自造者的風潮不論在歐美或是中國都受到相當的重視，而近年來也吹進了台灣，除了對於產品創新以及傳統產業鏈的影響，教育也因此受到了改變，進一步強調STEM教育的重要性。除了自造者空間與嘉年華外，自造者們常使用的開源平台也在整個風潮中佔有一席之地，透過創用CC的形式得以讓每樣創作以及點子讓更多人看見，並經過不同人的巧手，打造出更豐富多元的物件，以滿足我們生活上的需求並解決困難。
有學者發現，人們使用科技或系統時有內在與外在的因素，例如進行網路購物時，使用網購平台也可以獲得功利型、任務型的價值，也就是找到想要的東 西;同時獲得享樂型價值，一趟滿意的購物之旅，因此本研究將探討知覺快樂價值與知覺功利價值與台灣自造者使用此類開源平台的意願，同時測試涉入、網及路外部性以及知覺易用性所帶來的干擾效果。研究發現涉入對於快樂價值與使用意願間有著負向干擾效果，而對於功利價值則無顯著干擾，外部性與知覺易用性則對於兩種價值與使用意願有著負向的干擾。
本研究的結果提供未來學者將涉入、外部性，以及易用性設為干擾變數時所需考量的要點，以及研究台灣自造者相關領域議題時的建議。同時建議平台經營者在提升平台所能帶來的功利價值時，仍須維持其娛樂性，讓使用者感到快樂，並持續發展與平台具有互補性的服務，例如有關數位製造工具與開源軟硬體之線上課程。

The maker movement have attracted much attention in the Europe, US and China, recently in Taiwan. Besides the impact of product innovation and disruption of supply chain, it also make us value more about our education in science, technology, engineering and mathematic (STEM). Along with maker faire and makerspace, the open source platform also plays an important role. Through Creative Common, makers are not only allowed to share their invention and idea, but also to modify others’ work, to generate objet more diverse. These creations can satisfy our need and solve our problems.
Some researchers find that people use technology and system driven by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Further, one study shows that when people use e-commerce, the can have utilitarian and functional value, finding what they want and hedonic value, a happy shopping journey. The study examines the effect between perceived hedonic and utilitarian value and maker’s intention to use and discuss the moderator effect of involvement, network externalities and perceived ease of use at the same time. The presented result indicate that both perceived hedonic and utilitarian value have positive effect on maker’s intention to use open source platform, and involvement has negative moderator effect on relation of hedonic value, but not significant influence on utilitarian value. Both network externalities and perceived ease of use has slightly negative moderator effect.
The study examine the moderator effect of involvement, network externalities and perceived ease of use, and we also give researchers some advices about what to concern if they want to use involvement, network externalities and perceived ease of use as moderator. To attract more users, owner of such platform should keep develop and deliver the complementary service, like online course of digital manufacturing tools and open source software/hard ware.

1. Introduction - 1 -
2. Theoretical Issues - 5 -
2.1 Perceived Value - 5 -
2.1.1 Utilitarian Value - 8 -
2.1.2 Hedonic Value - 9 -
2.2 Intention to Use - 9 -
2.3 Involvement - 10 -
2.4 Network Externalities - 12 -
2.5 Perceived Ease of Use - 15 -
3. Methodology - 17 -
3.1 Research Framework - 17 -
3.2 Questionnaire Design and Measure - 17 -
3.3 Sample and Data Collection - 20 -
4. Data analysis - 22 -
4.1 Reliability and Validity - 22 -
4.2 Regression Analysis and Hypotheses Testing - 25 -
5. Conclusions - 27 -
5.1 Discussion and Implications - 27 -
5.2 Limitation and Future Directions - 30 -
References - 32 -

[1] Amoako-Gyampah, K. (2007). Perceived usefulness, user involvement and behavioral intention: an empirical study of ERP implementation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1232-1248.

[2] Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of consumer research, 20(4), 644-656.

[3] Brynjolfsson, E., & Kemerer, C. F. (1996). Network externalities in microcomputer software: An econometric analysis of the spreadsheet market. Management science, 42(12), 1627-1647.

[4] Babin, B. J., & Attaway, J. S. (2000). Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining share of customer. Journal of Business research, 49(2), 91-99.

[5] Babin, B. J., & Kim, K. (2001). International students' travel behavior: a model of the travel-related consumer/dissatisfaction process. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 10(1), 93-106.

