Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/101160
|
| Title: | 我國政府機關「績效體系」與「績效實效體」之研究-以我國公立圖書館機關為例
A Study of Performance Regime and Performance Complexity in National Central Library and Taipei Public Library |
| Authors: | 許介銘
Hsu, Chieh Ming |
| Contributors: | 蘇偉業
So, Wai Yip
許介銘
Hsu, Chieh Ming |
| Keywords: | 績效體系
績效實效體
課責交待
績效資訊
Performance regime
Performance complexity
Accountability
Performance information |
| Date: | 2016 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-09-02 00:43:29 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 過去針對政府組織績效管理之研究，大部分是從組織內部的垂直控制角度出發，但鮮少討論到組織外部有哪些相關的組織抑或利害關係人會影響到該組織的績效發展。因此本研究利用Colin Talbot提出的績效體系框架為基礎，輔以課責交待與績效資訊使用之研究角度出發，分析我國公立圖書館機關其所處之績效體系(performance regime)，進而在此績效體系下會產生何種績效實效體(performance complexity)。因此在此前提下，本研究主要挑選之研究個案為國家圖書館與台北市立圖書館。根據本研究之主要目的，筆者將績效體系分為三個主要層次的研究方向，首先辨識影響機關的外部機關組織暨外部利害關係人到底有哪些？再者這些外部利害關係人是如何來影響該機關？最後是機關如何因應並產生那些績效實效體？本研究發現，國家圖書館與台北市立圖書館皆屬於專家自主性高之績效體系，具備圖書館管理知識領域相關之專家有很高的自主性來定義圖書館的績效。而造成此現象的原因有二，原因一為上級機關負責管理下屬機關人員不足，上級人力無法負荷過多管制。原因二為上級機關所管理的社教機構太多，每個社教機構的業務繁雜且難以比較，因此賦予其自主管轄權。而兩機關雖同為專家自主性高的績效體系，但其專家決定機關政策及服務輸送機制上依然是有明顯之差異，兩機關在根本上所面對的客群即不同，國家圖書館是專業小眾，台北市立圖書館是一般普羅大眾，進而造成其背後專家決策的思維有所差異。
Previous studies of government performance management mostly focused on the vertical control within organization, rarely discussing what stakeholders outside the organization affect the organization performance. Therefore, this study makes use of the framework of performance regime proposed by Colin Talbot as well as the perspectives of accountability and use of performance information to analyze the performance of National Central Library and Taipei Public Library.
According to the main purpose of this study which is based on the theory of performance regime, the scope of the study is divided into three levels: first, to identify which external organizations or stakeholders affect the performance of the libraries; second, to understand how those external organizations or stakeholders influence the performance of the libraries; finally, how the libraries respond to it so as to generate a sort of performance complexity.
The study finds that both National Central Library and Taipei Public Library belong to a performance regime in which experts enjoy a high degree of autonomy. Those experts who have professional knowledge concerning the management of library have much power to define the performance standard of library. There are two reasons to account for this phenomenon. First, there is no sufficient manpower for the higher authorities to take charge of the subsidiary agencies, so the former cannot effectively control the latter. Second, there are too many socio-education institutes under the jurisdiction of the higher authorities and the natures of these institutions vary from each other so widely that it is difficult to compare their performances. Due to these two reasons, the higher authorities give these subsidiary agencies more managerial autonomy.
Although the two libraries share a similar performance regime in which experts enjoy a high degree of autonomy, their expert-led decisions and service delivery mechanisms are obviously different. Fundamentally, the two libraries are facing different customer groups, National Central Library facing is professional minority,
Taipei Public Library facing is the general public. That is why there are varied thoughts behind the expert decisions. |
| Reference: | 中文部分
王珮玲(2001)。公共圖書館績效評估之研究-以臺北市立圖書館為例。國家圖書館館刊，2，35-65。
王麗蕉、鄭雅靜(2006)。大學圖書館評鑑之探討。國家圖書館館刊，95(1)，35-58。
王曉麟(2008)。政府績效評估制度與策略。飛訊，67，1-20。
丘昌泰(2000)。公共管理：理論及實務手冊。台北：元照。
丘昌泰(2002)。邁向績效導向的地方政府管理。研考雙月刊，26(3)，46-56。
行政院(2015)。行政院國家發展委員會104年度政府服務品質獎評獎實施計畫績效評核方法。
朱景鵬、朱鎮明(2004)。英、美、德地方政府治理能力評鑑制度。研考雙月刊，28(5)，39-54。
江明修(2005)。公私協力關係中台灣非營利組織公共課責與自主性之探究：理論辯證與制度設計。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫。
台北市立圖書館(2015)。104年度台北市立圖書館業務執行成果。台北市：台北市立圖書館。
台北市立圖書館(2016)。臺北市立圖書館 105 年重要工作計畫。台北市：台北市立圖書館。
台北市立圖書館(2016)。臺北市立圖書館 105 年施政計畫。台北市：台北市立圖書館。
吳定(1995)。公共行政論叢(第五版)。台北：順達。
李允傑(1999)。公部門之績效評估。人事月刊，29(4)，4-14。
呂育誠(2000)。課責觀點下行政中立的意涵與落實途徑。考銓季刊，23，68-80。
呂明珠(2014)。我國公共圖書館評鑑之發展與建議。圖書與資訊學刊，6(2)，22-38。
林嘉誠(2004)。行政機關績效評估制度的建置與回顧，林嘉誠(編)，政府績效評估，3-20。台北：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
林芳如、蔣佳雯(2004)。學術性圖書館績效管理之研究-以國立政治大學圖書館為例。圖書與資訊學刊，48，71-90。
林巧敏(2006)。數位時代圖書館功能及角色的變遷。圖書與資訊學刊，59，40-56。
范祥偉、王崇斌(2000)。政府績效管理：分析架構與實務策略。中國行政評論，10(1)，155-182。
柯皓仁（2013）。以績效評估證明公共圖書館的價值。公共圖書館新視野：公共圖書館人才培訓教材，11，97-119。臺中：國立公共資訊圖書館。
柯皓仁(2014)。淺談公共圖書館績效評估。臺北市圖書館館訊，32(2)，1-20。
柯義龍(2013)。新公共管理的課責倫理及其問題，中國行政評論，19(3)，23-46。
胡述兆、吳祖善(1989)。圖書館學導論。台北：漢美。
胡述兆、王梅玲(2003)。圖書資訊學導論。台北：漢美。
胡龍騰、張國偉(2010)。美國績效管理改革作法。研考雙月刊，34(3)，24-36。
胡龍騰(2007)。公民引領之政府績效管理：初探性模式建構。行政暨政策學報，44，79-128。
胡龍騰，(2011)。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，(2015)。政府績效資訊之運用:官僚態度之分析焦點。行政暨政策學報，60，41-89。
施純福、林靜莉(2012)。從北市圖績優館的誕生談北市圖的進步。臺北市立圖書館館訊，30 (1)，44-61。
孫本初(1999)。課責與績效管理。人事月刊，29（3），28-32。
孫本初(2005)。 績效衡量與評估的操作概念：以美國績效與成果法為例。考銓季刊，43，39-53。
孫煒(2012)。民主治理中準政府組織的公共性與課責性：對於我國政府捐助之財團法人轉型的啟示。人文及社會科學集刊，24(4)，497-528。
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。
郭士國(2012)。族群型代表性行政機關課責之研究：以我國中央與地方客家行政機關為例。國立中央大學法律與政府碩士論文，未出版，桃園。
張世杰(2011)。新公共管理的公務倫理意涵與實踐反省：傅柯的治理理性觀點。空大行政學報，21，75-128。
張四明，(2009)。行政院施政績效評估制度之運作經驗與改革方向。研考雙月刊，33（5），45-58。
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：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
張瓊玲(2008)。台灣郵政公司「正名」過程的課責問題：以治理理論為觀點。空大行政學報，19，67-94。
許立一(2015)。當代公共治理變遷與課責機制設計方向之思考。中國地方自治，68(9)，4-24。
國家圖書館(2013)。102 年全國公共圖書館評鑑手冊。台北市：國家圖書館。
