restrictions on business operating, he actively looks for the new markets and the opportunities for future development. At the end of 2009, Jack finds that the operating is not effective as was expected; it not only increases the employees’ workload, but also has conflicts with the clients’ systems. What’s more, Jack finds that the KM system is not effective for every company after inquiring his EMBA classmates and friends. Under this circumstance, who can tell Jack what is happening? And how does he solve this problem?
This paper includes the case study and teaching guidelines. The readers can understand the concepts such as E-business, knowledge management to better understand the ways to solve problems and do the best decision-making when facing the similar situations.

中文部分
1. 吳思華（2001），「知識經濟、知識資本與知識管理」，吳思華主編，《知識資本在台灣》，頁11-50，台北：遠流。
2. 呂執中（2003），《電子化策略與經營模式 (2nd)》，台北市：美商麥格羅•希爾國際股份有限公司台灣分公司。
3. 林東清（2003），《知識管理》，台北：智勝文化。
4. 林東清（2007），《知識管理》，台北：智勝文化。
5. 洪良政（2004），影響台商對大陸子公司知識移轉成效之研究－以紡織相關產業為例，國立成功大學企業管理研究所在職專班碩士論文。
6. 劉常勇（2002），「知識管理的策略」，知識管理網站，http://www.cme.org.tw/know/paper/paper11.doc.
7. 欒斌、陳苡任、羅凱揚（2009），《電子商務》，台中：滄海書局。
英文部分
1. American Productivity and Quality Center (2000), Building and Sustaining Communities of Practice: Final Report, American Productivity and Quality Center Report.
2. Arthur Andersen(1999). Business Consulting for Knowledge Management, Tokyo: Toyo Keizai.
3. Badaracco, J. L. Jr. (1991), “The Knowledge Link: How Firms Compete through Strategic Alliances,” Harvard Business School Press, Boston: Massachusetts.
4. Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working knowledge : how organizations manage what they know, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
5. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations
6. Dixon, N. M. (2000), Common knowledge: how companies thrive by sharing what they know, USA: Harvard College.
7. Lal, K. (2002), “E-business and manufacturing sector a study of small and medium-size enterprises on India,” Research Policy, 31 ,1199-1211.
8. Liebowiz, J. (1999), Knowledge Management: Handbook, Florida: CRC Press.
9. Manage What They Know, Boston : Harvard Business School Press.
10. Merali, Y. (2001), Building and Developing Capabilities: A Congnitive Congruence Framework, in R. Sanchez (ed.), Knowledge Management and Organizational Competence, New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation,” Organization Science, 5(1), pp.14-38.
12. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company, New York : Qxford University Press.
13. O’Dell, C. & Grayson, C. J. Jr. (1998), “If Only We Knew What We Know: Identification And Transfer of Internal Best Practices,” California Management Review, 40(3), 154-174.
14. Petrash, G. (1996), “Dow's Journal to a Knowledge Value Management Culture,” European Management Journal, 14(4), 365-373.
15. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge and Keoan Paul.
16. Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1996), “Managing Professional Intellect: Making the Most of the Best.” Havard Business Review, 25-27.
17. Sanders, S. I. (2007), “An empirical investigation of socio-cultural factors of information sharing in China,” Information & Management, 44 (2), 165-174.
18. Senge, P. M. (1994), The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday Business.
19. Wiig, K. M. (2004), People-Focused Knowledge Management: How Effective Decision Making Leads to Corporate Success, Butterworth-Heinemann.
20. Wiig, K.M. (1997), “Integrating intellectual capital and knowledge management,” Long Range Planning, 30, 3, 399-405.