1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Social Science
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 公共價值導向的政府資訊公開評估指標建立
Open Public Sector Information: Establishment of Public-Value Oriented Performance Evaluation Indicators
作者 張凱媛
Chang, Kai Yuan
貢獻者 朱斌妤
Chu, Pin Yu
張凱媛
Chang, Kai Yuan
關鍵詞 政府資訊公開
績效評估
公共價值
層級分析法
OPSI
performance evaluation
public value
AHP
日期 2013
上傳時間 6-Aug-2014 11:49:39 (UTC+8)
摘要 　　政府資訊公開是指政府將所擁有之資訊以各種方式公布或提供人民申請，是保障人民知的權利之基礎和促進民主參與之重要基石，與政府透明、課責和政府信任等公共價值的實踐有緊密連結性。本研究經由文獻回顧及國內外實務觀察，發現目前國內外就政府資訊公開的績效評估並沒有全面的架構，同時，也較缺乏政府資訊公開成效與其影響之間的關聯。因此，本研究主要探討政府資訊公開所連結的公共價值，並嘗試將之融入績效評估指標架構當中，期能建立初步評估架構並分析其政策意涵。

　　本研究透過文獻回顧瞭解國內外政府資訊公開發展現況與趨勢，整理既有的評估指標和實證研究，發展以公共目標價值為基礎的績效評估架構：包含透明、信任、課責、參與、效能、效率等6個目標公共價值，以及12個公共價值構面和其下的衡量指標。建立架構後，本研究透過層級分析法，彙整學者專家、政府官員，以及公民團體代表三類專家之意見，對架構指標權重排序並進行整體和不同專家類型之比較分析。

　　整體結果顯示，透明為政府資訊公開評估架構中最重要之層面，而三類專家亦一致認同在透明層面下的政治透明構面，及其下的政策決策過程透明指標為達成透明價值之關鍵作為，其次，較受整體專家重視的還有課責及參與。以絕對重要性來看，整體專家認為最重要的公共價值構面也是政治透明，指標層次則以政策決策過程透明、對政府資訊的信任等為重。除整體結果外，三類專家所認定的權重順序也有所差異：(1)學者專家對課責的權重明顯較其他專家高，(2)政府專家對效率的重要性排序排在第三位，其他專家則認為較不重要，(3)公民專家與其他專家最大的不同是將參與置於首要位置。根據分析結果，本研究建議應強化政策決策過程透明的相關措施以真正落實政治透明、透過穩定輸出正確可靠的資訊來培養公民對政府資訊的信任，並積極提升對課責和參與之重視。
　　Information held by government agencies is a valuable national resource, and it should be open to public unless there is required legal protection for sensitive in-formation. The development of open public sector information (OPSI), based on people’s right to know, will enhance public values such as transparency and ac-countability of government, democratic participation, and even social welfare.

　　This study focuses on the establishment of public-value oriented performance evaluation indicators. To build the objective level and the corresponding indicators of the assessment framework, it investigates the linkage between public value and OPSI by literature review and sorts out the existing indicators related to OPSI. Also, in purpose to refine the applicability of this framework and analyze the order of in-dicators’ importance, it applies analytic hierarchy process (AHP), gathering the mul-tiple-criteria decision-making opinions from 14 experts of Public Administration, Information Management, and E-Government practice, including 6 academics, 4 government officials, and 4 civil groups experts.

　　The framework shows that transparency, trust, accountability, participation, ef-ficiency and effectiveness are 6 main public values to evaluate the performance of OPSI, with 12 aspects and 12 indicators included in. The overall results show that transparency, trust and participation are more important than the others. And for the absolute importance, political transparency aspect and indicator transparency of policy decision-making process are the most important ones based on integrated opinions. Moreover, three groups of experts show some differences in the order of importance: academics are more concerned with accountability, government offi-cials care more about efficiency, and civil group experts regard participation the most important one. Based on the analysis of AHP results, this study suggests that government should put political transparency into effect, bring up the trust to gov-ernment information, and attach more importance to accountability and participa-tion.
