1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. 社會科學學院
  4. 學位論文
  5. Item

學術產出-學位論文

文章檢視/開啟

書目匯出

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

引文資訊

TAIR相關學術產出

題名 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
Toward agile government: application and influence of agile project management in the public sector
作者 榮予恆
Yuheng, Jung
貢獻者 蕭乃沂
Hsiao, Nai-Yi
榮予恆
Jung Yuheng
關鍵詞 敏捷專案管理
適應與敏捷治理
數位政府
棘手問題
公私差異
Agile management
Adaptive and agile governance
Digital government
Wicked problem
The difference between public and private sector
日期 2019
上傳時間 5-二月-2020 18:01:46 (UTC+8)
摘要 在科技發展與網路普及應用的趨勢之下，資通訊科技已成為各國政府建構與推動電子化政府各項計畫以提升政府有效治理的主要途徑，隨著資訊業務日趨繁重，各級政府部門在人力、技術及成本的考量下，目前的資訊系統的開發與維護多為委外辦理。然而，資訊委外專案由於初期無法明確定義需求、外部環境變化日趨快速、資通訊科技日新月異、專案過程中易面臨需求變更、開發過程缺乏使用者參與、以及民眾對政府的需求與期待日益增高等原因，政府在數位時代面臨的挑戰日益棘手。近年來公共行政領域興起適應與敏捷治理（Adaptive and Agile Governance），其認為政府應透過外部服務與內部管理的數位化即時回應公共問題以及民眾需求，利用數位科技賦權公民能夠做更多的事情，提升處理和適應問題的能力以適應外部環境的劇烈變化，政府若能透過學習私營部門的敏捷開發（Agile Development）精神來革新公部門傳統的瀑布開發方式，將能有效提升政府的彈性與效率、並減緩投入大量資源卻經常失敗的問題。

本研究採用多重個案比較法探討敏捷治理概念在我國脈絡下的發展情形，分別對「經濟部資訊中心」、「國家災害防救科技中心」、以及「台北市智慧城市計畫」進行實證分析以瞭解敏捷方法於實務上如何操作，期盼藉由所選擇的個案進行深入剖析後能夠對學理與本土經驗研究產生火花。本研究之目的如下：首先，本研究欲瞭解敏捷專案管理出現在公部門的契機為何，探討什麼動機促使專案機關運用導入敏捷開發，以及尋找敏捷為公部門所帶來的效益與影響。其次，探討公部門導入敏捷方法所遭遇的挑戰與困境，以及行政機關如何解決，並瞭解曾導入敏捷的專案人員對敏捷在公部門的看法與建議。

本文發現在我國目前情況下，專案具有高度不確定性與變化性、難以排定期程優先順序、該方案為重點開發項目等性質皆適合導入敏捷方法。惟在公私本質有所差異的情況下，目前公部門導入敏捷所遇到的挑戰大於敏捷帶來的效益與影響，如何為公部門量身定做一套適合的敏捷方法，成為敏捷能否持續在公部門產生效益與影響力的重要關鍵。本研究認為根據成功應用過敏捷專案的機關經驗，我們將可以依據部門類型與專案特性找到合適公部門的方法，研究發現指出專案分階段導入敏捷精神能夠在公部門框架下運作順暢。另外，本研究亦討論了敏捷未來可能的方向，本研究認為從瀑布模式到敏捷開發之間是一段擺盪的過程，公部門在政府採購法的框架下無法避免瀑布模式的本質。其次，大規模推動敏捷雖然可以帶來在政府各級機關遍地開花的機會，但亦有可能面臨過去許多大型政策一開始大力推行，最後卻無疾而終的下場，如何在大規模通動政策的同時避免陷入形式化的結果，我們將需要政策制定者的智慧來判斷。
Widespread use of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in government has transformed the public services. Concerning the professional techniques, human resources, and monetary costs, governments usually ask the private sector to become involved in developing and operating IT projects through outsourcing. However, the performance-based acquisition process in IT outsourcing projects by governments has created many wicked problems. For example, the reasons for government IT project failure include the difficulty in identifying the requirements in the beginning; the rapidly changing external environment; the expeditious innovation of technology; the design shifts that the development process frequently faces; and the overreliance on external IT contractors. In addition, the citizens’ needs and expectations of their governments are rising. As a result, many scholars recently advocate that applying the concept of adaptive and agile governance in the public sector to solve the problems caused by traditional waterfall development.