國家圖書館(2016)。國家圖書館105年度提升服務品質執行計畫。台北市：國家圖書館。
國家圖書館(2016)。國家圖書館 105 年度施政計畫。台北市：國家圖書館。
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。
陳敦源（1998）。民意與公共管理。載於黃榮護主編，公共管理，127-177。台北：商鼎。
陳敦源（2002）。績效制度設計的資訊問題：訊號、機制設計與代理成本。行政暨政策學報，35，45-69。
陳敦源、林靜美（2005）。有限理性下的不完全契約：公部門績效管理制度的反思。考銓季刊，43，96-120。
陳敦源(2007)。金魚缸中的服務：全民督工的個案討論。研考雙月刊，31(4)，88-101。
陳敦源、王光旭（2007）。為何與如何以委員會治理？以全民健保監理委員會為例。「2007年台灣公共行政暨事務系所聯合會（TASPAA）年會暨第三屆兩岸四地公共管理研討會」論文。台北：世新大學，6月2日。
陳敦源(2009)。透明之下的課責：台灣民主治理中官民信任關係的重建基礎。文官制度季刊，1(2)，21-55。
陳敦源、呂季蓉、孫玟秀(2014)。是誰告訴人民政府表現如何?政府績效、公共資訊、與外電新聞的守門人之研究。文官制度季刊，6(1)，1-53。
黃碧珠(2005)。淺談公共圖書館績效評量。國家圖書館館訊，94 (1)，22-25。
黃淑香、黃美惠(2014)。大學圖書館績效評鑑理論與實務。國立清華大學圖書館館訊。
曾淑賢(2001)。臺北市立圖書館品質管理制度。臺北市立圖書館館訊，19 (1)，1-20。
彭錦鵬(2008)。行政法人與政署之制度選擇。考銓季刊，53， 21–36。
彭渰雯、巫偉倫(2009)。非營利組織參與治理的代表性與課責─以出版品分級評議為例。臺灣民主季刊，6(3)，87-123。
楊美華（1989）。大學圖書館之經營理念。台北：臺灣學生書局。
廖洲棚(2014)。我國政府施政績效資訊應用之問題研析。國土及公共治理季刊，3(3)，45-54。
劉坤億(2009)。政府課責性與公共治理之探討。研考雙月刊，33(5)，59-72。
蔡明月（1995）。績效評估。圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。檢自：http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1679649/?index=5
蔡欣如、柯皓仁(2015)。大專校院圖書館績效指標重要性與可行性之研究。大學圖書館，19(2)，22-47。
盧秀菊（2003）。圖書館之績效評估。中國圖書館學會會報，71，1-19。
盧秀菊(2004)。圖書館事業之價值與服務，在張鼎鍾教授七秩榮慶籌備小組編。跨越數位時代的資訊服務-張鼎鍾教授七秩榮慶論文集，31-36。台北：文華圖書館管理。
盧秀菊(2005)。公共圖書館之績效評估與評量指標。圖書與資訊學刊，54，23-42。
應立志、黃長永(2006)。公共圖書館績效評估之探討:以雲林縣鄉鎮圖書館為例。台灣圖書館管理學刊，2(4)，77-98。
蕭怡靖(2013)。台灣民眾政治課責觀之初探―認知、評價與影響。臺灣民主季刊，10(2)，1-32。
蘇彩足(2013)。我國公共治理之挑戰與因應。公共治理季刊，1(1)，52-60。
蘇偉業(2009a)。公共部門事前定向績效管理：反思與回應。公共行政學報，30，105-130。
蘇偉業(2009b)。甚麼是公部門的良好表現？公部門績效管理之回顧與再定位。飛訊，88，1-20。
蘇偉業(2010)。績效行政：績效管理中的干擾系統。人事行政，175，43-51。
蘇偉業(2012)。民眾回應性、課責交代機制、績效管理設計：台北市健康服務中心與戶政事務所之個案比較。策略評論專刊，15，7-17。
蘇偉業、楊和縉(2014)。從行政院研究發展考核委員會檢視我國績效體系的形成與發展：績效資訊運用、課責交待及行政價值。台灣公共行政與公共事務系所聯合會2014年會暨"政府治理與公民行動" 國際學術研討會。
蘇偉業、楊和縉(2015)。從行政院研究發展考核委員會檢視我國績效體系的形成與發展。文官制度季刊，7(4)，1-38。
英文部分
Ashworth, R., Boyne, G.A., & Entwistle, T. (2010). Public service improvement: theories and evidence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Argyis, C. & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational LearningⅡ: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Baker, W. V. (1994). “Performance Measurement in Taxation: The Revenue Canada Experience.” In OECD (Ed.), Performance Measurement in Government： Issues and Illustrations, 39-50. Paris: OECD.
Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Behn, R. D. (2003). “Why measure performance？ Different purposes require different measures.” Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586-606.
