Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125734| 題名: | 公部門績效管理制度下的協力互動研究─以臺北市政府策略地圖之次分組為例 Collaborative Interaction under the Performance Management System in the Public Sector: A Case Study of Sub-groups under the Strategy Map in Taipei City Government |
作者: | 徐亦韜 Hsu, I-Tao |
貢獻者: | 傅凱若 Fu, Kai-Jo 徐亦韜 Hsu, I-Tao |
關鍵詞: | 策略地圖 公部門 協力 回應行為 Strategy map Public sector Collaboration Dysfunctional reactions |
日期: | 2019 | 上傳時間: | 5-Sep-2019 | 摘要: | 近年來，臺北市政府將策略地圖作為其內部各行政機關的績效管理工具，而在某種程度上，此舉算是領先於我國其他公部門組織。在這項新制度中，次分組的機制設計，具有跨機關協力之特色，但其能否產生協力效果，這是本研究所欲探討的。另外，組織在績效管理的制度下，可能會出現一些回應行為，而本研究也同樣好奇，次分組中的各機關，是否也會產生這樣的行為。\n本研究主要以協力框架作為立論基礎。在資料蒐集上，本研究運用半結構式訪談法，同時搭配立意抽樣和滾雪球抽樣的方式，來選擇受訪對象，而本研究總共訪談了16位受訪者。\n本研究結果顯示，首先，在協力過程中，次分組各機關並未產生跨機關協力之效果，這是因為受到相關規範及協力機制設計之影響，而造成的。其次，在協力機制形成上，這些機制大都是依據各機關的業務，而設計出來的。其三，在協力結果上，策略地圖的激勵效果並不算太好，而且若各機關未達到目標值時，還會面臨到許多的課責壓力。其四，部分機關在策略地圖下，仍出現了一點回應行為。最後，本研究根據這些發現，對策略地圖未來的推動，提出一些改善建議。 In recent years, Taipei City Government has used “Strategy Map” as a performance management tool for its internal agencies and, to a certain extent, this way takes the leading position over other public sector organizations in Taiwan. Under the new system, the sub-group design is characterized by cross-agency collaboration; however, whether the collaborative effect could be achieved is an issue of this study. In addition, since some dysfunctional reactions in organizations may occur in the performance management system, this study also explores whether these agencies of the sub-groups perform such behaviors or not.\nThis study primarily uses the collaborative framework as the theoretical basis. In this study, the researcher adopted semi-structured interview and used purposive sampling and snowball sampling to select interviewees. 16 interviewees were interviewed in this study.\nThe results indicate that, first of all, the agencies of sub-groups don’t produce the collaborative effect in the collaborative process. This repercussion could be influenced by the relevant rules and collaborative mechanism design. Second, it was found that the collaborative mechanisms are mostly designed according to the business of each agency. Third, concerning the collaborative outcome, the incentive effect of the strategy map doesn’t perform properly. On top of that, if these agencies fail to reach the target, they would face much pressure of accountability. Fourth, some agencies have some dysfunctional reactions under the strategy map. Based on these findings, this study proposed some suggestions for strategy map in the future. |
參考文獻: | 壹、中文部分\n曲兆祥、陳蕙娟（2016）。地方政府績效管理－臺北市政府推動策略地圖之過程與效益。國土及公共治理季刊，4（3），124-130。\n吳安妮（2003）。平衡計分卡在公務機關實施之探討。研考雙月刊，27（5），45-61。\n林昱綸（2017）。策略地圖與平衡計分卡於公部門之應用調適研究：以臺北市政府為例。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。\n邱友義（2017）。臺北市政府導入策略地圖之研究－策略規劃與預算配置的校準過程。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。\n邱秋煌（2009）。平衡計分卡運用於警察機關績效評估之研究─以花蓮港務警察局為例。國立東華大學公共行政研究所碩士論文，未出版，花蓮。\n施能傑（2008）。政府業務終結的分析架構。公共行政學報，28，85-113。\n施婉婷（2007）。平衡計分卡之研究─以新竹市環境保護局為例。中華大學行政管理學系碩士論文，未出版，新竹。\n胡龍騰（2016）。績效悖理之潛因探析：制度邏輯與心理帳戶觀點。東吳政治學報，34（1），209-268。\n胡龍騰（2017a）。公僕管家心：制度環境、任事態度與績效行為。臺北：五南。\n胡龍騰（2017b）。政府績效管理指標設計：如何既K、且P、又I。國土及公共治理季刊，5（3），68-79。\n胡龍騰、曾冠球、蘇毓昌（2016）。臺北市政府推動歷年年度施政計畫績效評核比較分析之研究。臺北市政府研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（市政專題研究報告第401輯），未出版。\n范麗雪（2011）。政府與國立大學財務關係之研究：以主理代理理論觀點為例。國立臺南大學教育經營與管理研究所博士論文，未出版，臺南。\n張其祿、廖達琪（2010）。強化中央行政機關橫向協調機制之研究。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：RDEC-RES-098-003），未出版。\n張婷瑄（2018）。公部門專案管理的協調之初探─以臺北市參與式預算提案為例。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。\n張鎧如（2018）。初探我國地方政府從事災害防救組織協力之動機：理論與實務的比較。公共行政學報，54，79-125。\n陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。臺北：五南。\n陳敦源（2012）。民主治理：公共行政與民主政治的制度性調和。臺北：五南。\n陳敦源、張世杰（2010）公私協力夥伴關係的弔詭。文官制度季刊，2（3），17-71。\n彭渰雯、林依依、楊和縉（2018）。協力決策後的績效弔詭：以性別影響評估和生態檢核表為例。公共行政學報，54，41-78。\n曾冠球（2007）。行政機關間合作的邏輯與限制。國立政治大學公共行政學系博士論文，未出版，臺北。\n黃榮源（2012）。地方政府施政績效評估機制之研究。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：RDEC-RES-100-009），未出版。\n臺北市政府（2018）。臺北市政府107年度施政計畫。臺北：臺北市政府。\n臺北市政府策略地圖108年度推動計畫（2019）。2019年6月11日，取自：https://www-ws.gov.taipei/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvNTQ0L3JlbGZpbGUvNDA5NjEvNzY0NTcwNy8yYzFiZjNlNS0xZDllLTQ3NDQtYjgyMi0zNzlmNzZlMGRmM2IucGRm&n=MDNf5pys5bqc562W55Wl5Zyw5ZyWMTA45bm05o6o5YuV6KiI55WrLnBkZg%3d%3d&icon=..pdf。\n藍婉甄（2014）。政府委託研究案知識應用之研究─以臺北市政府為例。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。\n蘇偉業（2009）。公共部門事前定向績效管理：反思與回應。公共行政學報，30，105-130。\n\n貳、英文部分\nAgranoff, R., & M. McGuire (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.