2020 年全球半導體供應鏈重組後，傳統大型統包工程公司面臨一個轉折：能否從石化重工跨入高科技建廠領域。本研究以具石化背景的 C 公司為單一個案研究對象，透過對決策主管、資深組長與外部顧問的深度訪談，探討傳統大型組織如何克服路徑依賴（Path Dependency），建立適應敏捷環境的動態能力（Dynamic Capabilities）。
研究發現，C 公司的轉型成功關鍵在於「結構、流程、知識」三維度之協同調適：
結構層面：透過成立高科技設施事業部（ATFBO）及系統部，並實施「縱切分工」，打破傳統職能部門之「穀倉效應」，有效縮短溝通路徑並實現以系統為核心的當責制。
流程層面：推動「EPCK（設計、採購、建造、試車）一條龍」模式，將作業邏輯由「線性產出」轉化為「以試車回饋驅動設計（K-driven Design）」之服務導向流程，從而化解介面推諉，實現與業主之價值共創（Value Co-creation）
知識層面：藉由外部顧問之介入啟動「解構學習（Unlearning）」，引導工程師將石化範式之「證據驅動」決策，重構為因應高科技極速建廠之「預測性設計」思維。
本研究總結認為，傳統大型統包工程公司的轉型，本質上是一場「組織雙元性（Organizational Ambidexterity）」的實踐過程，即在保有既有嚴謹品質之基礎上，演化出具備韌性與敏捷性的高價值服務系統。本研究之成果不僅具備理論解釋力，亦為台灣傳統統包工程業在全球高科技賽道中之競爭定位提供實務參考。

Since the global semiconductor supply chain restructuring in 2020, traditional large-scale EPC companies have reached a critical paradigm shift, transitioning from petrochemical and heavy industry frameworks toward Advanced-Tech facility construction services. This study employs Company C, an industry leader with a profound petrochemical heritage, as a single case study. Through in-depth interviews with decision-making executives, senior leads, and external consultants, the research explores how a mature organization overcomes path dependency to build dynamic capabilities within an agile environment.
The research findings indicate that the success of Company C’s transformation is rooted in the synergistic adaptation across three dimensions: structure, process, and knowledge:
Structural Dimension: By establishing the Advanced Technology Facility Business Operations (ATFBO) and implementing "Vertical Grouping," the organization dismantled the "Silo Effect" inherent in traditional functional departments. This effectively shortened communication paths and realized a system-centric accountability framework.
Procedural Dimension: The promotion of the "EPCK (Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning) Integrated" model transformed the operational logic from "linear output" to a service-oriented process driven by commissioning feedback (K-driven Design). This shift mitigated interface friction and facilitated value co-creation with project owners.
Knowledge Dimension: The intervention of external consultants acted as a catalyst for "Unlearning," guiding engineers to reconstruct the "evidence-driven" decision-making mindset of the petrochemical paradigm into a "predictive design" logic essential for rapid Advanced-Tech construction.
This study concludes that the transformation of traditional EPC companies is essentially an exercise in "Organizational Ambidexterity," where firms must maintain their rigorous quality standards while evolving into high-value service systems characterized by resilience and agility. The findings not only offer theoretical contributions to the literature on innovation management but also provide strategic references for the competitive positioning and digital innovation of the EPC Construction industry within the global Advanced-Tech arena.

參考文獻
(中文)
1. 土木水利46卷 6期： (2019, Dec.)：「高科技廠房工程」專輯.
2. 中鼎集團. (2020-2026). 內部專案里程碑與 ATFBO 事業部發展紀錄 (未公開資料).
3. CTCI Group. (2026, April)
https://www.ctci.com/
4. 中鼎集團電子報 No.487 集團動態：中鼎4,500億案量創巔峰： 鎖定 AI 算力基礎設施，全球高科技版圖全面擴張. (2026, April). 中鼎集團電子報.
https://www.ctci.com/e-newsletter/CH/487/hot-news/
5. 行政院公共工程委員會全球資訊網：統包採購機制及相關法規介紹.
https://www.pcc.gov.tw/?lang=1
6. 陳體宏，「公共工程統包商之經營管理研究，以大型工程顧問公司為例」，國立中央大學土木工程學系碩士在職專班碩士，民國九十七年。
7. 劉凌中，「無塵室統包工程之專案管理」， 管理碩士學程在職進修專班碩士論文，民國九十六年。
8. 饒國政，「統包工程初步設計完成度之研究」，國立臺灣科技大學營建工程學系碩士論文，民國九十五年。
(英文)
1. Ballantyne, D., & Varey, R. J. (2006). Creating value-in-use through marketing interaction: The exchange of operative resources. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 335-348.
2. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they?. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121.
3. Grönroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 279-301.
4. Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. Handbook of Organizational Design, 1(1), 3-27.
5. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant. Harvard Business School Press.
6. Shostack, G. L. (1984). Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review, 62(1), 133-139.
7. Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689-709.
8. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
9. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
10. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17.
11. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage.