一個創新能否被接受，過去研究焦點多集中於創新的優勢功能或是社會網絡的影響，少有人關注機構的存在。近年來越來越多研究指向機構的重要，特別是當機構力施展於使用者，無法移除也難以反抗時，創新者必須思考如何回應此機構力，以求得創新順利推展。機構理論主張創新者要致力取得正當性，以得到推展創新的通行證，卻略於討論如何回應機構力；策略性回應提出回應機構力的不同策略，暗示創新者不必然順從於機構，可施展策略以回應機構力，卻未能考慮到使用者；強力設計文獻，主張面對機構力時，要由跟使用者實際接觸的物件設計下手，借此以舊帶新。由設計的角度切入創新採納，將焦點回歸使用者與創新物件的互動，是創新採納的新觀點。本研究歷經四年的田野調查，分析階梯數位學院—本研究中的創新，其物件科技功能中，隱含了契合使用者需求的設計特質，以及回應機構阻力的策略設計，也就是物件設計中包含對機構的算計，形成計中計。本研究將這種化機構阻力為創新助力的設計手法，稱之為柔韌設計。如何將機構的阻力化為創新的助力，本研究發現其中的關鍵在於「從機構施予使用者之阻力找出槓桿點」，才能借力使力。本研究發現的柔韌設計，在學理上，將可補足機構理論、策略性回應、與強力設計等文獻之不足；在實務上，則提醒創新者，除了將焦點放在創新物件的設計，也應深入使用者脈絡，洞悉機構力對使用者的影響，並設法將之轉為推展創新的助力，而非阻力。

Whether the innovation is accepted is a complex problem. More and more studies point out the importance of institutions. Prior literature indicates that institutional forces pose on the user is hard to remove or resist. The best way the innovators could employ is to respond the forces strategically. This study follows the trend of robust design; focus on the design features and strategies as a responding strategy. Thus this study conducted the 4 years field study and aimed to explore the design strategies of innovations to respond the institutional forces. The main findings of the strategies the case used are ‘robust design’, however there is little understanding of the concept in recent literature. The findings provide the rich interpretation of ‘robust design’ by illustrating the related literature, practices and strategies exhibited in the research case, and the connection and reflection on the past wisdom. The outcomes of this study will be expected to contribute the literature on innovation design, institution theory, and responding strategies.

本文探討企業組織如何從機構施予使用者的阻力中，找出槓桿點，運用在 產品設計特質，產生化阻力為助力的效果，進而推展創新。本研究以一套數位 學習系統《階梯數位學院》為案例，透過使用者實務的分析與解讀，闡述柔韌 設計的內涵與運作原則，有助於創新者反思如何在機構壓力下，如何以既不反 抗、也不順從的方式回應機構力。 在管理實務上，業者常常忽略機構力的存在，或是視其為必然，而未放入 管理重點之中。本研究發現對業者如何敏察機構脈絡，進而運用之，提供重要 啟發。面對機構阻力，創新者可以設計槓桿效應來促成創新的採納，做法上有 兩個重點：首先，創新者要了解機構阻力的內涵，它不同於一般的採納障礙， 創新者很難輕易改變或移除，但是創新者可以將阻力視為一種助力。其次，當 創新者將機構阻力具象化後，找出槓桿點、成為設計的靈感，便可以進一步轉 化這些機構阻力，讓創新被採納。這是本研究的主要貢獻。 由本研究所歸納的柔韌設計原則，對一般企業的啓示在於，產品設計實務 上，總是追求產品更多的功能或是更低的成本，近年來雖然強調使用者的重 要，但多以調查使用者需求（需要什麼？）的角度切入，假設使用者自明其需 求、滿足需求即可接納產品；本研究提供一個新的思考角度，運用柔韌設計以 結合使用者的痛點，產生接受創新的動力。因此，創新者不只要回應市場趨勢 與技術潮流，更要持續地回應機構力，柔韌設計策略可以提昇後進者回應機構 的靈感，提醒創新者勿躁進，以免以卵擊石。 階梯案也提供數位內容產業重要啟示。在臺灣、亦在全球，許多業者一味 地將資源投入內容設計與載具建置。設計出的產品雖然功能齊全，但卻只能孤 芳自賞。本研究提醒，深入了解機構脈絡，創新者才能將機構阻力轉化為數位 系統設計的靈感，解決使用者的困擾，使科技潛力發揮。只有如此，數位學習 商品才賣得出去，數位學習產業也才能興盛。 從政策推行的角度來看，本研究也提供一深遠的啟示。推行新政策如同推 動創新，會遭遇到機構的阻力。逆著機構脈絡去推動創新，只會讓原來的良法 美意變調。例如，本案中教改政策推行後，教科書版本多到令人無所適從；導 致教科書內容設計粗糙，反而強化填鴨式教育。老師上課照本宣科，考試頻率增加，升學壓力有增無減。不了解現行教育體系下的機構特質，教改的效果就 很難產生。因此，創新者千萬不能逆著機構脈絡去推動新政策，否則不但創新 無法推展，受害的可能是整體社會。

