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 以層級分析法 建構G2B計畫評估架構與指標-從價值鏈觀點出發
A value-chain approach to build G2B program evaluation framework
作者 楊禮榮
Yang, Li Jung
貢獻者 朱斌妤
Chu, Pin Yu
楊禮榮
Yang, Li Jung
關鍵詞 電子化政府
G2B
電子化計畫
計畫評估
層級分析法
績效評估
e-government
G2B
e-program
analytic hierarchy process
program evaluation
performance evaluation
日期 2010
上傳時間 3-九月-2013 12:01:42 (UTC+8)
摘要 近年來，由於ICT的蓬勃發展，政府逐漸增加投資於電子化計畫的線上服務比例與種類，為了理解投資所能獲得的收益，杜絕資源浪費，並促使政府調整施政方向達到良善治理，針對電子化計畫進行評估是勢然必行的。目前許多評估機構逐漸從衡量政府投資電子化政府服務的客觀產出，轉而討論電子化服務使用者端的影響與成果。本研究，以計畫整體流程中所面臨的內部運作與外部感受、客觀產出與抽象成果的評估構面，提出G2B電子化計畫流程評估架構。

本研究結合Heeks (2006)的價值鏈模型與Millard & Shahin (2006)電子化計畫評估流程建立流程模型，透過文獻整理出評比國家型、網頁感知品質型、滿意模型與利害關係人模型指標，從企業途徑與政府內部途徑角度，探討G2B計畫流程評估架構，並使用層級分析法(analytic hierarchy process)，由專家給予衡量G2B計畫推動時，前端到後端階段中重要構面的權重，並根據分析結果討論現今台灣計劃評估傾向上的差異。

本研究結果發現，在政府計畫生產過程中，應重視政府領導與支持，並發展衡量方式；專家不論在企業途徑與政府內部途徑上，都認為「服務產出評估是必需的過程，但影響與成果階段，才是價值衡量的終點」，因此，電子化計劃評估應從重視成本比的角度，朝向討論「透過政府對計畫服務的投入與投資，所能帶給企業實際或感知的價值與影響」，更能切中利害關係人關注的關鍵利益。
This study aims at building an e-program evaluation chain model combining output evaluation with impact assessments, in order to assess the comprehensive G2B e-program from back-office process to the impact of online services. This study contributes a G2B evaluation framework with six processes integrated by e-government value chain model and e-program evaluation process. Given the concept of external and internal customer,「Business approach」and「Internal-Government approach」is developed in view of stakeholders. By evaluating subjective expert judgments via analytic hierarchy process method, this G2B evaluation framework is given weights and priorities in each hierarchy under both of approaches. The results indicate that impact and outcome assessments should be emphasized, no matter which approach is. Evaluation toward objective output is only a necessary process, but not the destination. As policy suggestions, this study addresses that government should focus on what kinds of value e-program can bring, and evaluate them.
參考文獻 一、 中文部分
林建山，(1987)。商情預測：技術與實務。台北市：環球經濟社。
行政院國家科學委員會，(2011)。101年度政府科技計畫概算編製暨審議作業手冊。台北市：行政院國家科學委員會。
行政院公共工程委員會，(2009)。97年度政府採購法業務推動情形及執行績效。台北市：行政院公共工程委員會。
行政院研究發展考核委員會，(2003)。2003年電子化政府報告書。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研究發展考核委員會，(2004)。2004年電子化政府報告書。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研究發展考核委員會，(2007)。2007年電子化政府報告書。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研究發展考核委員會，(2009)。第四階段電子化政府研擬作業。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。取自https://pmo.nat.gov.tw/upload/download.aspx?fid=470
行政院研究發展考核委員會，(2010)。國際電子化政府評比分析及評比資料庫更新報告。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研究發展考核委員會，(2011a)。全球電子化政府、資訊科技發展趨勢報告。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研究發展考核委員會，(2011b)。優質網路政府計劃（97年-99年）執行成效評析報告。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
朱斌妤，(2004)。台灣與美國電子化政府比較研究。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告。台北市：中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
朱斌妤、蕭乃沂，(2010)。電子治理績效模型與實證研究，行政院研考會委託研究期中報告。台北市：行政院研考會。
朱斌妤、李洛維，(2009)。電子治理的發展與挑戰。研習論壇月刊，107，1-13。
李洛維，(2010)。電子採購影響評估因果模型之建構與驗證。國立政治大學公共行政研究所，未出版，台北市
周思伶，(2008)。政府網站服務品質指標建構之研究。國立政治大學公共行政研究所，未出版，台北市。
紀人瑋，(2010)。政府採購電子化成效評估指標建立。國立政治大學公共行政研究所，未出版，台北市。

二、 英文部分
Aull-Hyde, T., Erdogan, J. & Duke, K. (2006). An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 171(1), 290-295
Baker, D.L. (2004). E-government: website usability of the most populous counties. PhD, Arizona State University: USA.
