臺灣依《職場互助式教保服務實施辦法》推動職場互助教保服務中心政策，委託非營利法人於政府機關及企業內設置微型教保機構。本研究以一所設置於特殊管制政府機關內的職場互助教保服務中心為個案，採單一個案研究設計，探討該機構在資源與制度限制下的組織創新歷程。研究資料涵蓋三位不同組織層級受訪者之深度訪談、研究者反思札記、集體省思對話紀錄、三個時間點之家長回饋文件，以及空間視覺資料，以主題分析法進行編碼，並以多元資料三角檢證確保可信實度。
研究發現，本個案面臨制度性資源限制與場域封閉性的雙重限制，使社區資源補償路徑被截斷。面對此限制，組織透過隨創行動與瑞吉歐教育理念的意義建構，在管理實踐、空間配置與教保服務等面向同時發展出相互強化的整合性組織創新，並逐步演化為穩定的制度性常規。
在意義建構機制方面，本研究呈現三個相互強化的歷程。瑞吉歐教育理念作為合法性語言的供給，提供隨創行動教育正當性的認知框架；集體省思對話作為社會性意義建構的制度化場域，教保員在其中逐步發展感知孩子細微發展的專業能力；正向回饋迴路透過孩子進步、家長評估框架轉換與外部制度性認可逐步形成。在此歷程中，正式資源配置條件未有明顯改變，組織行為的轉變主要源於認知框架的重構。
本研究延續限制驅動創新的既有學術脈絡，初步發展「限制驅動型組織創新」之分析概念，辨識出四個組織前提條件與理論適用邊界，並提出實務面與政策面之參考建議。

Taiwan has established workplace mutual-aid educare centers by commissioning nonprofit organizations to operate compact educare facilities within government agencies and enterprises. This study adopted a single-case design to investigate one such center situated within a special-access government facility, examining its organizational innovation process under resource and institutional constraints. Data comprised interviews with three participants at different organizational levels, a researcher's reflective journal, collective reflection dialogue records, parent feedback documents across three time points, and eight photographs documenting spatial transformation, analyzed through thematic analysis with triangulation.
Findings revealed dual constraints: fiscal limitations compounded by physical site closure, which severed the community-resource compensatory pathway typically available to similar institutions. Through bricolage and sensemaking mediated by the Reggio Emilia educational philosophy, the organization developed integrated organizational innovation across management practices, spatial reconfiguration, and educare services, which gradually evolved into stable institutional routines.
Three mutually reinforcing sensemaking mechanisms were identified: the Reggio Emilia philosophy as a legitimacy language supply providing an educational justification framework for bricolage; collective reflection dialogue as an institutionalized social sensemaking field where educare workers developed micro-developmental observation competencies; and a positive feedback loop formed through children's progress, parents' evaluative framework transformation, and external institutional recognition. Formal resource allocation remained largely unchanged; the behavioral transformation derived primarily from cognitive framework reconstruction.
Building on the existing constraint-driven innovation literature, the study tentatively develops the analytical concept of constraint-driven organizational innovation, identifies four organizational prerequisite conditions and theoretical boundary conditions, and offers practical and policy-related recommendations for reference.

一、中文文獻
中央社（2026年3月5日）。政府機關設166處職場互助教保中心提供9700名額。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/ahel/202603050072.aspx
內政部（2026）。內政部戶口統計資料。內政部戶政司全球資訊網。 https://www.ris.gov.tw/app/portal/346
田白玉（2012）。幼兒園組織再造與經營策略之研究［碩士論文，中臺科技大學］。華藝線上圖書館。
行政院（2023）。我國少子女化對策計畫（核定本）。行政院。
呂祐慎（2022）。臺北市公幼教師運用社區資源於教學之困境調查研究［碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學］。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
林佳慧（2022）。對職場互助式教保服務空間與設施設備規劃的思考與施行。臺灣教育評論月刊，11(11)，18–22。
國家發展委員會（2022）。中華民國人口推估（2022至2070年）。國家發展委員會。
曹亞倫、陳怡靜、高震峰（2024）。鬆散素材融入幼兒園環境藝術課程之藝術本位行動研究：以一所都會區學校為例。藝術教育研究，(47)，47–86。
教育部（2021）。職場互助式教保服務實施辦法。全國法規資料庫。
教育部（2022）。非營利幼兒園及職場互助教保服務中心績效考評指標。教育部。
許玉齡（2022）。從經營非營利幼兒園實績到職場互助教保服務中心的挑戰與因應。臺灣教育評論月刊，11(11)，23–27。
許聰顯、秦夢群（2019）。遇見第三位教師：學校空間環境的學習促進。中等教育，70（2），32–48。
莊品琬（2021）。從公私協力觀點探討地方政府公共托育政策：以澎湖縣為例［碩士論文，國立中山大學］。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
陳意文、吳思華、項維欣（2010）。資源基礎觀點下之資源拼湊與價值創造：以台灣翅帆開發創新產品為例。科技管理學刊，15(2)，1–19。
黃淑玲（2025）。職場互助教保服務中心運作困境之初探－從教保服務人員角度出發［碩士論文，中國文化大學］。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
歐姿秀、保心怡、江弘基（2022）。從績效考評指標修正變化看非營利幼兒園辦理目標之引導與實施。臺灣教育評論月刊，11(11)，11–17。
藍秀雯、張弘勳（2020）。教保服務人員知識分享與專業發展之研究。學校行政，(128)，296–318。
羅鳳珍（2016）。組織學習與幼教師專業成長關係之研究：以A幼兒園為例。慈惠學報，12，192–203。
二、英文文獻
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2003). On sustainability of project innovations as systemic change. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1401_01
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329-366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329
Bourgeois, L. J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 29-39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1981.4287985　
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa　
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Heinemann.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing action research in your own organization (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice-Hall.
Daly, L., & Beloglovsky, M. (2015). Loose parts: Inspiring play in young children. Redleaf Press.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590. https://doi.org/10.5465/256406
Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 392-409. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393031
Damanpour, F., Szabat, K. A., & Evan, W. M. (1989). The relationship between types of innovation and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 26(6), 587-602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1989.tb00746.x
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
Fraser, S. (2006). Authentic childhood: Experiencing Reggio Emilia in the classroom. Thomson Nelson.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
Gibson, J. L., Cornell, M., & Gill, T. (2017). A systematic review of research into the impact of loose parts play on children's cognitive, social and emotional development. School Mental Health, 9(4), 295-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-017-9220-9
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. SAGE Publications.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind (George Weidenfeld and Nicolson Ltd., Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962)
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
Nicholson, S. (1971). How not to cheat children: The theory of loose parts. Landscape Architecture, 62, 30-35.
Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1245-1264. https://doi.org/10.2307/256998
OECD. (2005). Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (3rd ed.). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264013100-en
OECD/Eurostat. (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279002
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
Radjou, N., Prabhu, J., & Ahuja, S. (2012). Jugaad innovation: Think frugal, be flexible, generate breakthrough growth. Jossey-Bass.
Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching and learning. Routledge.
Rosner, M. M. (1968). Economic determinants of organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(4), 614-625. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391536
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Strong-Wilson, T., & Ellis, J. (2007). Children and place: Reggio Emilia's environment as third teacher. Theory Into Practice, 46(1), 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840709336547　
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.