The methodology is a multiple case study analysis of three public agencies that have conducted an agile project in Taiwan. This article aims to explore that how an agile model can be activated in a government`s acquisition and contracting rules. Results reveal that the appropriate conditions for an agile approach in the government of Taiwan include: projects with higher levels of uncertainty and risk, difficulties in prioritizing schedules, and priorities for the project director. However, the drawbacks of introducing and adopting an agile method to government are more than benefits. Given the fact that the essence between the private sector and public sector is significantly different, (such as the acquisition rules and standards, the culture of civil servants and contract teams, as well as the government-centric thinking), tailoring an agile method is a critical point for governments to decide whether an agile method could be sustained and exert influence in the long term. Last but not least, the scholars and political appointees have to realize that large-scale promotion in government could let all government agencies to adopt an agile method, but it also would cause the result of civil servants to place emphasis on formalizing an agile method rather than pursuing an agile spirit.
參考文獻 I. 中文部分
王仕圖、吳慧敏（2003）。深度訪談與案例演練。收錄於齊力、林本炫編（2003）。質性研究方法與資料分析，95~113頁。嘉義：南華大學教育社會學研究所。
王若馨、黃郁青、夏媺婷、李怡芳，譯（2007）。研究方法的基礎（David, M & Sutton, C. D.著）。台北：韋伯文化國際。
台北市資訊局（2018）。智慧城市推動有成 台北智慧城市戰略揚名國際。2018年9月28日，取自：https://www.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=F0DDAF49B89E9413&sms=72544237BBE4C5F6&s=F58B3904364C19AA。
台北產經（2017）。聚焦智慧應用 透視科技新樣貌。2018年9月28日，取自：https://www.taipeiecon.taipei/article_cont.aspx?MmmID=1202&MSid=745600077431713626。
未來城市（2018）。李維斌專欄｜智商157的柯P智囊，資訊局如何讓臺北市變身智慧城市。2018年9月28日，取自：https://futurecity.cw.com.tw/article/281。
行政院主計處電子處理資料中心（2009）。「政府機構委外資訊系統掌握程度概況」調查報告，2018年12月15日，取自：https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Data/841157971.pdf。
行政院主計處電子處理資料中心（2009）。政府機關「資訊系統委外開發」概況調查報告，2018年12月15日，取自：https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Data/87311203471.pdf。
吳仁和、林信惠（2017）。系統分析與設計：理論與實務應用（修訂七版）。智勝文化事業有限公司。
李衍儒、趙永茂（2016）。公共政策棘手問題界定理論之研究：以我國觀光博弈產業政策與個案為例。行政暨政策學報，（62），1-58。
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。
周天穎、賴玉真、杜雅齡（2015）。國際智慧城市發展指標與評比機制。國土及公共治理季刊，3（2），8-18。
周海濤、李永賢、張蘅（譯）（2009）。個案研究設計與方法（Yin, R. K.原著）。臺北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
林秀雲譯（2016）。社會科學研究方法（Babbie, E著）。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
林佩璇（2000）。個案研究及其在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學主編。質的教育研究方法，頁239-262。
林佳瑩審閱；蔡毓智譯（2013）。研究方法：基礎理論與技巧（Babbie, E著）。臺北市：新加坡商聖智學習。
林信惠、黃明祥、王文良（2002）。軟體專案管體。智勝文化。
林淑馨（2010）。質性研究：理論與實務（初版）。台北市：巨流。
胡幼慧（2008）。質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。臺北市：巨流。
孫本初（2013）。新公共管理。一品文化出版社。
國家災害防救科技中心（2018）。2018年9月28日，取自：https://www.ncdr.nat.gov.tw。
國家發展委員會（2014）。我國社會網絡 Web2.0 互動運用推動現況。政府機關資訊通報，311。
國家發展委員會（2018）。服務型智慧政府推動計畫 (106年-109年)，2018年12月15日，取自：https://www.ndc.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=6EA9EB7EA799248E&s=F709CD03D77AF742&upn=4ACC9949162C6856。
張世杰、陳炳宏（2015）。新公共管理改革的弔詭與非意圖結果。中國行政評論，21，113-149。
張志新、林又青（n.d.）。「敏捷」政府，防災應變首選~委外資訊服務「敏捷方法」試行成效分享。2018年9月28日，取自：http://bit.ly/2OfsTtn。
畢恆達（2005）。教授為什麼沒告訴我：論文寫作的枕邊書。臺北市：學富文化。
莊弘祥（譯）（2017）。Agile 成功法則：敏捷實作者的解決方案解放型管理（Daniel James Gullo原著）。台北：碁峰出版社。
許秀影（2015）。國家發展績效管理新思維，政府專案管理創新新思維。國土及公共治理季刊3（3），20-32。
許秀影（2017）。敏捷專案管理基礎知識與應用實務：邁向敏捷成功之路。臺北：社團法人中華專案管理學會。
陳向明（2009）。社會科學質的研究。臺北市：五南。
鈕文英（2013）。研究方法與論文寫作（二版）。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
新南向政策資訊平台（2018）。城市的進化論 智慧方城市。2018年9月28日，取自：https://nspp.mofa.gov.tw/nspp/news.php?post=138945。
管倖生等人（2010）。設計研究方法（三版）。台北：全華圖書股份有限公司。
蕭乃沂、羅晉（2010）。電子化政府的價值鏈評估觀點：以數位台灣e化政府計計畫例。公共行政學報（36），1-37。
蘇偉業（譯）（2016）。公共政策入門（Kevin B. Smith、Christopher W. Larimer 原著）。台北：五南。

