Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131736
題名: 你是不會做,還是害怕面對? 一個非工程專業人員的職場民族誌
Can`t you do this, or you are just afraid of it? An institutional ethnographic analysis of non-engineering professionals
作者: 宋孟純
Sung, Meng-Chun
貢獻者: 黃東益
Huang, Tong-Yi
宋孟純
Sung, Meng-Chun
關鍵詞: 工程全生命週期
建置民族誌
契約變更
履約管理
管理裁罰
life cycle in public construction
Institutional Ethnography
contract modifications
contract management
penalties
日期: 2020
上傳時間: 2-Sep-2020
摘要: 我國公共工程規範實則多且規定繁複,尤其對於非土木工程相關背景出身之秘書室人員來說,如何從政府採購法著手並拼湊出整個工程採購至工程履約管理更是一大挑戰。有別於過往文獻皆聚焦在工程全生命週期各階段的流程制定、常見的錯誤樣態分析或施工品質等面向上,而鮮少針對非工程專業承辦人的內心、想法或可能牽涉的各方互動結構關係進行研究。\n本研究藉由建置民族誌為研究方法,以承辦人的斷裂經驗為立足點,討論我國公共工程規範對下屬機關的影響程度,機關藉由工程規範文本為統治手段所做的契約管理以及裁罰對機關、監造和廠商三者所造成的角力為何。\n首先,介紹工程的全生命週期,引導出在工程各階段廠商協力治理的項目和機關可能採取的管理手段和措施;並透過不完全契約理論的介紹,說明為何大部分的公共工程最後都會走上契約變更一途。再者說明如何藉由建立標準與服務規範、引薦嚴格的績效監控系統、設定矯正機制等管理策略來做好履約管理。\n接下來則是論述在現行工程會的制度規範下,業主如何對廠商進行管理裁罰的衡量、評估等,如第三方勢力的介入、繁文縟節、履約管理專業度、廠商-業主互動等情形都有可能是影響業主對廠商裁罰緩重的因素,並由組織觀點和業務觀點描繪出工地現場權力的運作。\n最後,總結本研究發現和限制,並建議未來工程合約可用協力治理模式或改採關係式契約、加強才能培訓課程、制定工程加給或是設置合約管理師、時程控制工程師等都是可協助提升機關承辦人履約管理能力的可行性建議。
Specifications of public construction in Taiwan are numerous and complicated, posing difficulties particularly to non-engineering professionals in Administrative Services Office. For non-engineering professionals, getting the whole picture of public construction procurement and contract management by putting two and two together seems a great challenge. Previous studies focus on the procedure making of each stage in public construction, error analyses, or quality of public construction, but few of them study the thoughts of non-engineering professionals or the interaction relationship of parties concerned.\nThe theoretical framework of this study is Institutional Ethnography. From the standpoint of case takers with experiences of disjuncture, this study discusses what extent do specifications of public construction affect attached offices, how contract management is guided by specifications of public construction, and the struggle between implementers, supervisors, and suppliers when\npenalty incurs.\nThis study starts with the introduction of the life cycle in public construction, pointing out the\nitems that implementers cooperate with suppliers in each stage and possible management methods\nand measurements for implementers. Incomplete contract theory explains the reasons to a majority of contract modifications. Managing contracts by setting up standards and specifications of service, and introducing rigorous performance assessment and correction system are also\ndelineated.\nWith current specifications from the Public Construction Commission, this study reviews how implementers evaluate penalties. Factors such as involvement of a third party, red tape,knowledge on contract management, and interaction between implementers and suppliers\ndetermine how severe a penalty is likely to be. Besides, this study depicts the operation of powers in a construction site from the aspect of implementers.\nFindings and limitations of this study offer a number of suggestions to improve contract management. Adoption of cooperative management or contractual relationship, the offer of extra training courses, the professional allowance to persons in charge of public construction, and nomination of contract management specialists or time management engineers could be taken into consideration.
