有鑑於數位政策的推動與影響涵蓋整個生態系的運作，多對多的利益關係人互動模式，以及變化快速的主客觀環境，因此公部門執行單位若能深入了解並分析生態系內利益關係人間之網絡(network)關係，並爭取更多利益關係人的合作意願，建立所謂的合作夥伴網絡(partnership network)，進而獲得利益關係人的認同與信任，同時解構公私協同合作與價值共創所面對的議題，就能更順利的落實各項工作之推動。
文獻指出，利益關係人間相互溝通與互動不足，實是公私協同合作結果失敗或不如預期的主要因素。反觀目前所知文獻大多探討公私協同合作單一個案的議題，如何以概念性架構與分類解決該個案議題，但是缺少公私協同合作對整個產業生態系的影響與分析，並以系統係的觀點與架構，分析落實合作夥伴網絡這一方面的研究，以致見樹不見林的論述，無法解決或降低公私協同合作的推動，對於整個生態系發展與影響的系統性議題與風險。
本論文提出以意義建構為溝通基礎的重複過程，包含認知與行動的制定模式，在眾多甚至意見相左的利益關係人議題中，透過爭取利益關係人互信承諾、或是進行利益交換、並協調一個協同管理的機制，就可以在複雜與多變的環境下，有效解決利益關係人間之衝突，達到公私部門價值共創的目的。本論文的貢獻在提出一個可靠穩健的流程模式，以系統性的方法提供政府部門推動數位政策的參考，並可作為後續相關研究的基礎。

Government policy impacts the development of the entire industry ecosystem, it is necessary for government leaders, especially in the fast changing subjective and objective cognition environment, to understand the interoperability among stakeholders, and to earn the recognition and trust in the partnership network, in order to address collaboration issues between public and private sectors, and to achieve the goal of value co-creation.

Previous studies pointed out that the major reasons of the failure of the promotion the public private partnership are the lack of communication and interactions. But most of previous studies are either based upon single case to build a conceptual model, or possible solution classifications, there is no overall impact analysis and systematic arguments from the entire ecosystem point of view, to address possible concerns and risks in implement public private partnership network.

This dissertation argues that sense-making propositions should be constructed with iterated enactment process to achieve value co-creation for stakeholders in the partnership network. Whereas the enactment comprises both cognition and actions, and the enactment process is able to enable the sense-making propositions to earn stakeholder’s commitments, followed by reasonable resources alignments, and management by collaborated governance in the ecosystem development of partnership network.

The contribution of this dissertation is to provide a robust and systemic process to guide how the government can construct the partnership network to promote digital policy successfully, and this enactment process should be further verified, either in qualitative or quantitative approach, in practice settings with the other scenarios.

Agnew, C. (2009) Commitment, Theories and Typologies, Department of Psychological Sciences Faculty Publications, Paper 28
Ahuja, G. & Soda, G. & Zaheer, A. (2012) The genesis and dynamics of organizational networks, Organization Science, 23, 434–448.
Amaeshi, K. & Crane, A. (2006) Stakeholder Engagement: a mechanism for sustainable aviation CSR. Environment Management, 13 (5), 245–260
Ansell, C. & Sondorp, E. & Stevens, R. H. (2012) The promise and challenge of global network governance: The global outbreak alert and response network, Global Governance, 18, 317–337.
Bannister, F & Connolly, R. (2014) ICT, public value and transformative government: A framework and programme for research, Government Information Quarterly, 31, 119-128
Barile, S. & Saviano, M. & Polese, F. (2014). Information asymmetry and co-creation in healthcare service. Australasian Marketing Journal, 22, 205-217
Barney, J. (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, 17-1, 99-120
Bellina, S. et al. (2009) Democratic governance : a new paradigm for development? translated by Katy Albiston ... [et al.].London: Hurst & Company. (pp. 13–32)
Bevir, M. (2006) Democratic governance: Systems and radical perspectives, Public Administration Review, 66, 426–436
Bhaskar, R. (1998) The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences , (3rd ed.) London: Routledge
Bizzi, L. & Langley, A. (2012) Studying processes in and around networks, Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 224–234
Boudreau, M.C. & Robey, D. (2005) Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective, Organization Science, 16-1, 3-18
Bruning, P. & Alge, B. & Lin, H.C. (2018) The embedding forces of network commitment: An examination of the psychological processes linking advice centrality and susceptibility to social influence, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 148, 54–69
Bryman, A.(1988) Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Unwin Hyman
Bryson, J.M. & Crosby, B.C. & Stone, M.M. (2006) The design and implementation of crosssector collaborations: propositions from the literature, Public Administration Review, 66 -s1, 44–55.
Cable, D. & Edwards, J. (2004) Complementary and Supplementary Fit: A Theoretical and Empirical Integration, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89-5, 822–834
Chan, C. & Hackney, R. & Pan. S. & Chou, T. (2011) Managing e-Government system implementation: a resource enactment perspective, European Journal of Information Systems, 20-5, 529-541
Charlie, C. & King, B. & Pearlman, M. (2013) The application of environmental governance networks in small Island destinations : evidence from Indonesia and the coral triangle, Tourism Planning & Development, 10-1, 17–31
Choi, D.Y. & Lee, K.C. (2015) Dynamic resource allocation for exploitation and exploration with ambidexterity: Logical mechanism and simulations, Computer in Human Behavior, 42, 120-126
Chou, T. & Huang, M. (2012) Understanding the roles of business ecosystems in large public IT infrastructure project development: The case of M-Taipei, International Journal of Information Management, 32, 88– 92
Chu, H. & Ke, Q. (2017) Research methods: What's in the name? Library and Information Science Research, 39, 284–294
Chung, D. & Hensher D. (2018) Public private partnerships in the provision of tolled roads: Shared value creation, trust and control, Transportation Research Part A ,118, 341–359
Coiera, E. (2009) Building a National Health IT System from the Middle Out, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16-3, 271–273
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, 773–794
Doz, Y. (2011) Qualitative research for international business, Journal of International Business Studies, S42-5, 582-590
Emerson, K. & Nabatchi, T. & Balogh, S. (2012) An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22-1, 1–29
Eisenhardt, K. (1989) Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, 14-4 532-550
Eisenhardt, K. & Martin, J. (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21 (10–11), 1105–1121.
Erdheim, J. & Wang, M., & Zickar, M. (2006) Linking the Big Five personality constructs to organizational commitment, Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 959–970
Ford, D. & Mouzas, S. (2013) The theory and practice of business network, Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 433-442
Gilchrist, A. & Burton-Jones, A. & Green, P. (2018) The process of social alignment and misalignment within a complex IT project, International Journal of Project Management, 36, 845– 860
Gittell, J. H. & Weiss, L. (2004) Coordination networks within and across organizations: A multi-level framework, Journal of Management Studies, 41, 127–153
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory, Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Guney, A. & Alb, S. (2012) Effective learning environments in relation to different learning theories, Social and Behavioral Science, 46, 2334-2338
Hellberg, A. & Gronloud, A. (2013) Conflicts in implementing interoperability: Re-operationalizing basic values, Government Information Quarterly, 30,154-162
Holton, J. (2007) The coding process and its challenges. In A. Bryant, & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. (pp. 265-289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jennings, P.D. & Greenwood, R. (2003) Debating Organization: Point-Counterpoint in Organization Studies, Chapter 6b, p201, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Karpovsky, A. & Galliers, R. (2015) Aligning in practice: from current cases to a new agenda, Journal of Information Technology, 30-2, 136–160
Katsamunska, P. (2016) The Concept of Governance and Public Governance Theories, Economic Alternatives, 2, 133-141
Koch, C. & Buser, M. (2006) Emerging metagovernance as an institutional framework for public private partnership networks in Denmark, International Journal of Project Management, 24, 548–556
Kossmann, C. & Behagel, J. & Bailey, M. (2016) Action and inertia in collaborative governance, Marine Policy, 72, 21–30
Lafreniere, K.C. & Deshpande, S. & Bjornlund, H. (2013)
Extending stakeholder theory to promote resource management initiatives to key stakeholders: a case study of water transfers in Alberta, Canada, Journal of Environment Management, 129, 81-91
Lawler, E. & Yoon, J. (1996) Commitment in Exchange Relations: Test of a Theory of Relational Cohesion, American Sociological Review, 61-1, 89-108
Lawther, W. C. (2005) Public–private partnerships in transportation policy: The case of advanced traveler information systems, International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 1117–1134.
