政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/75437
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 110080/141030 (78%)
Visitors : 46385263      Online Users : 945
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/75437


    Title: 中央政府施政績效資訊運用之研究
    The Use of Performance Information of Central Government
    Authors: 謝婉柔
    Hsieh, Wan Jou
    Contributors: 施能傑
    Shih, Neng Jay
    謝婉柔
    Hsieh, Wan Jou
    Keywords: 中央政府
    績效管理
    施政績效資訊
    資訊運用
    Date: 2014
    Issue Date: 2015-06-01 11:05:48 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 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。
    Reference: 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-assessment
    Demaj, 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.pdf
    OECD. (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.pdf
    Peck 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.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    公共行政研究所
    101256009
    103
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101256009
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Public Administration] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    600901.pdf1955KbAdobe PDF2251View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback