學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 電子化政府對e生活品質影響模型之建立
The Model of Influences on Quality of e-Life by Electronic Government作者 顏郁婷
Yen, Yu Ting貢獻者 朱斌妤
Chu, Pin Yu
顏郁婷
Yen, Yu Ting關鍵詞 評估電子化政府政策
生活品質
資訊系統成功模型
結構方程式
evaluation e-government policy
quality of life
Information System Success Model
Structural Equation Modeling日期 2015 上傳時間 2016-03-02 摘要 電子化政府(Electronic Government)是我國運用資訊通訊科技(Information and Communications Technology)提升政府管理與服務的重要政策，隨著網際網路在日常生活的普及，在各國政府推動EG提供民眾日常所需服務時，提升民眾整體生活品質不僅是該政策所要達到的重要目標，亦成為社會大眾所期待的公共價值。然而對電子化政府的評估，目前仍著重於基礎建設、滿意度、使用服務次數等層面，欠缺相關生活品質衡量指標。因此，本研究將聚焦於電子化政府網路面向上的服務，探討該政策對民眾生活品質的影響。鑑於網路對生活的影響力日益漸增，本研究所稱e生活品質，是參考數位生活與生活品質的概念，強調個人在虛擬環境下的生活品質。先以DeLone& McLean (2003)的資訊系統成功模型為基礎，參考Heeks (2006)、Millard & Shahin (2006)、Wauters (2006)等人提出的評估電子化政府政策流程，以使用者的角度建構電子化政府對e生活品質的影響模型，並進一步採用電子治理研究中心於2013年進行的「數位國家治理：國情追蹤與方法整合」研究計畫資料，透過結構方程式(Structural Equation Modeling, SEM)統計分析方法進行模型驗證。結果發現，電子化政府的服務品質、資訊品質對滿意度有顯著影響，而滿意度又會影響使用效益，進而影響至e生活品質，除此之外，個人在網路上搜尋生活資訊的頻率也會影響e生活品質。本研究結果顯示電子化政府政策要提升民眾e生活品質感知的目標，必須循序漸進地在提供服務過程中的每個階段予以改善，並提出相關政策建議，另因填答者普遍認為政府所提供的資訊可靠，加上資訊的搜尋有助於提升e生活品質，本研究認為電子化政府透過網路及搭配多元途徑提供日常所需資訊為達到提升e生活品質目標的重要關鍵。
Electronic government in Taiwan has been recognized as a major policy to promote administrative management and public service. Lately, with the internet penetrating to daily lives, the enhancement of quality of life (QOL) has not only become the important goal of e-government policy, but also the essential public value people expected. However, most existing indicators to evaluate e-government were focused on infrastructure, satisfaction and frequency et al., lack of dimensions on QOL. Accordingly, this study focused on online service of e-government, and aimed to construct a model to assess the effect on the QOL in internet environment (Quality of e-Life, EQOL) by e-government.First, this study proposes a causal model in view of users, which based on DeLone & McLean’s Information System Success Model and referred to related theories of e-government processing evaluation, to examine the impacts on EQOL by e-government. Secondly, the author used a secondary survey data collected by the research of Taiwan e-Governance Research Center, and validated the model by Structural Equation Modeling method. The results of research showed that service quality and information quality have a great influence on satisfaction of e-government, and satisfaction of e-government will affect use benefits, further make effect on EQOL. In addition, the daily lives information searching frequency also affects EQOL. This study indicated that government should gradually improve the process of online service of e-government, including service and information quality stage, satisfaction of e-government stage, uses benefit stage and EQOL stage. Regarding each stage, this thesis also made some policy suggestions. Besides, due to information searching is helpful for increasing EQOL, and the result of questionnaires shows that most people consider the information provided by government is trustful, this research argued that government provides information through various channels on internet is the key factor to enhance EQOL.參考文獻 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末報告（編號：NSC 99-2410-H-004-112-MY3）。臺北市：行政院研考會。行政院主計總處(2011)。社會指標統計年報。臺北市：行政院主計總處。行政院主計總處(2012)。社會指標統計年報－國民幸福指數專刊。臺北市：行政院主計總處。行政院國家發展委員會(2009)。第三階段電子化政府計畫書（97年至100年）。臺北市：行政院國家發展委員會。行政院國家發展委員會(2013)。第四階段電子化政府計畫書（101年至105年）。臺北市：行政院國家發展委員會行政院國家發展委員會(2014a)。簡單生活，就從「e管家Plus」開始。2014年10月11日，取自：http://www.ndc.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0061509#.VDiTvPmSyPc行政院國家發展委員會(2014b)。博物館數位典藏與學習資源建構與永續推廣－以國立自然科學博物館為例。政府機關資訊通報，321，18-22。行政院國家發展委員會(2014c)。第六屆政府服務品質獎－評獎紀實。2014年9月26日，取自：http://www.ndc.gov.tw/att/0060841/0060841.pdf行政院國家發展委員會(2014d)。公路防災預警機制導入資通訊的服務。政府機關資訊通報，322，25-29。行政院國家發展委員會(2014e)。打造無線網路基礎環境，迎接行動化服務應用蓬勃發展。政府機關資訊通報，320，30-40。行政院國家發展委員會(2014f)。103年個人／家戶數位機會調查報告。臺北市：行政院國家發展委員會委託典通股份有限公司辦理。何全德(2012)。改變與感動的力量-電子化政府服務創新策略。研考雙月刊，36(5)， 55-70。吳明隆(2009)。結構方程式模型－SIMPLIS的應用。臺北市：五南。李仲彬、黃東益(2012)。網路社會發展趨勢之前瞻研究：世界網路計畫(WIP)的跨國比較與臺灣現況調查分析。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：RDEC-RES-101002）。臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。 李仲彬(2011)。信任在電子治理中所扮演的角色：以文獻檢閱爲基礎的初探性分析。公共行政學報，(39)，105-147。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系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。李國田(2007)。電子化政府創新與整合服務。研考雙月刊，31(1)，38-48。林以正、王澄華、吳佳輝(2005)。網路人際互動特質與依戀型態對網路成癮的影響。中華心理學刊，47(3)，289-309。邱皓政(2011)。結構方程式（二版）。臺北市：雙葉書廊有限公司。姚開屏(2010)。生活品質的測量(Measurement on QOL)，2014年10月1日，取自：http://moodle.ncku.edu.tw/mod/resource/view.php?id=33793張四明、胡龍騰(2013)。後新公共管理時期政府績效管理的公共價值意涵。公共治理季刊，1(1)，73-83。張卿卿(2006)。網路的功與過：網路使用與政治參與及社會資產關係的探討。新聞學研究，(86)，45-90。張偉豪(2011)。論文寫作SEM不求人。高雄市：三星統計服務有限公司。陳俊明、朱斌妤、黃東益、蔣麗君、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）。臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。陶振超(2014)。網際網路與有誼網路：取代、擴大、或強化。