政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/138948
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113303/144284 (79%)
造訪人次 : 50823393      線上人數 : 660
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/138948


    題名: 協力網絡下的跨專業知識分享－以財政部開放資料政策為例
    Inter-professional Knowledge Sharing within Collaborative Network - The Case of Open Government Data Policy in the Ministry of Finance
    作者: 高兢吾
    Kao, Ching-Wu
    貢獻者: 黃東益
    Huang, Tong-Yi
    高兢吾
    Kao, Ching-Wu
    關鍵詞: 政府開放資料
    知識分享
    財政部
    跨專業協力
    組織內協力
    Open Government Data
    Knowledge Sharing
    The Ministry of Finance
    Inter-professional Collaboration
    Intra-organizational Collaboration
    日期: 2022
    上傳時間: 2022-02-10 13:08:33 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 政府開放資料（Open Government Data, OGD）為資通訊科技與透明訴求整合下的創新政策，而政府資料的釋出也象徵著民間對政府擁有了更廣泛的課責及監督能力。當前我國開放資料之研究較少從組織面的觀點進行探討，而針對跨專業單位間的知識分享也是開放資料研究的發展趨勢。本研究以我國財政部開放資料政策為例，探討主要行為者在開放資料政策下採取知識分享行為的契機及協力過程，並統整該部會成員在開放資料政策上採取知識分享的影響因素。研究過程也探討其開放資料政策下知識分享過程的挑戰及成員因應相關挑戰之策略，並檢視知識分享後在開放資料政策上的影響與改變。
    本研究訪談財政部開放資料政策網絡中不同單位的成員，研究發現成員在開放資料政策上採取知識分享的主要契機為「政策配合」與「知識獲取」；開放資料中的制度性協力架構與知識分享架構並未完全重疊；在跨專業協力中，資訊單位在開放資料政策中多擔任知識諮詢的角色；在知識分享的影響因素方面，「組織層級因素」較「個人層級因素」更具影響力；開放資料政策下的知識分享也主要面臨著「時間匱乏」與「輪調頻繁」兩大挑戰，而該成員在策略上也主要採取「關鍵知識的歸納」與「跨專業邏輯的理解」來因應知識分享挑戰；最終，本研究也指出知識分享行為的採用對開放資料推動大致呈現正向影響。
    本研究建議我國在開放資料政策上應透過多元途徑來激勵成員間的主動性知識分享。而未來在開放資料政策上應致力將制度性協力架構與知識分享架構進行整合，以協助專業知識在組織內之保存。此外，也應建立穩定的開放資料分工體系，並將跨專業單位視為平等的協力夥伴關係。在知識傳遞上，應定期舉辦內隱知識的分享會議，並同步重視承辦人員在跨專業知識的培養，特別是承辦人員在開放資料政策上的資訊能力。最後也建議未來開放資料政策應將知識分享行為納入績效制度的考量範圍內，以提升成員在相關專業知識的交流。
    Open government data (OGD) is an innovation policy under the integration of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and transparency demands, and the release of government data also symbolizes that the people have a wider responsible and supervisory ability over the government. Nowadays, the research of OGD in Taiwan is rarely discussed through the perspective of organization, and the knowledge sharing among inter-professional units is also a growing trend of OGD research. Taking the OGD policy of the Ministry of Finance in Taiwan as an example, this study explores the opportunity and collaboration process of the main policy actors to adopt knowledge sharing behavior under the OGD policy, and integrates the influencing factors of the members of the Ministry to adopt knowledge sharing in the OGD policy. The research process also discusses the challenges of knowledge sharing process under OGD policy and the strategies of members to cope with the challenges, and examines the impact and changes of knowledge sharing on the OGD policy.
    This study interviews members of different departments in the OGD policy network of the Ministry of Finance and finds the main opportunities for members to adopt knowledge sharing in the OGD policy are “policy cooperation” and “knowledge acquisition”. The institutional collaboration framework and knowledge sharing framework in OGD do not completely overlap. In the process of inter-professional collaboration, information department often play the role of knowledge consultation in the OGD policy. In terms of contributing factors of knowledge sharing, the effect of “organizational level factor” is more influential than “individual level factor”. Knowledge sharing under the OGD policy also faces two major challenges of “time lacking” and “frequent rotation”, and the members mainly adopt “collection of key knowledge” and “understanding of inter-professional logic” to deal with the challenges
    of knowledge sharing. Finally, this study also points out that the adoption of knowledge sharing behavior has a positive impact on the OGD policy.
    This study suggests Taiwan Government should encourage active knowledge sharing among members through multiple ways in OGD policy. Government should strive to integrate the institutional collaboration framework and knowledge sharing framework in order to help preserve professional knowledge in the organization. In addition, a stable collaborative system in OGD policy should be established, and inter-professional departments should be regarded as equal collaborative partnership. In terms of knowledge transfer, we should regularly hold implicit knowledge sharing meetings, and pay attention to the cultivation of inter-professional knowledge of contractors, especially the information ability of contractors in the OGD policy. Finally, the future of OGD policy should take knowledge sharing into account in the performance system, thereby improving the opportunity of professional knowledge’s exchange among members.
    參考文獻: 丁一顧、江姮姬（2020）。臺灣教師專業學習社群實徵研究之分析與展望。教育研究與發展期刊，16（2），135-162。
    方凱弘、陳欽春（2010）。地方電子化治理的組織衝突與發展。中國地方自治，63（3），26-51。
    朱斌妤、曾憲立（2016）。資料開放品質。國土及公共治理季刊，4（4），54-66。
    行政院研究發展考核委員會（2013）。第四階段電子化政府計畫（核定版）。臺北：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
    吳芝儀、廖梅花（譯）（2001）。質性研究入門：紮根理論研究方法（原作者：Strauss, A., Corbin, J）。臺北：濤石文化。
    吳瓊恩、曾德宜（2009）。公部門知識分享與組織協同作業之研究（1）。行政院國家科學委員會委託之專題研究成果報告（編號：NSC 96-2414-H-004-036-，未出版）。
    宋餘俠、李國田（2012）。政府部門資料加值推動策略與挑戰。研考雙月刊，36（4），10-21。
    李正賢（2016）。開放資料的應用與發展。政府機關資訊通報，342，14-20。
    林治安、林誠夏、莊庭瑞（2014）。開放政府資料的基本原則與相關政策議題。公共治理季刊，2（1），65-76。
    林煥笙、喬憲新（2015）。地方政府跨協力網絡的運作分析-以臺北市與新北市雙城共飲翡翠水為例。文官制度季刊，7（4），73-119。
    胡龍騰（2008）。組織成員知識分享行為之影響因素：文獻、概念與命題。2008年臺灣公共行政與公共事務系所聯合會年會暨《夥伴關係與永續發展》國際學術研討會，臺中。
    翁栢萱（2020）。政府開放資料應用與法治之探討。立法院法制局專題研究報告（編號：1564）。臺北：立法院法制局。
    財政部財政資訊中心（2016）。財政部政府資料開放行動策略。臺北：財政部財政資訊中心。
    財團法人資訊工業策進會（2014a）。主要國家「政府開放資料」（Open Government Data）機制與作法追蹤觀察報告（一）-美國。臺北：經濟部工業局。
    財團法人資訊工業策進會（2014b）。主要國家「政府開放資料」（Open Government Data）機制與作法追蹤觀察報告（二）-英國。臺北：經濟部工業局。
    馬中哲（2016）。政府開放資料承辦人員之資料尋求歷程初探。國立臺灣大學文學院圖書資訊學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
    國家發展委員會（2015）。政府資料開放進階行動方案。臺北：國家發展委員會。
    國家發展委員會（2016）。第五階段電子化政府計畫數位政府（核定版）。臺北：國家發展委員會。
    莊盈志（2015）。我國政府資料開放推動策略與展望。檔案半年刊，14（4），22-31。
    莊盈志（2016）。國際資料開放評比之研析。國土及公共治理季刊，4（4），113-123。
    許志義、王筑莙、柳育林、許懷元（2019）。政府資料開放與資料管理。公共行政學報，56，131-162。
    陳怡君（2013）。開放政府資料迎接資料民主新時代。公共治理季刊，1（1），156-163。
    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。臺北：中央研究院資訊科技創新研究中心臺灣創用CC計畫。
    曾旭正（2016）。開放政府之現況與展望。國土及公共治理季刊，4（4），8-17。
    曾柏瑜、李梅君（2017）。開放政府觀察報告2014年至2016年。取自：https://opengovreport.ocf.tw/assets/pdf/report-zh.pdf。
    項靖、陳曉慧、楊東謀、羅晉（2015）。開放資料及其對政府治理與個人隱私影響之研究。國家發展委員會委託之專題研究成果報告（編號：NDC-MIS-103-002，未出版）。
    項靖、楊東謀（2013）。資訊分享與共榮：政府機關資料公開與加值應用。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託之專題研究成果報告（編號：RDEC-RES-101002，未出版）。
    項靖、楊東謀、羅晉（2014）。政府開放資料加值營運模式之研究。國家發展委員會委託之專題研究成果報告（編號：RDEC-MIS-102-002，未出版）。