參考文獻: 王价巨、李顯掌、徐肇昕(2011)。公共建設之永續性思維與作法—從綠色內涵到節能減碳。行政院公共工程委員會發行,3-1∼3-27。\n王文宇(2009)。契約定性、漏洞填補與任意規定:以一則工程契約終止的判決為例。臺大法學論叢,38(2),131-186。\n王伯儉(2003)。工程糾紛與索賠實務(初版第2 刷)。台北:元照出版。\n王伯儉(2008)。工程契約法律實務(二版)。台北:元照出版有限公司\n王增勇、唐文慧、陳伯偉、許甘霖、徐畢卿、陳志軒、梁莉芳(譯)(2012)。為弱勢者畫權力地圖:建制民族誌入門(原作者:Marie L.Campbell, Frances Gregor)。臺北市:群學。\n王增勇(2015)。建制民族誌:為弱勢者發聲的研究取徑。載於瞿海源等(主編),社會及行為科學研究法:質性研究法(323-354)。臺北市:臺灣東華。\n立法院(2016)。立法院第9屆第2會期第3次會議議案關係文書(院總第1650號)。\n林淑馨(2015)。行政學。台北:三民書局。\n林昱瑄(2012)。建制民族誌作為揭露統治關係的途徑:以大學教師評鑑制度為例。新批判,1,1-39。\n林慶璋(2010)。公共工程全生命週期施工階段品質管理提昇策略。未出版之碩士論文,國立中央大學,土木工程學系碩士在職專班。\n江丙坤(2000)。法制再造之意義與作法。月旦法學雜誌,57,16-26。\n行政院公共工程委員會(2014)。公共工程全生命週期管控機制參考冊。\n行政院公共工程委員會(2018)。公共建設工程經費估算編列原則。\n呂明蓁、林津如、唐文慧(譯)(2007)。母職任務與學校教育的拔河(原作者:Alison I.Griffith, Dorothy E. Smith)。台北市:高等教育。\n余文恭(2004)。論工程契約定作人之指示-兼論FIDIC 紅皮書之相關規定。法令月刊,55(11),10-17。\n李家慶主編(2016)。工程與法律的對話(修訂三版)。台北:三民。\n李家慶(2006)。工程法律與索賠實務。台北:中華民國仲裁協會。\n周佳宥(2014)。不良廠商之認定及其救濟程序。法令月刊,65(7),95-112。\n胡哲生、陳志遠(2009)。社會企業本質、任務與發展。創業管理研究,4(4),1-28。\n姚志明(2010)。公共營建工程契約之成立以營建工程之招標、決標為中心。月旦法學雜誌,181,213-232。\n姚志明(2014)。工程法律基礎理論與判決研究:以營建工程為中心。台北:元照。\n孫本初(2010)。公共管理。台北:勝智文化。\n陳敦源(2010)。公私協力夥伴關係的弔詭。文官制度季刊,2(3),17-71。\n陳重安(2011)。政府契約委外的再檢視:目標、理論應用、績效衡量、與知識論基礎。公共行政學報,40,111-143。\n陳建宇(1999)。淺談工程合約工期之訂定。營造天下,41,4-9。\n陳建宇、駱忠誠(2009)。政府採購異議、申訴、調解實務。台北:永然文化出版股份有限公司。\n陳向明(2011)。社會科學質的研究。台北:五南出版社。\n陳育含(譯)(2010)。訪談研究法(原作者:Steinar Kvale)。新北市:韋伯文化。\n陳厚旭(2017)。公共工程因變更設計導致工期展延之履約爭議案例研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立雲林科技大學,營建工程系。\n陳英本(2005)。承包商因工期展衍生工程成本之探討。未出版之碩士論文,國立中央大學,土木工程學系。\n陳玉潔(2005)。工程契約變更之爭議問題。未出版之碩士論文,國立政治大學,法律學研究所。\n國家發展委員會(2016)。公共建設計畫全生命週期績效管理推動報告。\n國家發展委員會(2018)。政府公共建設計畫先期作業實施要點。\n國家發展委員會(2019)。政府重大公共建設計畫-全生命週期績效管理手冊。\n許政璿(2017)。公共工程履約爭議之研究—以契約價金為中心。未出版之碩士論文,輔仁大學,法律學系。\n黃源協(2006)。社會服務契約管理:台灣中部四縣市社會行政人員觀點之分析。臺大社會工作學刊,(13),173-217。\n曾冠球(2019a)。不完全契約與夥伴關係—促進民間參與公共建設個案之研究。臺灣民主季刊,16(3),59-112。\n曾冠球(2019b)。契約課責的弔詭:政府處理履約績效不佳廠商之多重考量。東吳政治學報,37(1),55-114。\n曾冠球(2010)。「問題廠商」還是「問題政府」?電子化政府公私合夥協力困境之個案分析。公共行政學報,34,77-121。\n游凱(2015)。公共工程履約爭議調解機制之研究。未出版之碩士論文,東吳大學,法律學系。\n黃金田、林志棟、周南山(2009)。公共工程全生命週期品質管理整體架構之研訂。行政院公共工程委員會委託研究計劃(編號:97-技-2)。臺北市:行政院公共工程委員會。\n黃立(2010)。工程承攬契約之重大變更。政大法學評論,116,1-45。\n黃振鋒(2011)。公共工程契約遲延之研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立中正大學,財經法律學研究所。\n詹佩樺(2016)。我國公共工程履約爭議以及相關因應措施之探討。未出版之碩士論文,國立高雄大學,政治法律學系。\n楊智斌(2018)。提升政府重大工程計畫專案管理方法。國土及公共治理季刊,6(3),16-25。\n楊正誠(2005)。析論組織俗民誌的意義、概念、方法與實例。女學學誌:婦女與性別研究,20,223-254。\n鄭少君(2016)。公共工程工期展延爭議原因分析及因應對策之研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺灣大學,土木工程研究所。\n廖錦秀(2016)。工程採購契約變更的探討—以公共工程為中心。未出版之碩士論文,中原大學,財經法律研究所。\n鄧勝軒(2007)。淺論公共工程契約風險公平合理分擔。營建季刊,70,71-75。\n鄧勝軒(2015)。營建工程契約性質與種類。載於工程契約與法律(41-43)。新北市:台灣工程法學會。\n監察院(2019)。監察院調查報告108 交調0014 號。\n蔡宜靜(2017)。公共工程進度管理規範之執行與改善建議-以軌道交通工程為例。未出版之碩士論文,國立中央大學,營建管理研究所。\n劉淑瓊(2001)。社會服務“民營化”再探:迷思與現實。社會政策與社會工作學刊,5(2),7-56。\n劉淑瓊(2005)。績效、品質與消費者權益保障:論社會服務契約委託的責信課題。社會政策與社會工作學刊,9(2),31-93。\n劉祐希(2018)。