Berman, E. M. (2006). Performance and Productivity in Public and Nonprofit Organizations (2nd ed.). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Bertot, J. C. & McClure, C. R. (2003). “Outcomes assessment in the networked environment: Research questions, issues, considerations, and moving forward.” Library Trends, 51(4), 590-613.
Bevir, M. (2009). Key Concepts in Governance. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Bouckaert, G. & Balk, W. (1991). “Productivity Measurement: Disease and Cures.” Productivity & Management Review, 15(2), 229-235.
Bouckaert, G. (1993). “Measurement and meaningful management.” Public Productivity and Management Review, 17, 31-43.
Bouckaert, G. & Van Dooren, W. (2003). “Performance Measurement and Management in Public Sector Organizations.” In Tony Bovaird & Elke Löffler (Eds.), Public Management and Governance, 127-136. London： Routledge.
Bouckaert, G. & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing Performance: International Comparisons. Oxon: Routledge.
Bovens, M. (2005). “Public Accountability.” In Ewan Ferlie et al. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, 182-208. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carter, N., K. R., & Patricia, D. (1992). How Organizations Measure Success: The Use of Perform Indicators in Government. London: Routledge.
Cunningham, G. M., & Harris, J. E. (2005). “Toward a theory of performance reporting to achieve public sector accountability: A field study.” Public Budgeting & Finance, 25(2): 15-42.
Curristine, T. (2005). “Government performance: Lessons and challenges.” OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(1): 127-151.
de Lancer Julnes, P. (2004). “The utilization of performance measurement information: Adopting, implementing, and sustaining.” In Holzer, M., and S.-H. Lee (Eds.), Public productivity handbook (2nd ed.), 353-375. New York: Marcel Dekker,
de Lancer Julnes, P. (2008). “Performance measurement beyond instrumental use.” In W. Van Dooren & S. Van de Walle (Eds.), Performance information in the public sector: how it is used, 58-71. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dicke, L. & Otto, J. (1999). “Public Agency Accountability in Human Service Contracting”, Public Productivity and Management Review, 22(4) ,1999, 502-516.
Dwivedi, O. & Jabbra, J. (1988).“Public Service Responsibility and Accountability.” In Dwivedi, O. & Jabbra, J (Eds.), Public service accountability. A comparative perspective. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
Fesler, J. & Kettl, D. (1996). The Politics of the Administrative Process. NJ: Chatham.
Franklin, A. (2000). “An examination of bureaucratic reaction to institutional controls.” Public Performance & Management Review, 24(1), 8-21.
Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2001). Managing for results: Federal managers views on key management issues vary widely across agencies. Washington, DC: GAO.
Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2008). Lessons learned for the next administration on using performance information to improve results. Washington, DC: GAO.
Gregory, R. (2003). “Accountability in modern government.” In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.) Handbook of Public Administration, 557-568. London, UK: Sage.
Guthrie, J., & English, L. (1997). “Performance information and programme evaluation in the Australian public sector.” International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10(3): 154-164.
Hammerschmid, G., Van de Walle, S. & Stimac, V. (2013). “Internal and External Use of Performance Information in Public Organizations: Results from an International Survey.” Public Money and Management, 33(4), 1-8.
Hatry, H. P. (1999). Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press
Hatry, H. P. (2002). “Performance Measurement: Fashion and Fallacies” Public Performance and Management Review, 25(4). 352-258.
Hatry, H. P. (2006). Performance Measurement: Getting Results (2nd Ed.). Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
Hendrick, M. (1994). “Making a splash: reporting evaluation results effectively.” In Hatry, H. P., Wholey, J. S. and Newcomer, K. (Eds.) Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, 549-575. San Francisco, Jossey Bass.
Hunn, D. K. (1994). “Measuring Performance in Policy Advice: A New Zealand perspective.” In OECD (Ed.), Performance Measurement in Government： Issues and Illustrations, 7-22. Paris: OECD.
Huysmans, F. & Oomes, M. (2012). Measuring the public library`s societal value: a methodological research program. World Library and Information Congress: 78th IFLA General Conference and Assembly. 11-17 August, Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from http://conference.ifla.org/past/ifla78/76-huysmans-en.pdf
Jorgensen, T. B. & Bozeman, B. (2007). “Public values: an inventory.” Administration & Society, 39, 354-381.