    黃心怡、蘇彩足、蕭乃沂（2016）。再探開放政府資料的政策與發展。國土與公共治理季刊，4（4），18-28。
    黃東益、陳敦源（2004）。電子化政府與商議式民主之實踐。臺灣民主季刊，1（4），1-34。
    黃東益、蕭乃沂（2014）。電子治理與資訊產業發展。公共治理季刊，2（2），51-57。
    黃朝盟（2005）。政府組織的知識管理現狀與挑戰。政治科學論叢，24，137-168。
    楊東謀、吳怡融（2019）。臺灣政府開放資料推行之近況調查與探討。教育資料與圖書館學，56（1），7-44。
    萬文隆（2004）。深度訪談在質性研究中的應用。生活科技教育月刊，37（4），17-23。
    歐俐伶、楊東謀（2016）。臺灣政府開放資料之詮釋資料建置探討。教育資料與圖書館學，53（1），63-102。
    潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究：理論與應用。臺北：心理出版社。
    蕭景燈（2012）。資料開放發展現況與展望。研考雙月刊，36（4），22-38。
    賴泱州、楊東謀（2017）。地方政府機關之開放資料影響因素探討：以臺中市政府為例。教育資料與圖書館學，54（2），185-219。
    賽明成、陳建維（2010）。紮根理論與質性研究：調和觀點。問題與研究，49（1），1-28。
    羅晉（2015）。政府開放資料之系統性與制度性觀點的分析。臺灣民主季刊，12（4），1-37。
    羅晉、楊東謀、王慧茹、項靖（2014）。政府開放資料的策略與挑戰：使用者觀點的分析。電子商務研究，12（3），283-300。
    蘇俊榮（2015）。資料開放與公共治理：財政資料開放推動作法。檔案半年刊，14（4），4-21。
    Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. In K.E. Newcomer, H.P. Hatry & J.S. Wholey. (Eds.) Handbook of practical program evaluation(pp. 492-505). New Jersey: Wiley.
    Ahmadi, I. R., & Rachmawati, R. (2021, June). The Antecedents of Knowledge Sharing in Public Sector. In 18th International Symposium on Management (pp. 259-264). Atlantis Press.
    Amayah, A. T. (2013). Determinants of knowledge sharing in a public sector organization. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 454-471.
    Amber, Q., Qazi, A. B., Javaid, N., Khan, I. A., & Ahmad, M. (2021). Knowledge sharing in public organizations in Pakistan: leaders’ ethical role and psychological capital of employees. Information Discovery and Delivery, 50(1), 99-114.
    Andrews, P., & da Silva, F. S. C. (2013, October). Using parliamentary open data to improve participation. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 242-249.
    Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571.
    Aspers, P., & Corte, U. (2019). What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 42(2), 139-160.
    Attard, J., Orlandi, F., Scerri, S., & Auer, S. (2015). A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 399-418.
    Axelsson, S. B., & Axelsson, R. (2009). From territoriality to altruism in interprofessional collaboration and leadership. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23(4), 320-330.
    Bates, J. (2013). The domestication of open government data advocacy in the United Kingdom: A neo‐Gramscian analysis. Policy & Internet, 5(1), 118-137.
    Bianchi, C., Nasi, G., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2021). Implementing collaborative governance: models, experiences, and challenges. Public Management Review, 23(11), 1581-1589.
    Bonfim, L. R., Segatto, A. P., & Takahashi, A. R. W. (2017). The structural, relational and cognitive dimensions of social capital on innovation and technology in interorganizational and intraorganizational settings. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/5tzvx.
    Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
    Bowman, G. (2016). The practice of scenario planning: an analysis of inter‐and intra‐organizational strategizing. British Journal of Management, 27(1), 77-96.
    Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input. Pathfinder International Tool Series, 1-12.
    Bozionelos, N. (2008). Intra‐organizational network resources: how they relate to career success and organizational commitment. Personnel Review, 37(3), 249-263.
    Buick, F., O’Flynn, J., & Malbon, E. (2019). Boundary challenges and the work of boundary spanners. In Reimagining the Future Public Service Workforce (pp. 21-38). Singapore: Springer.
    Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 720-735.
    Campbell, J. W. (2016). A collaboration-based model of work motivation and role ambiguity in public organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(3), 655-675.
    Carey, G., Buick, F., Pescud, M., & Malbon, E. (2017). Preventing dysfunction and improving policy advice: the role of intra‐departmental boundary spanners. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(2), 176-186.
    Chatwin, M., & Arku, G. (2017). Beyond Ambiguity: Conceptualizing Open Government through a Human Systems Framework. eJournal of eDemocracy & Open Government, 9(1), 52-78.
    Chatwin, M., Arku, G., & Cleave, E. (2019). Defining subnational open government: does local context influence policy and practice?. Policy Sciences, 52(3), 451-479.
    Chen, C. A., & Hsieh, C. W. (2015). Knowledge sharing motivation in the public sector: the role of public service motivation. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(4), 812-832.
    Choi, Y. (2016). The impact of social capital on employees’ knowledge-sharing behavior: An empirical analysis of US federal agencies. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2), 381-405.
    Chong, S. C., Salleh, K., Ahmad, S. N. S., & Sharifuddin, S. I. S. O. (2011). KM implementation in a public sector accounting organization: an empirical investigation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(3), 497-512.
    Costumato, L. (2021). Collaboration among public organizations: a systematic literature review on determinants of interinstitutional performance. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 34(3), 247-273.
    Criado, J. I., Ruvalcaba-Gómez, E. A., & Valenzuela-Mendoza, R. (2018). Revisiting the open government phenomenon. a meta-analysis of the international literature. eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 10(1), 50-81.
    Cuganesan, S., Hart, A., & Steele, C. (2017). Managing information sharing and stewardship for public-sector collaboration: a management control approach. Public Management Review, 19(6), 862-879.
    Dalkir, K. (2013). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Routledge, Elsevier, Oxford.
    De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N., & Dimov, D. (2009). When good conflict gets better and bad conflict becomes worse: The role of social capital in the conflict–innovation relationship. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(3), 283-297.
    Dean, K. S. (2010). Strategies and benefits of fostering intra-organizational collaboration. College of Professional Studies Professional Projects, paper 15.
    Draucker, C. B., Martsolf, D. S., Ross, R., & Rusk, T. B. (2007). Theoretical sampling and category development in grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(8), 1137-1148.
    Du, R., Ai, S., & Ren, Y. (2007). Relationship between knowledge sharing and performance: A survey in Xi’an, China. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(1), 38-46.
    Easen, P., Atkins, M., & Dyson, A. (2000). Inter‐professional collaboration and conceptualisations of practice. Children & Society, 14(5), 355-367.
    Esteve, M., Boyne, G., Sierra, V., & Ysa, T. (2013). Organizational collaboration in the public sector: Do chief executives make a difference?. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(4), 927-952.
    Evans, A. M., & Campos, A. (2013). Open government initiatives: Challenges of citizen participation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(1), 172-185.
    Eze, U. C., Goh, G. G. G., Goh, C. Y., & Tan, T. L. (2013). Perspectives of SMEs on knowledge sharing. The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 43(2), 210-236.
    Feng, K., Chen, E. T., & Liou, W. (2005). Implementation of knowledge management systems and firm performance: an empirical investigation. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45(2), 92-104.
    Flap, H., Bulder, B., & Beate, V. (1998). Intra-organizational networks and performance: A review. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 4(2), 109-147.
    Fraundorfer, M. (2017). The open government partnership: mere smokescreen or new paradigm?. Globalizations, 14(4), 611-626.