朱彩馨、林家五，2008，「由強力設計的觀點檢視科技創新的採用：時尚網站
Fashion Guide 的啟示」，產業管理評論，2 卷 2 期：26~37。
吳清基，2008，解讀臺灣教育改革，初版，台北：台北市心理出版社。
李政賢譯，Irving Seidman 著，2009，訪談研究法，初版，臺北：五南出版社。
周祝瑛，2003，誰捉弄了臺灣教改？，初版，台北：心理出版社。
洪世章、周婉婷，2010，「整合式服務創新：台灣企業之比較個案研究」，科技管理
學刊，15 卷 1 期：49~76。
涂敏芬，2012，「對抗制度的創新：策略行動者的能動性實踐」，臺大管理論叢，22
卷 2 期：87~118。
涂敏芬、洪世章，2012，「有中生有：工研院如何運用 B.B.C.策略改造科專制度」，
管理學報，29 卷 3 期：229~254。
高芳真、劉子歆、賴奎魁，2007，「組織信念與策略創業：大立光電之個案研究」，
管理評論，26 卷 4 期：27~52。
許德便，2006，「九年一貫課程實施的現場問題─九年一貫課程與一綱多本(國中
篇)」，台灣教育雙月刊，642 期：11~20。
黃佑安、王秉鈞，2001，「跨組織模仿決策影響因素之研究─以台灣商業廣播電台為
例」，管理評論，20 卷 3 期：1~20。
黃鋰，2007，全球數位學習產業市場現況分析報告，初版，臺北：資策會。
楊深坑，2002，「從專業理念之發展論師資培育法之修訂」，教育研究月刊，98 期：
79~90。
羅萱，2007，「追求卓越─體制力量與管理創新：台灣醫療產業之實證研究」，管理學
報，24 卷 5 期：515~529。
Ali, A., 1994, “Pioneering Versus Incremental Innovation: Review and Research
Propositions,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, 46-61.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., and Herron, M., 1996, “Assessing the
Work Environment for Creativity,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No.
2, 54-84.
Ang, S. and Cummings, L. L., 1997, “Strategic Response to Institutional Influences on
Information Systems Outsourcing,” Organization Science, Vol. 8, No. 3, 235-256.
Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., and von Hippel, E., 2006, “How User Innovations Become
Commercial Products: a Theoretical Investigation and Case Study,” Research
Policy, Vol. 35, No. 9, 1291-1313.
Barley, S. R. and Tolbert, P. S., 1997, “Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the
Links between Action and Institution,” Organization Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1, 93-
117.
Brown, T., 2009, Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation, 1st, New York: Flletxher & Company.
Clercq, D. and Voronov, M., 2009, “The Role of Cultural and Symbolic Capital in
Entrepreneurs’ Ability to Meet Expectations about Conformity and Innovation,”
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 47, No. 3, 398-420.
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., and Rotter, N. G., 2002, “Becoming a Virtual Professor:
Pedagogical Roles and Asynchronous Learning Networks,” Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 4, 169-189.
