Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136522


Title: 臺北、桃園智慧城市協力創新之研究 -以自駕巴士為個案
Taipei and Taoyuan Smart Cities in the Perspective of Collaborative Innovation- A Case Study of Autonomous Shuttle
Authors: 陳虹琇
Chen, Hong-Xiu
Contributors: 蕭乃沂
Hsiao, Nai-yi
陳虹琇
Chen, Hong-Xiu
Keywords: 協力治理
公部門創新
智慧城市
自駕巴士
Collaborative Governance
Public Innovation
Smart City
Autonomous Shuttle
Date: 2021
Issue Date: 2021-08-04 15:47:50 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 隨著經濟與社會的快速發展,各地方政府透過城市治理提升市民的生活品質與解決市政運行上的困難日趨重要,為了達到智慧治理與創新發展的目標,政府機構必須與政府以外的組織、單位、個人建立良善的協力合作關係,使公部門創新活動得以系統化、穩定化與常態化。
為深入瞭解智慧城市運作脈絡,本研究透過文獻檢閱方式,探討公部門進行智慧城市創新活動與協力合作之間的關聯性與重要性,並應用Sørensen & Torfing(2011)協力創新架構與Ojasalo & Tähtinen(2016)創新中介之概念,以個案研究與深度訪談方式,關注我國臺北市與桃園市智慧城市治理運作機制,以及進入開放試驗階段之自駕巴士專案的協力樣態。
根據研究結果,臺北市與桃園市政府因預算規模與政策推動方向的不同,在組織設計與專案流程規劃上有明顯之差異,從兩直轄市治理與專案運作過程觀察出智慧城市協力創新網絡的關鍵參與者包含:中央政府、任務編組的智慧城市委員會、資訊業務單位、具備管理、評估、媒合三項中介功能之中介單位、以及負責專案推動與執行的執行單位,在外部組織的部分則包含掌握創新技術資源的私人企業、學研機構與公民社會。也彙整出七個自駕巴士進入試驗階段的關鍵資源:首長支持、政府場域、產業資源、法規調適、經費補助以及其他協力參與者,與四項專案運作所面臨之挑戰:協調作業繁雜、對接窗口眾多;數位科技快速變動之下,公部門難以配合不同的標準;政府對創新研發的風險承受能力與接觸意願低;以及廠商提案缺乏規劃或忽略商業模式而無法延續。
最後,本研究根據以上研究成果提出實務建議:建立明確的專案成案評估模式、重視智慧城市的治理制度設計與PMO創新平台的管理機制、以及促進不同城市之間的分享機制,另外,中央政府和地方政府之間的數位串聯機制也對智慧城市的規畫與政策方向具有極高之影響力。
With the rapid development of economy and society, it’s important for local governments to improve the living quality of their citizens and solve governance difficulties. In order to improve innovative development and promote digital transformation, local governments have to collaborate with other public or private organizations, units and individuals to make public innovation activities systematized, stabilized, and normalized.
This study uses literature review to explore the relation and importance of “innovation” and “collaboration” in local government conducting smart city projects by using the framework of collaborative innovation from Sørensen & Torfing (2011) and intermediary platform concept from Ojasalo & Tähtinen (2016). Adopting the case study method, this study selects Taipei City, Taoyuan City and autonomous shuttle experimental project to conduct in-depth interviews with members of local governments, intermediary of smart city and senior supervisors of the private sectors.
The results indicate that Taipei City and Taoyuan City establish different models to operate the smart city and projects due to the differences of policy and budget scale between two cities. Amomg the actual operations of the two cities, there are eight key participants in the smart city collaborative innovation network, including (1) the central government, (2) smart city committees, (3) department of information technology, (4) smart city project management office (PMO) as an intermediary , (5) project authorities, (6) private enterprises, (7) research institutions and (8) civil society. The research also finds six key resources to implement smart city projects successfully, including (1) mayors’ and commissioners’ support, (2) experiment field of government, (3) industrial resources, (4) regulatory adjustments, (5) execution funds, and (6) other cooperative participants. There are four challenges of smart city projects. First, it’s complicated for private sectors to collaborate with different public bureaus. Second, it’s difficult for the public sector to meet variety of digital standards. Third, public servants have a low appetite for risk and unwilling to engage in innovative activities. Fourth, some projects failed because of poor planning and no commercial values to keep on developing.