    Gagné, M. (2009). A model of knowledge‐sharing motivation. Human Resource Management, 48(4), 571-589.
    Gil-Garcia, J. R., Gasco-Hernandez, M., & Pardo, T. A. (2020). Beyond transparency, participation, and collaboration? A reflection on the dimensions of open government. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(3), 483-502.
    Gonzalez-Zapata, F., & Heeks, R. (2015). The multiple meanings of open government data: Understanding different stakeholders and their perspectives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 441-452.
    Gorry, G. A. (2008). Sharing knowledge in the public sector: two case studies. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 6(2), 105-111.
    Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., & McDonald, D. (2011). Conducting an in-depth interview. Retrievedfrom:http://greenmedicine.ie/school/images/Library/Conducting%20An%20In%20Depth%20Interview.pdf.
    Hall, P. (2005). Interprofessional teamwork: Professional cultures as barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(1), 188-196.
    Hansson, K., Belkacem, K., & Ekenberg, L. (2015). Open government and democracy: A research review. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 540-555.
    Harrison, T. M., Pardo, T. A., & Cook, M. (2012). Creating open government ecosystems: A research and development agenda. Future Internet, 4(4), 900-928.
    Herrmann, H. A. N. S. (2011). Holism in Foundation Design: Avoiding the ‘Silo Effect’. Local Identities Global Challenges Fall Conference. Houston, TX.
    Hilgers, D. (2012). Open government: theoretische Bezüge und konzeptionelle Grundlagen einer neuen Entwicklung in Staat und öffentlichen Verwaltungen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 82(6), 631-660.
    Hinds, P. J., Patterson, M., & Pfeffer, J. (2001). Bothered by abstraction: The effect of expertise on knowledge transfer and subsequent novice performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1232-1243.
    Hogan, M., Ojo, A., Harney, O., Ruijer, E., Meijer, A., Andriessen, J., Pardijs, M., Boscolo, P., Palmisano, E., Satta, M., Groff, J., Baker, M., Detienne, F., Porwol, L., Scarano, V., Malandrino, D.(2017). Governance, transparency and the collaborative design of open data collaboration platforms:understanding barriers, options, and needs. In Government 3.0–Next Generation Government Technology Infrastructure and Services(pp. 299-332). Springer, Cham.
    Hudson, B., Hardy, B., Henwood, M., & Wistow, G. (1999). In pursuit of inter-agency collaboration in the public sector: What is the contribution of theory and research?. Public Management an International Journal of Research and Theory, 1(2), 235-260.
    Ingrams, A. (2020). Organizational design in open government: Two cases from the United Kingdom and the United States. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(3), 636-661.
    Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337-359.
    Iqbal, A. (2021). Innovation speed and quality in higher education institutions: the role of knowledge management enablers and knowledge sharing process. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(9), 2334-2360.
    Jetzek, T. (2017, April). Innovation in the open data ecosystem: Exploring the role of real options thinking and multi-sided platforms for sustainable value generation through open data. In Analytics, Innovation, and Excellence-Driven Enterprise Sustainability (pp. 137-168). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
    Jiacheng, W., Lu, L., & Francesco, C. A. (2010). A cognitive model of intra-organizational knowledge-sharing motivations in the view of cross-culture. International Journal of Information Management, 30(3), 220-230.
    Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
    Kamaşak, R., & Bulutlar, F. (2010). The influence of knowledge sharing on innovation. European Business Review, 22(3), 306-317.
    Karagoz, Y., Whiteside, N., & Korthaus, A. (2020). Context matters: enablers and barriers to knowledge sharing in Australian public sector ICT projects. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(8), 1921-1941.
    Karam, M., Brault, I., Van Durme, T., & Macq, J. (2018). Comparing interprofessional and interorganizational collaboration in healthcare: A systematic review of the qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 79, 70-83.
    Keping, Y. (2018). Governance and good governance: A new framework for political analysis. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 11(1), 1-8.
    Keszey, T. (2018). Boundary spanners’ knowledge sharing for innovation success in turbulent times. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(5), 1061-1081.
    Kim, S. (2018). Public service motivation, organizational social capital, and knowledge sharing in the Korean public sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 41(1), 130-151.
    Körner, M., Wirtz, M. A., Bengel, J., & Göritz, A. S. (2015). Relationship of organizational culture, teamwork and job satisfaction in interprofessional teams. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 1-12.