載於行政院國家發展委員會，新興ICT服務與數位應用行為變遷之研究摘要報告（頁79-90）。臺北市：行政院國家發展委員會。曾文志(2007)。大學生對美好生活的常識概念與主觀幸福感之研究。教育心理學報，380(4)，417-441。黃旭男、唐思佳(2012)。論生活品質指標之建構。環境管理研究，12(2)，67-91。黃東益、朱斌妤、蕭乃沂、李仲彬(2009)。電子治理成效指標與評估：G2C與G2B。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：097246343）。臺北市：行政院研究考核委員會。 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。黃朝盟、黃東益、劉宜君(2007)。我國電子化政府之影響評估。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：RDEC-095-01）。臺北市：行政院研究考核委員會。黃甯婉、朱斌妤(2011)。政府對身心障礙者(G2D)的電子治理成效評估。臺灣公共行政與公共事務系所聯合會主辦之「國際學術研討會(TASPAA)」（頁19-24），臺北市。經濟部(2008)。行政院第28次科技顧問會議-議題三：優質生活，2014年10月1日，取自：http://www.bost.ey.gov.tw/Upload/UserFiles/智慧生活科技運用推動策略.pdf鄭照順、鄒浮安(2011)。大學生網路使用行為與網路影響之研究-以高苑科技大學為例。高苑學報，17(2)，119-134蕭乃沂、朱斌妤、黃東益、李仲彬(2010)。電子治理成效指標與評估：G2A與G2D。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：099240052）。臺北市：行政院研究考核委員會。簡宏偉(2012)。電子化政府推動成果。研考雙月刊，36(6)，72-79。Accenture (2014).Accenture 10-Country Study Finds Singapore, Norway and UAE Lead in Digital Government. Retrieved September 25, 2014, formhttp://newsroom.accenture.com/news/accenture-10-country-study-finds-singapore-norway-and-uae-lead-in-digital-government.htm#relAl-Haddad, S. A., Hyland, P., & Hubona, G. (2011). In An assessment tool for E-government system performance: a citizen-centric model. Retrieved September 25, 2014, form: http://ro.uow.edu.au/infopapers/1955/Anthopoulos, L., & Blanas, N.(2014).Evaluation Methods for e-strategic Transformation. In G. A. Leonidas & G. R. Christopher (Eds.), Government e-Strategic Planning and Management (pp.3-23). USA: Springer.Anthopoulos, L., Triantafyllou, D., & Fitslis, P. (2012).e-Strategic Management Lessons from Greece. In C. Reddick (Ed.), Public Sector Transformation through E-Government: Experiences from Europe and North American (pp. 224-241).London: Rouledge.Banerji, A., & Magarkar, A. (2012). How happy is your web browsing? A model to quantify satisfaction of an Internet user searching for desired information. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 391(17), 4215-4224.Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2014).ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119-128.Chen, C. W. (2010). Impact of quality antecedents on taxpayer satisfaction with online tax-filing systems: An empirical study. Information & Management, 47(5-6), 308–315.Chircu, A. M. (2008). E-government evaluation: toward a multidimensional framework. Electronic Government an International Journal, 5(4), 345-363.Commonwealth of Australia (2003).E-Government Benefits Study. Retrieved September 16, 2014, from http://www.finance.gov.au/agimo-archive/__data/assets/file/0012/16032/benefits.pdfCostanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R. et al. (2008).An integrative approach to quality of life measurement, research, and policy. Surveys and Perspectives. Integrating Environment and Society, 1, 11-15.Cresswell , A., & Sagoy, D. S. (2012).Developing Public Value Metrics for Returns to Government ICT Investment: A report to Microsoft Corporation. New York: Center for Technology in Government.DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E.R. (2003).The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of management information systems, 19(4), 9-30.Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.Dunn, W. N. (2003). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. N. J.: Prentice Hall.Economist Intelligence Unit (2010). The 2010 Digital Economy Rankings. Retrieved November 25, 2014, from: http://graphics.eiu .com/upload/EU_Digital_economy_rankings_2010_FINAL_WEB.pdf European Commission (2009). eGovernment in Estonia. Retrieved September 16, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Docd7a7.pdf?id=32608European Commission (2012). eGovernment Benchmark Framework 2012-2015. Luxembourg: European Commission.European Commission. (2013).Quality of life in cities: Perception survey in 79 European cities. Luxembourg: European Union.E-TAIWAN Project-E-Living and QoL. Retrieved February 5, 2015 from http://www.ios.sinica.edu.tw/ios/people/personal/wupaper/SE-E-living.pdfFloropoulos, J., Spathis, C., Halvatzis, D., & Tsipouridou, M. (2010). Measuring the success of the Greek Taxation Information System. International Journal of Information Management, 30(1),47–56. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.Friedland, C., & Gross, T. (2010).Measuring the public value of e-Government: Methodology of a South African case study. The IST-Africa 2010 Conference Proceedings, Durban.Gross, E. F., Juvonen. J., & Shelly, L. G. (2002). Internet Use and Well-Being in Adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 75-90.Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).Multivariate date analysis (6th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.Hair, J.F. Jr., Anderson, R. E. R, Tatham, L., & Black, W. C. (2009). Multivariate date analysis (7th ed.). NJ: Prentice-HallHarrison, T. M., Guerrero, S., Burke, G. B., Cook, M., Cresswell, A., & Pardo, T. (2012). Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, 17, 83-97.Heeks, R. (2006). Benchmarking e-Government: Improving the national and international measurement, evaluation and comparison of e-Government. IDPM i-Government Working Paper, 18, 1-33.Hills, D., & Sullivan, F. (2006).Measuring public value 2: Practical approaches. Work Foundation .London: The Work Foundation.Jang, C. L. (2010). Measuring Electronic Government Procurement Success and Testing for the Moderating Effect of Computer Self-efficacy. International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications, 4(3): 224-232Jorgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B (2007).Public Values: An Inventory. Administration and Society, 39 (3), 354-387.Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., & Morris, J. (2011). The relationship between Facebook and the well-being of undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(4), 183-189.Kim, K.H., Park, J.Y., Kim, D.Y., & Moon, H.I. (2000).A study of internet users` lifestyle. Fall Marketing Conftrence Proceedings, 43-51.Kim, T. H., Im, K. H., & Park, S. C. (2005).Intelligent measuring and improving model of customer satisfaction level in e-government. Paper presented at the Electronic government: 4th International Conference, EGOV 2005, Copenhagen.Legislative Council of Hong Kong (2014). Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting-Progress Update on E-Government Development. Hong Kong, Legislative Council.Leung, L., & Lee, P. S. (2005). Multiple determinants of life quality: The roles of Internet activities, use of new media, social support, and leisure activities. Telematics and Informatics, 22(3), 161-180.Leung, L., Lee, P. S., Lo, V. H., & Xiong, C. Y. (2005). A comparative study exploring the impact of internet activities, use of new media, and leisure activities on quality of life in Beijing, Taipei, and Hong Kong. Retrieved February10, 2015 from: http://www.com.cuhk.edu.hk/ccpos/en/pdf/qol_in_beijing_taipei_hk.pdfLiang, T. H. (2011). Association between Use of Internet Service and Quality of Life in Taiwan. Journal of Data Science, 9, 83-92.Liang, T. H., & Yang, Y. H. (2008).Does internet have a positive impact on the Quality of Life in Taiwan?. Information Technology, 3,1-8.Liang, T. H., Peng, J. L., & Yu, C. Y. (2011).A simpler quality of e-life indicator: does the Internet have a positive impact on the quality of life in Taiwan. Qual Quant,46(4), 1025-1045. Lofstedt, U. (2005). E-Government-Assesment of Current Research and Some Proposals for Future Directions. International journal of public information systems, 1(1), 39-52.MacCallum, R. C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 193-210.Millard, J., & Shahin, J. (2006).Toward the eGovernment vision for EU in 2010: research policy challenges. Luxembourg: European Communities.Ministry of Finance Finland (2012).Action Programme on eServices and eDemocracy. Retrieved August 19, 2014, fromhttps://www.vm.fi/vm/en/04_publications_and_documents/03_documents/Esite_englanti_20130626.pdfMinistry of Finance Singapore (2011). E-Government Masterplan 2011-2015 Collaborative Government. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://www.egov.gov.sg/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=4f9e71be-fe35-432a-9901-ab3279b92342&groupId=10157Ministry of Finance Singapore (2013). E-Government In Singapore. Retrieved August 10, 2014, from http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN90601.pdfMitchell, M. E., Lebow, J. R., Uribe, R., Grathouse, H., & Shoger, W. (2011). Internet use, happiness, social support and introversion: A more fine grained analysis of person variables and internet activity. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1857-1861.Molla, A., & Licker, P.S. (2001).E-commerce Systems Success: An Attempt to Extend and Respecify the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Journal of Electronic Commerce Success, 2(4), 1–11.National Information Society Agency (2012). e-Government of Korea: Best Practices. Seoul. Republic of Korea: Ministry of Public Administration and Security.Noll, H. H. (2004). Social indicators and Quality of Life research: Background, achievements and current trends. In N. Genov, (Ed.), Advances in Sociological Knowledge (pp. 151-181).Paris, International Social Science Council.OECD (2007). quality of life e-government. Turkey: OECD.OECD (2011). Better Life Index. Retrieved August 10, 2014, from: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/33333113131OECD (2014). Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies. Retrieved August 5, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/gov/public-innovation/recommendation-on-digital-government-strategies.htmOsman, I. H., Anouze, A. L., Irani, Z., Al-Ayoubi, B., Lee, H., Balcı, A., et al. (2014). COBRA framework to evaluate e-government services: A citizen-centric perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 243-256.Savoldell, A., Misuraca, G., & Codagnone, C. (2013). Measuring the Public value of e-Governmnet: The eGEP 2.0 model. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 11, 373-388.Sedden, P. B. (1997). A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information systems research, 8(3), 240-253.Sheridan, W., & Riley, T. B. (2006). Comparing e-government vs. e-governance. Commonwealth Center for e-Governance, 1-5.Sun, S., Ju, T. L., & Chen, P. (2006). E-government impacts on effectiveness: A survey study of an e-official-document system. Electronic Government ,an International Journal, 3(2), 174-189.The World Bank (2007). Public Value of IT Framework. Retrieved August 17, 2014, from:http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/Resources/282822-1188575147431/PublicValueITFrameworks2007.pdfTraunmuller, R. (2007). Knowledge Transfer in E-Government. Retrieved August 17, 2014, fromhttp://observgo.uquebec.ca/observgo/fichiers/88022_UNPAN.pdf#page=261United Nations (2008).United Nations e-government survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance. New York: UN.United Nations (2014).United Nations e-government survey 2014: E-Government for the future we want. New York: UN.Valkenburg, P. M., & Jochen, P. (2007). Internet Communication and Its Relation to Well-Being: Identifying Some Underlying Mechanisms. Media Psychology, 9(1), 43-58. van Veenstra, A. F., & Janssen, M. (2012).Investigating Outcomes of T-Government Using a Public Value Management Approach. In S. J. Hans, J. Marijn, W. A. Maria, M. E. Carl & F. S. Leif (Eds.), Electronic Government (pp. 187-197). London: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Ventegodt, S., Anderson, N. J., & Merrick, J. (2003). Quality of life philosophy I. Quality of life, happiness, and meaning in life. The Scientific World JOURNAL, (3), 1164-1175. Wang, Y. S., & Liao, Y. W. (2008).Assessing eGovernment systems success: A validation of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success. Government Information Quarterly, 25(4), 717-733.Wangpipatwong, S., Chutimaskul, W., & Papasratorn, B. (2009). Quality enhancing the continued use of e-government web sites: Evidence from e-citizens of Thailand. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 5(1), 19-35.WASEDA. (2014). WASEDA-IAC 10th International E-Government Ranking 2014. Tokyo: Waseda University and International Academy of CIO (IAC).Wauters, P. (2006).Benchmarking e-government policy within the e-Europe programme. Aslib Proceedings, 58(5), 389-403.Weidman, A. C., Fernandez, K. C., Levinson, C. A., Augustine, A. A., Larsen, R. J., & Rodebaugh, T. L. (2012). Compensatory internet use among individuals higher in social anxiety and its implications for well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 191-195.Wilson, W. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 294-306.World Economic Forum (2012). The Global Information Technology Report 2012: Living in a Hyperconnected. World. Geneva: WEF.World Economic Forum (2014). The Global Information Technology Report 2014:Rewards and Risks of Big Data. Geneva: WEF.World Health Organization (1997). WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life. Retrieved January 10, 2015 from: http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/68.pdfZaidi, S. F. H., Marir, F., & Siva, S. (2013, February). Assessing e-Government Service & Trust: Government to Citizen. Paper presented at the meeting the Seventh International Conference on Digital Society, France.Zaidi, S. F. H., Siva, S., & Marir, F. (2014). Development and Validation of a Framework for Assessing the Performance and Trust in e-Government Services. International Journal of Applied Information System, 7(4), 28-37.Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Malhotra, A. (2002). Service quality delivery through Web sites: A critical review of extant knowledge. Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 362-375. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
10256028資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1022560282 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 朱斌妤 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Chu, Pin Yu en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 顏郁婷 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Yen, Yu Ting en_US dc.creator (作者) 顏郁婷 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Yen, Yu Ting en_US dc.date (日期) 2015 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2016-03-02 - dc.date.available 2016-03-02 - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2016-03-02 - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G1022560282 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81763 - 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) 10256028 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 電子化政府(Electronic Government)是我國運用資訊通訊科技(Information and Communications Technology)提升政府管理與服務的重要政策，隨著網際網路在日常生活的普及，在各國政府推動EG提供民眾日常所需服務時，提升民眾整體生活品質不僅是該政策所要達到的重要目標，亦成為社會大眾所期待的公共價值。