According to the research results, this study provides three suggestions with local governments. First, establish a clear evaluation model for experimental projects. Second, attach importance to innovation platform such as the project management office. Third, encourage local governments to share the experience achievement with other cities. Furthermore, the central government has great impact on smart city strategy. It’s necessary to build a collaborative network between ministries of the central government and local governments.
Reference: I. 中文部分
台灣智慧城市產業聯盟(2016)。智慧城市框架。2020年9月1日,取自:http://smartcity.org.tw/white_paper.php。
江明修(2009)。研究方法論。臺北:智勝文化事業公司。
何明錦、陳伯勳、羅時麒(2015)。赴歐洲丹麥及荷蘭執行「智慧城市研習行程」報告。推展智慧城市與都市防災先期計畫。
李仲彬(2013)。政府創新的類型與分佈:我國地方政府 1999-2010 年間的觀察。公共行政學報,(44),73-112。
李仲彬(2016)。從哪來的創新想法?地方政府創新來源與創新政策特質的分析。公共行政學報,(50),1-42。
李仲彬(2017)。政策創新的影響因素:我國地方政府的分析(1999-2013)。 東吳政治學報,35(2),139-206。
李仲彬(2018)。與生俱來與後天培養: 影響公務人員創新態度與行為的因素分析. 公共行政學報,(54),1-40。
李政通(2019)。從英國推動智慧城市模式看跨域創新的潛在效益與挑戰。2020年9月15日,取自:https://portal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/article/10492。
李長晏(2016)。如何強化中央與地方府際合作協調機制。國土及公共治理季刊,4(3),42-57。
李維斌(2018)。以政府為平臺,城市為生活實驗室的創新文化:臺北市政府經驗分享。國土及公共治理季刊,6(4),106-111。
林金定、嚴嘉楓、陳美花(2005)。質性研究方法:訪談模式與實施步驟分析。身心障礙研究季刊,3(2),122-136。
林淑馨(2016)。台灣非營利組織與地方政府協力的實證分析: 以六縣市為例。政治科學論叢,(69),103-147。
林欽榮(2017)。城市治理與智慧城市產業驅動臺北策略。國土及公共治理季刊,5(4),82-91。
紐文英(2017)。質性研究方法與論文寫作(二版)。臺北:雙葉書廊有限公司。
張世杰(2011)。公共治理與地方創新-宜蘭縣社區林業計畫的推展經驗。空大行政學報,(22),113-158。
張世杰、彭俊亨(2010)。公共創新的歷史制度論分析:理論分析架構的提出。第七屆地方治理與城鄉發展學術研討會,台灣新竹。
陳向明(2002)。 社會科學質的硏究。臺北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
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。
彭錦鵬(2016)。文官制度的國際變遷趨勢與我國的改革。文官制度季刊,8(2),1-23。
曾冠球(2011)。協力治理觀點下公共管理者的挑戰與能力建立。文官制度季刊,3(1),27-52。
曾冠球(2017)。良善協力治理下的公共服務民間夥伴關係。國土及公共治理季刊,5(1),67-79。
辜騰玉(2015)。【專訪】阿姆斯特丹如何推動智慧城市專案。iThome電腦報周刊。取自https://ithome.com.tw/news/97982?cv=1。
董旭英、黃儀娟譯(2000)。次級資料研究法(Stewart, D. W., & Kamins, M. A.著)。臺灣:弘智。
解鴻年(2015)。國土規劃下之智慧城市發展。國土及公共治理季刊,3(2),19-31。
廖洲棚、廖興中、黃心怡(2018)。開放政府服務策略研析調查:政府資料開放應用模式評估與民眾參與公共政策意願調查。國家發展委員會委託研究報告(編號:NDC-MIS-106-003)。
榮予恆(2019)。邁向敏捷政府–敏捷專案管理在我國數位治理的應用與影響。政治大學公共行政學系學位論文。
臺北市政府(2019)。臺北智慧城讓好市發生。2020年9月1日,取自:https://smartcity.taipei/。
劉宜君(2006)。公共網絡的管理與績效評估之探討,行政暨政策學報,(42),107-142。
劉柏定、劉孟俊、吳佳勳(2019)。數位經濟發展下數位治理之國際標竿參照。經濟部委託研究報告。
潘競恒、蔣麗君(2013)。地方政府電子治理成效認知評估研究。行政暨政策學報,(56),43-83。
謝敏文、陳荔芬、王振玉、張伊芳、陳威志(2016)。韓國U-KOREA 智慧城市發展。國家發展委員會出國報告。

II. 英文部分
Agranoff, R. (2007). Managing within networks: Adding value to public organizations. Georgetown University Press.
Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of urban technology, 22(1), 3-21.
Alford, J. (2014). The multiple facets of co-production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Management Review, 16(3), 299-316.
Angelidou, M. (2017). The role of smart city characteristics in the plans of fifteen cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(4), 3-28.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543-571.
Anthopoulos, L. (2017). Smart utopia VS smart reality: Learning by experience from 10 smart city cases. Cities, 63, 128-148.
Ardito, L., Ferraris, A., Petruzzelli, A. M., Bresciani, S., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). The role of universities in the knowledge management of smart city projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 312-321.
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. science, 211(4489), 1390-1396.
Bakici, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). The role of public open innovation intermediaries in local government and the public sector. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(3), 311-327.
Bason, C. (2018). Leading Public Sector Innovation 2E: Co-creating for a Better Society. Policy press.
Bekkers, V. J. J. M., Tummers, L. G., & Voorberg, W. H. (2013). From public innovation to social innovation in the public sector: A literature review of relevant drivers and barriers. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam, EGPA 2013 Conference.
Bland, T., Bruk, B., Kim, D., & Lee, K. T. (2010). Enhancing public sector innovation: Examining the network-innovation relationship. The innovation journal: The public sector innovation journal, 15(3), 1-17.
Bommert, B. (2010). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International public management review, 11(1), 15-33.
Boyle, D., & Harris, M. (2009). The challenge of co‐production. London: New Economics Foundation.
Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2006). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services: An introduction. Public management review, 8(4), 493-501.
Brown, L., & Osborne, S. P. (2013). Risk and Innovation Towards a framework for risk governance in public services. Public Management Review, 15, 186-208.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross‐Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review, 66, 44–55.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public administration review, 74(4), 445-456.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross‐sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647-663.
Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen, E. (2017). Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 640-654.
Chathoth, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R. J., Okumus, F., & Chan, E. S. (2013). Co-production versus co-creation: A process based continuum in the hotel service context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 11-20.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.
Cowley, R., Joss, S., & Dayot, Y. (2018). The smart city and its publics: insights from across six UK cities. Urban Research & Practice, 11(1), 53-77.
Dohrmann, T., Ghia, A., & Murthy, E. (2018). Advice from Silicon Valley: How tech-sector practices can promote innovation in government. McKinsey Company.
Eggers, W. D., & Singh, S. K. (2009). The Public Innovator's Playbook: Nurturing bold ideas in government. Ash Institute, Harvard Kennedy School.
Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 97–108
Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&d Management, 40(3), 213-221.
Greater London Authority. (2018). Smarter London Together. London.
Ili, S., Albers, A., & Miller, S. (2010). Open innovation in the automotive industry. R&d Management, 40(3), 246-255.
Karima, K., & Nijkamp, P. (2012). Smart cities in the innovation age. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(2), 93-95.
Kettl, D. F. (2000). The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government. Public administration review, 60(6), 488-497.
Koch, P., & Hauknes, J. (2005). On innovation in the public sector–today and beyond. Publin research project.
Lam, P. T., & Yang, W. (2020). Factors influencing the consideration of Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) for smart city projects: Evidence from Hong Kong. Cities, 99, 102606.
Lee, S., Hwang, T., & Choi, D. (2012), Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries. Management Decision, 50(1), 147-162.
Leminen, S. (2013). Coordination and Participation in Living Lab Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(11): 5-14.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing theory, 6(3), 281-288.
Mainka, A., Castelnovo, W., Miettinen, V., Bech‐Petersen, S., Hartmann, S., & Stock, W. G. (2016). Open innovation in smart cities: Civic participation and co‐creation of public services. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 53(1), 1-5.
