政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/141287

政大典藏 > College of Social Science > Master for Eminent Public Administrators > Theses > Item 140.119/141287

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141287

Title:	協力創新方案概念驗證的制度設計— 以臺北市智慧城市產業場域實驗試辦計畫為例 The Institutional Design for Collaboration on Proof-of-Concept of Innovation – The Case of “Taipei Smart City Industrial Field Empirical PoC Program”
Authors:	凃孋瑛 Tu, Li-Ing
Contributors:	黃東益凃孋瑛 Tu, Li-Ing
Keywords:	概念驗證創新方案制度設計公私協力 proof of concept innovation institutional design Public-private partnership
Date:	2022
Issue Date:	2022-08-01 18:36:22 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	由於資通訊科技產業不斷的發展與創新，政府在運用創新方案解決公共問題時，經常因為面臨方案內容涉及跨領域專業的相互應用，而對如何選擇適合且有效的創新方案時有困擾；同樣地，民間業者在進行產品概念設計或發展新型態商業模式時，於進入市場之前，也需要有適當場域來進行產品的試驗。本研究以「臺北市智慧城市產業場域實驗試辦計畫」為研究個案，參考Ansell & Gash（2008）的協力治理模型的概念，並以質化研究法進行研究，運用次級資料及半結構式的深度訪談所得之結果作為主要分析素材，來檢視架構中研究對象的協力運作情形，從中找出試辦計畫制度設計的要因，以便了解此試辦計畫是如何設計來進行概念驗證，希望可以提供其他縣市政府在未來進行制度設計時的參考。研究結果發現，試辦計畫的制度設計關鍵因素，於初始階段有：1. 領導者創新思維、2.建立平台、3.評估創新需求、4.設計採購策略；而協力階段則有：1.領導高層級、2.平台主動溝通、3.雙方需求連結、4.驗證執行具彈性。整體而言，長官的支持和參與是成就試辦計畫的關鍵，而概念驗證的執行架構須要建立一個專業性且主動溝通媒合平台，在制度的運作設計上則應重視需求障礙的排除與執行過程的彈性，最後，試辦計畫初步效果的維持則有賴機關的持續參與。本研究並針對試辦計畫可能面臨的問題，提出實務上的三點建議：制度建立與繁文縟節的平衡、仍須注意場域實驗所間接支出的人力成本，以及驗證成果與採購評選的連結。 As the development and innovation of information and communication technology industry continue to advance, the government often encounters obstacles when choosing the best innovative and effective programs to solve public problems due to the mutual application of interdisciplinary knowledge in the project contents. Likewise, when companies come up with conceptual design in product or develop new business models, they need to have proper fields for product testing to enter the market. This study takes “Taipei Smart City Industry Field Empirical PoC Program (PoC)” as the case for research, adopting the concept of collaborative governance model proposed by Ansell & Gash (2008) to conduct the research with qualitative method. Secondary data and the transcripts of semi-structured in-depth interviews are the major elements for analysis to observe the collaboration among the actors specified in the research framework, and to discover the key elements of system design in PoC programs. In this way, how PoC programs work to realize the proof of concept could be analyzed, and the results could serve as references for other local governments before they implement system design. According to the results of study, key elements regarding the system design of PoC programs include following factors in the starting condition: 1. Creative leadership; 2. Platform establishment; 3. Innovation demand assessment; 4. Procurement strategy design. Collaborative phase includes: 1. Leadership in high-level teams; 2. Proactive communication on platforms; 3. Demand connections in both parties; 4. Flexible implementation of concept validation. In general, the support and participation of executives is the key to success for PoC programs, and the implementation of “proof of concept” needs to be established based on a professional and proactive communication matching platform. The operational design of system shall put stress on the flexibility of the implementation process and the elimination of demand obstacles. The last but not the least, the maintenance of initial effect of PoC program implementation depends on continuous participation of organizations. In this study, three pieces of advice are proposed regarding issues that might occur during the implementation of PoC programs: the good balance between establishment of institution and reduction of red tape, the indirect labor costs of field experiments, and the connections between the validation results and procurement.