然而對電子化政府的評估，目前仍著重於基礎建設、滿意度、使用服務次數等層面，欠缺相關生活品質衡量指標。因此，本研究將聚焦於電子化政府網路面向上的服務，探討該政策對民眾生活品質的影響。鑑於網路對生活的影響力日益漸增，本研究所稱e生活品質，是參考數位生活與生活品質的概念，強調個人在虛擬環境下的生活品質。先以DeLone& McLean (2003)的資訊系統成功模型為基礎，參考Heeks (2006)、Millard & Shahin (2006)、Wauters (2006)等人提出的評估電子化政府政策流程，以使用者的角度建構電子化政府對e生活品質的影響模型，並進一步採用電子治理研究中心於2013年進行的「數位國家治理：國情追蹤與方法整合」研究計畫資料，透過結構方程式(Structural Equation Modeling, SEM)統計分析方法進行模型驗證。結果發現，電子化政府的服務品質、資訊品質對滿意度有顯著影響，而滿意度又會影響使用效益，進而影響至e生活品質，除此之外，個人在網路上搜尋生活資訊的頻率也會影響e生活品質。本研究結果顯示電子化政府政策要提升民眾e生活品質感知的目標，必須循序漸進地在提供服務過程中的每個階段予以改善，並提出相關政策建議，另因填答者普遍認為政府所提供的資訊可靠，加上資訊的搜尋有助於提升e生活品質，本研究認為電子化政府透過網路及搭配多元途徑提供日常所需資訊為達到提升e生活品質目標的重要關鍵。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Electronic government in Taiwan has been recognized as a major policy to promote administrative management and public service. Lately, with the internet penetrating to daily lives, the enhancement of quality of life (QOL) has not only become the important goal of e-government policy, but also the essential public value people expected. However, most existing indicators to evaluate e-government were focused on infrastructure, satisfaction and frequency et al., lack of dimensions on QOL. Accordingly, this study focused on online service of e-government, and aimed to construct a model to assess the effect on the QOL in internet environment (Quality of e-Life, EQOL) by e-government.First, this study proposes a causal model in view of users, which based on DeLone & McLean’s Information System Success Model and referred to related theories of e-government processing evaluation, to examine the impacts on EQOL by e-government. Secondly, the author used a secondary survey data collected by the research of Taiwan e-Governance Research Center, and validated the model by Structural Equation Modeling method. The results of research showed that service quality and information quality have a great influence on satisfaction of e-government, and satisfaction of e-government will affect use benefits, further make effect on EQOL. In addition, the daily lives information searching frequency also affects EQOL. This study indicated that government should gradually improve the process of online service of e-government, including service and information quality stage, satisfaction of e-government stage, uses benefit stage and EQOL stage. Regarding each stage, this thesis also made some policy suggestions. Besides, due to information searching is helpful for increasing EQOL, and the result of questionnaires shows that most people consider the information provided by government is trustful, this research argued that government provides information through various channels on internet is the key factor to enhance EQOL. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1.1電子化政府發展現況 1 1.2電子化政府與「e生活品質」 21.3評估電子化政府缺乏生活品質面向之指標 41.4研究目的 6 1.5研究範圍 6第二章 文獻探討 7 2.1「e生活品質」的定義與重要性 7 2.2電子化政府提升「(e)生活品質」的重要做法 12 2.3電子化政府政策評估 19第三章 研究設計 273.1電子化政府對「e生活品質」影響模型 273.2研究假設 30 3.3次級資料介紹 31 3.4變數說明 333.5資料分析方法 39第四章 資料分析 42 4.1樣本資料分析 424.2各衡量變項描述性統計分析 43 4.3測量模型的驗證 46 4.4電子化政府對e生活品質影響模型的驗證 53第五章 研究結論與建議 60 5.1研究結論 605.2研究貢獻 63 5.3政策建議 64 5.4研究限制與建議 66參考文獻 69 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1105055 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1022560282 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 評估電子化政府政策 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 生活品質 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資訊系統成功模型 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 結構方程式 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) evaluation e-government policy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) quality of life en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Information System Success Model en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Structural Equation Modeling en_US dc.title (題名) 電子化政府對e生活品質影響模型之建立 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Model of Influences on Quality of e-Life by Electronic Government en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 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末報告（編號：NSC 99-2410-H-004-112-MY3）。臺北市：行政院研考會。行政院主計總處(2011)。社會指標統計年報。臺北市：行政院主計總處。行政院主計總處(2012)。社會指標統計年報－國民幸福指數專刊。臺北市：行政院主計總處。行政院國家發展委員會(2009)。第三階段電子化政府計畫書（97年至100年）。臺北市：行政院國家發展委員會。行政院國家發展委員會(2013)。第四階段電子化政府計畫書（101年至105年）。臺北市：行政院國家發展委員會行政院國家發展委員會(2014a)。簡單生活，就從「e管家Plus」開始。2014年10月11日，取自：http://www.ndc.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0061509#.VDiTvPmSyPc行政院國家發展委員會(2014b)。博物館數位典藏與學習資源建構與永續推廣－以國立自然科學博物館為例。政府機關資訊通報，321，18-22。行政院國家發展委員會(2014c)。第六屆政府服務品質獎－評獎紀實。2014年9月26日，取自：http://www.ndc.gov.tw/att/0060841/0060841.pdf行政院國家發展委員會(2014d)。公路防災預警機制導入資通訊的服務。政府機關資訊通報，322，25-29。行政院國家發展委員會(2014e)。打造無線網路基礎環境，迎接行動化服務應用蓬勃發展。政府機關資訊通報，320，30-40。行政院國家發展委員會(2014f)。103年個人／家戶數位機會調查報告。臺北市：行政院國家發展委員會委託典通股份有限公司辦理。何全德(2012)。改變與感動的力量-電子化政府服務創新策略。