[6] Babin, B. J., & Babin, L. (2001). Seeking something different? A model of schema typicality, consumer affect, purchase intentions and perceived shopping value. Journal of Business research, 54(2), 89-96.

[7] Battistella, C., & Nonino, F. (2012). Open innovation web-based platforms: The impact of different forms of motivation on collaboration. Innovation, 14(4), 557-575.

[8] Boussard, J. (2014). Makers: The New Industrial Revolution, by Chris Anderson; The New Industrial Revolution: Consumers, Globalization and the End of Mass Production, by Peter Marsh.

[9] Brady, T., Salas, C., Nuriddin, A., Rodgers, W., & Subramaniam, M. (2014). MakeAbility: Creating accessible makerspace events in a public library. Public Library Quarterly, 33(4), 330-347.

[10] Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2002). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of retailing, 77(4), 511-535.

[11] Chiu, H. C., Hsieh, Y. C., Li, Y. C., & Lee, M. (2005). Relationship marketing and consumer switching behavior. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1681-1689.

[12] Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., Sun, S. Y., Lin, T. C., & Sun, P. C. (2005). Usability, quality, value and e-learning continuance decisions. Computers & Education, 45(4), 399-416.

[13] Chu, C. W., & Lu, H. P. (2007). Factors influencing online music purchase intention in Taiwan: An empirical study based on the value-intention framework. Internet Research, 17(2), 139-155.

[14] Chun, H., Lee, H., & Kim, D. (2012). The integrated model of smartphone adoption: Hedonic and utilitarian value perceptions of smartphones among Korean college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(9), 473-479.

[15] Colegrove, T. (2013). Editorial board thoughts: libraries as makerspace?. Information Technology and Libraries (Online), 32(1), 2.

[16] Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.

[17] Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts.

[18] Deloitte (2013) IMPACT OF THE MAKER MOVEMENT

[19] Deloitte (2014) Maker Impact Summit 2014 Impacts of the maker movement.

[20] Retrieved from:
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/center-for-the-edge/articles/maker-impact-summit-2014.html

[21] Frey, K., Lüthje, C., & Haag, S. (2011). Whom should firms attract to open innovation platforms? The role of knowledge diversity and motivation. Long Range Planning, 44(5), 397-420.

[22] Forest, C. R., Moore, R. A., Jariwala, A. S., Fasse, B. B., Linsey, J., Newstetter, W. E. N. D. Y., ... & Quintero, C. (2014). The invention studio: A university maker space and culture. Advances in Engineering Education, 4(2), 1-32.

[23] Gurbaxani, V., & Mendelson, H. (1990). An integrative model of information systems spending growth. Information Systems Research, 1(1), 23-46.

[24] Gandal, N. (1994). Hedonic price indexes for spreadsheets and an empirical test for network externalities. the RAND Journal of Economics, 160-170.

[25] Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2000). The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: A study of e-commerce adoption. Journal of the association for Information Systems, 1(1), 8.

[26] Gupta, S., & Mela, C. F. (2008). What is a free customer worth? Armchair calculations of nonpaying customers' value can lead to flawed strategies. Harvard Business Review, 86(11), 102-9.

[27] Gao, L., & Bai, X. (2014). An empirical study on continuance intention of mobile social networking services: Integrating the IS success model, network externalities and flow theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 26(2), 168-189.

[28] Holbrook, M. B., & Corfman, K. P. (1985). Quality and value in the consumption experience: Phaedrus rides again. Perceived quality, 31(2), 31-57.

[29] Havlena, W. J., & Holbrook, M. B. (1986). The varieties of consumption experience: comparing two typologies of emotion in consumer behavior. Journal of consumer research, 13(3), 394-404.

[30] Hsiao, K. L., Chuan-Chuan Lin, J., Wang, X. Y., Lu, H. P., & Yu, H. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of trust in online product recommendations: An empirical study in social shopping. Online Information Review, 34(6), 935-953.

[31] Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (Eds.). (2013). Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. Routledge, p. 13.

[32] Hess, T. J., McNab, A. L., & Basoglu, K. A. (2014). Reliability Generalization of Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, and Behavioral Intentions. Mis Quarterly, 38(1), 1-28.

[33] Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495-504.

[34] Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American economic review, 75(3), 424-440.

[35] Kim, H. W., Chan, H. C., & Gupta, S. (2007). Value-based adoption of mobile internet: an empirical investigation. Decision support systems, 43(1), 111-126.

