近年來，跨界創業成為企業發展的新趨勢，高科技企業家踏足餐飲業的現象逐漸增多。然而，不同行業的制度邏輯差異常常導致跨行業企業運營面臨挑戰，現有研究對於跨行業運營產生的制度邏輯衝突及企業如何回應制度邏輯間衝突相關研究較為匱乏，成為現有制度邏輯文獻中的理論缺口。本研究旨在探索高科技企業家涉足餐飲業過程中遇到的制度邏輯衝突及其解決方案。通過對代表性案例餐廳進行半結構化實地訪談收集資料，進而對跨行業運營過程中出現的衝突事件進行歸納。本研究進一步將這些衝突問題歸納為經營理念、員工管理方式和顧客體驗三類。為解決這些衝突問題，本研究建議採取妥協調整經營理念、以員工為中心調整管理方式，以及以顧客為本的方式來平衡科技化服務與顧客滿意度的措施。本研究為高科技企業家跨足餐飲業提供了有效的應對機制，以便其他企業家和管理者在類似情境中能夠受益，進而促進跨領域創業的成功與發展。

In recent years, cross-industry entrepreneurship has become a new trend in corporate development, with High-Tech Firm Diversifying into Restaurant Businesses. However, the differences in institutional logics between industries often lead to challenges in cross-industry operations. Existing research is relatively scarce regarding the conflicts arising from these differing institutional logics and how companies respond to such conflicts, creating a theoretical gap in the current literature on institutional logics. This study aims to explore the institutional logic conflicts encountered by high-tech entrepreneurs venturing into the restaurant industry and their solutions. By conducting semi-structured field interviews with representative case study restaurants, the study collects data and summarizes conflict events that arise during cross-industry operations. These conflict issues are further categorized into three types: business philosophy, management style, and customer experience. To address these conflicts, the study suggests adopting compromise adjustments in business operations, employee-centric adjustments in management styles, and customer-centric approaches to balance technological services with customer satisfaction. This research provides effective response mechanisms for high-tech entrepreneurs entering the restaurant industry, enabling other entrepreneurs and managers to benefit in similar situations, thereby promoting the success and development of cross-industry entrepreneurship.

中文文獻
宋堅剛與趙宬斐，2014，黨內“選舉民主”與“協商民主”——雙向邏輯演進及其相容性分析[J]，石河子大學學報(哲學社會科學版)，28(06)。
周雪光與艾雲，1989，多重邏輯下的制度變遷: 一個分析框架. American Sociological Review，54(5)，663281。
邱均平與鄒菲，2004，關於內容分析法的研究，中國圖書館學報，30(2)，12-17。
翁晶晶與謝英哲，2019，績效薪資改革的盲點: 制度邏輯的新視角[J]，中山管理評論，27(1)：139-178。
陳向明，2000，質的研究方法與社會科學研究，北京，中國：教育科學出版社。
陳蕙芬與張瑜倩，2021，多元制度邏輯的共生之道－以甘樂文創為例，管理學報，38(4)：613-640。doi：10.6504/JMBR.202112_38(4).0008。
楊大鵬，2021，基於企業家認知視角的跨界創業生成機制研究，企業改革與管理，21：3-5。doi：10.13768/j.cnki.cn11-3793/f.2021.2115。
劉玉煥、尹玨林與李丹，2020，社會企業多元制度邏輯衝突的探索性分析，研究與發展管理，32(3)：13-24。
鄧鎖，2005，雙重制度邏輯與非營利組織的運行-一個新制度主義視角的解釋，華東理工大學學報，4：28-31。

英文文獻
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of management review, 39(3), 364-381.
Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2017). Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling: Concept evolution and theoretical challenges. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 2, 77-101.
Currie, W. L., & Guah, M. W. (2007). Conflicting institutional logics: a national programme for IT in the organisational field of healthcare. Journal of Information Technology, 22, 235-247.
Dalpiaz, E., Rindova, V., & Ravasi, D. (2016). Combining logics to transform organizational agency: Blending industry and art at Alessi. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 347-392.
Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Administrative science quarterly, 55(1), 114-149.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. A. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 232-263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gawer, A., & Phillips, N. (2013). Institutional work as logics shift: The case of Intel’s transformation to platform leader. Organization studies, 34(8), 1035-1071.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management annals, 5(1), 317-371.
Heimer, C. A. (1999). Competing institutions: Law, medicine, and family in neonatal intensive care. Law and Society Review, 17-66.
Henderson, K. A., (1991). Dimensions of Choice : A Qualitative Approach to Recreation, Parks, and Leisure Research. Stage College, PA: Venture.
Hensmans, M. (2003). Social movement organizations: A metaphor for strategic actors in institutional fields. Organization studies, 24(3), 355-381.
Ismail, S. A., Heeks, R., Nicholson, B., & Aman, A. (2018). Analyzing conflict and its management within ICT4D partnerships: an institutional logics perspective. Information Technology for Development, 24(1), 165-187.
Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 840, 243-275.
Meyer, A. D. (1982). Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative science quarterly, 515-537.
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an Attention-Based View of the Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 18, 7–206.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of management review, 16(1), 145-179.
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of management review, 35(3), 455-476.
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of management journal, 56(4), 972-1001.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2009. Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6): 629-652.
Ren, H., Wang, R., Zhang, S., & Zhang, A. (2017). How do internet enterprises obtain sustainable development of organizational ecology? A case study of LeEco using institutional logic theory. Sustainability, 9(8), 1375.
Saz-Carranza, A., & Longo, F. (2012). Managing competing institutional logics in public–private joint ventures. Public Management Review, 14(3), 331-357.
Thornton, P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of management journal, 45(1), 81-101.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 840(2008), 99-128.
Thornton, P. H., Jones, C., & Kury, K. (2005). Institutional logics and institutional change in organizations: Transformation in accounting, architecture, and publishing. In Transformation in cultural industries (pp. 125-170). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. OUP Oxford.
Tumbas, S., Schmiedel, T., & Vom Brocke, J. (2015, January). Characterizing multiple institutional logics for innovation with digital technologies. In 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4151-4160). IEEE.
Upton, S., & Warshaw, J. B. (2017). Evidence of hybrid institutional logics in the US public research university. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(1), 89-103.
Van den Broek, J., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2017). Multiple institutional logics in health care:‘productive ward: releasing time to care’. In Innovation in Public Services (pp. 70-89). Routledge.
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and semi-structured methods. Qualitative Research Interviewing, 1-424.
Wimalasinghe, R., & Gooneratne, T. N. (2019). Control practices in a traditional industry in Sri Lanka: an institutional logics perspective. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 16(1), 93-116.

網絡資料
駝鹿君，2022，新消費產業10個小趨勢，https://m.36kr.com/p/1766298773348871， 搜索日期：2023年11月18日。