Leite, E. & Bengtson, A. (2018) A business network view on value creation and capture in public-private Cooperation, Industrial Marketing Management, 73, 181–192
Leviakangas, P. & Ojala, L. & Toyli, J. (2016) An integrated ecosystem model for understanding infrastructure PPPs, Utilities Policy, 42, 10-19
Lundvall, B. & Borrás, S. (2005) Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 22. Pages 599-631
Mahoney, C. (2007) Lobbying success in the United states and the European Union”, Cambridge University Press, 27-1, 35-56
Makrakis, V. & Kostoulas-Makrakis, N. (2016) Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Experiences from conducting a mixed methods evaluation in the RUCAS programme, Evaluation and Program Planning 54, 144–151
Marabelli, M. & Galliers, R. (2017) A reflection on information systems strategizing: the role of power and everyday practices, Information Systems Journal, 27-3, 347–366
March, J.G. (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning, Organization Science, 2, 71–87
Marques, R. C. (2017) Why not regulate PPPs? Utilities Policy, 48, 141-146
McConnell, A. (2010) Policy success, policy failure, and grey areas in, Cambridge university press, 30-3 345-362.
Mele, C. (2011) Conflicts and value co-creation in project networks, Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 1377–1385
Merriam, S. (1988) Case study research in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Jossey-Bass
Meyer, J. & Herscovitch, L. (2001) Commitment in the workplace, toward a general model, Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326
Montoya, L. & Montoya I. & Sanchez Gonzalez, O. (2015) Lessons from collaborative governance and sociobiology theories for reinforcing sustained cooperation: a government food security case study, public health, 129, 916-931
Nambisan, S. & Zahra, S.A. (2016). The role of demand-side narratives in opportunity formation and enactment, Journal of Business Venturing Insight, 5, 70-75
Nicholson, N. (1995) The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior, p155-156, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
O'Leary, R. & Bingham, L. & Gerard, C. (2006) Introduction to the Symposium on Collaborative Public Management, Public Administration Review, 66, 6-9
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing The Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Orlikowski, W.J. (2000) Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations, Organization Science, 11-4, 404-428.
Palaco, I. & Park, M. J. & Kim, S. K. & Rho, J.J. (2019) Public–private partnerships for e-government in developing countries: An early stage assessment framework, Evaluation and Program Planning, 72, 205–218
Panaccio, A. & Vandenberghe, C. (2012) Five-factor model of personality and organizational commitment: The mediating role of positive and negative affective states, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 647–658
Parent, M. & Rouillarda, C. & Narainea, M. (2017) Network governance of a multi-level, multi-sectoral sport event: Differences in coordinating ties and actors, Sport Management Review, 20, 497–509
Pee, L. & Kankanhalli, A. (2016) Interaction among factors influencing knowledge management in public-sector organizations: A resource-based view, Government Information Quarterly, 33-1, 188-199
Pera R. & Occhiocupo N. & Clarke J. (2016) Motives and resources for value co-creation in a multi-stakeholder ecosystem: A managerial perspective, Journal of Business Research, 69, 4033-3041
Pierre, J. & Peters, B. G. (2000) Governance, Politics and the State, Macmillan Press Ltd.