\nAnsell, C., & A. Gash (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571.\nAskim, J. (2004). Performance management and organizational intelligence: Adapting the balanced scorecard in Larvik municipality. International Public Management Journal, 7(3), 415-438.\nBarney, J. B., & W. Hesterly (2006). Organizational economics: Understanding the relationship between organizations and economic analysis. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The sage handbook of organization studies (2nd ed.) (pp. 111-148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\nBergen, M., S. Dutta, & O. Walker, Jr. (1992). Agency relationships in marketing: A review of the implications and applications of agency and related theories. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 1-24.\nBevan, G., & C. Hood (2006). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 84(3), 517-538.\nBolívar, M. P. R., A. M. L. Hernández, & D. O. Rodríguez (2010). Implementing the balanced scorecard in public sector agencies: An experience in municipal sport services. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 45, 116-139.\nBouckaert, G., B. G. Peters, & K. Verhoest (2010). The coordination of public sector organizations: Shifting patterns of public management. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.\nBracci, E., L. Maran, & R. Inglis (2017). Examining the process of performance measurement system design and implementation in two Italian public service organizations. Financial Accountability & Management, 33(4), 406-421.\nBryson, J. M., & B. C. Crosby (2008). Failing into cross-sector collaboration successfully. In L. B. Bingham, & R. O’Leary (Eds.), Big ideas in collaborative public management (pp. 55-78). New York, NY: Routledge.\nBryson, J. M., B. C. Crosby, & M. M. Stone (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 44-55.\nBryson, J. M., B. C. Crosby, & M. M. Stone (2015). Designing and implementing cross‐sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647-663.\nDavis, J. H., F. D. Schoorman, & L. Donaldson (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20-47.\nDiefenbach, T. (2009). New public management in public sector organizations: The dark sides of managerialistic ‘enlightenment’. Public Administration, 87(4), 892-909.\nDubnick, M. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), 376-417.\nEisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74.\nEmerson, K., T. Nabatchi, & S. Balogh (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29.\nGazley, B. (2010). Linking collaborative capacity to performance measurement in government—nonprofit partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 653-673.\nGray, B., & D. J. Wood (1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 3-22.\nHeinrich, C. J., & G. Marschke (2010). Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(1), 183-208.\nHood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19.\nHoque, Z. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research. The British Accounting Review, 46(1), 33-59.\nHoque, Z., & C. Adams (2011). The rise and use of balanced scorecard measures in Australian government departments. Financial Accountability & Management, 27(3), 308-334.\nIrwin, D. (2002). Strategy mapping in the public sector. Long Range Planning, 35(6), 637-647.\nJensen, M. C., & W. H. Meckling (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.\nJohnson, H. T. (1988). Activity-based information: A blueprint for world-class management accounting. Management Accounting, 69(12), 23-30.\nKaplan, R. S. (2010). Conceptual foundations of the balanced scorecard. Retrieved April 19, 2019, from https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-074_0bf3c151-f82b-4592-b885-cdde7f5d97a6.pdf.\nKaplan, R. S., & D. P. Norton (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.\nKaplan, R. S., & D. P. Norton (1993). Putting the balanced scorecard to work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 134-147.\nKaplan, R. S., & D. P. Norton (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.\nKaplan, R. S., & D. P. Norton (2000). Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 167-176.\nKaplan, R. S., & D. P. Norton (2001). The strategic focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.\nKaplan, R. S., & D. P. Norton (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.\nKapucu, N., F. Yuldashev, & E. Bakiev (2009). Collaborative public management and collaborative governance: Conceptual similarities and differences. European Journal of Economic and Political Studies, 2(1), 39-60.