Barnes, S. J. & Vidgen, R. (2007). Interactive e-government: Evaluating the web site of the UKinland revenue. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 3(1), 19-37.
Beech, I. B., (2001). The Delphi approach: Recent applications in health care. Nurse Researcher, 8(4), 38-47.
Belanger, F., & Hiller. (2006). A framework for e-government: Privacy implications. Business Process Management Journal, 12(1), 48–60.
Bhatnagar, S., Rao, R. T. P., Singh, N., Vaidya, R., & Mandal., M. (2007). Impact assessment study of e-government project in India. Ahmedabad: Center for e-Governance, Indian Institute of Management
Bouckaert, G. W., Dooren, V., & Sterck, M. (2003). Prestaties meten in de Vlaamse overheid: een verkennende studie. Leuven: Steunpunt Bestuurlijke Organisatie Vlaanderen.
Brookings Institution, “Improving Technology Utilization in Electronic Government around the World, 2008”, released on August, 2008.
Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2001). Achieving advanced electronic government services: An examination of obstacles and implication from an international perspective. In Paper presented at the National Public Management Research Conference, Bloomington, IN.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementationof cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(1): 44-55.
Buckly, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchy analysis. Fuzzy Sets and System, 17, 233-247.
Buckley, J. (2003). E-service quality and the public sector. Managing Service Quality, 13(6), 453-462.
Castelnovo, W. & Simonetta, M. (2007). The Evaluation of e-Government projects for Small Local Government Organisations. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 5(1), 21 - 28, available online at www.ejeg.com
Chircu, A. M. (2008). E-government evaluation: towards a multidimensional framework. Electronic Government: An International Journal, 5(4), 345–363.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information system success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30.
Dutta, S., & Mia, I. (Eds.) (2010). The global information technology report 2009–2010: Mobility in a networked world. Geneva: World Economic Forum & INSEAD.
Economist Intelligence Unit, (2010), the 2010 Digital Economy Rankings, Retrieved from: http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/EIU_Digital_economy_rankings_2010_FINAL_WEB.pdf
Esteves., J. & Joseph, R. C. (2007). A comprehensive framework for the assessment of e-Government projects. Government Information Quarterly, 25(1), 118-132.
European Commision, DG Information Society. (2004). Top of the web: User satisfaction and usage survey of e-government Services. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Commission. http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/egovernment_research/doc/top_of_the_web_report_2004.pdf
European Commission, Information Society and Media, (2006). eGovernment Economics Project (eGEP) Measurement Framework, Final Version. Brussels: European Commission.. Retrieved from, http://www.umic.pt/images/stories/publicacoes200709/D.2.4_Measurement_Framework_final_version.pdf
European Commision, Information Society and Media, (2009a). i2010 High Level Group Benchmarking Digital Europe 2011-2015 a conceptual framework. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/benchmarking_digital_europe_2011-2015.pdf
European Commision, Information Society and Media, (2009b). Digitizing Public Services in Europe: Putting ambition into action, 9th Benckmark Measurement. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/item-detail-dae.cfm?item_id=6537.
European Commision, Information Society & Media Directorate-General, (2009c). Study on User Satisfaction and Impach in EU27. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.epractice.eu/files/media/media2599.pdf
European Commision, Information Society and Media Directorate-General, (2009d), Smarter, Faster, Better eGovernment-8th eGovernment benchmarking. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/egov_benchmark_2009.pdf
Flynn, N. (2002). Public Sector Management, 4th edn., Pearson Education, Harlow.
Glassey, O. & Glassey, O. F. (2004). A Proximity Indicator for e-Government. Journal of E-Government, 1(4), 5-20
General Accounting Office. (2001). Electronic government: Challenges must be addressed with effective leadership and management. 1-2. GAO-01-959T.
Graafland-Essersand, I. & Ettedgui, E. (2003). Benchmarking e-Government in Europe and the US, Statistical Indicators Benchmarking the Information Society, SIBIS
Gupta, M. P. & Jana, D. (2003). E-government evaluation-A framework and case study. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 365–387
Gupta, P. (2007). Challenges and Issues in e-Government Project Assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.nisg.org/knowledgecenter_docs/A03040005.pdf
Gouscos, D., Kalikakis, M., Legal, M. & Papadopoulou, S. (2007). A general model of performance and quality for one-stop e-Government service offerings. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 860–885
Heeks, R. (2006). Understanding and measuring eGovernment: International benchmarking studies. In Presented at the UDESA workshop, E-Participation and E-Government: Understanding the Present and Creating the Future, Budapest, Hungary, July (p. 2006).