Ragin, C. (2000) Fuzzy-set social science . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ramaswamy, V. & Ozcan, K. (2018) What is co-creation? An interactional creation framework and its implications for value creation, Journal of Business Research, 84, 196–205
Rowley, J. (2011) e-Government stakeholders–Who are they and what do they want, International Journal of Information Management, 31, 53-62
Savoldelli, A. & Codagnone, C. & Misuraca, G. (2014) Understanding the e-government paradox: Learning from the literature and practice on barriers to adoption, Government Information Quarterly, 31-S1, S63-S71
Schepper, S. & Dooms, M. & Haezendonck, E. (2014) Stakeholder dynamics and responsibilities in Public–Private Partnerships: A mixed experience, International Journal of Project Management, 32, 1210–1222
Sedera, D. & Lokuge, S. & Grover, V. & Sarker, Su. & Sarker, Sa. (2016) Innovating with enterprise system and digital platforms: A contingent resource-based theory view, Information and Management, 53, 366-379
Shilbury, D., & Ferkins, L. (2015) Exploring the utility of collaborative governance in a national sport organization, Journal of Sport Management, 29, 380–397
Siggelkow, N. (2007) Persuasion with case studies, Academy of Management Journal, 50-1, 20-24
Smith, W. & Lewis, M. (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing, Academic Management Review, 36-2, 381–403
Stake, R. (1995) The art of case study research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stephenson, C. & Lohmann, G. & Spasojevic, B. (2018) Stakeholder engagement in the development of international air services: A case study on Adelaide Airport, Journal of Air Transport Management, 71, 45–54
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1994) Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp273-285), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Teece, D. (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and micro-foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance, Strategic Management Journal, 28-13, 1319–1350
Tsang, E. (2013) Case study methodology: causal explanation, contextualization, and theorizing, Journal of International Management, 19, 195–202
Tullberg, J. (2013) Stakeholder theory: Some revisionist suggestions, The Journal of socio-Economics, 42 , 127-135
Van der Hoorn, B. & Whitty, S. (2017) The praxis of alignment seeking in project work, International journal of project Management, 35-6, 978–993.
Van Maanen, J. (1979) Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24-4, 520-526.
Viglia, G. & Pera, R. & Bigné, E. (2018) The determinants of stakeholder engagement in digital platforms, Journal of Business Research, 89, 404–410
Walsham, G. (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method, European Journal of Information Systems, 4-2, 74-81
Walter, A. & Ritter, T. & Gemünden, H. (2001) Value creation in buyer–seller relationships — theoretical considerations and empirical results from a supplier's perspective, Industrial Marketing Management, 30, 365–277
Wang, Guang-Xu (2010) A theoretical debate and strategy to link structure and agency in policy process studies: A network perspective, Journal of Politics and Law, 3-2, 101-109
Wang, S.Y. & Windsor, C. & Yates, P. (2002) Introduction to grounded theory, The Journal of Nursing Research, 59-1, 91-95
Weick, K. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situation, Journal of Management Studies, 25-4, 305-317
Weick, K. (1989) Theory construction as disciplined imagination, Academy of Management Review, 14-4, 516-531.
Weick, K. (1995) Debating Organization: Point-Counterpoint in Organization Studies, Chapter 6a, p184-194, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Weick, K. (2001) Making Sense of the Organization, Blackwell Malden, MA, 2001
Weick, K. (2005). The experience of theorizing: Sense-making as topic and resource. In K. G. Smith & M. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Welch, C. & Piekkari, R. & Plakoyiannaki, E. & Paavilainen-mäntymäki, E. (2011) Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research, Journal of International Business Studies, S42-5, 740-762
Westerinka, J. et.al (2017) Collaborative governance arrangements to deliver spatially coordinated agri-environmental management, Land Use Policy, 69,176–192
Wilkin, C. & Campbell, J. & Moore, S. & Simpson, J. (2018) Creating value in online communities through governance and stakeholder engagement, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 30, 56–68
Wrona, T. & Ladwig, T. & Gunnesch, M. (2013) Socio-cognitive process is strategy formation – A conceptual framework, European Management Journal, 31, 697-705
Yang, C. & Chou, T. (2014) Key factors to shape the policy of national infrastructures, WIT Transactions on Engineering Sciences, 93, 817-825
Yang, C. & Chou, T. & Chen, Y. (2019) Bridging digital boundary in healthcare systems — An interoperability enactment perspective, Computer Standards & Interfaces, 62, 43-52
Yeowa, A. & Soh, C. & Hansen, R. (2018) Aligning with new digital strategy: A dynamic capabilities approach, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27, 43–58
Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Second edition, Thousand Oaks: Sage
Yin, R. K. (2009) Case study research , (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zerbini, F. & Golfetto, F. & Gibbert, M. (2007) Marketing of competence: Exploring the resource-based content of value-for-customers through a case study analysis, Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 784–798