    Liebowitz, J., & Yan, C. (2004). Knowledge sharing proficiencies: the key to knowledge management. In Liebowitz, J., & Yan, C.(Ed.). Handbook on Knowledge Management 1 (pp. 409-424). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
    Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability : an empirical study. International Journal of manpower, 28(4), 315-332.
    Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753-1760.
    Manyika, J., Chui, M., Groves, P., Farrell, D., Kuiken, S.V., Doshi, E.A.(2013). Open data:Unlocking innovation and performance with liquid information. Retrieved from:https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/mckinsey%20digital/our%20insights/open%20data%20unlocking%20innovation%20and%20performance%20with%20liquid%20information/mgi_open_data_fullreport_oct2013.pdf.
    Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11-22.
    Mayo, E., & Steinberg, T. (2007). The Power of Information: An Independent Review. Retrievedfrom:https://ntouk.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/power_information.pdf.
    McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401-413.
    Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10-29.
    Moon, M. J. (2020). Shifting from old open government to new open government: Four critical dimensions and case illustrations. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(3), 535-559.
    Mullin, M., & Daley, D. M. (2009). Working with the state: Exploring interagency collaboration within a federalist system. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 757-778.
    Muqadas, F., Rehman, M., & Aslam, U. (2017). Exploring the challenges, trends and issues for knowledge sharing: A study on employees in public sector universities. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 47(1), 2-15.
    Nguyen, B., Chang, K., Rowley, C., & Japutra, A. (2016). Organizational citizenship behavior, identification, psychological contract and leadership frames: The example of primary school teachers in Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 8(3), 260-280.
    Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
    O’Flynn, J. (2013). Crossing boundaries: the fundamental questions in public management and policy. In Crossing Boundaries in Public Management and Policy (pp. 31-64). Routledge.
    Obama, B.(2009). Transparency and open government. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.
    Osei-Kojo, A., Bawole, J. N., & Sakyi, E. K. (2020). The opportunities and constraints to collaboration in public sector management. Public Organization Review, 20(3), 495-510.
    Paley, J. (2000). Paradigms and presuppositions: the difference between qualitative and quantitative research. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, 14(2), 143.
    Pandit, N. R. (1996). The creation of theory: A recent application of the grounded theory method. The Qualitative Report, 2(4), 1-15.
    Park, C. H., Longo, J., & Johnston, E. W. (2020). Exploring Non-State Stakeholder and Community-Led Open Governance: Beyond the Three Pillars of Open Government. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(3), 587-612.
    Parks, W. (1957). The open government principle: applying the right to know under the constitution. Washington Law Review, 1(8-9), 12.
    Peng, H. (2013). Why and when do people hide knowledge?. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 398-415.
    Perrault, E., McClelland, R., Austin, C., & Sieppert, J. (2011). Working together in collaborations: Successful process factors for community collaboration. Administration in Social Work, 35(3), 282-298.
    Piotrowski, S. J. (2017). The “Open Government Reform” movement: The case of the open government partnership and US transparency policies. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(2), 155-171.
    Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(2), 296-320.
    Ramadass, S. D., Sambasivan, M., & Xavier, J. A. (2018). Collaboration outcomes in a public sector: impact of governance, leadership, interdependence and relational capital. Journal of Management and Governance, 22(3), 749-771.
    Robinson, P. J., & Johnson, P. A. (2016). Civic hackathons: New terrain for local government-citizen interaction?. Urban Planning, 1(2), 65-74.
    Safarov, I., Meijer, A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2017). Utilization of open government data: A systematic literature review of types, conditions, effects and users. Information Polity, 22(1), 1-24.
    Salhani, D., & Coulter, I. (2009). The politics of interprofessional working and the struggle for professional autonomy in nursing. Social Science & Medicine, 68(7), 1221-1228.
    Santoro, G., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Dezi, L. (2018). The Internet of Things: Building a knowledge management system for open innovation and knowledge management capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 347-354.
    Seba, I., Rowley, J., & Delbridge, R. (2012). Knowledge sharing in the Dubai police force. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(1), 114-128.
    Shao, D, D., & Saxena, S. (2019). Barriers to open government data (OGD) initiative in Tanzania: Stakeholders’ perspectives. Growth and Change,50(1), 470-485.