Heintzman, R. & Marson, B. (2005). People, service and trust: is there a public sector service value chain. International Review of Administrative Science, 71(4), 549-575.
Holzer, M. & Kim, S. T. (2007). Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide (2007)~A Longitudinal Assessment of Municipal Websites Throughout the World. The E-Governance Institute National Center for Public Performance and Globale-Policy e-Government Institute, Graduate School of Governance Sung kyun kwan University. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Campus at New York
Horan, T. A., Abhichandani, T., & Rayalu, R. (2006). Assessing user satisfaction of e-government services: Development and testing of quality-in-use satisfaction with advanced traveler information system (ATIS). Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Hawaii.
Jaeger, P. T. & Thompson, K. M. (2003). E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and future directions. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 389 –394
Jassen, D., Rotthier S., & Snijkers, K. (2004). If you measure it they will score: An assessment of international e-government benchmarking. Information Polity, 9(3-4), 121-130
Kearn, I. (2004). Public Value and E-Government, Institute for Public Policy Research: London
Kertesz, S. (2003). Cost-Benefit Analysis of e-Government Investments. MA.: Harvard University.
Lester, D. L., Pamell, J.A. & Carraher, S., (2003). Organiztional Life cycle: A five stage empirical scale, The International Journal of Organizalional Analysis, 11(4), 339-354
Liu, J., Derzsi, Z., Raus, M., & Kipp, A. (2008). eGovernment Project Evaluation: An Integrated Framework. In M. A. Wimmer, H. J. Scholl & E. Ferro (Eds.), Electronic Government, 5184(2008), 85-97: Springer-Verlag Berlin / Heidelberg.
Loiacono, E. T., Watson, R. T., & Goodhue, D. L. (2007). WebQual: An instrument for cunsumer evaluation of web sites. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11, 51-87
Maio, A. D. & McCliure, D. (2008) Using the E-Government Assessment Questionnaire. CT: Gartner Inc.
Millard, J. (2007). Europeane-Government 2005-2007: Taking stock of good practice and progress toward simple mentation of the i2010 e-Government Action Plan. BEL.: European Commission.
Millard, J. (2008). E-Government measurement for policy makers. European Journal of ePractice, 4. Retireved from: http://www.epractice.eu/files/4.3_0.pdf
Miller, G. A., 1956, The Magic Number Seven, Plus or Minus Seven: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information, Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
Mintzberg, H. (1996). Managing government, governing management. Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 75–83.
Millard, J & Shahin, J (2006). Towards the eGovernment vision for EU in 2010: research policy challenges. For the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain, European Commission, DG JRC.
Montagna, J. M. (2005). A framework for the assessment and analysis of electronic government proposals. Electronic Commerce Research and Application, 4(3), 204-219.
Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities rhetoric or reality. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424-433.
Moon, M. J. & Norris, D. F. (2005). Does managerial orientation matter? The adoption of reinventing government and e-government at the Municipal level. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 43–60.
Norris, D. F., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Advancing E-Government at the Grassroots: Tortoise or Hare? Public Administration Review, 65(1), 64–75.
Obi, T. (2009). 2009 WASEDA University e-Government Ranking. Tokyo: The Waseda University Institute of e-Government.
Obi, T. (2011). 2011 WASEDA Univeristy World e-Government Ranking. Tokyo: The Waseda University Institute of e-Government.
OECD. (2002). E-Government Projects, Seminar Vision, Responsiveness and Measurement. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2006). OECD e-government project: Proposal for work on an inventory of e-government business case indicators. Paris: OECD.
Orange, G., Burke, A., Elliman, T., & Kor, A. L. (2006). CARE: An integrated framework to support continuous, adaptable, reflective evaluation of e-government systems: A research note. In Presented at European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Alicante, Spain, July.
Parasuramen, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implication for future. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 29 – 40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Malhotra, A. (2005). E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Service Research, 7(3), 213-233.
Petter, S., Delone, W., & Mclean, E. (2008).　Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 238.