因工期展延而衍生與時間有關之費用研究-以個案判決深度分析為核心。未出版之碩士論文,國立台灣大學,土木工程學系。\n劉帥雷(2017)。論公共工程之業主變更指示權。未出版之碩士論文,中原大學,財經法律研究所。\n蔡佳樺(2018)。公共工程專案工期遲延關鍵因素探討。管理資訊計算期刊,7,194-203。\n臺北市政府工務局(2013)。台北市政府公共工程履約管理參考手冊(第五版)。臺北市:台北市政府工務局採購管理科。\n蕭家進(2001)。公共工程爭議處理的省思。現代營建,260,65-70。\n謝哲勝、李金松(2010a)。工程契約理論與實務(下冊)。台北:翰蘆圖書出版有限公司。\n謝哲勝、李金松(2010b)。工程契約理論與實務(上冊)。台北:翰蘆圖書出版有限公司。\n謝哲勝、李金松(2014)。工程契約理論與實務:兼論政府採購法(第三版)。台北:翰蘆圖書出版有限公司。\n藍秉強(2015)。合約管理維護合法權益第一道防線。營建知訊,388,35-41。\n顏玉明(2005)。營建工程承攬契約之時間義務。營造天下,114,8-17。\n羅尹廷(2016)。公共工程工期爭議與處理對策之探討。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺灣科技大學,營建工程系。\nAgranoff, R. & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.\nBovens, M. (1998). The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex\nOrganizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\nBozeman, B. & Feeney, M. K. (2011). Rules and red tape: A prism for public administration theory and research. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.\nBrewer, G. A. & Walker, R. M. (2010). The impact of red tape on governmental performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 20(1),233-257.\nCollins, P. H. (1992). Transforming the Inner Circle: Dorothy Smith’s Challenge to Sociological Theory. Sociological theory, Vol. 10(1), 73-80.\nContract Management Guide (2019). The Chartered Institute of Purchasing & Supply.\nDeVault, M. L. & McCoy, L. (2006). Institutional Ethnography: Using Interviews to Investigate Ruling Relations. In D. E. Smith (Ed.), Institutional Ethnography as Practice (pp.15-44).New York: Rowman & Littlefield.\nDeHart, D. L. & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,Vol. 15(1), 133-148.\nDoherty, B., Haugh, H. & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review\nand research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.16(4), 417-436.\nDomberger, S. & Jensen, P. (1997). Contracting out by The Public Sector: Theory, Evidence,Prospects. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 13(4), 67-78.\nDomberger, S. (1998). The contracting organization: A strategic guide to outsourcing. New York: Oxford University Press.\nFerris, M. & Graddy, E. A. (1998). A contractual framework for new public management theory.\nInternational public management journal, Vol .1(2), 225-240.\nFeeney, M. K. & Rainey, H. G. (2009). Personnel flexibility and red tape in public and nonprofit\norganizations: Distinctions due to institutional and political accountability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol .20(4), 801-826.\nGriffith, A. I. & Smith, D. E. (2014). Under New Public Management: Institutional Ethnographies of Changing Front-Line Work. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto\nPress.\nGirth, A. M. (2016). Incentives in Third-Party Governance: Management Practices and Accountability Implications. Public Administration Review, Vol.77(3), 433-444.