參考文獻 王達暐、胡萬能、陳祝美(2010)。推動電子化政府之決策分析研究─以電子發票為例。第十三屆決策分析研討會，新竹市。
台灣動物社會研究會、台灣蠻野心足生態協會(2007)。民可使由之，不可使知之？體檢「政府資訊公開嗎？」看台灣民主程度。2007年調查報告，台灣動物社會研究會。
朱斌妤、蕭乃沂、楊禮榮(2013)。電子治理中政府對企業計劃(G2B)評估架構。行政暨政策學報，56，1-41。
江祥輝、朱鐵吉、吳泉源(2011)。核安管制資訊公開機制之研究。行政院原子能委員會委託研究報告。台北：行政院原子能委員會。
行政院政府服務品質獎(2013)。第六屆政府服務品質獎評獎作業手冊。台北：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
何怡澄、郭振雄、吳佳穎(2011)。資訊公開法的實踐－台灣地方政府財務資訊揭露。臺灣民主季刊，8(2)，1-58。
吳定(2006)。公共政策（修訂四版）。台北：五南。
杜文苓、李翰林(2011)。環境資訊公開的民主實踐課題－以霄裡溪光電廢水汙染爭議爲例。臺灣民主季刊，8(2)，59-98。
周思伶(2009)。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碩士論文，未出版，台北。
林巧敏(2011)。政府資訊公開與申請應用網站內容分析：以臺灣與美英兩國政府機關為例。大學圖書館，15(2)，78-98。
范姜真媺、林素鳳、陳美玲、詹靜芬(2010)。政府資訊公開制度實施成效評估。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
孫本初(2013)。新公共管理（五版）。台北：新保成。
國發會(2014)。全面推廣政府服務流程改造，2014年5月25日，取自：http://www.ndc.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0025039&ex=1&ic=0000015。
張紹勳(2012)。模糊多準則評估法及統計。台北：五南。
陳士伯(2007)。政府資訊公開法與檔案應用之研析。研考雙月刊，31(3)，31-40。
陳宜和(2006)。我國實施行政資訊公開之成效評估研究。研考雙月刊，30(3)，86-98。
陳俊明、黃東益、蔣麗君、朱斌妤、李仲彬、張鎧如(2013)。數位國家治理：國情分析架構與方法。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：RDEC-MIS-102-001）。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
陳美伶(2005)。現行政府資訊公開法制及其落實。研考雙月刊，29(3)，20-29。
陳舜伶、林珈宏、莊庭瑞(2013)。藏智於民–開放政府資料的原則與現況。台北：中央研究院資訊科技創新研究中心台灣創用CC計畫。
彭渰雯(2012)。資訊公開的實務挑戰—石門水庫整治經驗省思。臺灣民主季刊，9(4)，141-190。
項靖(2009)。透明化電子治理：以網站落實政府資訊公開。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：0972461343）。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
項靖(2010)。線上政府資訊公開的規則制定：線上審議的應用與分析。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：0992460052）。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
黃東益、李仲彬(2010)。電子治理與民眾對政府信任：台灣的個案分析。行政暨政策學報，51，77-124。
黃朝盟、吳濟安(2007)。電子化政府影響評估。研考雙月刊，31(1)，76-85。
葉俊榮、許宗力(1996)。政府資訊公開制度之研究。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
臺灣公共治理研究中心(2013)。臺灣公共治理指標指標說明，2013年11月10日，取自：http://www.tpgrc.org.tw/content.php?f=93。
潘競恆、林嘉鴻(2009)。以可得性與可近性建構政府資訊透明評估指標之初探。發表於TASPAA年會暨學術研討會，中山大學公共事務研究所，高雄。
蔣麗君、曾雅芬(2010)。地方政府電子治理成效指標與評估。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：0992460052）。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
鄧振源(2005)。計畫評估-方法與應用。台北：海洋大學運籌規劃管理研究中心。
鄧振源、曾國雄(1989)。層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用（下）。中國統計學報，27(7)，1-19。
羅晉(2011)。政府網站資訊公開的委託代理分析。國立政治大學公共行政研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
蘇彩足、左正東(2008)。政府透明化分析架構建立之研究。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：RDEC-TPG-097-004）。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
政府資訊公開法（民國94年12月28日）
Agrast, M. D., Botero, J. C., Martinez, J., Ponce, A., & Pratt, C.S. (2012). The world justice project: Rule of law index 2012-2013. Washington, D.C.: The World Justice Project.