Kamensky, J. M. (1996). “Role of the ‘reinventing government’ movement in federal management reform.” Public Administration Review, 56(3): 247-255.
Kearns, K. P. (1996). Managing for Accountability: Preserving the Public Trust in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Koppell, J. G. S. (2005). “Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of multiple accountabilities disorder.” Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94-108.
Mainwaring, S. (2003). “Introduction: Democratic Accountability in Latin America.” In Scott Mainwaring and Christoper Welna (Eds.) Democratic Accountability in Latin America, 3-33. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marnoch, G. (2008). “Performance stories: A comparison of the annual reports presented by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the English National Health Service.” Public Performance & Management Review, 31(4): 570-603.
Miller, G. A. (2009). Wordnet. Princeton, Trustees of Princeton University.
Miller, G. J. (1992). Managerial Dilemmas: The Political Economy of Hierarchy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, M. H.(1995). Creating Public Value. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Moynihan, D. P. (2005). “Goal-based learning and the future of performance management.” Public Administration Review, 65(2), 203-216.
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). “The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849-866.
Mulgan, R. (2000). “Accountability: An Ever-Expanding Concept?” Public Administration, 78(3): 555-573.
Padovani, E. & Scorsone, E. (2009). “Comparing Local Governments’ Performance Internationally: A Mission Impossible?” International Review of Administrative Sciences 75(2): 219-237.
Pierre J. & Guy Peters, B. (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. London: Macmillan.
Poister, T. H. (2003). Measuring Performance in Public and Noprofit Organizations. San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass.
Pollitt, C. (2000). “Institutional amnesia: a paradox of the ‘information age’?” Prometheus, 18, 5-16.
Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Poll, R., & te Boekhorst, P. (2007). Measuring quality: International guidelines for performance measurement in libraries （IFLApublications, 127）. (2nd Rev. ed.). Munchen, Germany: K.G. Saur.
Romzek, B. & Dubnick, M. (1987). “Accountability in the Public Sector, Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy.” Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227-238.
Romzek, B. & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). “Cross Pressure of Accountability: Initiative, Command and Failure in the Ron Brown Plane Crash.” Public Administration Review, 60(30), 240-242.
Rosenbloom, D. H. (2015). “The public context.” In M. E. Guy & M. M. Rubin (Eds.) Public Administration Evolving: From Foundations to the Future, 1-17. New York, NY: Routledge.
Rossi, R. J. & Gilmartin, K. J.(1980). The Handbook of Social Indicators： Sources, Characteristics, and Analysis. New York: Garland STPM Press.
Schedler, A. (1999). “Conceptualizing Accountability.” In Andreas Schedler, Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner (Eds.) The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies, 13-28. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Shafritz, J. (1992). The Harper Collins Dictionary of American Government and Politics. New York: Harper Collins.
Shafritz, J. M. (Ed.) (1998). International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Smith, P. (1995). “On the Unintended Consequences of Publishing Performance Data in the Public Sector.” International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2&3): 277-310.
So, B. (2012). Learning as a Key to Citizen-centred Performance Improvement： A Comparison between the Health Service Centre and the Household Registration Office in Taipei City. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 7(2), 201-210.
Talbot, C. (2005). “Performance Management.” In Ewan Ferlie and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr and Christopher Pollitt (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, 491-517. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Talbot, C. (2008). “Performance Regimes- Context of Performance Policies.” International Journal of Public Administration, 31, 1956-1591.
Talbot, C. (2010). Theories of Performance: Organizational and Service Improvement in the Public Domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Dooren, W. et al. (2010). Performance Management in the Public Sector. Oxon: Routledge.
Van Thiel, S. & Leeuw, F. L. (2002). “The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector.＂Public Performance & Management Review, 25(3), 67-281.
Weiss, C. H. (1998). “Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation?” American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 21-33.
Willams F. P. III, McShane, M. D., & Sechrest, D. (1994). “Barriers to effective performance review: The seduction of raw data.” Public Administration Review, 54(6): 537-542.
Yang, K. & Hsieh, J. Y. (2007). “Managerial Effectiveness of Government Performance Measurement: Testing a Middle-Range Model.” Public Administration Review, 67(5), 861-879.
Yang, K. (2008). “Examining perceived honest performance reporting by public organizations: Bureaucratic politics and organizational practice.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 91-105. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
101256006 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101256006 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [Department of Public Administration] Theses
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 600601.pdf | 1585Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 53 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
