本研究探討跨國企業在推行全球服務制度時，如何在不同市場條件下形成可行的落地方式。研究以 A 公司在台灣（成熟市場）、泰國（過渡市場）與柬埔寨（新興市場）的制度實務為比較個案，關注制度離開設計端後，在地方如何被理解、調整與維持。研究焦點不在制度文本，而在執行者如何在現場的限制中，使制度能夠真正運作。
本研究採用質性多個案研究，蒐集內部文件、訪談資料與作業觀察，從制度設計、地方調適與治理回饋三個層次重構制度落地的動態歷程。分析結果顯示三項主要發現。
第一，同一套制度在不同市場呈現不同樣貌，其差異來自市場在基礎條件上的支撐程度。台灣能將制度轉化為日常能力；泰國需要在標準與可行性之間取得平衡；柬埔寨則以最低可行型維持制度框架。第二，執行者會依據現場條件調整制度，使其能夠貼近實際需求。成熟市場以微調提升精準度，過渡市場以協調維持順暢度，新興市場則以務實補強確保制度不致中斷。第三，制度的持續性取決於地方經驗能否被治理層吸收。成熟市場的回饋形成穩定循環，過渡市場需要透過轉譯與試行，新興市場則多依賴外部監督。
綜合而言，本研究指出制度能否落地，不僅與制度內容有關，更取決於地方條件是否足以支撐制度、執行者是否保有調整空間，以及治理層是否具備有效吸收與回應的能力。跨國企業若能在全球一致性與在地可行性之間建立動態調整機制，制度便能在多元市場中逐步演化為穩定的運作模式。

This study examines how multinational firms introduce global service standards into markets with different levels of maturity. Using Company A’s operations in Taiwan (mature), Thailand (transitional), and Cambodia (emerging) as comparative cases, the research focuses on what happens when centrally designed institutions enter local environments. Rather than emphasizing formal documents, the study explores how frontline execution teams interpret, adjust, and sustain institutional requirements under practical constraints.
A qualitative multiple-case approach was adopted, drawing on internal documents, interview data, and operational observations. The analysis reconstructs the dynamic process of institutional implementation across three dimensions: institutional design, local adjustment, and governance feedback. Three main findings emerged.
First, the same institution takes on different forms depending on each market’s underlying capacity to support it. Taiwan internalizes institutional processes into routine capabilities; Thailand balances standardization with feasibility; Cambodia maintains minimum workable structures while gradually building capacity. Second, execution teams adjust procedures to bridge the gap between institutional requirements and on-the-ground realities. Mature markets refine processes for accuracy, transitional markets negotiate workable routines, and emerging markets rely on simplification and supplemental support. Third, institutional sustainability depends on whether local experience is effectively absorbed at the governance level. Feedback forms a stable loop in mature markets, requires translation and trial mechanisms in transitional markets, and relies heavily on external oversight in emerging markets.
Overall, the study shows that institutional implementation depends not only on formal guidelines but also on local conditions, available room for adjustment, and the strength of feedback mechanisms. When multinational firms balance global consistency with local feasibility, institutions can evolve into stable operating models across diverse markets.

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Harvard Business School Press.
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.