II. 英文部分
Alford, J., & Head, B. W. (2017). Wicked and less wicked problems: a typology and a contingency framework. Policy and Society, 36(3), 397-413.
Almarabeh, T., & AbuAli, A. (2010). A general framework for e-government: definition maturity challenges, opportunities, and success. European Journal of Scientific Research, 39(1), 29-42.
Bakar (2014) Software Development Model - Waterfall, RAD & Agile. Retrieved Jan. 24, 2019, from https://www.slideshare.net/ahmadalbab87/software-development-model-waterfall-rad-agile.
Balter, B. J. (2011). Toward a more agile government: The case for rebooting federal IT procurement. Public Contract Law Journal, 149-171.
Basir, S. A., & Davies, J. (2018). ISO 9000 maintenance measures: the case of a Malaysian local authority. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 29(1-2), 185-201.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., . . . Jeffries, R. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development.
Bisen (2018). The Path to "Agile" Policymaking. Retrieved Nov. 30, 2018, fromhttps://www.innovations.harvard.edu/blog/path-agile-policymaking?fbclid=IwAR0lfJtaTR30T0MAb4qcdHeOiW8VpmR4Fns07bZxZi07xVTXuSbf4r67XB0.
Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. A. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society, 19(3).
Chatfield, A. T., & Reddick, C. G. (2017). Customer agility and responsiveness through big data analytics for public value creation: A case study of Houston 311 on-demand services. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 336-347.
Coelho, T. R., Cunha, M. A. & de Souza Meirelles, F. (2016). The client-consultant relationship in ERP implementation in government: Exploring the dynamic between power and knowledge. Information Polity, 21(3), 307-320.
Comfort, L. K., Bert, J., & Song J. E. (2016). Wicked problems in real time: Uncertainty, information, and the escalation of Ebola. Information Polity, 21(3), 273-289.
Coursey, D., & Norris, D. F. (2008). Models of e‐government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 523-536.
Daviter, F. (2017). Coping, taming or solving: alternative approaches to the governance of wicked problems. Policy Studies, 38(6), 571-588.
De Vries, J. (2010). Is New Public Management Really Dead? OECD Journal on Budgeting, 10(1), 1-5.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907-1912.
Difference between.net (n. d.) Difference between Agile and Waterfall. Retrieved Jan. 24, 2019, from http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/software-technology/difference-between-agile-and-waterfal/.
Drechsler, W. (2014). The rise and demise of the New Public Management: Lessons and opportunities for South East Europe. Central European Public Administration Review, 7(3).
Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public money & management, 14(3), 9-16.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of public administration research and theory, 16(3), 467-494.
Esteves, J., & Joseph, R. C. (2008). A comprehensive framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects. Government Information Quarterly, 1(25), 118-132.
Feng, S., Zhang, J., & Gao, Y. (2016). Investment uncertainty analysis for smart grid adoption: A real options approach. Information Polity, 21(3), 237-253.
Fishenden, J., & Thompson, M. (2012). Digital government, open architecture, and innovation: why public sector IT will never be the same again. Journal of public administration research and theory, 23(4), 977-1004.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Zhang, J., & Puron-Cid, G. (2016). Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 524-534.
Goodspeed, R. (2014). Smart cities: moving beyond urban cybernetics to tackle wicked problems. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 79-92.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons`(1968) 162. Science, 1243, 63.
Hardy, C. A., & Williams, S. P. (2011). Assembling e‐government research designs: A transdisciplinary view and interactive approach. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 405-413.
Head, B. W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public policy, 3(2), 101.
Head, B. W. (2018). Forty years of wicked problems literature: forging closer links to policy studies. Policy and Society, 1-18.
Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739.
Hong, S., & Lee, S. (2018a). Adaptive governance, status quo bias, and political competition: Why the sharing economy is welcome in some cities but not in others. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 283-290.
Hong, S., & Lee, S. (2018b). Adaptive governance and decentralization: Evidence from regulation of the sharing economy in multi-level governance. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 299-305.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public administration, 69(1), 3-19.
Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221-236.
Janssen, M., & Van Der Voort, H. (2016). Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 1-5.
Johnson, J. M. (2002). In-depth interviewing. Handbook of interview research: Context and method, 103-119.
Kasianiuk, K. (2016). Towards a more AGILE public policy making? Retrieved Nov. 30, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316940863_Towards_a_More_Agile_Public_Policy_Making.
Kazlauskas, A. & Hasan, H. M. (2009). Web 2.0 Solutions to Wicked Climate Change Problems. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 23-36.
Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: an integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. Mis Quarterly, 34(1), 87-114.