Arizti, R., Brumby, J., Manning, N., Senderowitsch, R., & Thomas, T. (2013). Re-sults, performance budgeting and trust in government. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Article 19 (2007). Access to information: An instrumental right for empowerment. Retrieved October 10, 2013, from http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/publications/ati-empowerment-right.pdf
Article 19 (2010). Mexico’s access to information index. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/mexico-access-to-information-index.pdf
Banisar, D. (2006). Freedom of information around the world 2006. Retrieved No-vember 19, 2013, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1707336
Birkinshaw, P. (2010). Freedom of information and its impact in the United King-dom. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 312-321.
Browder, L. H. (1971) Introduction: Emerging patterns of administrative account-ability: A point of view. Berkeley, CA: McCuthchan.
Buyukozkan, G., & Cifci, G. (2012). A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS based strategic analysis of electronic service quality in healthcare industry. Ex-pert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 2341-2354.
BüYüKöZkan, G., & Ruan, D. (2007). Evaluating government websites based on a fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 15(03), 321–343.
Byun, D.-H., & Finnie, G. (2011). An AHP method for evaluating usability of elec-tronic government portals. Electronic Government, an International Journal, 8(4), 343-362.
Cherry, M., & McMenemy, D. (2013). Freedom of information and 「vexatious」 requests - The case of Scottish local government. Government Information Quarterly, 30(3), 257-266.
Cook, M. and Baldwin, K. (2013). A Public Value Analysis Tool for Open Govern-ment Planning. Retrieved October 11, 2013, from: http://www.howto.gov/sites/default/files/public-value-analysis-tool-for-open-government-planning.pdf
Deloitte (2013). Market assessment of public sector information. Retrieved Febru-ary 2, 2014, form https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-information-market-assessment
Dominic, P. D. D., Jati, H., & Kannabiran, G. (2010). Performance evaluation on quality of Asian e-government websites – an AHP approach. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 6(2), 219-239.
EU (2014). The decision-making process and the work of the institutions. Re-trieved May 25, 2014, from http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/decisionmaking_process/index_en.htm
FOIA net (2013). Global right to information update: Analysis by region. Retrieved October 11, 2013, from http://www.foiadvocates.net/
FOIA.gov (2013). Freedom of Information Act. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.foia.gov
Friedland, C. and Gross, T. (2010). Measuring the Public Value of e-Government: Methodology of a South African Case Study. IST-Africa 2010 Conference Pro-ceedings, IST-Africa 2010 Conference, Durban, 1-12.
Gavelin, K., Burall, S., & Wilson, R. (2009). Open government: Beyond static measures. Paris: OECD.
Global RTI Legislation Rating (2010). RTI legislation ratingmethodology. Re-trieved October 22, 2013, from http://www.rti-rating.org/methodology.php
GOV.UK (2013). Welcome to GOV.UK. Retrieved December 23, 2013, from https://www.gov.uk
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2012). Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: an experiment. International Review of Administrative Scienc-es, 78(1), 50-73.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Welch, E. W. (2012). Developing and testing a theoreti-cal framework for computer-mediated transparency of local governments. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 562–571.
Harrison, T., Pardo, T., Cresswell, A., and Cook, M. (2011). Delivering public value through open government. New York: The Research Foundation of State Uni-versity of New York.
Hatry, H.P. (2007). Performance measurement: Getting results 2nd edition. Wash-ington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
Heeks, R. (2006). Benchmarking eGovernment: Improving the national and inter-nationalmeasurement, evaluation and comparison of eGovernment. IDPM i-GovernmentWorking Paper no. 18.
Hills, D. & Sullivan, F. (2006). Measuring public value 2: Practical approaches. London: The Work Foundation.
Holzer, M., & Manoharan, A. (2012). Digital governance in municipalities world-wide (2011-12). The E-governance Institute National Center for Public Perfor-mance Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Campus at Newark.
Jati, H. (2011). Usability ranking of E-Government websites: Grey analysis ap-proach. International Conference on Computer and Computational Intelligence, Bangkok.
Jørgensen, T.B. and Bozeman, B. (2007). Public Values: An Inventory. Administra-tion & Society, 39(3), 354-381.
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi. M. (2010). The worldwide governance indi-cators: Methodology and analytical issues. Brookings: Global Economy and Development.
Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E-Participation, Transparency, and Trust in Local Gov-ernment. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819-828.
Meijer, A. J. (2013). Understanding the Complex Dynamics of Transparency. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 429-439.
Meijer, A. J. (2012). Introduction to the special issue on government transparency Introduction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 3-9.
Moore, M.H. (1995). Creating public value strategic management in government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin (2013). Freedom of information statistics: Implementation in central government July - September 2013. Retrieved Jan-uary 18, 2014, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299077/implementation-in-central-government-statistics-july-september-2013.pdf
Nam, T. (2012). Citizens’ attitudes toward Open Government and Government 2.0. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(2), 346-368.
OAIC (2010). Principles on open public sector information. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.oaic.gov.au/information-policy/information-policy-resources/information-policy-agency-resources/principles-on-open-public-sector-information
OAIC (2011). Understanding the value of public sector information in Australia. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.oaic.gov.au/information-policy/information-policy-engaging-with-you/previous-information-policy-consultations/information-policy-issues-paper-2-november-2011/issues-paper-2-understanding-the-value-of-public-secto
OAIC (2013). Open public sector information: from principles to practice. Re-trieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.oaic.gov.au/information-policy/information-policy-resources/information-policy-reports/open-public-sector-information-from-principles-to-practice
OAIC (2014). Freedom of information reports. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-resources/freedom-of-information-reports/
Obi, T. (2013). 2013 Waseda University e-Government ranking. Tokyo: The Waseda University Institute of e-Government.
OECD (2006). Digital broadband content: Public sector information and content. Retrieved February 2, 2014, form http://www.oecd.org/sti/36481524.pdf‎
OECD (2011). The call for innovative and open government: An overview of coun-try initiatives, OECD Publishing.
OGS (2013). Open government. Retrieved October 15, 2013, from http://www.opengovstandards.org/
Piotrowski, S. J., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2007). Citizen attitudes toward transparency in local government. American Review of Public Administration, 37(3), 306-323.
Pardo, T. A. (2012). Innovation and public value: The case of open government. Re-trieved October 9, 2013, from http://www.governmentforum.com.mx/2012/pdf/Theresa_Pardo.pdf
Ray, S., & Rao, V. V. (2004). Evaluating government service: A customers’ perspec-tive of e-Government. 4th European Conference on e-Government, Dublin.
Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Saaty, T.L. (1990). How to Make a Decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Euro-pean Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9-26.
Salmeron, J. L., & Herrero, I. (2005). An AHP-based methodology to rank critical success factors of executive information systems. Computer Standards & In-terfaces, 28(1), 1-12.
Talbot (2008). Measuring public value: A competing values approach. London: The Work Foundation.
Transparency International (2013). The 2013 corruption perceptions index. Re-trieved October 11, 2013, from http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/
Ubaldi, B. (2013). Open government data: Towards empirical analysis of open gov-ernment data initiatives. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, 22.
United Nations (2012). United Nations E-Government survey 2012: E-government for the people. New York: United Nations.
Van W. D., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2010). Performance management in the public sector. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Waseda University & International Academy of CIO (2014). WASEDA – IAC 10th international e-government ranking 2014. Retrieved June 28, 2014, from http://www.e-gov.waseda.ac.jp/pdf/2014_E-Gov_Press_Release.pdf
Water Governance Faculty (2013). Water integrity and accountability. Retrieved December 23, 2013, from http://www.watergovernance.org/documents/WGF/Water_Integrity_Training_Manual/module_6_english.pdf
West, D. M. (2008). Improving technology utilization in electronic government around the world. Brookings: Governance Studies.
White House (2013a). Memorandum on transparency and open government. Re-trieved October 11, 2013, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/about
White House (2013b). Around the government. Retrieved October 11, 2013, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around
Worthy, B. (2010). More open but not more trusted? The effect of the freedom of information act 2000 on the United Kingdom Central Government. Govern-ance-an International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 23(4), 561-582.