[36] Kim, J., Fiore, A. M., & Lee, H. H. (2007). Influences of online store perception, shopping enjoyment, and shopping involvement on consumer patronage behavior towards an online retailer. Journal of retailing and Consumer Services, 14(2), 95-107.

[37] Kim, G. S., Park, S. B., & Oh, J. (2008). An examineination of factors influencing consumer adoption of short message service (SMS). Psychology & Marketing, 25(8), 769-786.

[38] Kayeser Fatima, J., & Abdur Razzaque, M. (2013). Roles of customer involvement in rapport and satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(3), 452-471.

[39] Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 40(3), 191-204.
[40] Lakhani, K. R., & Von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works:“free” user-to-user assistance. Research policy, 32(6), 923-943.

[41] Lin, C. P., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2008). Elucidating individual intention to use interactive information technologies: The role of network externalities. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(1), 85-108.

[42] Lu, Y., Zhou, T., & Wang, B. (2009). Exploring Chinese users’ acceptance of instant messaging using the theory of planned behavior, the technology acceptance model, and the flow theory. Computers in human behavior, 25(1), 29-39.

[43] Lu, H. P., & Hsiao, K. L. (2010). The influence of extro/introversion on the intention to pay for social networking sites. Information & Management, 47(3), 150-157.

[44] Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1152-1161.

[45] Lin, T. C., Wu, S., Hsu, J. S. C., & Chou, Y. C. (2012). The integration of value-based adoption and expectation–confirmation models: An example of IPTV continuance intention. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 63-75.

[46] Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education, 61, 193-208.

[47] Moital, M., Vaughan, R., & Edwards, J. (2009). Using involvement for segmenting the adoption of e-commerce in travel. The Service Industries Journal, 29(5), 723-739.

[48] Morar, D. D. (2013). An overview of the consumer value literature–perceived value, desired value. Marketing From Information to Decision, (6), 169-186.

[49] Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 4.

[50] Olson, J. C., & Peter, J. P. (1987). Consumer Behavior: Marketing Strategy Perspectives.

[51] Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International journal of electronic commerce, 7(3), 101-134.

[52] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.

[53] Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22-27.

[54] Richins, M. L., & Bloch, P. H. (1986). After the new wears off: The temporal context of product involvement. Journal of Consumer research, 13(2), 280-285.

[55] Rayna, T., Striukova, L., & Darlington, J. (2015). Co-creation and user innovation: the role of online 3D printing platforms. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 37, 90-102.

[56] Richardson, M., & Haylock, B. (2012). Designer/maker: the rise of additive manufacturing, domestic-scale production and the possible implications for the automotive industry. Computer-Aided Design & Applications PACE, 2, 33-48.

[57] Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvements: Social attitudes and identifications.

[58] Saadé, R. G., & Kira, D. (2007). Mediating the impact of technology usage on perceived ease of use by anxiety. Computers & education, 49(4), 1189-1204.

[59] Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. Á. (2007). The concept of perceived value: a systematic review of the research. Marketing theory, 7(4), 427-451.

[60] Song, M., Parry, M. E., & Kawakami, T. (2009). Incorporating network externalities into the technology acceptance model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(3), 291-307.

[61] Svendsen, G. B., Johnsen, J. A. K., Almås-Sørensen, L., & Vittersø, J. (2013). Personality and technology acceptance: the influence of personality factors on the core constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(4), 323-334.

[62] Stager, G. S. (2013, June). Papert's prison fab lab: implications for the maker movement and education design. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 487-490). ACM.

[63] Sánchez, R. A., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students' perceptions of Facebook for academic purposes. Computers & Education, 70, 138-149.

[64] Schön, S., Ebner, M., & Kumar, S. (2014). The Maker Movement. Implications of new digital gadgets, fabrication tools and spaces for creative learning and teaching. eLearning Papers, 39, 14-25.

[65] Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing science, 4(3), 199-214.

[66] Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.

[67] Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. A. (2001). A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in homes: adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS quarterly, 71-102.

[68] Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS quarterly, 695-704.

[69] Von Busch, O. (2012). Molecular management: Protocols in the maker culture. Creative Industries Journal, 5(1-2), 55-68.

[70] Yang, J., & Mai, E. S. (2010). Experiential goods with network externalities effects: An empirical study of online rating system. Journal of Business Research, 63(9), 1050-1057.

[71] Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of consumer research, 12(3), 341-352.

[72] Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of advertising, 23(4), 59-70.