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy sciences, 45(2), 123-152.
Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Gil-García, J. R. (2011). Using institutional theory and dynamic simulation to understand complex e-Government phenomena. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 329-345.
Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 371(1987), 20120382.
Mergel, I. (2016). Agile innovation management in government: A research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 516-523.
Mergel, I., Gong, Y., & Bertot, J. (2018). Agile government: Systematic literature review and future research. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 291-298.
N. Tune (2016). Agile in the UK Government - An Insider Reveals All. Retrieved Nov. 26, 2018, from https://www.infoq.com/articles/agile-UK-government.
N. Tune (n.d.). Agile in the UK Government: An Infiltrator’s Secrets. Retrieved Nov. 26, 2018, from https://www.agilealliance.org/resources/experience-reports/agile-in-the-uk-government-an-infiltrators-secrets/.
Ojo, A., & Mellouli, S. (2016). Deploying governance networks for societal challenges. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 106-112.
Peters, B. G. (2017). What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy and Society, 36(3), 385-396.
PMI-ACP (2018) Agile Preparation - REP Certified 25 Contact Hours. Retrieved Jan. 24, 2019, from Udemy.
Reddick, C., Chatfield, A. T., & Brajawidagda U. (2016). Open government process and government transparency in crisis communication: The case of AirAsia QZ8501 crash. Information Polity, 21(3), 255-271.
Rigby, K. D., Sutherland, J. & Noble, A. (2018). Agile at Scale. Harvard Business Review, May–June 2018 issue (pp.88–96).
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
Royce, W. W. (1987). Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering.
Schaeffer (n. d.) Agile versus Waterfall for CRM Implementation Success. Retrieved Jan. 24, 2019, from: http://www.crmsearch.com/agile-versus-waterfall-crm.php.
Soe, R.-M., & Drechsler, W. (2018). Agile local governments: Experimentation before implementation. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 323-335.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sung, W. (2016). A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age: The moderating effect of smartphones. Information Polity, 21(3), 291-306.
Tassabehji, R., Hackney, R., & Popovič, A. (2016). Emergent digital era governance: Enacting the role of the ‘institutional entrepreneur’ in transformational change. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 223-236.
The Verge (2014). Retrieved Nov. 30, 2018, from https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/21/5533892/the-government-now-has-a-fast-moving-it-office-modeled-after-a-startup.
Valle-Cruz, D., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2016). Citizens` perceptions of the impact of information technology use on transparency, efficiency and corruption in local governments. Information Polity, 21(3), 321-334.
Waddell, S., Hsueh, J., Birney, A., Khorsani, A., & Feng, W. (2014), “Large systems change: producing the change we want”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 53(1), 5-8.
Waddock, S., Meszoely, G. M., Waddell, S., & Dentoni, D. (2015). The complexity of wicked problems in large scale change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(6), 993-1012.
Wang, C., Medaglia, R., & Zheng, L. (2018). Towards a typology of adaptive governance in the digital government context: The role of decision-making and accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 306-322.
Wiesner, J. B., & York, H. F. (1964). National security and the nuclear-test ban. Scientific American, 211(4), 27-35.
Zhang, J., & Kim, Y. (2016). Digital government and wicked problems: Solution or problem? Information Polity, 21(3), 215-221.
Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., van de Kaa, G., & Poulis K. (2016). The wicked problem of commercial value creation in open data ecosystems: Policy guidelines for governments. Information Polity, 21(3), 223-236.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
105256026
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105256026
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 蕭乃沂zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Hsiao, Nai-Yien_US
dc.contributor.author (作者) 榮予恆zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) Jung Yuhengen_US
dc.creator (作者) 榮予恆zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Yuheng, Jungen_US
dc.date (日期) 2019en_US
dc.date.accessioned 5-二月-2020 18:01:46 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 5-二月-2020 18:01:46 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 5-二月-2020 18:01:46 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0105256026en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/128617-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 公共行政學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 105256026zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在科技發展與網路普及應用的趨勢之下，資通訊科技已成為各國政府建構與推動電子化政府各項計畫以提升政府有效治理的主要途徑，隨著資訊業務日趨繁重，各級政府部門在人力、技術及成本的考量下，目前的資訊系統的開發與維護多為委外辦理。然而，資訊委外專案由於初期無法明確定義需求、外部環境變化日趨快速、資通訊科技日新月異、專案過程中易面臨需求變更、開發過程缺乏使用者參與、以及民眾對政府的需求與期待日益增高等原因，政府在數位時代面臨的挑戰日益棘手。近年來公共行政領域興起適應與敏捷治理（Adaptive and Agile Governance），其認為政府應透過外部服務與內部管理的數位化即時回應公共問題以及民眾需求，利用數位科技賦權公民能夠做更多的事情，提升處理和適應問題的能力以適應外部環境的劇烈變化，政府若能透過學習私營部門的敏捷開發（Agile Development）精神來革新公部門傳統的瀑布開發方式，將能有效提升政府的彈性與效率、並減緩投入大量資源卻經常失敗的問題。

