本文個案案例為3C零售業行動化裝置專案導入過程的研究，因智慧手機興起讓人們消費習慣改變，如何利用科技來協助企業服務轉型，以使用者的角度切入整合企業資源，過程中導入了功能點分析讓整個專案可以確切有效評估其專案的人力工時及成本等，使內部組織可以更靈活調動達到最大化效益。
個案公司曾在2008年時導入PDA設備，但是，六年後，購物趨勢展現出移動設備如何影響消費者的行為和購買決定，從而影響了公司實體店的銷售業績。藉由改善現有設備並透過客戶關係管理系統以增進消費者互動的機會及與老客戶的關係，並提供較好的服務體驗與更全面的競爭力。在企業所能提供資源有限之下，事先的評估量化資訊系統的開發範圍及投入成本變的很重要。在重新整合資源時導入功能點數(Function Point Analysis, FPA)，協助整個專案可以更加確切有效評估其專案的成本效益，而不再是單方用資訊人員的角度來看待系統，使其導入可最佳化並貼進使用者，並量化整個系統其預算之合理性。
本論文採用哈佛個案撰寫法，包含個案本文及教學指引兩部份，教學指引針對個案中的討論內容做詳細說明，主要議題包括服務主導理論、功能點分析、資源整合、組織敏捷性，分別就文獻學說及個案分析做整理，以期達到應用理論內涵，並體驗實務情境之目的。

This paper provides a case study about a process-implementation of mobile devices on 3C retail industry. Due to the popularity of smartphones to change people's consumption behavior, from the perspective of users, to use the technology to assist enterprise transformation in whose services and resources integration. With the implementation of function point analysis, man-hours and cost can be effectively evaluated.
The company of this case study had deployed PDA (Personal digital assistant) service in 2008. However, six years later, shopping trends show how mobile influences consumer behavior and purchase decisions, which has affected the sales performance of the company’s physical stores. By improving the existing equipment and through the Customer Relationship Management system (CRM) to enhance the opportunities of consumer interaction and relationship with regular customers, and that provide better productivity and overall competitiveness at the same time. How to effectively quantify the scope of information system development and the cost under the limited resources which becomes quite important. By applying the function point analysis (FPA) while reintegrating resources, to make sure that the cost-effectiveness of the project, rather than simply viewing at the system from an information technological perspective, which can be optimized and closer to users, and the rationality of its budget for the system is quantified.
This thesis adopts Harvard business case writing method, including two parts: case text and teaching guide. The teaching guide discusses the case situations and apply appropriate tools to solve problems or develop evaluations. The main topics included service dominant, function point analysis, resource integration and organizational agility. Literature and case analysis are arranged to achieve the purpose of applying theoretical connotation and experiencing practical situations.

中文文獻
1.郭朝陽、許杭軍、郭惠玲(2012)。《服務主導羅輯演進軌跡追踪與研究述評》。Foreign Economics & Management。廈門大學基礎創新科研基金
2.盧希鵬(2017)。《C2B逆商業時代》。商周出版。台北市。
3.連怡雯(2007)。政府機關資訊系統委外預算合理性之探討。國立臺灣科技大學。
4.胡衣臨(2005)。軟體功能點數計算精確度的影響因素與提昇之研究。國立臺灣科技大學。
5.黃世禎(2003)。功能點分析方法與工具FP-SMART介紹研討會課程。國立臺灣科技大學。
6.黃世禎、胡衣臨、許兆榕。如何計算軟體系統功能性的點數。軟體產業通訊第59期。國立臺灣科技大學。台北市。
7.黃世禎、韓文銘。功能點分析簡介。軟體產業通訊第50期。國立臺灣科技大學。台北市。

網路部分
1.經濟部統計處。
2.產業經濟統計簡訊。
3.Career Plus;看3C通路業的新零售發展現況略。
4.商周雜誌;燦坤跑最快的轉型輸家。
5.工商時報；燦坤 拚營收重返300億元。
6.鉅享網；燦坤月/年收入表。

英文文獻
1.Vargo, S. L., and Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17.
2.Maglio, P. P., Vargo, S. L., Caswell, N. and Spohrer, J. (2009). The service system is the basic abstraction of service science. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 7(4), 395-406.
3.Robin G. Qiu, Service Science: The Foundations of Service Engineering and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Jul 3, 201
4.Robin G. Qiu, Computational Thinking of Service Systems: Dynamics and Adaptiveness Modeling
5.Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., and Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145-152.
6.Albrecht, A.J. and Gaffney, J.E., Software Function, Source Lines of Code, and Development Effort Prediction: A Software Science Validation, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 639-648, 1983.
7.Abran, A. and Robillard, P.N., Function Points Analysis: An Empirical Study of Its Measurement Processes, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 12, December 1996.
8.Lokan, C.; Abran, A., Multiple Viewpoints in Functional Size Measurement, Proceeding of the IWSM'99, Lac Superieur, Quebec, Canada, pp. 121-131, September 1999.
9.IFPUG, Function Point Counting Practices Manual, Release 4.2, The International Function Point Users Group, January 2004.
10.Colette Rolland, Carine Souveyet, and Camille Ben Achour, Guiding Goal Modeling Using Scenarios, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, VOL. 24, NO. 12, DECEMBER 1998
11.Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2007). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6
12.Kleinaltenkamp, M., Brodie, R. J., Frow, P., Hughes, T., Peters, L. D., & Woratschek, H. (2012). Resource integration. Marketing Theory, 12(2), 201–205.
13.Miller, D. (1987), The Genesis of Configuration, Academy of Management Review 12(4): 670–87.
14.Haase, M. and Kleinaltenkamp, M. (2011) Property Rights Design and Market Process: Implications for Market Theory, Marketing Theory and S-D Logic, Journal of Macromarketing 31(2): 148–59.
15.Falance, T. (2012). Cultivating Organizational Agility. The Columbia Group. Glassop, L. I. (2002). The organizational benefits of teams. Human relations,55 (2), 225-249.
16.Holsapple, C. and Li, X. (2008). Understanding organizational agility: A work‐design perspective. Paper presented at the 13th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. June17–19, Seattle, WA. http://www.nps.edu/Academics/ Centers/CEP/docs/2008
17.Lee, O.-K. (Daniel), Sambamurthy, V., Lim, K. H., & Wei, K. K. (2015). How Does IT Ambidexterity Impact Organizational Agility?, Information Systems Research, 26(2), 398–417. doi:10.1287/isre.2015.0577
18.Harraf, A., Wanasika, I., Tate, K., & Talbott, K. (2015). Organizational Agility. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 31(2), 675-686. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v31i2.9160