\nGirth, A. M. (2014). A Closer Look at Contract Accountability: Exploring the Determinants of Sanctions for Unsatisfactory Contract Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol.24(2), 317-348.\nGates, S. & Hill J. (1995). Democratic Accountability and Governmental Innovation in the Use of Nonprofit Organizations. Policy Studies Review, Vol.14(1-2), 137-148.\nHart, O. (2017). Incomplete Contracts and Control. American Economic Review, Vol.107(7),1731-1752.\nKettl, D. F. (1997). The global revolution in public management: Driving themes, missing links.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol.16(3), 446-462.\nMerton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces, Vol.18(4), 560-568.\nMulgan, R. (1997). Contracting out and accountability. Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol.56(4), 106-116.\nMwakibinga, F. A. & Buvik, A. (2013). An Empirical Analysis of Coercive Means of Enforcing Compliance in Public Procurement. Journal of Public Procurement, Vol.13(2), 245-273.\nNoble, G. (2006). The role of contracts in public private partnerships. UNSW Law Journal, Vol.29(3), 276-281.\nPeters, B. G. & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol.8(2), 223-243.\nSmith, D. E. (1999). Writing the Social: Critique, Theory and Investigations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.\nSmith, D. E. (2005). Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology For People. Rowman Altamira.\nSmith, D. E. (2006). Institutional Ethnography As Practice. Marryland: Rowman & Littlefield.\nSimon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational; Mathematical Essays on Rational\nHuman Behavior in a Social Setting. New York: Wiley.\nTrivedi, C. & Misra, S. (2015). Relevance of Systems Thinking and Scientific Holism to Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol 24(1), 37-62.\nWalby, K. (2007). On the Social Relations of Research:A Critical Assessment of Institutional Ethnography. Qualitative inquiry, Vol 13(7), 1008-1030.\nWalker, R. M. & Brewer, G. A. (2009). Can management strategy minimize the impact of red tape on organizational performance? Administration & Society, Vol 41(4), 423-448.\nWorld Bank. (2018). Procurement Contract Management Guidance.\nQuinn, J. B., Doorley, T. L. & Paquette, P. C. (1990). Beyond products: Services-based strategy. Harvard Business Review, Vol 68(2), 58-68.\nVan Slyke, D.M. (2003). The Mythology of Privatization in Contracting for Social Services. Public Administration Review, Vol 63(3), 296-315.\nVan Slyke, D. M. (2007). Agents or Stewards: Using Theory to Understand the Government-Nonprofit Social Service Contracting Relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol 17(2), 157-187.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
104256031
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1042560311
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.