Yamamura, E., & Kondoh, H. (2013). Government transparency and expenditure in the rent-seeking industry: The case of Japan for 1998-2004. Contemporary Economic Policy, 31(3), 635-647.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政研究所
101256024
102
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101256024
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 朱斌妤zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chu, Pin Yuen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 張凱媛zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chang, Kai Yuanen_US
dc.creator (作者) 張凱媛zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chang, Kai Yuanen_US
dc.date (日期) 2013en_US
dc.date.accessioned 6-Aug-2014 11:49:39 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 6-Aug-2014 11:49:39 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 6-Aug-2014 11:49:39 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0101256024en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/68279-
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) 101256024zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 102zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 　　政府資訊公開是指政府將所擁有之資訊以各種方式公布或提供人民申請，是保障人民知的權利之基礎和促進民主參與之重要基石，與政府透明、課責和政府信任等公共價值的實踐有緊密連結性。本研究經由文獻回顧及國內外實務觀察，發現目前國內外就政府資訊公開的績效評估並沒有全面的架構，同時，也較缺乏政府資訊公開成效與其影響之間的關聯。因此，本研究主要探討政府資訊公開所連結的公共價值，並嘗試將之融入績效評估指標架構當中，期能建立初步評估架構並分析其政策意涵。

　　本研究透過文獻回顧瞭解國內外政府資訊公開發展現況與趨勢，整理既有的評估指標和實證研究，發展以公共目標價值為基礎的績效評估架構：包含透明、信任、課責、參與、效能、效率等6個目標公共價值，以及12個公共價值構面和其下的衡量指標。建立架構後，本研究透過層級分析法，彙整學者專家、政府官員，以及公民團體代表三類專家之意見，對架構指標權重排序並進行整體和不同專家類型之比較分析。

　　整體結果顯示，透明為政府資訊公開評估架構中最重要之層面，而三類專家亦一致認同在透明層面下的政治透明構面，及其下的政策決策過程透明指標為達成透明價值之關鍵作為，其次，較受整體專家重視的還有課責及參與。以絕對重要性來看，整體專家認為最重要的公共價值構面也是政治透明，指標層次則以政策決策過程透明、對政府資訊的信任等為重。除整體結果外，三類專家所認定的權重順序也有所差異：(1)學者專家對課責的權重明顯較其他專家高，(2)政府專家對效率的重要性排序排在第三位，其他專家則認為較不重要，(3)公民專家與其他專家最大的不同是將參與置於首要位置。根據分析結果，本研究建議應強化政策決策過程透明的相關措施以真正落實政治透明、透過穩定輸出正確可靠的資訊來培養公民對政府資訊的信任，並積極提升對課責和參與之重視。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 　　Information held by government agencies is a valuable national resource, and it should be open to public unless there is required legal protection for sensitive in-formation. The development of open public sector information (OPSI), based on people’s right to know, will enhance public values such as transparency and ac-countability of government, democratic participation, and even social welfare.

　　This study focuses on the establishment of public-value oriented performance evaluation indicators. To build the objective level and the corresponding indicators of the assessment framework, it investigates the linkage between public value and OPSI by literature review and sorts out the existing indicators related to OPSI. Also, in purpose to refine the applicability of this framework and analyze the order of in-dicators’ importance, it applies analytic hierarchy process (AHP), gathering the mul-tiple-criteria decision-making opinions from 14 experts of Public Administration, Information Management, and E-Government practice, including 6 academics, 4 government officials, and 4 civil groups experts.

　　The framework shows that transparency, trust, accountability, participation, ef-ficiency and effectiveness are 6 main public values to evaluate the performance of OPSI, with 12 aspects and 12 indicators included in. The overall results show that transparency, trust and participation are more important than the others. And for the absolute importance, political transparency aspect and indicator transparency of policy decision-making process are the most important ones based on integrated opinions. Moreover, three groups of experts show some differences in the order of importance: academics are more concerned with accountability, government offi-cials care more about efficiency, and civil group experts regard participation the most important one. Based on the analysis of AHP results, this study suggests that government should put political transparency into effect, bring up the trust to gov-ernment information, and attach more importance to accountability and participa-tion.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 目錄 I
表次 III
圖次 V
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 政府資訊公開的重要性 1
1.2 政府資訊公開的發展趨勢 2
1.3 政府資訊公開績效評估的重要性 3
1.4 研究目的與研究問題 4
第二章 文獻回顧 6
2.1 政府資訊公開 6
2.2 各國政府資訊公開發展 10
2.3 臺灣政府資訊公開發展 21
2.4 政府資訊公開績效評估 28
2.5 政府資訊公開績效評估架構建立 38
第三章 研究設計 46
3.1 指標操作化 46
3.2 層級分析法 51
3.3 層級分析法的適用性 54
3.4 研究流程與架構 58
第四章 層級分析法結果 61
4.1 政府資訊公開整體評估指標層級分析結果 61
4.2 政府資訊公開評估指標組間比較 70
4.3 小結 76
第五章 研究結論與政策建議 79
5.1 政府資訊公開評估指標分析結論與政策建議 79
5.2 研究限制與未來研究建議 83
參考文獻 87
附錄一 97
附錄二 105		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2696272 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/#G0101256024en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政府資訊公開zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 績效評估zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 公共價值zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 層級分析法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) OPSIen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) performance evaluationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) public valueen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) AHPen_US
dc.title (題名) 公共價值導向的政府資訊公開評估指標建立zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Open Public Sector Information: Establishment of Public-Value Oriented Performance Evaluation Indicatorsen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王達暐、胡萬能、陳祝美(2010)。推動電子化政府之決策分析研究─以電子發票為例。第十三屆決策分析研討會，新竹市。
台灣動物社會研究會、台灣蠻野心足生態協會(2007)。民可使由之，不可使知之？體檢「政府資訊公開嗎？」看台灣民主程度。2007年調查報告，台灣動物社會研究會。
朱斌妤、蕭乃沂、楊禮榮(2013)。電子治理中政府對企業計劃(G2B)評估架構。行政暨政策學報，56，1-41。
江祥輝、朱鐵吉、吳泉源(2011)。核安管制資訊公開機制之研究。行政院原子能委員會委託研究報告。台北：行政院原子能委員會。
行政院政府服務品質獎(2013)。第六屆政府服務品質獎評獎作業手冊。台北：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
何怡澄、郭振雄、吳佳穎(2011)。資訊公開法的實踐－台灣地方政府財務資訊揭露。臺灣民主季刊，8(2)，1-58。
吳定(2006)。公共政策（修訂四版）。台北：五南。
杜文苓、李翰林(2011)。環境資訊公開的民主實踐課題－以霄裡溪光電廢水汙染爭議爲例。臺灣民主季刊，8(2)，59-98。
周思伶(2009)。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碩士論文，未出版，台北。
林巧敏(2011)。政府資訊公開與申請應用網站內容分析：以臺灣與美英兩國政府機關為例。大學圖書館，15(2)，78-98。
范姜真媺、林素鳳、陳美玲、詹靜芬(2010)。政府資訊公開制度實施成效評估。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
孫本初(2013)。新公共管理（五版）。台北：新保成。
國發會(2014)。全面推廣政府服務流程改造，2014年5月25日，取自：http://www.ndc.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0025039&ex=1&ic=0000015。
張紹勳(2012)。模糊多準則評估法及統計。台北：五南。
陳士伯(2007)。政府資訊公開法與檔案應用之研析。研考雙月刊，31(3)，31-40。
陳宜和(2006)。我國實施行政資訊公開之成效評估研究。研考雙月刊，30(3)，86-98。
陳俊明、黃東益、蔣麗君、朱斌妤、李仲彬、張鎧如(2013)。數位國家治理：國情分析架構與方法。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：RDEC-MIS-102-001）。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
陳美伶(2005)。現行政府資訊公開法制及其落實。研考雙月刊，29(3)，20-29。
陳舜伶、林珈宏、莊庭瑞(2013)。藏智於民–開放政府資料的原則與現況。台北：中央研究院資訊科技創新研究中心台灣創用CC計畫。
彭渰雯(2012)。資訊公開的實務挑戰—石門水庫整治經驗省思。臺灣民主季刊，9(4)，141-190。
項靖(2009)。透明化電子治理：以網站落實政府資訊公開。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：0972461343）。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
項靖(2010)。線上政府資訊公開的規則制定：線上審議的應用與分析。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：0992460052）。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
黃東益、李仲彬(2010)。電子治理與民眾對政府信任：台灣的個案分析。行政暨政策學報，51，77-124。
黃朝盟、吳濟安(2007)。電子化政府影響評估。研考雙月刊，31(1)，76-85。
葉俊榮、許宗力(1996)。政府資訊公開制度之研究。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
臺灣公共治理研究中心(2013)。臺灣公共治理指標指標說明，2013年11月10日，取自：http://www.tpgrc.org.tw/content.php?f=93。
潘競恆、林嘉鴻(2009)。以可得性與可近性建構政府資訊透明評估指標之初探。發表於TASPAA年會暨學術研討會，中山大學公共事務研究所，高雄。
蔣麗君、曾雅芬(2010)。地方政府電子治理成效指標與評估。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：0992460052）。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
鄧振源(2005)。計畫評估-方法與應用。台北：海洋大學運籌規劃管理研究中心。
鄧振源、曾國雄(1989)。層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用（下）。中國統計學報，27(7)，1-19。
羅晉(2011)。政府網站資訊公開的委託代理分析。國立政治大學公共行政研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
蘇彩足、左正東(2008)。政府透明化分析架構建立之研究。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：RDEC-TPG-097-004）。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
政府資訊公開法（民國94年12月28日）
Agrast, M. D., Botero, J. C., Martinez, J., Ponce, A., & Pratt, C.S. (2012). The world justice project: Rule of law index 2012-2013. Washington, D.C.: The World Justice Project.