研考雙月刊，36(5)， 55-70。吳明隆(2009)。結構方程式模型－SIMPLIS的應用。臺北市：五南。李仲彬、黃東益(2012)。網路社會發展趨勢之前瞻研究：世界網路計畫(WIP)的跨國比較與臺灣現況調查分析。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：RDEC-RES-101002）。臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。 李仲彬(2011)。信任在電子治理中所扮演的角色：以文獻檢閱爲基礎的初探性分析。公共行政學報，(39)，105-147。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系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。李國田(2007)。電子化政府創新與整合服務。研考雙月刊，31(1)，38-48。林以正、王澄華、吳佳輝(2005)。網路人際互動特質與依戀型態對網路成癮的影響。中華心理學刊，47(3)，289-309。邱皓政(2011)。結構方程式（二版）。臺北市：雙葉書廊有限公司。姚開屏(2010)。生活品質的測量(Measurement on QOL)，2014年10月1日，取自：http://moodle.ncku.edu.tw/mod/resource/view.php?id=33793張四明、胡龍騰(2013)。後新公共管理時期政府績效管理的公共價值意涵。公共治理季刊，1(1)，73-83。張卿卿(2006)。網路的功與過：網路使用與政治參與及社會資產關係的探討。新聞學研究，(86)，45-90。張偉豪(2011)。論文寫作SEM不求人。高雄市：三星統計服務有限公司。陳俊明、朱斌妤、黃東益、蔣麗君、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）。臺北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。陶振超(2014)。網際網路與有誼網路：取代、擴大、或強化。載於行政院國家發展委員會，新興ICT服務與數位應用行為變遷之研究摘要報告（頁79-90）。臺北市：行政院國家發展委員會。曾文志(2007)。大學生對美好生活的常識概念與主觀幸福感之研究。教育心理學報，380(4)，417-441。黃旭男、唐思佳(2012)。論生活品質指標之建構。環境管理研究，12(2)，67-91。黃東益、朱斌妤、蕭乃沂、李仲彬(2009)。電子治理成效指標與評估：G2C與G2B。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：097246343）。臺北市：行政院研究考核委員會。 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。黃朝盟、黃東益、劉宜君(2007)。我國電子化政府之影響評估。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：RDEC-095-01）。臺北市：行政院研究考核委員會。黃甯婉、朱斌妤(2011)。政府對身心障礙者(G2D)的電子治理成效評估。臺灣公共行政與公共事務系所聯合會主辦之「國際學術研討會(TASPAA)」（頁19-24），臺北市。經濟部(2008)。行政院第28次科技顧問會議-議題三：優質生活，2014年10月1日，取自：http://www.bost.ey.gov.tw/Upload/UserFiles/智慧生活科技運用推動策略.pdf鄭照順、鄒浮安(2011)。大學生網路使用行為與網路影響之研究-以高苑科技大學為例。高苑學報，17(2)，119-134蕭乃沂、朱斌妤、黃東益、李仲彬(2010)。電子治理成效指標與評估：G2A與G2D。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（編號：099240052）。臺北市：行政院研究考核委員會。簡宏偉(2012)。電子化政府推動成果。研考雙月刊，36(6)，72-79。Accenture (2014).Accenture 10-Country Study Finds Singapore, Norway and UAE Lead in Digital Government. Retrieved September 25, 2014, formhttp://newsroom.accenture.com/news/accenture-10-country-study-finds-singapore-norway-and-uae-lead-in-digital-government.htm#relAl-Haddad, S. A., Hyland, P., & Hubona, G. (2011). In An assessment tool for E-government system performance: a citizen-centric model. Retrieved September 25, 2014, form: http://ro.uow.edu.au/infopapers/1955/Anthopoulos, L., & Blanas, N.(2014).Evaluation Methods for e-strategic Transformation. In G. A. Leonidas & G. R. Christopher (Eds.), Government e-Strategic Planning and Management (pp.3-23). USA: Springer.Anthopoulos, L., Triantafyllou, D., & Fitslis, P. (2012).e-Strategic Management Lessons from Greece. In C. Reddick (Ed.), Public Sector Transformation through E-Government: Experiences from Europe and North American (pp. 224-241).London: Rouledge.Banerji, A., & Magarkar, A. (2012). How happy is your web browsing? A model to quantify satisfaction of an Internet user searching for desired information. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 391(17), 4215-4224.Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2014).ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119-128.Chen, C. W. (2010). Impact of quality antecedents on taxpayer satisfaction with online tax-filing systems: An empirical study. Information & Management, 47(5-6), 308–315.Chircu, A. M. (2008). E-government evaluation: toward a multidimensional framework. Electronic Government an International Journal, 5(4), 345-363.Commonwealth of Australia (2003).E-Government Benefits Study. Retrieved September 16, 2014, from http://www.finance.gov.au/agimo-archive/__data/assets/file/0012/16032/benefits.pdfCostanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R. et al. (2008).An integrative approach to quality of life measurement, research, and policy. Surveys and Perspectives. Integrating Environment and Society, 1, 11-15.Cresswell , A., & Sagoy, D. S. (2012).Developing Public Value Metrics for Returns to Government ICT Investment: A report to Microsoft Corporation. New York: Center for Technology in Government.DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E.R. (2003).The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of management information systems, 19(4), 9-30.Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.Dunn, W. N. (2003). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. N. J.: Prentice Hall.Economist Intelligence Unit (2010). The 2010 Digital Economy Rankings. Retrieved November 25, 2014, from: http://graphics.eiu .com/upload/EU_Digital_economy_rankings_2010_FINAL_WEB.pdf European Commission (2009). eGovernment in Estonia. Retrieved September 16, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Docd7a7.pdf?id=32608European Commission (2012). eGovernment Benchmark Framework 2012-2015. Luxembourg: European Commission.European Commission. (2013).Quality of life in cities: Perception survey in 79 European cities. Luxembourg: European Union.E-TAIWAN Project-E-Living and QoL. Retrieved February 5, 2015 from http://www.ios.sinica.edu.tw/ios/people/personal/wupaper/SE-E-living.pdfFloropoulos, J., Spathis, C., Halvatzis, D., & Tsipouridou, M. (2010). Measuring the success of the Greek Taxation Information System. International Journal of Information Management, 30(1),47–56. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.Friedland, C., & Gross, T. (2010).Measuring the public value of e-Government: Methodology of a South African case study. The IST-Africa 2010 Conference Proceedings, Durban.Gross, E. F., Juvonen. J., & Shelly, L. G. (2002). Internet Use and Well-Being in Adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 75-90.Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).Multivariate date analysis (6th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.Hair, J.F. Jr., Anderson, R. E. R, Tatham, L., & Black, W. C. (2009). Multivariate date analysis (7th ed.). NJ: Prentice-HallHarrison, T. M., Guerrero, S., Burke, G. B., Cook, M., Cresswell, A., & Pardo, T. (2012). Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity, 17, 83-97.Heeks, R. (2006). Benchmarking e-Government: Improving the national and international measurement, evaluation and comparison of e-Government. IDPM i-Government Working Paper, 18, 1-33.Hills, D., & Sullivan, F. (2006).Measuring public value 2: Practical approaches. Work Foundation .London: The Work Foundation.Jang, C. L. (2010). Measuring Electronic Government Procurement Success and Testing for the Moderating Effect of Computer Self-efficacy. International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications, 4(3): 224-232Jorgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B (2007).Public Values: An Inventory. Administration and Society, 39 (3), 354-387.Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., & Morris, J. (2011). The relationship between Facebook and the well-being of undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(4), 183-189.Kim, K.H., Park, J.Y., Kim, D.Y., & Moon, H.I. (2000).A study of internet users` lifestyle. Fall Marketing Conftrence Proceedings, 43-51.Kim, T. H., Im, K. H., & Park, S. C. (2005).Intelligent measuring and improving model of customer satisfaction level in e-government. Paper presented at the Electronic government: 4th International Conference, EGOV 2005, Copenhagen.Legislative Council of Hong Kong (2014). Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting-Progress Update on E-Government Development. Hong Kong, Legislative Council.Leung, L., & Lee, P. S. (2005). Multiple determinants of life quality: The roles of Internet activities, use of new media, social support, and leisure activities. Telematics and Informatics, 22(3), 161-180.Leung, L., Lee, P. S., Lo, V. H., & Xiong, C. Y. (2005). A comparative study exploring the impact of internet activities, use of new media, and leisure activities on quality of life in Beijing, Taipei, and Hong Kong. Retrieved February10, 2015 from: http://www.com.cuhk.edu.hk/ccpos/en/pdf/qol_in_beijing_taipei_hk.pdfLiang, T. H. (2011). Association between Use of Internet Service and Quality of Life in Taiwan. Journal of Data Science, 9, 83-92.Liang, T. H., & Yang, Y. H. (2008).Does internet have a positive impact on the Quality of Life in Taiwan?. Information Technology, 3,1-8.Liang, T. H., Peng, J. L., & Yu, C. Y. (2011).A simpler quality of e-life indicator: does the Internet have a positive impact on the quality of life in Taiwan. Qual Quant,46(4), 1025-1045. Lofstedt, U. (2005). E-Government-Assesment of Current Research and Some Proposals for Future Directions. International journal of public information systems, 1(1), 39-52.MacCallum, R. C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 193-210.Millard, J., & Shahin, J. (2006).Toward the eGovernment vision for EU in 2010: research policy challenges. Luxembourg: European Communities.Ministry of Finance Finland (2012).Action Programme on eServices and eDemocracy. Retrieved August 19, 2014, fromhttps://www.vm.fi/vm/en/04_publications_and_documents/03_documents/Esite_englanti_20130626.pdfMinistry of Finance Singapore (2011). E-Government Masterplan 2011-2015 Collaborative Government. Retrieved August 10, 2014, fromhttp://www.egov.gov.sg/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=4f9e71be-fe35-432a-9901-ab3279b92342&groupId=10157Ministry of Finance Singapore (2013). E-Government In Singapore. Retrieved August 10, 2014, from http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN90601.pdfMitchell, M. E., Lebow, J. R., Uribe, R., Grathouse, H., & Shoger, W. (2011). Internet use, happiness, social support and introversion: A more fine grained analysis of person variables and internet activity. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1857-1861.Molla, A., & Licker, P.S. (2001).E-commerce Systems Success: An Attempt to Extend and Respecify the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Journal of Electronic Commerce Success, 2(4), 1–11.National Information Society Agency (2012). e-Government of Korea: Best Practices. Seoul. Republic of Korea: Ministry of Public Administration and Security.Noll, H. H. (2004). Social indicators and Quality of Life research: Background, achievements and current trends. In N. Genov, (Ed.), Advances in Sociological Knowledge (pp. 151-181).Paris, International Social Science Council.OECD (2007). quality of life e-government. Turkey: OECD.OECD (2011). Better Life Index. Retrieved August 10, 2014, from: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/33333113131OECD (2014). Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies. Retrieved August 5, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/gov/public-innovation/recommendation-on-digital-government-strategies.htmOsman, I. H., Anouze, A. L., Irani, Z., Al-Ayoubi, B., Lee, H., Balcı, A., et al. (2014). COBRA framework to evaluate e-government services: A citizen-centric perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 243-256.Savoldell, A., Misuraca, G., & Codagnone, C. (2013). Measuring the Public value of e-Governmnet: The eGEP 2.0 model. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 11, 373-388.Sedden, P. B. (1997). A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information systems research, 8(3), 240-253.Sheridan, W., & Riley, T. B. (2006). Comparing e-government vs. e-governance. Commonwealth Center for e-Governance, 1-5.Sun, S., Ju, T. L., & Chen, P. (2006). E-government impacts on effectiveness: A survey study of an e-official-document system. Electronic Government ,an International Journal, 3(2), 174-189.The World Bank (2007). Public Value of IT Framework. Retrieved August 17, 2014, from:http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/Resources/282822-1188575147431/PublicValueITFrameworks2007.pdfTraunmuller, R. (2007). Knowledge Transfer in E-Government. Retrieved August 17, 2014, fromhttp://observgo.uquebec.ca/observgo/fichiers/88022_UNPAN.pdf#page=261United Nations (2008).United Nations e-government survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance. New York: UN.United Nations (2014).United Nations e-government survey 2014: E-Government for the future we want. New York: UN.Valkenburg, P. M., & Jochen, P. (2007). Internet Communication and Its Relation to Well-Being: Identifying Some Underlying Mechanisms. Media Psychology, 9(1), 43-58. van Veenstra, A. F., & Janssen, M. (2012).Investigating Outcomes of T-Government Using a Public Value Management Approach. In S. J. Hans, J. Marijn, W. A. Maria, M. E. Carl & F. S. Leif (Eds.), Electronic Government (pp. 187-197). London: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Ventegodt, S., Anderson, N. J., & Merrick, J. (2003). Quality of life philosophy I. Quality of life, happiness, and meaning in life. The Scientific World JOURNAL, (3), 1164-1175. Wang, Y. S., & Liao, Y. W. (2008).Assessing eGovernment systems success: A validation of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success. Government Information Quarterly, 25(4), 717-733.Wangpipatwong, S., Chutimaskul, W., & Papasratorn, B. (2009). Quality enhancing the continued use of e-government web sites: Evidence from e-citizens of Thailand. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 5(1), 19-35.WASEDA. (2014). WASEDA-IAC 10th International E-Government Ranking 2014. Tokyo: Waseda University and International Academy of CIO (IAC).Wauters, P. (2006).Benchmarking e-government policy within the e-Europe programme. Aslib Proceedings, 58(5), 389-403.Weidman, A. C., Fernandez, K. C., Levinson, C. A., Augustine, A. A., Larsen, R. J., & Rodebaugh, T. L. (2012). Compensatory internet use among individuals higher in social anxiety and its implications for well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 191-195.Wilson, W. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 294-306.World Economic Forum (2012). The Global Information Technology Report 2012: Living in a Hyperconnected. World. Geneva: WEF.World Economic Forum (2014). The Global Information Technology Report 2014:Rewards and Risks of Big Data. Geneva: WEF.World Health Organization (1997). WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life. Retrieved January 10, 2015 from: http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/68.pdfZaidi, S. F. H., Marir, F., & Siva, S. (2013, February). Assessing e-Government Service & Trust: Government to Citizen. Paper presented at the meeting the Seventh International Conference on Digital Society, France.Zaidi, S. F. H., Siva, S., & Marir, F. (2014). Development and Validation of a Framework for Assessing the Performance and Trust in e-Government Services. International Journal of Applied Information System, 7(4), 28-37.Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Malhotra, A. (2002). Service quality delivery through Web sites: A critical review of extant knowledge. Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 362-375. zh_TW