Marchiori, M. (2017). The smart cheap city: efficient waste management on a budget. In 2017 IEEE 19th International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications; IEEE 15th International Conference on Smart City; IEEE 3rd International Conference on Data Science and Systems , 192-199.
Mergel, I. (2014). Opening Government: Designing Open Innovation Processes to Collaborate with External Problem Solvers. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 599–612.
Merriam-Webster Online. (2020). Coordination. Retrieved MAY., 5, 2020, from: http://www.merriam-webster.com .
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard university press.
Moore, M., & Hartley, J. (2008). Innovations in governance. Public management review, 10(1), 3-20.
Mora, L., & Bolici, R. (2015). How to become a smart city: Learning from Amsterdam . International conference on Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions, 251-266. Springer, Cham.
Mulgan, G. (2007). Ready or not?: taking innovation in the public sector seriously. Nesta.
Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th annual international digital government research conference: digital government innovation in challenging times , 282-291.
Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance, 185-194.
Nambisan, S. (2008). Transforming government through collaborative innovation. IBM Centre for the Business of Goverment Research Report.
OECD (2019). Embracing innovation in government. Global trends 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Ojasalo, J., & Tähtinen, L. (2016). Integrating open innovation platforms in public sector decision making: Empirical results from smart city research. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(12), 38-48.
Ojasalo, J., & Kauppinen, H. (2016). Collaborative innovation with external actors: an empirical study on open innovation platforms in smart cities. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(12).
Osborne, S. P., & Brown, L. (2011). Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK. The word that would be king ? Public administration, 89(4), 1335-1350.
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment?. Public management review, 18(5), 639-653.
Ostrom, E., Parks, R. B., Whitaker, G. P., & Percy, S. L. (1978). The public service production process: a framework for analyzing police services. Policy Studies Journal, 7, 381.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co‐creating unique value with customers. Strategy & leadership, 32(3), 4-9.
Prebensen, N. K., Vittersø, J., & Dahl, T. I. (2013). Value co-creation significance of tourist resources. Annals of tourism Research, 42, 240-261.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. Third Edition, Macmillan publishing Co., Inc. NEW YORK.
Rudloff, V. (2018). The Relation between Smart Cities and Innovation Ecosystems. (master's thesis).
Ruijer, E., & Meijer, A. (2019). Open Government Data as an Innovation Process: Lessons from a Living Lab Experiment. Public Performance & Management Review, 1-23
Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson, M., & Oliveira, A. (2011). Smart cities and the future internet: Towards cooperation frameworks for open innovation. In The future internet assembly, 431-446. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Schumpeter, J. (1946). Economic theory and entrepreneurial history: Change and the entrepreneur. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society, 43(8), 842-868.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2017). Metagoverning collaborative innovation in governance networks. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(7), 826-839.
Ståhlbröst, A., Holst, M., Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., & Sällström, A. (2009). Striving for realism in a user involvement process. ISPIM Innovation Symposium.
Steen, K., & Van Bueren, E. (2017). The Defining Characteristics of Urban Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(7): 21-33.
Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 20-32.
Torfing, J. (2019) Collaborative innovation in the public sector: the argument, Public Management Review, 21(1), 1-11.
United Nations. (2018). The World’s Cities in 2018: data booklet. UN.
Viale Pereira, G., Cunha, M. A., Lampoltshammer, T. J., Parycek, P., & Testa, M. G. (2017). Increasing collaboration and participation in smart city governance: a cross-case analysis of smart city initiatives. Information Technology for Development, 23(3), 526-553.
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public management review, 17(9), 1333-1357.
Von Hippel, E. (1989). Cooperation between rivals: informal know-how trading. In Industrial dynamics, 157-175. Springer, Dordrecht.
West, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: a research agenda. Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, 285-307.
Woetzel, J., Remes, J., Boland, B., Lv, K., Sinha, S., Strube, G., Means, J., Law, J., Cadena, A., & Von der Tann, V. (2018). Smart cities: Digital solutions for a more livable future. McKinsey Global Institute: New York, NY, USA, 1-152.
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
107256011
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1072560111
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[公共行政學系] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
011101.pdf4414KbAdobe PDF16View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing