學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 中央政府施政績效資訊運用之研究
The Use of Performance Information of Central Government作者 謝婉柔
Hsieh, Wan Jou貢獻者 施能傑
Shih, Neng Jay
謝婉柔
Hsieh, Wan Jou關鍵詞 中央政府
績效管理
施政績效資訊
資訊運用日期 2014 上傳時間 1-Jun-2015 11:05:48 (UTC+8) 摘要 績效評估成果能反饋於決策與施政運作，對政府績效的改善有其重要性和必要性，了解這些評估過程產出的績效資訊是否有被妥善運用，是政府邁向完善的績效管理不容忽視的重要議題。我國中央政府推動績效管理數十年，卻仍較為缺乏對施政績效資訊運用進行檢視與探討的相關研究，本研究因而以相關文獻與國內外實務對績效資訊運用的討論為基礎，嘗試建立我國中央行政機關施政績效資訊運用之架構，了解中央機關主管人員對於施政績效資訊的運用程度，並分析影響其運用與否的原因。 本研究採取問卷調查法，針對中央13個部會的三級機關首長與一級單位主管發放問卷，從引導與控制、促進學習與改善、激勵與獎懲，以及課責等四大運用面向探討我國主管人員對於施政績效資訊的運用情形，並從領導者支持、參與機會、資訊品質、個人態度、教育訓練等構面探討影響主管人員運用施政績效資訊的主要因素。研究發現大多數主管人員都能仔細瀏覽並善用各種施政績效資訊輔助日常業務之進行，各類施政績效資訊中以列管計畫年度績效評核報告的瀏覽與用於精進公務的程度最為良好。進一步針對機關年度施政績效與列管計畫績效評核報告兩類資訊探討主管人員在各面向的運用頻率，整體運用程度良好，但真正強烈表示經常運用者僅占一成至三成左右，資訊運用仍有精進與提升之空間。各種運用中以促進學習與改善面向平均運用程度最頻繁，隨後依序為引導與控制面向、課責面向，以及激勵與獎懲面向。在影響因素方面，領導者支持與教育訓練對主管人員運用施政績效資訊的運用頻率具有顯著影響，各機關可善用領導者之影響力，並致力於將施政績效資訊的運用營造為組織文化的方向努力。教育訓練對主管人員的運用情形亦具有顯著影響，政府機關可多舉辦相關教育訓練與實務學習，協助同仁建立運用績效資訊的能力。 參考文獻 余致力（1998）。方案評估在政府預算決策過程中的角色與功能。財稅研究，30（3），23-30。施能傑（2010）。建立行政機關團體績效評比機制之研究。臺北：考試院。胡龍騰（2011a）。真實還是虛假？前進或是停滯？從績效資訊角度反思政府績效管理之理論與實務。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告（編號：NSC 98-2410-H-128-009-MY2）。台北市：國家科學委員會。胡龍騰（2011b）。我國施政績效資訊運用實務與問題分析。研考雙月刊，35（3），10-22。胡龍騰、張國偉（2010）。美國績效管理改革做法。研考雙月刊，34（3），24-36。孫本初（2013）。新公共管理（五版）。臺北：新保成。徐仁輝、蔡馨芳（2011）。結果導向的學習：績效管理與組織學習。行政：澳門公共行政雜誌，24（94），923-933。國家發展委員會（2009）。機關施政績效評估，2014年6月24日，取自：http://www.ndc.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0027444。國家發展委員會（2012）。計畫評核，2014年6月24日，取自：http://www.ndc.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0027438。張四明、施能傑、胡龍騰（2013）。我國政府績效管理制度檢討與創新之研究。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：RDEC-RES-101-003）。台北市：研究發展考核委員會。莊文忠（2008）。績效衡量與指標設計：方法論上的討論。公共行政學報，29，61-91。郭昱瑩、謝雨豆（2012）。施政績效評估制度之前瞻與未來。研考雙月刊，36（3），29-42。審計部（2013）。審計機關查核市縣政府施政績效評核作業執行情形，2014年6月24日，取自：http://www.audit.gov.tw/m/405-1000-540,c116.php。Askim, J. ( 2007). How do politicians use performance information? An analysis of the Norwegian local government experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(3), 453-472.Askim, J. (2009). The demand side of performance measurement: Explaining councillors` utilization of performance information in policymaking. International Public Management Journal, 12(1), 24-47.Bartos, S. (1995). Current developments in performance information. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 54, 386-392.Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586-606.Boyne, G., J. Gould-Williams, J. Law, & R. Walker (2002). Plans, performance information and accountability: The case of Best Value. Public Administration, 80(4), 691-710.de Lancer Julnes, P. (2011). Performance measurement beyond instrumental use. In W. Van Dooren & S. Van de Walle (Eds.), Performance information in the public sector: How it is used (p. 64). Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.de Lancer Julnes, P., & M. Holzer (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61, 693-708.Deloitte (2013). Market assessment of public sector information. Retrieved July 11, 2014, form https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-information-market-assessmentDemaj, L., & L. Summermatter (2012). What should we know about politicians’ performance information need and use? International Public Management Review. 13(2), 85-111.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2001). Managing for results: Federal managers views on key management issues vary widely across agencies. Washington, DC: GAO-01-592.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2003). Results-oriented government: Using GPRA to address 21st century challenges. Washington, DC: GAO-03-1166T.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2004). Results-oriented government: GPRA has established a solid foundation for achieving greater results. Washington, DC: GAO-04-38.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2005). Managing for results: Enhancing agency use of performance for management decision making. Washington, DC: GAO-05-927.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2008). Government performance: Lessons learned for the next administration on using performance information to improve results. Washington, DC: GAO-08-1026T.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2009). Results-oriented management: Strengthening key practices at FEMA and interior could promote greater use of performance information. Washington, DC: GAO-09-676.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2013). Managing for results: Executive branch should more fully implement the GPRA Modernization Act to address pressing governance challenges. Washington, DC: GAO-13-518.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2014). Managing for results: Agencies` trends in the use of performance information to make decisions. Washington, DC: GAO-14-747.Hammerschmid, G., S. Van de Walle, & V. Stimac (2013). Internal and external use of performance information in public organizations: Results from an international survey. Public Money and Management, 33(4), 261-268.Hatry, H. P. (2002). Performance measurement: Fashion and fallacies. Public Performance and Management Review, 25(4), 352-258.Hyndmana N. S., & R. Anderson (1998). Performance information, accountability and executive agencies. Public Money & Management, 18(3), 23-30.James, O. (2011). Information effect on citizens in field and laboratory experiments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 399-418.James, O., & P. John (2007). Public management at the ballot box: Performance information and electoral support for incumbent English local governments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 567-580.Koppell, J. GS. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of“Multiple Accountabilities Disorder”. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94-108.Kroll, A. (2014). Why performance information use varies among public managers: Testing manager-related explanations. International Public Management Journal, 17(2), 174-201.Leviton, L. C., & E. F. X. Hughes (1981). Research on the utilization of evaluations: A review and synthesis. Evaluation Review, 5(4), 525-548.Moynihan, D. P. (2005). Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 203-216.Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.Moynihan, D. P., & P. W. Ingraham (2004). Integrative leadership in the public sector: A model of performance-information use. Administration & Society, 36(4), 427-453.Moynihan, D. P., & S. K. Pandey (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849-866.Moynihan, D. P., & S. Lavertu (2012). Does involvement in performance management routines encourage performance information use? Evaluating GPRA and PART. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 592-602.Newcomer, K. E. (2007) How does program performance assessment affect program management in the federal government? Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 332-350.OECD. (2008). Sequencing and pacing of performance budgeting reforms. Retrieved July 2, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/governance/budgeting/42188165.pdfOECD. (2011). 7th meeting of the senior budget official network on performance and results. Retrieved July 2, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/governance/budgeting/49198044.pdfPeck L. R., & L. M. Gorzalski (2009). An evaluation use framework and empirical assessment. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(12), 139-156.Pollitt, C. (2000). Is the emperor in his underwear? An analysis of the impacts of public management reform. Public Management Review, 2(2), 181-199.Pollitt, C. (2006). Performance information for democracy: The missing link? Evaluation, 12(1), 38-55.Swiss, J. E. (2005). A framework for assessing incentives in results-based management. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 592-602.Tabachnick, B. G., & L. S. Fidell (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Eds.). Boston: Pearson.Taylor, J. (2011). Factors influencing the use of performance information for decision-making in Australian state agencies. Public Administration, 89(4), 1316-1334.Ter Bogt, H. J. (2004). Politicians in search of performance information? Survey research on Dutch aldermen`s use of performance information. Financial Accountability & Management, 20(3), 221-252.Van de Walle, S., & W. Van Dooren (2010). How is information used to improve performance in the public sector? Exploring the Dynamics of Performance Information. In W. Kieran, H. Gill, & J. Pauline (Eds.), Connecting knowledge and performance in public services (pp. 33-54). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Van Dooren, W. (2008). Nothing new under the sun? Change and continuity in twentieth century performance movements. In W. Van Dooren & S. Van de Walle (Eds.), Performance information in the public sector: How it is used (pp. 11-23). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.Van Dooren, W., & S. Van de Walle (2008).Performance information in the public sector: How it is used. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.Van Dooren, W., G. Bouckaert, & J. Halligan (2010). The use of Performance Information. In W. Van Dooren, G. Bouckaert, & J. Halligan (Eds.), Performance management in the public sector (pp. 96-115). Oxon: Routledge.Weiss, C. H. (1998). Have We Learned Anything New About the Use of Evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 21-33. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政研究所
101256009
103資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101256009 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 施能傑 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Shih, Neng Jay en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 謝婉柔 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Hsieh, Wan Jou en_US dc.creator (作者) 謝婉柔 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Hsieh, Wan Jou en_US dc.date (日期) 2014 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Jun-2015 11:05:48 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Jun-2015 11:05:48 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jun-2015 11:05:48 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0101256009 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/75437 - 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) 101256009 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 103 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 績效評估成果能反饋於決策與施政運作，對政府績效的改善有其重要性和必要性，了解這些評估過程產出的績效資訊是否有被妥善運用，是政府邁向完善的績效管理不容忽視的重要議題。我國中央政府推動績效管理數十年，卻仍較為缺乏對施政績效資訊運用進行檢視與探討的相關研究，本研究因而以相關文獻與國內外實務對績效資訊運用的討論為基礎，嘗試建立我國中央行政機關施政績效資訊運用之架構，了解中央機關主管人員對於施政績效資訊的運用程度，並分析影響其運用與否的原因。 本研究採取問卷調查法，針對中央13個部會的三級機關首長與一級單位主管發放問卷，從引導與控制、促進學習與改善、激勵與獎懲，以及課責等四大運用面向探討我國主管人員對於施政績效資訊的運用情形，並從領導者支持、參與機會、資訊品質、個人態度、教育訓練等構面探討影響主管人員運用施政績效資訊的主要因素。研究發現大多數主管人員都能仔細瀏覽並善用各種施政績效資訊輔助日常業務之進行，各類施政績效資訊中以列管計畫年度績效評核報告的瀏覽與用於精進公務的程度最為良好。進一步針對機關年度施政績效與列管計畫績效評核報告兩類資訊探討主管人員在各面向的運用頻率，整體運用程度良好，但真正強烈表示經常運用者僅占一成至三成左右，資訊運用仍有精進與提升之空間。各種運用中以促進學習與改善面向平均運用程度最頻繁，隨後依序為引導與控制面向、課責面向，以及激勵與獎懲面向。在影響因素方面，領導者支持與教育訓練對主管人員運用施政績效資訊的運用頻率具有顯著影響，各機關可善用領導者之影響力，並致力於將施政績效資訊的運用營造為組織文化的方向努力。教育訓練對主管人員的運用情形亦具有顯著影響，政府機關可多舉辦相關教育訓練與實務學習，協助同仁建立運用績效資訊的能力。 zh_TW dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景與動機 1第二節 研究問題 7第三節 研究方法及範圍 9第二章 施政績效資訊之文獻檢閱 13第一節 施政績效資訊的範疇 13第二節 施政績效資訊的運用面向 16第三節 施政績效資訊的運用程度 26第四節 影響施政績效資訊運用之因素 28第三章 研究設計 41第一節 研究架構 41第二節 調查問卷內容設計 47第三節 研究對象 52第四節 資料分析方法 53第四章 施政績效資訊運用之實務調查結果 55第一節 調查進行方式與回收率 55第二節 各種施政績效資訊之瀏覽與運用概況 62第三節 施政績效資訊各面向運用頻率 67第四節 主管人員對機關施政績效資訊之看法 77第五節 影響施政績效資訊運用之主要因素 86第五章 結論與建議 95第一節 研究發現 95第二節 研究發現討論 100第三節 實務建議 104 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2001927 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101256009 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 中央政府 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 績效管理 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 施政績效資訊 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資訊運用 zh_TW dc.title (題名) 中央政府施政績效資訊運用之研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Use of Performance Information of Central Government en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 余致力（1998）。方案評估在政府預算決策過程中的角色與功能。財稅研究，30（3），23-30。施能傑（2010）。建立行政機關團體績效評比機制之研究。臺北：考試院。胡龍騰（2011a）。真實還是虛假？前進或是停滯？從績效資訊角度反思政府績效管理之理論與實務。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告（編號：NSC 98-2410-H-128-009-MY2）。台北市：國家科學委員會。胡龍騰（2011b）。我國施政績效資訊運用實務與問題分析。研考雙月刊，35（3），10-22。胡龍騰、張國偉（2010）。美國績效管理改革做法。研考雙月刊，34（3），24-36。孫本初（2013）。新公共管理（五版）。臺北：新保成。徐仁輝、蔡馨芳（2011）。結果導向的學習：績效管理與組織學習。行政：澳門公共行政雜誌，24（94），923-933。國家發展委員會（2009）。機關施政績效評估，2014年6月24日，取自：http://www.ndc.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0027444。國家發展委員會（2012）。計畫評核，2014年6月24日，取自：http://www.ndc.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0027438。張四明、施能傑、胡龍騰（2013）。我國政府績效管理制度檢討與創新之研究。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：RDEC-RES-101-003）。台北市：研究發展考核委員會。莊文忠（2008）。績效衡量與指標設計：方法論上的討論。公共行政學報，29，61-91。郭昱瑩、謝雨豆（2012）。施政績效評估制度之前瞻與未來。研考雙月刊，36（3），29-42。審計部（2013）。審計機關查核市縣政府施政績效評核作業執行情形，2014年6月24日，取自：http://www.audit.gov.tw/m/405-1000-540,c116.php。Askim, J. ( 2007). How do politicians use performance information? An analysis of the Norwegian local government experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(3), 453-472.Askim, J. (2009). The demand side of performance measurement: Explaining councillors` utilization of performance information in policymaking. International Public Management Journal, 12(1), 24-47.Bartos, S. (1995). Current developments in performance information. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 54, 386-392.Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586-606.Boyne, G., J. Gould-Williams, J. Law, & R. Walker (2002). Plans, performance information and accountability: The case of Best Value. Public Administration, 80(4), 691-710.de Lancer Julnes, P. (2011). Performance measurement beyond instrumental use. In W. Van Dooren & S. Van de Walle (Eds.), Performance information in the public sector: How it is used (p. 64). Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.de Lancer Julnes, P., & M. Holzer (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61, 693-708.Deloitte (2013). Market assessment of public sector information. Retrieved July 11, 2014, form https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-information-market-assessmentDemaj, L., & L. Summermatter (2012). What should we know about politicians’ performance information need and use? International Public Management Review. 13(2), 85-111.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2001). Managing for results: Federal managers views on key management issues vary widely across agencies. Washington, DC: GAO-01-592.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2003). Results-oriented government: Using GPRA to address 21st century challenges. Washington, DC: GAO-03-1166T.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2004). Results-oriented government: GPRA has established a solid foundation for achieving greater results. Washington, DC: GAO-04-38.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2005). Managing for results: Enhancing agency use of performance for management decision making. Washington, DC: GAO-05-927.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2008). Government performance: Lessons learned for the next administration on using performance information to improve results. Washington, DC: GAO-08-1026T.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2009). Results-oriented management: Strengthening key practices at FEMA and interior could promote greater use of performance information. Washington, DC: GAO-09-676.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2013). Managing for results: Executive branch should more fully implement the GPRA Modernization Act to address pressing governance challenges. Washington, DC: GAO-13-518.Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2014). Managing for results: Agencies` trends in the use of performance information to make decisions. Washington, DC: GAO-14-747.Hammerschmid, G., S. Van de Walle, & V. Stimac (2013). Internal and external use of performance information in public organizations: Results from an international survey. Public Money and Management, 33(4), 261-268.Hatry, H. P. (2002). Performance measurement: Fashion and fallacies. Public Performance and Management Review, 25(4), 352-258.Hyndmana N. S., & R. Anderson (1998). Performance information, accountability and executive agencies. Public Money & Management, 18(3), 23-30.James, O. (2011). Information effect on citizens in field and laboratory experiments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 399-418.James, O., & P. John (2007). Public management at the ballot box: Performance information and electoral support for incumbent English local governments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 567-580.Koppell, J. GS. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of“Multiple Accountabilities Disorder”. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94-108.Kroll, A. (2014). Why performance information use varies among public managers: Testing manager-related explanations. International Public Management Journal, 17(2), 174-201.Leviton, L. C., & E. F. X. Hughes (1981). Research on the utilization of evaluations: A review and synthesis. Evaluation Review, 5(4), 525-548.Moynihan, D. P. (2005). Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 203-216.Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.Moynihan, D. P., & P. W. Ingraham (2004). Integrative leadership in the public sector: A model of performance-information use. Administration & Society, 36(4), 427-453.Moynihan, D. P., & S. K. Pandey (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849-866.Moynihan, D. P., & S. Lavertu (2012). Does involvement in performance management routines encourage performance information use? Evaluating GPRA and PART. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 592-602.Newcomer, K. E. (2007) How does program performance assessment affect program management in the federal government? Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 332-350.OECD. (2008). Sequencing and pacing of performance budgeting reforms. Retrieved July 2, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/governance/budgeting/42188165.pdfOECD. (2011). 7th meeting of the senior budget official network on performance and results. Retrieved July 2, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/governance/budgeting/49198044.pdfPeck L. R., & L. M. Gorzalski (2009). An evaluation use framework and empirical assessment. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(12), 139-156.Pollitt, C. (2000). Is the emperor in his underwear? An analysis of the impacts of public management reform. Public Management Review, 2(2), 181-199.Pollitt, C. (2006). Performance information for democracy: The missing link? Evaluation, 12(1), 38-55.Swiss, J. E. (2005). A framework for assessing incentives in results-based management. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 592-602.Tabachnick, B. G., & L. S. Fidell (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Eds.). Boston: Pearson.Taylor, J. (2011). Factors influencing the use of performance information for decision-making in Australian state agencies. Public Administration, 89(4), 1316-1334.Ter Bogt, H. J. (2004). Politicians in search of performance information? Survey research on Dutch aldermen`s use of performance information. Financial Accountability & Management, 20(3), 221-252.Van de Walle, S., & W. Van Dooren (2010). How is information used to improve performance in the public sector? Exploring the Dynamics of Performance Information. In W. Kieran, H. Gill, & J. Pauline (Eds.), Connecting knowledge and performance in public services (pp. 33-54). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Van Dooren, W. (2008). Nothing new under the sun? Change and continuity in twentieth century performance movements. In W. Van Dooren & S. Van de Walle (Eds.), Performance information in the public sector: How it is used (pp. 11-23). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.Van Dooren, W., & S. Van de Walle (2008).Performance information in the public sector: How it is used. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.Van Dooren, W., G. Bouckaert, & J. Halligan (2010). The use of Performance Information. In W. Van Dooren, G. Bouckaert, & J. Halligan (Eds.), Performance management in the public sector (pp. 96-115). Oxon: Routledge.Weiss, C. H. (1998). Have We Learned Anything New About the Use of Evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 21-33. zh_TW