Raus, M., Liu, J., Kipp, A. (2010). Evaluating IT innovations in a business-to-government context: A frameworkand its applications. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 122–133
Rao, T. P. R, Rao, V. V., Bhatnagar, S. C. & Satyanarayana, S. J. (2004). E-Governance Assessment Frameworks (EAF Version 2.0). India: Department of Information Technology, Government f India. Retrieved form: http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/egov/documents/assessment-frameworks.pdf
Reddick, C. G., (2009). Factors that Explain the Perceived Effectiveness of E-Government- A Survey of United States City Government Information Technology Directors. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 5(2)
Rowley, J., (2010). e-Government stakeholders—Who are they and what do they want? International Journal of Information　Management, doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.05.005
Sakowicz, M. (2004). How Should e-Government Be Evaluated? Different Methodologies and Methods, in: NISPAcee occasional papers, Volume V, No. 2, Spring, S. 18-26.
Santos, J. (2003). E-Service Quality: A Model of Virtual Service Quality Dimensions. Managing Service Quality, 13(3), 233-246.
Stowers, G. N. L., (2001). Commerce Comes to Government on the Desktop: E-Commerce Applications in the public Sector. IBM Center for the Business of Government: San Francisco State University.
Sukasame, N. (2004). The development of e-service in Thai government. BU Academic Review, 3, 8. Retrieved from February 26, 2010, http://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/jan_june2004/nittana.pdf
Schellong, A. (2009). EU eGovernment Benchmark 2010+: General remarks on the future of benchmarking digital egovernment in the EU, Retrieved from http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/netgov/papers/schellong_2009_wp_eu_egovernment_benchmarking_future_methodology.pdf
Song, H. J. (2010). Building E-Governance through Reform: the Korean Experience. Journal of E-Governance, 33, 49–60.
Stowers, G. N. L. (2004). Measuring the Performance of E-Government. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Torres, L., Pina, V., & Acerete, B. (2006). E-Governance developments in European Union cities: Reshaping government’s relationship with citizens. Governance, 19(2), 277-302.
Torres, L, Pina, V. & Royo, S. (2005). E-government and the transformation of public administrations in EU countries: Beyond NPM or just a second wave of reforms? Online Information Review,
UNESCAP. (2008). United Nations e-government Survey 2008 Poverty and Development Section. New York: United Nations Economic and Social affairs.
United Nations. (2008). E-government survey 2008; from e-government to connected governance. New York: UN.
United Nations. (2008). United Nations e-Government Survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance. New York: United Nations.
United Nations. (2010). United Nations E-Government Survey 2010-Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis, New York: United States.
West, D. M. (2008). Improving Technology Utilization in Electronic Government around the World, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/0817_egovernment_west.aspx
Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M.C. (2003). eTailQ: Dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting etail quality. Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 183-198
World Economic Forum, (2010). Global Information Technology Report 2009-2010-ICT for Sustainability, released on March,
Vaidya, K. (2007). Applying the DeLone and McLean information success model to measure public e-procurement success. Paper presented at the CollECTeR 2007, Melbourne Australia.
Verleye, G., Karamagioli, E., Verdegem, P., Jenner, S., & Poelmans, M. (2010). eGovernment Monitor Network, Measure paper 3: Impact measurement, eGovMoNet. eGovernment Monitor Network Project no.: CIP 224998. Retrieved from http://www.egovmonet.eu/Papers/Papers/Impact_Paperv1_0.pdf
Wauters, P. (2006). Benchmarking e-Government Policy within the e-Europe Program. Asilib Proceeding, 58(5), 389-403.
Wassenaar, A. (2000). E-government value chain models: E-government from a business (modeling) perspective. In Tjoa, A. M., Wagner, R.R., & Al-Zobaidie, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications. (289-293). Washington: IEEE Computer Society.
West, D. M. (2004). E-Government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15-27.
Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 646–65
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政研究所
96256019
99
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0962560192
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 朱斌妤zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chu, Pin Yuen_US
dc.contributor.author (作者) 楊禮榮zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) Yang, Li Jungen_US
dc.creator (作者) 楊禮榮zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Yang, Li Jungen_US
dc.date (日期) 2010en_US
dc.date.accessioned 3-九月-2013 12:01:42 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 3-九月-2013 12:01:42 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-九月-2013 12:01:42 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0962560192en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/59689-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 公共行政研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 96256019zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 99zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 近年來，由於ICT的蓬勃發展，政府逐漸增加投資於電子化計畫的線上服務比例與種類，為了理解投資所能獲得的收益，杜絕資源浪費，並促使政府調整施政方向達到良善治理，針對電子化計畫進行評估是勢然必行的。目前許多評估機構逐漸從衡量政府投資電子化政府服務的客觀產出，轉而討論電子化服務使用者端的影響與成果。本研究，以計畫整體流程中所面臨的內部運作與外部感受、客觀產出與抽象成果的評估構面，提出G2B電子化計畫流程評估架構。

本研究結合Heeks (2006)的價值鏈模型與Millard & Shahin (2006)電子化計畫評估流程建立流程模型，透過文獻整理出評比國家型、網頁感知品質型、滿意模型與利害關係人模型指標，從企業途徑與政府內部途徑角度，探討G2B計畫流程評估架構，並使用層級分析法(analytic hierarchy process)，由專家給予衡量G2B計畫推動時，前端到後端階段中重要構面的權重，並根據分析結果討論現今台灣計劃評估傾向上的差異。

本研究結果發現，在政府計畫生產過程中，應重視政府領導與支持，並發展衡量方式；專家不論在企業途徑與政府內部途徑上，都認為「服務產出評估是必需的過程，但影響與成果階段，才是價值衡量的終點」，因此，電子化計劃評估應從重視成本比的角度，朝向討論「透過政府對計畫服務的投入與投資，所能帶給企業實際或感知的價值與影響」，更能切中利害關係人關注的關鍵利益。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study aims at building an e-program evaluation chain model combining output evaluation with impact assessments, in order to assess the comprehensive G2B e-program from back-office process to the impact of online services. This study contributes a G2B evaluation framework with six processes integrated by e-government value chain model and e-program evaluation process. Given the concept of external and internal customer,「Business approach」and「Internal-Government approach」is developed in view of stakeholders. By evaluating subjective expert judgments via analytic hierarchy process method, this G2B evaluation framework is given weights and priorities in each hierarchy under both of approaches. The results indicate that impact and outcome assessments should be emphasized, no matter which approach is. Evaluation toward objective output is only a necessary process, but not the destination. As policy suggestions, this study addresses that government should focus on what kinds of value e-program can bring, and evaluate them.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 表目錄 III
圖目錄 V
第一章 緒論 1
1.1　電子化政府發展趨勢 1
1.2　G2B電子化計畫績效評估之必要與重要性 2
1.3　研究目的 4
第二章 文獻回顧 6
2.1　電子化政府計畫流程評估架構與指標建構原則 6
2.2　電子化政府與計畫績效評估指標 11
2.3 「誰是使用者？」－從利害關係人界定評估架構與指標 24
2.4　電子化政府績效評估之操作化定義 41
第三章 台灣G2B計畫服務現況分析 51
3.1　G2B計畫服務分類與分析設計 51
3.2　台灣G2B計畫電子化基礎法規環境與身分憑證服務 52
3.3　台灣G2B計畫與服務－企業生命週期角度 53
3.4　小結 59
第四章 研究方法與設計 68
4.1　層級分析法(Analytic Hierarchy Process) 68
4.2　以AHP法建構G2B計畫階段指標 70
4.3　研究流程與架構 74
第五章 層級分析法研究結果與分析 76
5.1　G2B計畫整體評估層級分析結果－企業途徑 76
5.2　G2B計畫整體評估層級分析結果－政府內部途徑 81
5.3　G2B計畫評估企業途徑比較－學術v.s.實務 85
5.4　G2B計畫評估政府內部途徑比較－學術v.s.實務 90
5.5　小結 96
第六章 層級分析研究結論與建議 103
6.1　G2B計畫績效指標分析結論與政策建議 103
6.2　後續研究建議 109
參考文獻 113
一、 中文部分 113
二、 英文部分 115
附錄一 122
附錄二 129
附錄三 137		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 3376855 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0962560192en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 電子化政府zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) G2Bzh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 電子化計畫zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 計畫評估zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 層級分析法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 績效評估zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) e-governmenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) G2Ben_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) e-programen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) analytic hierarchy processen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) program evaluationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) performance evaluationen_US
dc.title (題名) 以層級分析法 建構G2B計畫評估架構與指標-從價值鏈觀點出發zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A value-chain approach to build G2B program evaluation frameworken_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、 中文部分
林建山，(1987)。商情預測：技術與實務。台北市：環球經濟社。
行政院國家科學委員會，(2011)。101年度政府科技計畫概算編製暨審議作業手冊。台北市：行政院國家科學委員會。
行政院公共工程委員會，(2009)。97年度政府採購法業務推動情形及執行績效。台北市：行政院公共工程委員會。
行政院研究發展考核委員會，(2003)。2003年電子化政府報告書。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研究發展考核委員會，(2004)。2004年電子化政府報告書。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研究發展考核委員會，(2007)。2007年電子化政府報告書。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研究發展考核委員會，(2009)。第四階段電子化政府研擬作業。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。取自https://pmo.nat.gov.tw/upload/download.aspx?fid=470
行政院研究發展考核委員會，(2010)。國際電子化政府評比分析及評比資料庫更新報告。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研究發展考核委員會，(2011a)。全球電子化政府、資訊科技發展趨勢報告。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
行政院研究發展考核委員會，(2011b)。優質網路政府計劃（97年-99年）執行成效評析報告。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
朱斌妤，(2004)。台灣與美國電子化政府比較研究。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告。台北市：中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
朱斌妤、蕭乃沂，(2010)。電子治理績效模型與實證研究，行政院研考會委託研究期中報告。台北市：行政院研考會。
朱斌妤、李洛維，(2009)。電子治理的發展與挑戰。研習論壇月刊，107，1-13。
李洛維，(2010)。電子採購影響評估因果模型之建構與驗證。國立政治大學公共行政研究所，未出版，台北市
周思伶，(2008)。政府網站服務品質指標建構之研究。國立政治大學公共行政研究所，未出版，台北市。
紀人瑋，(2010)。政府採購電子化成效評估指標建立。國立政治大學公共行政研究所，未出版，台北市。

二、 英文部分
Aull-Hyde, T., Erdogan, J. & Duke, K. (2006). An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 171(1), 290-295
Baker, D.L. (2004). E-government: website usability of the most populous counties. PhD, Arizona State University: USA.
Barnes, S. J. & Vidgen, R. (2007). Interactive e-government: Evaluating the web site of the UKinland revenue. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 3(1), 19-37.
Beech, I. B., (2001). The Delphi approach: Recent applications in health care. Nurse Researcher, 8(4), 38-47.
Belanger, F., & Hiller. (2006). A framework for e-government: Privacy implications. Business Process Management Journal, 12(1), 48–60.
Bhatnagar, S., Rao, R. T. P., Singh, N., Vaidya, R., & Mandal., M. (2007). Impact assessment study of e-government project in India. Ahmedabad: Center for e-Governance, Indian Institute of Management
Bouckaert, G. W., Dooren, V., & Sterck, M. (2003). Prestaties meten in de Vlaamse overheid: een verkennende studie. Leuven: Steunpunt Bestuurlijke Organisatie Vlaanderen.
Brookings Institution, “Improving Technology Utilization in Electronic Government around the World, 2008”, released on August, 2008.
Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2001). Achieving advanced electronic government services: An examination of obstacles and implication from an international perspective. In Paper presented at the National Public Management Research Conference, Bloomington, IN.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementationof cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(1): 44-55.
Buckly, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchy analysis. Fuzzy Sets and System, 17, 233-247.
Buckley, J. (2003). E-service quality and the public sector. Managing Service Quality, 13(6), 453-462.
Castelnovo, W. & Simonetta, M. (2007). The Evaluation of e-Government projects for Small Local Government Organisations. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 5(1), 21 - 28, available online at www.ejeg.com
Chircu, A. M. (2008). E-government evaluation: towards a multidimensional framework. Electronic Government: An International Journal, 5(4), 345–363.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information system success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30.
Dutta, S., & Mia, I. (Eds.) (2010). The global information technology report 2009–2010: Mobility in a networked world. Geneva: World Economic Forum & INSEAD.
Economist Intelligence Unit, (2010), the 2010 Digital Economy Rankings, Retrieved from: http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/EIU_Digital_economy_rankings_2010_FINAL_WEB.pdf
Esteves., J. & Joseph, R. C. (2007). A comprehensive framework for the assessment of e-Government projects. Government Information Quarterly, 25(1), 118-132.
European Commision, DG Information Society. (2004). Top of the web: User satisfaction and usage survey of e-government Services. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Commission. http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/egovernment_research/doc/top_of_the_web_report_2004.pdf
European Commission, Information Society and Media, (2006). eGovernment Economics Project (eGEP) Measurement Framework, Final Version. Brussels: European Commission.. Retrieved from, http://www.umic.pt/images/stories/publicacoes200709/D.2.4_Measurement_Framework_final_version.pdf
European Commision, Information Society and Media, (2009a). i2010 High Level Group Benchmarking Digital Europe 2011-2015 a conceptual framework. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/benchmarking_digital_europe_2011-2015.pdf
European Commision, Information Society and Media, (2009b). Digitizing Public Services in Europe: Putting ambition into action, 9th Benckmark Measurement. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/item-detail-dae.cfm?item_id=6537.
European Commision, Information Society & Media Directorate-General, (2009c). Study on User Satisfaction and Impach in EU27. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.epractice.eu/files/media/media2599.pdf
European Commision, Information Society and Media Directorate-General, (2009d), Smarter, Faster, Better eGovernment-8th eGovernment benchmarking. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/egov_benchmark_2009.pdf
Flynn, N. (2002). Public Sector Management, 4th edn., Pearson Education, Harlow.
Glassey, O. & Glassey, O. F. (2004). A Proximity Indicator for e-Government. Journal of E-Government, 1(4), 5-20
General Accounting Office. (2001). Electronic government: Challenges must be addressed with effective leadership and management. 1-2. GAO-01-959T.
Graafland-Essersand, I. & Ettedgui, E. (2003). Benchmarking e-Government in Europe and the US, Statistical Indicators Benchmarking the Information Society, SIBIS
Gupta, M. P. & Jana, D. (2003). E-government evaluation-A framework and case study. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 365–387
Gupta, P. (2007). Challenges and Issues in e-Government Project Assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.nisg.org/knowledgecenter_docs/A03040005.pdf
Gouscos, D., Kalikakis, M., Legal, M. & Papadopoulou, S. (2007). A general model of performance and quality for one-stop e-Government service offerings. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 860–885
Heeks, R. (2006). Understanding and measuring eGovernment: International benchmarking studies. In Presented at the UDESA workshop, E-Participation and E-Government: Understanding the Present and Creating the Future, Budapest, Hungary, July (p. 2006).
Heintzman, R. & Marson, B. (2005). People, service and trust: is there a public sector service value chain. International Review of Administrative Science, 71(4), 549-575.
Holzer, M. & Kim, S. T. (2007). Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide (2007)~A Longitudinal Assessment of Municipal Websites Throughout the World. The E-Governance Institute National Center for Public Performance and Globale-Policy e-Government Institute, Graduate School of Governance Sung kyun kwan University. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Campus at New York
Horan, T. A., Abhichandani, T., & Rayalu, R. (2006). Assessing user satisfaction of e-government services: Development and testing of quality-in-use satisfaction with advanced traveler information system (ATIS). Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Hawaii.
Jaeger, P. T. & Thompson, K. M. (2003). E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and future directions. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 389 –394
Jassen, D., Rotthier S., & Snijkers, K. (2004). If you measure it they will score: An assessment of international e-government benchmarking. Information Polity, 9(3-4), 121-130
Kearn, I. (2004). Public Value and E-Government, Institute for Public Policy Research: London
Kertesz, S. (2003). Cost-Benefit Analysis of e-Government Investments. MA.: Harvard University.
Lester, D. L., Pamell, J.A. & Carraher, S., (2003). Organiztional Life cycle: A five stage empirical scale, The International Journal of Organizalional Analysis, 11(4), 339-354
Liu, J., Derzsi, Z., Raus, M., & Kipp, A. (2008). eGovernment Project Evaluation: An Integrated Framework. In M. A. Wimmer, H. J. Scholl & E. Ferro (Eds.), Electronic Government, 5184(2008), 85-97: Springer-Verlag Berlin / Heidelberg.
Loiacono, E. T., Watson, R. T., & Goodhue, D. L. (2007). WebQual: An instrument for cunsumer evaluation of web sites. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11, 51-87
Maio, A. D. & McCliure, D. (2008) Using the E-Government Assessment Questionnaire. CT: Gartner Inc.
Millard, J. (2007). Europeane-Government 2005-2007: Taking stock of good practice and progress toward simple mentation of the i2010 e-Government Action Plan. BEL.: European Commission.
Millard, J. (2008). E-Government measurement for policy makers. European Journal of ePractice, 4. Retireved from: http://www.epractice.eu/files/4.3_0.pdf
Miller, G. A., 1956, The Magic Number Seven, Plus or Minus Seven: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information, Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
Mintzberg, H. (1996). Managing government, governing management. Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 75–83.
Millard, J & Shahin, J (2006). Towards the eGovernment vision for EU in 2010: research policy challenges. For the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain, European Commission, DG JRC.
Montagna, J. M. (2005). A framework for the assessment and analysis of electronic government proposals. Electronic Commerce Research and Application, 4(3), 204-219.
Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities rhetoric or reality. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424-433.
Moon, M. J. & Norris, D. F. (2005). Does managerial orientation matter? The adoption of reinventing government and e-government at the Municipal level. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 43–60.
Norris, D. F., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Advancing E-Government at the Grassroots: Tortoise or Hare? Public Administration Review, 65(1), 64–75.
Obi, T. (2009). 2009 WASEDA University e-Government Ranking. Tokyo: The Waseda University Institute of e-Government.