    Søndergaard, S., Kerr, M., & Clegg, C. (2007). Sharing knowledge: contextualising socio‐technical thinking and practice. The Learning Organization, 14(5), 423-435.
    Susha, I., Grönlund, Å., & Janssen, M. (2015). Organizational measures to stimulate user engagement with open data. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 9(2), 181-206.
    Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E. H. (2002). Partnership arrangements: governmental rhetoric or governance scheme?. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 197-205.
    Tesavrita, C., Suryadi, K., Wiratmadja, I. I., & Govindaraju, R. (2017, April). Intra-organizational and inter-organizational knowledge sharing in collaborative learning process: A conceptual framework for SME. The 4th International Conference On Industrial Engineering And Applications, IEEE.
    The White House. (2014). U.S. Open Data Action Plan. Retrieved from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/us_open_data_action_plan.pdf.
    Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179-190.
    Tuan, L.T. (2017). Knowledge sharing in public organizations: The roles of servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(4), 361-373.
    Ulibarri, N., Emerson, K., Imperial, M. T., Jager, N. W., Newig, J., & Weber, E. (2020). How does collaborative governance evolve? Insights from a medium-n case comparison. Policy and Society, 39(4), 617-637.
    van den Broek, T., & van Veenstra, A. F. (2015). Modes of governance in inter-organizational data collaborations. Twenty-Third European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Münster, Germany.
    Van Loon, A., & Toshkov, D. (2015). Adopting open source software in public administration: The importance of boundary spanners and political commitment. Government Information Quarterly, 32(2), 207-215.
    van Meerkerk, I., & Edelenbos, J. (2014). The effects of boundary spanners on trust and performance of urban governance networks: findings from survey research on urban development projects in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences, 47(1), 3-24.
    van Meerkerk, I., & Edelenbos, J. (2018). Facilitating conditions for boundary-spanning behaviour in governance networks. Public Management Review, 20(4), 503-524.
    van Meerkerk, I., & Edelenbos, J. (2020). Becoming a Competent Boundary Spanning Public Servant. The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant(pp. 1-15). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
    Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527-540.
    Vuori, V., & Okkonen, J. (2012). Knowledge sharing motivational factors of using an intra‐organizational social media platform. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(4), 592-603.
    Wang, H. J., & Lo, J. (2016). Adoption of open government data among government agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 80-88.
    Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115-131.
    White House. (2009). Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government. Retrieved from: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1777.pdf.
    Wilkins, P., Phillimore, J., & Gilchrist, D. (2016). Public sector collaboration: Are we doing it well and could we do it better?. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(3), 318-330.
    Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80(1), 103-124.
    Wirtz, B. W., & Birkmeyer, S. (2015). Open government: Origin, development, and conceptual perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(5), 381-396.
    Wootten, G. W., & Kiss, S. J. (2019). The Ambiguous Definition of Open Government: Parliamentarians, Journalists and Bloggers Define Open Government In Accordance With Their Interests. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 479-499.
    Yang, J. T. (2007a). Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and collaborative culture. Tourism Management, 28(2), 530-543.
    Yang, J. T. (2007b). The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning and effectiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 83-90.
    Yang, T. M., & Maxwell, T. A. (2011). Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 164-175.
    Yeo, R. K., & Marquardt, M. J. (2015). To share or not to share? Self-perception and knowledge-sharing intent. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13(3), 311-328.
    Yousefian, S., Sohrabizadeh, S., & Jahangiri, K. (2021). Identifying the Components Affecting Intra-Organizational collaboration of Health sector in Disasters: Providing a Conceptual Framework Using a Systematic Review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 57, 1-15.
    Zhang, C., Wu, F., & Henke Jr, J. W. (2015). Leveraging boundary spanning capabilities to encourage supplier investment: A comparative study. Industrial Marketing Management, 49, 84-94.
    Zhao, Z. J., & Anand, J. (2013). Beyond boundary spanners: The ‘collective bridge’as an efficient interunit structure for transferring collective knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 34(13), 1513-1530.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    公共行政學系
    108256030
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108256030
    資料類型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202200089
    顯示於類別:[公共行政學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    603001.pdf4597KbAdobe PDF20檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    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 ©   - 回饋