Covaleski, M. A. and Dirsmith, M. W., 1988, “An Institutional Perspective on the Rise,
Social Transformation, and Fall of a University Budget Category,” Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 4, 562-587.
D’Aunno, T., Succi, M., and Alexander, J. A., 2000, “The Role of Institutional and Market
Forces in Divergent Organizational Change,” Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 45, No. 4, 679-703.
Dacin, M. T., 1997, “Isomorphism in Context: The Power and Prescription of Institutional
Norms,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1, 46-81.
DeFillippi, R., Grabher, G., and Jones, C., 2007, “Introduction to Paradoxes of Creativity:
Managerial and Organizational Challenges in the Cultural Economy,” Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, No. 5, 511-521.
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W., 1983, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional
Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Field,” American
Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 2, 147-160.
DiMaggio, P. J., 1988, “Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory” in Zucker, L. G. (ed.),
Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, First
Edition, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 3-22.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D., and Salter, A., 2007, “In Case of Fire, Please Use the Elevator:
Simulation Technology and Organization in Fire Engineering,” Organization
Science, Vol. 18, No. 5, 849-864.
Elsbach, K. D. and Sutton, R. I., 1992, “Acquiring Organizational Legitimacy through
Illegitimate Actions: A Marriage of Institutional and Impression Management
Theories,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4, 699-738.
Etzion, D. and Ferraro, F., 2010, “The Role of Analogy in the Institutionalization of
Sustainability Reporting,” Organization Science, Vol. 21, No. 5, 1092-1107.
Goodstein, J. D., 1994, “Institutional Pressures and Strategic Responsiveness: Employer
Involvement in Work-Family Issues,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37,
No. 2, 350-382.
Griffith, L., 1999, “Technology Features as Triggers for Sense making,” The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 3, 472-488.
Hargadon, A. B. and Douglas, Y., 2001, “When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and
the Design of the Electric Light,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 3, 476-501.
Hargrave, T. J. and Van de Ven, A. H., 2006, “A collective action model of institutional
innovation,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, 864-888.
Jain, S. and George, G., 2007, “Technology Transfer Offices as Institutional Entrepreneurs:
the Case of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and Human Embryonic Stem
Cells,” Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 16, No. 4, 535-567.
Klein, H. K. and Myers, M. D., 1999, “A set of principles for conducting and evaluating
interpretative field studies in information systems,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 1,
67-94.
Kostova, T. and Roth, K., 2002, “Adoption of an Organizational Practice by Subsidiaries of
Multinational Corporations: Institutional and Relational Effects,” The Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, 215-233.
Lamb, R. and Kling, R., 2003, “Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actorsin Information
Systems Research,” MISQ, Vol. 27, No. 2, 197-235.
Latour, B., 1988, The Pasteurization of France, 1st, Boston: Harvard University Press.
Leblebici, H., Salancik, G. R., Copay, A., and King, T., 1991, “Institutional Change and the
Transformation of Interorganizational Fields: An Organizational History of the U.S.
Radio Broadcasting Industry,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4,
333-363.
Lounsbury, M. and Glynn, M. A., 2001, “Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories, Legitimacy,
and the Acquisition of Resources,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 6-
7, 545-564.
Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B., 1977, “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structures as
Myth and Ceremony,” The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, No. 2, 340-
363.
Munir, K. A. and Philips, N., 2005, “The Birth of the ‘Kodak Moment’: Institutional
Entrepreneurship and the Adoption of New Technologies,” Organization Studies,
Vol. 26, No. 11, 1665-1687.
Oliver, C., 1991, “Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes,” Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, 145-179.
Orlikowski, W. J. and Gash, D. C., 1994, “Technology frames: Making sense of information
technology in organizations,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol.
12, No. 2, 174-207.
Orlikowski, W. J., 2000, “Using Technology and Constituting Structures: a Practice Lens
for Studying Technology in Organization,” Organization Science, Vol. 11, No. 4,
404-428.
Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T., 2003, How users matter: The co-construction of users and
technology, 1st, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pache, A. C. and Santos, F., 2010, “When World Collide: The Internal Dynamics of Organizational Responses to Conflicting Institutional Demands,” Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 35, No. 3, 455-476.
Perrow, C., 1985, “Review Essay: Overboard with Myth and Symbols,” American Journal
of Sociology, Vol. 91, No. 1, 151-155.
Prasad, P., 1993, “Symbolic processes in the implementation of technological change: a
Symbolic interactionist study of work computerization,” Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 36, No. 6, 1400-1429.
Rao, R. S., Chandy, R. K., and Prabhu, J. C., 2008, “The Fruits of Legitimacy: Why Some
New Ventures Gain More from Innovation Than Others,” Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 72, No. 1, 58-75.
Ravasi, D. and Stigliani, I., 2012, “Product Design: a Review and Research Agenda for
Management Studies,” International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14,
No. 4, 464-488.
Raviola, E. and Norbäck, M., 2013, “Bringing Technology and Meaning into Institutional
Work: Making News at an Italian Business Newspaper,” Organization Studies, Vol.
34, No. 8, 1171-1194.
Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K., and Germann, K., 2006, “Legitimizing a New Role: Small
Wins and Microprocesses of Change,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49,
No. 5, 977-998.
Rogers, E. M., 2003, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th, New York: Pine Forge Press.
Ruttan, V. and Hayami, Y., 1984, “Toward a Theory of Induced Institutional Innovation,”
Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 20, No. 4, 203-223.
Schultze, U. and Orlikowski, W. J., 2004, “A Practice Perspective on Technology-Mediated
Network Relations: the Use of Internet-Based Self-Serve Technologies,”
Information System Research, Vol. 15, No. 1, 87-106.
Scott, R., 1987, “The Adolescence of Institutional Theory,” Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4, 493-511.
Scott, R., 2001, Institutions and Organizations, 1st, London: Sage.
Scott, W. R. and Meyer, J. W., 1983, “The Organization of Societal Sectors” in Meyer, J. W.
and Scott, W. R. (eds.), Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality,
First Edition, London: Stage, 129-153.
Selznick, P., 1949, TVA and the Grass Roots, 1st, Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Sherer, P. D. and Lee, K., 2002, “Institutional Change in Large Law Firms: A Resource
Dependence and Institutional Perspective,” Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 45, No. 1, 102-119.
Simon, H. A., 1996, The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Suchman, M. C., 1995, “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional approaches,”
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, 571-610.
Suddaby, R. and Greenwood, R., 2005, “Rhetorical Strategies of Legitimacy,”
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 1, 35-67.
Tolbert, P. S. and Zucker, L. G., 1983, “Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal
Structure of Organizations: the Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935,”
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1, 22-39.
Tolbert, P. S., 1985, “Institutional Environment and Resource Dependence: Sources of
Administrative Structure in Institutions of Higher Education,” Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 1, 1-13.
Tushman, M. L. and Anderson, P., 1986, “Technological Discontinuities and Organizational
Environments,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 3, 439-465.
Van de Ven, A. H., 1986, “Central Problems in the Management of Innovation,”
Management Sciences, Vol. 32, No. 5, 590-607.
von Hippel, E., 1986, “Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts,” Management
Science, Vol. 32, No. 7, 791-805.
Walsham, G., 2006, “Doing interpretive research,” European Journal of Information
Systems, Vol. 15, No. 3, 320-330.
Weber, M., 1947, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, 1st, London: Free
Press.
Zimmerman, M. A. and Zeitz, G. J., 2002, “Beyond Survival: Achieving New Venture
Growth by Building Legitimacy,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, No.
3, 414-431.
Zott, C. and Huy, Q. N., 2007, “How Entrepreneurs Use Symbolic Management to Acquire
Resources,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 1, 70-105.
Zucker, L. G., 1977, “The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence,” American
Sociological Review, Vol. 42, No. 5, 726-743.
Zucker, L. G., 1987, “Institutional Theories of Organization,” Annual Review of Sociology,
Vol. 13, No. 2, 443-464.