Obi, T. (2011). 2011 WASEDA Univeristy World e-Government Ranking. Tokyo: The Waseda University Institute of e-Government.
OECD. (2002). E-Government Projects, Seminar Vision, Responsiveness and Measurement. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2006). OECD e-government project: Proposal for work on an inventory of e-government business case indicators. Paris: OECD.
Orange, G., Burke, A., Elliman, T., & Kor, A. L. (2006). CARE: An integrated framework to support continuous, adaptable, reflective evaluation of e-government systems: A research note. In Presented at European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Alicante, Spain, July.
Parasuramen, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implication for future. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 29 – 40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Malhotra, A. (2005). E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Service Research, 7(3), 213-233.
Petter, S., Delone, W., & Mclean, E. (2008).　Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 238.
Raus, M., Liu, J., Kipp, A. (2010). Evaluating IT innovations in a business-to-government context: A frameworkand its applications. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 122–133
Rao, T. P. R, Rao, V. V., Bhatnagar, S. C. & Satyanarayana, S. J. (2004). E-Governance Assessment Frameworks (EAF Version 2.0). India: Department of Information Technology, Government f India. Retrieved form: http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/egov/documents/assessment-frameworks.pdf
Reddick, C. G., (2009). Factors that Explain the Perceived Effectiveness of E-Government- A Survey of United States City Government Information Technology Directors. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 5(2)
Rowley, J., (2010). e-Government stakeholders—Who are they and what do they want? International Journal of Information　Management, doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.05.005
Sakowicz, M. (2004). How Should e-Government Be Evaluated? Different Methodologies and Methods, in: NISPAcee occasional papers, Volume V, No. 2, Spring, S. 18-26.
Santos, J. (2003). E-Service Quality: A Model of Virtual Service Quality Dimensions. Managing Service Quality, 13(3), 233-246.
Stowers, G. N. L., (2001). Commerce Comes to Government on the Desktop: E-Commerce Applications in the public Sector. IBM Center for the Business of Government: San Francisco State University.
Sukasame, N. (2004). The development of e-service in Thai government. BU Academic Review, 3, 8. Retrieved from February 26, 2010, http://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/jan_june2004/nittana.pdf
Schellong, A. (2009). EU eGovernment Benchmark 2010+: General remarks on the future of benchmarking digital egovernment in the EU, Retrieved from http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/netgov/papers/schellong_2009_wp_eu_egovernment_benchmarking_future_methodology.pdf
Song, H. J. (2010). Building E-Governance through Reform: the Korean Experience. Journal of E-Governance, 33, 49–60.
Stowers, G. N. L. (2004). Measuring the Performance of E-Government. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Torres, L., Pina, V., & Acerete, B. (2006). E-Governance developments in European Union cities: Reshaping government’s relationship with citizens. Governance, 19(2), 277-302.
Torres, L, Pina, V. & Royo, S. (2005). E-government and the transformation of public administrations in EU countries: Beyond NPM or just a second wave of reforms? Online Information Review,
UNESCAP. (2008). United Nations e-government Survey 2008 Poverty and Development Section. New York: United Nations Economic and Social affairs.
United Nations. (2008). E-government survey 2008; from e-government to connected governance. New York: UN.
United Nations. (2008). United Nations e-Government Survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance. New York: United Nations.
United Nations. (2010). United Nations E-Government Survey 2010-Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis, New York: United States.
West, D. M. (2008). Improving Technology Utilization in Electronic Government around the World, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/0817_egovernment_west.aspx
Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M.C. (2003). eTailQ: Dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting etail quality. Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 183-198
World Economic Forum, (2010). Global Information Technology Report 2009-2010-ICT for Sustainability, released on March,
Vaidya, K. (2007). Applying the DeLone and McLean information success model to measure public e-procurement success. Paper presented at the CollECTeR 2007, Melbourne Australia.
Verleye, G., Karamagioli, E., Verdegem, P., Jenner, S., & Poelmans, M. (2010). eGovernment Monitor Network, Measure paper 3: Impact measurement, eGovMoNet. eGovernment Monitor Network Project no.: CIP 224998. Retrieved from http://www.egovmonet.eu/Papers/Papers/Impact_Paperv1_0.pdf
Wauters, P. (2006). Benchmarking e-Government Policy within the e-Europe Program. Asilib Proceeding, 58(5), 389-403.
Wassenaar, A. (2000). E-government value chain models: E-government from a business (modeling) perspective. In Tjoa, A. M., Wagner, R.R., & Al-Zobaidie, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications. (289-293). Washington: IEEE Computer Society.
West, D. M. (2004). E-Government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15-27.
Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 646–65		zh_TW