Arizti, R., Brumby, J., Manning, N., Senderowitsch, R., & Thomas, T. (2013). Re-sults, performance budgeting and trust in government. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Article 19 (2007). Access to information: An instrumental right for empowerment. Retrieved October 10, 2013, from http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/publications/ati-empowerment-right.pdf
Article 19 (2010). Mexico’s access to information index. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/mexico-access-to-information-index.pdf
Banisar, D. (2006). Freedom of information around the world 2006. Retrieved No-vember 19, 2013, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1707336
Birkinshaw, P. (2010). Freedom of information and its impact in the United King-dom. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 312-321.
Browder, L. H. (1971) Introduction: Emerging patterns of administrative account-ability: A point of view. Berkeley, CA: McCuthchan.
Buyukozkan, G., & Cifci, G. (2012). A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS based strategic analysis of electronic service quality in healthcare industry. Ex-pert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 2341-2354.
BüYüKöZkan, G., & Ruan, D. (2007). Evaluating government websites based on a fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 15(03), 321–343.
Byun, D.-H., & Finnie, G. (2011). An AHP method for evaluating usability of elec-tronic government portals. Electronic Government, an International Journal, 8(4), 343-362.
Cherry, M., & McMenemy, D. (2013). Freedom of information and 「vexatious」 requests - The case of Scottish local government. Government Information Quarterly, 30(3), 257-266.
Cook, M. and Baldwin, K. (2013). A Public Value Analysis Tool for Open Govern-ment Planning. Retrieved October 11, 2013, from: http://www.howto.gov/sites/default/files/public-value-analysis-tool-for-open-government-planning.pdf
Deloitte (2013). Market assessment of public sector information. Retrieved Febru-ary 2, 2014, form https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-information-market-assessment
Dominic, P. D. D., Jati, H., & Kannabiran, G. (2010). Performance evaluation on quality of Asian e-government websites – an AHP approach. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 6(2), 219-239.
EU (2014). The decision-making process and the work of the institutions. Re-trieved May 25, 2014, from http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/decisionmaking_process/index_en.htm
FOIA net (2013). Global right to information update: Analysis by region. Retrieved October 11, 2013, from http://www.foiadvocates.net/
FOIA.gov (2013). Freedom of Information Act. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.foia.gov
Friedland, C. and Gross, T. (2010). Measuring the Public Value of e-Government: Methodology of a South African Case Study. IST-Africa 2010 Conference Pro-ceedings, IST-Africa 2010 Conference, Durban, 1-12.
Gavelin, K., Burall, S., & Wilson, R. (2009). Open government: Beyond static measures. Paris: OECD.
Global RTI Legislation Rating (2010). RTI legislation ratingmethodology. Re-trieved October 22, 2013, from http://www.rti-rating.org/methodology.php
GOV.UK (2013). Welcome to GOV.UK. Retrieved December 23, 2013, from https://www.gov.uk
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2012). Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: an experiment. International Review of Administrative Scienc-es, 78(1), 50-73.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Welch, E. W. (2012). Developing and testing a theoreti-cal framework for computer-mediated transparency of local governments. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 562–571.
Harrison, T., Pardo, T., Cresswell, A., and Cook, M. (2011). Delivering public value through open government. New York: The Research Foundation of State Uni-versity of New York.
Hatry, H.P. (2007). Performance measurement: Getting results 2nd edition. Wash-ington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
Heeks, R. (2006). Benchmarking eGovernment: Improving the national and inter-nationalmeasurement, evaluation and comparison of eGovernment. IDPM i-GovernmentWorking Paper no. 18.
Hills, D. & Sullivan, F. (2006). Measuring public value 2: Practical approaches. London: The Work Foundation.
Holzer, M., & Manoharan, A. (2012). Digital governance in municipalities world-wide (2011-12). The E-governance Institute National Center for Public Perfor-mance Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Campus at Newark.
Jati, H. (2011). Usability ranking of E-Government websites: Grey analysis ap-proach. International Conference on Computer and Computational Intelligence, Bangkok.
Jørgensen, T.B. and Bozeman, B. (2007). Public Values: An Inventory. Administra-tion & Society, 39(3), 354-381.
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi. M. (2010). The worldwide governance indi-cators: Methodology and analytical issues. Brookings: Global Economy and Development.
Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E-Participation, Transparency, and Trust in Local Gov-ernment. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819-828.
Meijer, A. J. (2013). Understanding the Complex Dynamics of Transparency. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 429-439.
Meijer, A. J. (2012). Introduction to the special issue on government transparency Introduction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 3-9.
Moore, M.H. (1995). Creating public value strategic management in government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin (2013). Freedom of information statistics: Implementation in central government July - September 2013. Retrieved Jan-uary 18, 2014, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299077/implementation-in-central-government-statistics-july-september-2013.pdf
Nam, T. (2012). Citizens’ attitudes toward Open Government and Government 2.0. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(2), 346-368.
OAIC (2010). Principles on open public sector information. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.oaic.gov.au/information-policy/information-policy-resources/information-policy-agency-resources/principles-on-open-public-sector-information
OAIC (2011). Understanding the value of public sector information in Australia. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.oaic.gov.au/information-policy/information-policy-engaging-with-you/previous-information-policy-consultations/information-policy-issues-paper-2-november-2011/issues-paper-2-understanding-the-value-of-public-secto
OAIC (2013). Open public sector information: from principles to practice. Re-trieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.oaic.gov.au/information-policy/information-policy-resources/information-policy-reports/open-public-sector-information-from-principles-to-practice
OAIC (2014). Freedom of information reports. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-resources/freedom-of-information-reports/
Obi, T. (2013). 2013 Waseda University e-Government ranking. Tokyo: The Waseda University Institute of e-Government.
OECD (2006). Digital broadband content: Public sector information and content. Retrieved February 2, 2014, form http://www.oecd.org/sti/36481524.pdf‎
OECD (2011). The call for innovative and open government: An overview of coun-try initiatives, OECD Publishing.
OGS (2013). Open government. Retrieved October 15, 2013, from http://www.opengovstandards.org/
Piotrowski, S. J., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2007). Citizen attitudes toward transparency in local government. American Review of Public Administration, 37(3), 306-323.
Pardo, T. A. (2012). Innovation and public value: The case of open government. Re-trieved October 9, 2013, from http://www.governmentforum.com.mx/2012/pdf/Theresa_Pardo.pdf
Ray, S., & Rao, V. V. (2004). Evaluating government service: A customers’ perspec-tive of e-Government. 4th European Conference on e-Government, Dublin.
Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Saaty, T.L. (1990). How to Make a Decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Euro-pean Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9-26.
Salmeron, J. L., & Herrero, I. (2005). An AHP-based methodology to rank critical success factors of executive information systems. Computer Standards & In-terfaces, 28(1), 1-12.
Talbot (2008). Measuring public value: A competing values approach. London: The Work Foundation.
Transparency International (2013). The 2013 corruption perceptions index. Re-trieved October 11, 2013, from http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/
Ubaldi, B. (2013). Open government data: Towards empirical analysis of open gov-ernment data initiatives. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, 22.
United Nations (2012). United Nations E-Government survey 2012: E-government for the people. New York: United Nations.
Van W. D., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2010). Performance management in the public sector. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Waseda University & International Academy of CIO (2014). WASEDA – IAC 10th international e-government ranking 2014. Retrieved June 28, 2014, from http://www.e-gov.waseda.ac.jp/pdf/2014_E-Gov_Press_Release.pdf
Water Governance Faculty (2013). Water integrity and accountability. Retrieved December 23, 2013, from http://www.watergovernance.org/documents/WGF/Water_Integrity_Training_Manual/module_6_english.pdf
West, D. M. (2008). Improving technology utilization in electronic government around the world. Brookings: Governance Studies.
White House (2013a). Memorandum on transparency and open government. Re-trieved October 11, 2013, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/about
White House (2013b). Around the government. Retrieved October 11, 2013, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/around
Worthy, B. (2010). More open but not more trusted? The effect of the freedom of information act 2000 on the United Kingdom Central Government. Govern-ance-an International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 23(4), 561-582.
Yamamura, E., & Kondoh, H. (2013). Government transparency and expenditure in the rent-seeking industry: The case of Japan for 1998-2004. Contemporary Economic Policy, 31(3), 635-647.		zh_TW