本研究採用多重個案比較法探討敏捷治理概念在我國脈絡下的發展情形，分別對「經濟部資訊中心」、「國家災害防救科技中心」、以及「台北市智慧城市計畫」進行實證分析以瞭解敏捷方法於實務上如何操作，期盼藉由所選擇的個案進行深入剖析後能夠對學理與本土經驗研究產生火花。本研究之目的如下：首先，本研究欲瞭解敏捷專案管理出現在公部門的契機為何，探討什麼動機促使專案機關運用導入敏捷開發，以及尋找敏捷為公部門所帶來的效益與影響。其次，探討公部門導入敏捷方法所遭遇的挑戰與困境，以及行政機關如何解決，並瞭解曾導入敏捷的專案人員對敏捷在公部門的看法與建議。

本文發現在我國目前情況下，專案具有高度不確定性與變化性、難以排定期程優先順序、該方案為重點開發項目等性質皆適合導入敏捷方法。惟在公私本質有所差異的情況下，目前公部門導入敏捷所遇到的挑戰大於敏捷帶來的效益與影響，如何為公部門量身定做一套適合的敏捷方法，成為敏捷能否持續在公部門產生效益與影響力的重要關鍵。本研究認為根據成功應用過敏捷專案的機關經驗，我們將可以依據部門類型與專案特性找到合適公部門的方法，研究發現指出專案分階段導入敏捷精神能夠在公部門框架下運作順暢。另外，本研究亦討論了敏捷未來可能的方向，本研究認為從瀑布模式到敏捷開發之間是一段擺盪的過程，公部門在政府採購法的框架下無法避免瀑布模式的本質。其次，大規模推動敏捷雖然可以帶來在政府各級機關遍地開花的機會，但亦有可能面臨過去許多大型政策一開始大力推行，最後卻無疾而終的下場，如何在大規模通動政策的同時避免陷入形式化的結果，我們將需要政策制定者的智慧來判斷。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Widespread use of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in government has transformed the public services. Concerning the professional techniques, human resources, and monetary costs, governments usually ask the private sector to become involved in developing and operating IT projects through outsourcing. However, the performance-based acquisition process in IT outsourcing projects by governments has created many wicked problems. For example, the reasons for government IT project failure include the difficulty in identifying the requirements in the beginning; the rapidly changing external environment; the expeditious innovation of technology; the design shifts that the development process frequently faces; and the overreliance on external IT contractors. In addition, the citizens’ needs and expectations of their governments are rising. As a result, many scholars recently advocate that applying the concept of adaptive and agile governance in the public sector to solve the problems caused by traditional waterfall development.