\nKeast, R., & M. Mandell (2014). The collaborative push: Moving beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence. Journal of Management & Governance, 18(1), 9-28.\nKettl, D. F. (2006). Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 10-19.\nMarvel, M. K., & H. P. Marvel (2009). Shaping the provision of outsourced public services: Incentive efficacy and service delivery. Public Performance & Management Review, 33(2), 183-213.\nMayer, M. & R. Kenter (2016). The prevailing elements of public-sector collaboration. In J. C. Morris, & K. Miller-Stevens (Eds.), Advancing collaboration theory: Models, typologies, and evidence (pp. 43-64). New York, NY: Routledge.\nMcGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 33-43.\nMcNair, C. J., R. L. Lynch, & K. F. Cross (1990). Do financial and nonfinancial performance measures have to agree? The key to this question is knowing when agreement matters. Management Accounting, 72(5), 28-36.\nMoe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739-777.\nMoynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.\nMoynihan, D. P., & D. P. Hawes (2012). Responsiveness to reform values: The influence of the environment on performance information use. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), S95-S105.\nMoynihan, D. P., & S. K. Pandey (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849-866.\nNiven, P. R. (2008). Balanced scorecard: Step-by-step for government and nonprofit agencies (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.\nNørreklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard: A critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 65-88.\nO’Flynn, J. (2009). The cult of collaboration in public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(1), 112-116.\nO’Leary, R., & N. Vij (2012). Collaborative public management: Where have we been and where are we going? The American Review of Public Administration, 42(5), 507-522.\nOtley, D. (1999). Performance management: A framework for management control systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10(4), 363-382.\nPerrow, C. (1986). Economic theories of organization. Theory and Society, 15(1-2), 11-45.\nPidd, M. (2012). Measuring the performance of public services: Principles and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.\nPoocharoen, O. O., & N. H. L. Wong (2016). Performance management of collaborative projects: The stronger the collaboration, the less is measured. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(3), 607-629.\nReck, J. L. (2001). The usefulness of financial and nonfinancial performance information in resource allocation decisions. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 20(1), 45-71.\nRing, P. S., & A. H. Van de Ven (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90-118.\nRodríguez, C., A. Langley, F. Béland, & J. L. Denis (2007). Governance, power, and mandated collaboration in an interorganizational network. Administration & Society, 39(2), 150-193.\nSmith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2-3), 277-310.\nSowa, J. E. (2009). The collaboration decision in nonprofit organizations: Views from the front line. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(6), 1003-1025.\nTalbot, C. (2010). Theories of performance: Organizational and service improvement in the public domain. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.\nTerry, L. D. (1998). Administrative leadership, neo-managerialism, and the public management movement. Public Administration Review, 58(3), 194-200.\nThomson, A. M., & J. L. Perry (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 20-32.\nThomson, A. M., J. L. Perry, & T. K. Miller (2009). Conceptualizing and measuring collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 23-56.\nVan Thiel, S., & F. L. Leeuw (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(3), 267-281.\nWaterman, R. W., & K. J. Meier (1998). Principal-agent models: An expansion? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 173-202.\nWilliams, A. P. (2016). The development of collaboration theory: Typologies and systems approaches. In J. C. Morris, & K. Miller-Stevens (Eds.), Advancing collaboration theory: Models, typologies, and evidence (pp. 14-42). New York, NY: Routledge. | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 公共行政學系 105256018 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105256018 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 601801.pdf | 2.57 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.