The methodology is a multiple case study analysis of three public agencies that have conducted an agile project in Taiwan. This article aims to explore that how an agile model can be activated in a government`s acquisition and contracting rules. Results reveal that the appropriate conditions for an agile approach in the government of Taiwan include: projects with higher levels of uncertainty and risk, difficulties in prioritizing schedules, and priorities for the project director. However, the drawbacks of introducing and adopting an agile method to government are more than benefits. Given the fact that the essence between the private sector and public sector is significantly different, (such as the acquisition rules and standards, the culture of civil servants and contract teams, as well as the government-centric thinking), tailoring an agile method is a critical point for governments to decide whether an agile method could be sustained and exert influence in the long term. Last but not least, the scholars and political appointees have to realize that large-scale promotion in government could let all government agencies to adopt an agile method, but it also would cause the result of civil servants to place emphasis on formalizing an agile method rather than pursuing an agile spirit.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 研究流程 4
第二章 文獻探討 5
第一節 從棘手問題到數位治理 5
壹、 棘手問題的意涵與特徵 5
貳、 棘手問題對公共治理的啟示 8
參、 數位時代下的棘手問題 13
肆、 小結 18
第二節 數位時代下的新型態治理模式 19
壹、 適應治理 20
貳、 敏捷治理 23
參、 數位政府、適應治理、及敏捷治理的關係 30
第三節 敏捷精神應用於公部門 31
壹、 重要國家與國際組織應用敏捷精神之現況 31
貳、 敏捷政策制定 40
第四節 問題意識 42
第三章 研究設計 45
第一節 研究架構 45
第二節 個案研究 46
壹、 深度訪談法 47
貳、 訪談對象 47
參、 訪談大綱設計 48
第三節 質性資料分析方法與品質 50
壹、 質性資料分析方法 50
貳、 資料分析品質 50
第四章 個案介紹 52
第一節 國家災害防救科技中心 52
壹、 國家災防科技中心簡介 52
貳、 「行動災害調查整合模組」專案介紹 53
第二節 經濟部資訊中心 55
壹、 經濟部資訊中心簡介 55
貳、 專案介紹 56
第三節 國家災防科技中心與經濟部資訊中心比較 58
第四節 臺北市智慧城市專案 59
壹、 台北智慧城市專案簡介 59
第五章 研究分析 62
第一節 公部門運用敏捷專案的契機與利基 62
壹、 導入敏捷於專案的原因與合適情境 62
貳、 敏捷所帶來的實質效益與影響 66
第二節 邁向敏捷的困難與調適 69
壹、 公部門邁向敏捷的難題 69
貳、 為公部門特質量身定做的敏捷專案 74
參、 敏捷何去何從 76
第三節 導入敏捷的天平調整過程 80
壹、 天平的左端：公部門導入敏捷的動機與效益 80
貳、 天平的右端：公部門執行敏捷專案的成本與挑戰 81
參、 反思：公部門取得平衡的砝碼是什麼 83
肆、 敏捷專案在公部門的運作模式 84
第六章 結論與建議 86
第一節 研究結論 86
第二節 實務建議 88
壹、 提升公部門應用敏捷方法的契機與誘因 88
貳、 參考國外推動數位轉型作法落實我國之數位服務準則 89
參、 敏捷不是萬靈丹，重要的是以「使用者為中心」的態度 89
肆、 移轉敏捷精神的知識技能至公共服務提供及政策制定思維 89
第三節 研究限制與後續研究建議 90
壹、 研究方法的限制與建議 90
貳、 研究典範的限制與建議 90
參、 我國過去大規模推行政策結果的研究探討 90
肆、 探討我國以資料驅動或是使用者導向的成功案例 90
參考文獻 91
附錄一 各類受訪者訪談提綱 99		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2285879 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105256026en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 敏捷專案管理zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 適應與敏捷治理zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 數位政府zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 棘手問題zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 公私差異zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Agile managementen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Adaptive and agile governanceen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Digital governmenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Wicked problemen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) The difference between public and private sectoren_US
dc.title (題名) 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zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Toward agile government: application and influence of agile project management in the public sectoren_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) I. 中文部分
王仕圖、吳慧敏（2003）。深度訪談與案例演練。收錄於齊力、林本炫編（2003）。質性研究方法與資料分析，95~113頁。嘉義：南華大學教育社會學研究所。
王若馨、黃郁青、夏媺婷、李怡芳，譯（2007）。研究方法的基礎（David, M & Sutton, C. D.著）。台北：韋伯文化國際。
台北市資訊局（2018）。智慧城市推動有成 台北智慧城市戰略揚名國際。2018年9月28日，取自：https://www.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=F0DDAF49B89E9413&sms=72544237BBE4C5F6&s=F58B3904364C19AA。
台北產經（2017）。聚焦智慧應用 透視科技新樣貌。2018年9月28日，取自：https://www.taipeiecon.taipei/article_cont.aspx?MmmID=1202&MSid=745600077431713626。
未來城市（2018）。李維斌專欄｜智商157的柯P智囊，資訊局如何讓臺北市變身智慧城市。2018年9月28日，取自：https://futurecity.cw.com.tw/article/281。
行政院主計處電子處理資料中心（2009）。「政府機構委外資訊系統掌握程度概況」調查報告，2018年12月15日，取自：https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Data/841157971.pdf。
行政院主計處電子處理資料中心（2009）。政府機關「資訊系統委外開發」概況調查報告，2018年12月15日，取自：https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Data/87311203471.pdf。
吳仁和、林信惠（2017）。系統分析與設計：理論與實務應用（修訂七版）。智勝文化事業有限公司。
李衍儒、趙永茂（2016）。公共政策棘手問題界定理論之研究：以我國觀光博弈產業政策與個案為例。行政暨政策學報，（62），1-58。
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。
周天穎、賴玉真、杜雅齡（2015）。國際智慧城市發展指標與評比機制。國土及公共治理季刊，3（2），8-18。
周海濤、李永賢、張蘅（譯）（2009）。個案研究設計與方法（Yin, R. K.原著）。臺北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
林秀雲譯（2016）。社會科學研究方法（Babbie, E著）。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
林佩璇（2000）。個案研究及其在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學主編。質的教育研究方法，頁239-262。
林佳瑩審閱；蔡毓智譯（2013）。研究方法：基礎理論與技巧（Babbie, E著）。臺北市：新加坡商聖智學習。
林信惠、黃明祥、王文良（2002）。軟體專案管體。智勝文化。
林淑馨（2010）。質性研究：理論與實務（初版）。台北市：巨流。
胡幼慧（2008）。質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。臺北市：巨流。
孫本初（2013）。新公共管理。一品文化出版社。
國家災害防救科技中心（2018）。2018年9月28日，取自：https://www.ncdr.nat.gov.tw。
國家發展委員會（2014）。我國社會網絡 Web2.0 互動運用推動現況。政府機關資訊通報，311。
國家發展委員會（2018）。服務型智慧政府推動計畫 (106年-109年)，2018年12月15日，取自：https://www.ndc.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=6EA9EB7EA799248E&s=F709CD03D77AF742&upn=4ACC9949162C6856。
張世杰、陳炳宏（2015）。新公共管理改革的弔詭與非意圖結果。中國行政評論，21，113-149。
張志新、林又青（n.d.）。「敏捷」政府，防災應變首選~委外資訊服務「敏捷方法」試行成效分享。2018年9月28日，取自：http://bit.ly/2OfsTtn。
畢恆達（2005）。教授為什麼沒告訴我：論文寫作的枕邊書。臺北市：學富文化。
莊弘祥（譯）（2017）。Agile 成功法則：敏捷實作者的解決方案解放型管理（Daniel James Gullo原著）。台北：碁峰出版社。
許秀影（2015）。國家發展績效管理新思維，政府專案管理創新新思維。國土及公共治理季刊3（3），20-32。
許秀影（2017）。敏捷專案管理基礎知識與應用實務：邁向敏捷成功之路。臺北：社團法人中華專案管理學會。
陳向明（2009）。社會科學質的研究。臺北市：五南。
鈕文英（2013）。研究方法與論文寫作（二版）。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
新南向政策資訊平台（2018）。城市的進化論 智慧方城市。2018年9月28日，取自：https://nspp.mofa.gov.tw/nspp/news.php?post=138945。
管倖生等人（2010）。設計研究方法（三版）。台北：全華圖書股份有限公司。
蕭乃沂、羅晉（2010）。電子化政府的價值鏈評估觀點：以數位台灣e化政府計計畫例。公共行政學報（36），1-37。
蘇偉業（譯）（2016）。公共政策入門（Kevin B. Smith、Christopher W. Larimer 原著）。台北：五南。

II. 英文部分
Alford, J., & Head, B. W. (2017). Wicked and less wicked problems: a typology and a contingency framework. Policy and Society, 36(3), 397-413.
Almarabeh, T., & AbuAli, A. (2010). A general framework for e-government: definition maturity challenges, opportunities, and success. European Journal of Scientific Research, 39(1), 29-42.
Bakar (2014) Software Development Model - Waterfall, RAD & Agile. Retrieved Jan. 24, 2019, from https://www.slideshare.net/ahmadalbab87/software-development-model-waterfall-rad-agile.
Balter, B. J. (2011). Toward a more agile government: The case for rebooting federal IT procurement. Public Contract Law Journal, 149-171.
Basir, S. A., & Davies, J. (2018). ISO 9000 maintenance measures: the case of a Malaysian local authority. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 29(1-2), 185-201.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., . . . Jeffries, R. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development.
Bisen (2018). The Path to "Agile" Policymaking. Retrieved Nov. 30, 2018, fromhttps://www.innovations.harvard.edu/blog/path-agile-policymaking?fbclid=IwAR0lfJtaTR30T0MAb4qcdHeOiW8VpmR4Fns07bZxZi07xVTXuSbf4r67XB0.
Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. A. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society, 19(3).
Chatfield, A. T., & Reddick, C. G. (2017). Customer agility and responsiveness through big data analytics for public value creation: A case study of Houston 311 on-demand services. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 336-347.
Coelho, T. R., Cunha, M. A. & de Souza Meirelles, F. (2016). The client-consultant relationship in ERP implementation in government: Exploring the dynamic between power and knowledge. Information Polity, 21(3), 307-320.
Comfort, L. K., Bert, J., & Song J. E. (2016). Wicked problems in real time: Uncertainty, information, and the escalation of Ebola. Information Polity, 21(3), 273-289.
Coursey, D., & Norris, D. F. (2008). Models of e‐government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 523-536.
Daviter, F. (2017). Coping, taming or solving: alternative approaches to the governance of wicked problems. Policy Studies, 38(6), 571-588.
De Vries, J. (2010). Is New Public Management Really Dead? OECD Journal on Budgeting, 10(1), 1-5.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907-1912.
Difference between.net (n. d.) Difference between Agile and Waterfall. Retrieved Jan. 24, 2019, from http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/software-technology/difference-between-agile-and-waterfal/.
Drechsler, W. (2014). The rise and demise of the New Public Management: Lessons and opportunities for South East Europe. Central European Public Administration Review, 7(3).
Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public money & management, 14(3), 9-16.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead—long live digital-era governance. Journal of public administration research and theory, 16(3), 467-494.
Esteves, J., & Joseph, R. C. (2008). A comprehensive framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects. Government Information Quarterly, 1(25), 118-132.
Feng, S., Zhang, J., & Gao, Y. (2016). Investment uncertainty analysis for smart grid adoption: A real options approach. Information Polity, 21(3), 237-253.
Fishenden, J., & Thompson, M. (2012). Digital government, open architecture, and innovation: why public sector IT will never be the same again. Journal of public administration research and theory, 23(4), 977-1004.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Zhang, J., & Puron-Cid, G. (2016). Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 524-534.
Goodspeed, R. (2014). Smart cities: moving beyond urban cybernetics to tackle wicked problems. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 79-92.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons`(1968) 162. Science, 1243, 63.
Hardy, C. A., & Williams, S. P. (2011). Assembling e‐government research designs: A transdisciplinary view and interactive approach. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 405-413.
Head, B. W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public policy, 3(2), 101.
Head, B. W. (2018). Forty years of wicked problems literature: forging closer links to policy studies. Policy and Society, 1-18.
Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739.
Hong, S., & Lee, S. (2018a). Adaptive governance, status quo bias, and political competition: Why the sharing economy is welcome in some cities but not in others. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 283-290.
Hong, S., & Lee, S. (2018b). Adaptive governance and decentralization: Evidence from regulation of the sharing economy in multi-level governance. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 299-305.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public administration, 69(1), 3-19.
Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221-236.
Janssen, M., & Van Der Voort, H. (2016). Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 1-5.
Johnson, J. M. (2002). In-depth interviewing. Handbook of interview research: Context and method, 103-119.
Kasianiuk, K. (2016). Towards a more AGILE public policy making? Retrieved Nov. 30, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316940863_Towards_a_More_Agile_Public_Policy_Making.
Kazlauskas, A. & Hasan, H. M. (2009). Web 2.0 Solutions to Wicked Climate Change Problems. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 23-36.
Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: an integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. Mis Quarterly, 34(1), 87-114.
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy sciences, 45(2), 123-152.
Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Gil-García, J. R. (2011). Using institutional theory and dynamic simulation to understand complex e-Government phenomena. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 329-345.
Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 371(1987), 20120382.
Mergel, I. (2016). Agile innovation management in government: A research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 516-523.
Mergel, I., Gong, Y., & Bertot, J. (2018). Agile government: Systematic literature review and future research. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 291-298.
N. Tune (2016). Agile in the UK Government - An Insider Reveals All. Retrieved Nov. 26, 2018, from https://www.infoq.com/articles/agile-UK-government.
N. Tune (n.d.). Agile in the UK Government: An Infiltrator’s Secrets. Retrieved Nov. 26, 2018, from https://www.agilealliance.org/resources/experience-reports/agile-in-the-uk-government-an-infiltrators-secrets/.
Ojo, A., & Mellouli, S. (2016). Deploying governance networks for societal challenges. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 106-112.
Peters, B. G. (2017). What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy and Society, 36(3), 385-396.
PMI-ACP (2018) Agile Preparation - REP Certified 25 Contact Hours. Retrieved Jan. 24, 2019, from Udemy.
Reddick, C., Chatfield, A. T., & Brajawidagda U. (2016). Open government process and government transparency in crisis communication: The case of AirAsia QZ8501 crash. Information Polity, 21(3), 255-271.
Rigby, K. D., Sutherland, J. & Noble, A. (2018). Agile at Scale. Harvard Business Review, May–June 2018 issue (pp.88–96).
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
Royce, W. W. (1987). Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering.
Schaeffer (n. d.) Agile versus Waterfall for CRM Implementation Success. Retrieved Jan. 24, 2019, from: http://www.crmsearch.com/agile-versus-waterfall-crm.php.
Soe, R.-M., & Drechsler, W. (2018). Agile local governments: Experimentation before implementation. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 323-335.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sung, W. (2016). A study of the digital divide in the current phase of the information age: The moderating effect of smartphones. Information Polity, 21(3), 291-306.
Tassabehji, R., Hackney, R., & Popovič, A. (2016). Emergent digital era governance: Enacting the role of the ‘institutional entrepreneur’ in transformational change. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 223-236.
The Verge (2014). Retrieved Nov. 30, 2018, from https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/21/5533892/the-government-now-has-a-fast-moving-it-office-modeled-after-a-startup.
Valle-Cruz, D., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2016). Citizens` perceptions of the impact of information technology use on transparency, efficiency and corruption in local governments. Information Polity, 21(3), 321-334.
Waddell, S., Hsueh, J., Birney, A., Khorsani, A., & Feng, W. (2014), “Large systems change: producing the change we want”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 53(1), 5-8.
Waddock, S., Meszoely, G. M., Waddell, S., & Dentoni, D. (2015). The complexity of wicked problems in large scale change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(6), 993-1012.
Wang, C., Medaglia, R., & Zheng, L. (2018). Towards a typology of adaptive governance in the digital government context: The role of decision-making and accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 306-322.
Wiesner, J. B., & York, H. F. (1964). National security and the nuclear-test ban. Scientific American, 211(4), 27-35.
Zhang, J., & Kim, Y. (2016). Digital government and wicked problems: Solution or problem? Information Polity, 21(3), 215-221.
Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., van de Kaa, G., & Poulis K. (2016). The wicked problem of commercial value creation in open data ecosystems: Policy guidelines for governments. Information Polity, 21(3), 223-236.		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU201901305en_US