Reference:	中文部分江雅綺、蕭歆諺、楊瑞芬、林盟翔、余宛如（2017）。「監理沙盒」制度執行之困境與突破。臺灣法學雜誌，373，105-137。吳昌鴻（2018）。能源科技之創新選擇--新加坡能源監理沙盒。科技法律透析，30（4），20-27。吳松澤、陳奕伶、簡國明（2020）。創新實驗示範場域的理論與政策研析（編號：STPI-D-E-PR-108-5）。臺北：國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心。李文富（2012）。課程推展體系與協作治理機制的實踐與反思：以中央層級課程與教學輔導組織為例的探討。課程研究，7（1），35-51。李仲彬（2013）。影響地方政府創新產出量的因素。東吳政治學報，31（1），105-160。李仲彬（2016）。從哪來創新想法？地方政府創新來源與創新政策特質的分析。公共行政學報，50，1-37。李慧芳（2017）。從破壞式創新監理的觀點談新加坡金融科技政策形成的體系與監理沙盒制度。產業與管理論壇，19（4），56,58-71。林姿妤（2021）。公部門專案管理之比較研究—以臺北市參與式預算與智慧城市為例。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士學位論文，未出版，臺北市。林欽榮（2017）。能源科技之創新選擇--新加坡能源監理沙盒。國土及公共治理，5（4），88。范晏儒（2021），場域驗證之科研成果運用法制探析。科技法律透析，33(8)，54-71。徐聯恩、郭靜怡（2012）。提升組織創新活力。臺北：高等教育文化事業。張麗卿（2019）。人工智慧新法案-無人載具科技創新實驗條例。月旦法學，293，81-92。郭大維（2019）。人工智慧新法案-無人載具科技創新實驗條例。財金法學研究，2（4），485-506。陳虹琇（2021）。臺北、桃園智慧城市協力創新之研究－以自駕巴士為個案。國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士學位論文，未出版，臺北市。陳敦源、張世杰（2010）。公私協力夥伴關係的弔詭。文官制度季刊，2（3），17-71。陳敦源、廖洲棚、黃心怡、張濱璿（2021）。公共服務數位沙盒實驗機制之預評估。國家發展委員會之委託研析報告（編號：NDC-MIS-109-003），未出版。曾冠球（2011）。協力治理觀點下公共管理者的挑戰與能力建立。文官制度季刊， 3（1），27-52。曾冠球、黃偉誠（2011）。公共管理者對於公私合夥風險的認知：調查與反思。公共行政學報，41，1-36。鈕文英（2021）。研究方法與設計-量化、質性與混合方法取向（三版）。臺北：雙葉。黃怡瑄（2019）。邁向智慧城市的都市治理—以台北與桃園為例。國立臺北大學都市計劃研究所碩士學位論文，未出版，新北市。黃家瑜（2020）。從配適觀點探討臺北智慧城市發展之公私合作—以 WeMo Scooter 和空氣盒子為例。國立臺灣科技大學資訊管理系碩士學位論文，未出版，臺北市。楊文瑞（2021）。以公私民協力合夥關係探討智慧城市之發展—以臺北智慧城市專案為例。國立聯合大學經營管理學系碩士班碩士學位論文，未出版，苗栗縣。萬幼筠、沈恬憶（2017）。監理沙盒機制解析與我國金融科技創新實驗條例的發展建議。臺灣法學雜誌，321，83-86。臺北市政府。臺北市智慧城市委員會設置要點。臺北市法規查詢系統。取自 https://www.laws.taipei.gov.tw/lawsystem/wfLaw_ArticleContent.aspx?LawID=P34A2004-20180319&RealID=34-01-2004&STP=LN （檢索日期：2019年11月26日）。臺北市政府。臺北市智慧城市專案辦公室作業要點。臺北市法規查詢系統。取自 https://www.laws.taipei.gov.tw/lawsystem/wfLaw_ArticleContent.aspx?LawID=P34C2003-20160302&RealID=34-03-2003&SR=LS （檢索日期：2019年11月26日）。劉坤億、胡龍騰、曾冠球（2012）。政府服務創新類型與策略引導，研考雙月刊，頁91-104。蕭美惠（譯）（2015）。經濟發展理論(初版)（Joseph A. Schumpeter 原著）。臺北：商周。戴志言（2021）。發展我國能源創新服務監理沙盒機制之芻議。經濟前瞻，196，112-116。謝佳廷（2021）。臺北智慧城市協力治理之研究—以空氣盒子為例。臺北市立大學社會暨公共事務學系碩士在職專班碩士學位論文，未出版，臺北市。羅世宏、蔡欣怡、薛丹琦（譯）（2008）。質性資料分析：文本、影像與聲音(初版)（Bauer. M. W. & Gaskell. G. Eds.原著）。臺北：五南。英文部分 Albury, D. (2005). Fostering Innovation in Public Services. Public Money and Management, 25(1), 51-56. Ansell, C. & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,18(4), 543-571. Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2014). Public Innovation through Collaboration and Design. New York, NY: Routledge. Baldridge, J. V., & Burnham, R. A. (1975). Organizational Innovation: Individual, Organizational, and Environmental Impacts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 165-176. Bekkers, V., Tummers, L. G., & Voorberg, W. H. (2013). From Public Innovation to Social Innovation in The Public Sector: A Literature Review of Relevant Drivers and Barriers. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam, 320090, 1-38. Bingham, D. R. (1978). Innovation, Bureaucracy, and Public Policy: A Study of Innovation Adoption by Local Government. Western Political Quarterly, 31(2), 178-205. Bland, T., Bruk, B., Kim, D., & Lee, K. T. (2010). Enhancing Public Sector Innovation: Examining the Network-Innovation Relationship. The Innovation Journal: The public sector innovation journal, 15(3), 1-17. Bommert, B. (2010). Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector. International Public Management Review, 11(1), 15-33. Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Cooper, J. R. (1998). A Multidimensional Approach to the Adoption of Innovation. Management Decision, 36(8), 493-502. Covey, Stephen R. (1991). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon &Schuster. Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency Models. Management Science, 42(5), 693-716. Eggers, W. D., & Singh, S. K. (2009). The Public Innovator`s Playbook: Nurturing bold ideas in government. Ash Institute, Harvard Kennedy School. Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative Innovation: A Viable Alternative to Market-competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 821-830. Jamali, D. (2004). Success and Failure Mechanisms of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in Developing Countries- Insights from the Lebanese Context. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(5), 414-430. Klijn, E. H. & Teisman,.G. R. (2000). Managing Public-Private Partnerships: Influencing Processes and Institutional Context of Public-Private Partnerships. Governance in Modern Society: Effects, Change and Formation of Government Institutions. Springer, Dordrecht, 329-348. Light, P. (1998) Sustaining Innovation: Creating Non-Profit and Government Organizations That Innovate Naturally. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66, 33-43. Nam, T., Pardo., T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of Technology, People, and Institutions. Proceedings of The 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times. New York, Center for Technology in Government University at Albany, 282-291. Newman, J., Cherney, A. & Head, B. W. (2017). Policy Capacity and Evidence-based Policy in the Public Service. Public Management Review, 19 (2), 157-174. Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2012). Introduction: Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 17(1), 1-14. Wang, K. J., Widagdo, J., Lin, Y. S., Yang, H. L., & Hsiao, S. L. (2016). A Service Innovation Framework for Start-up Firms by Integrating Service Experience Engineering Approach and Capability Maturity Model. Service Business, 10, 875-887.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程 109921002
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109921002
Data Type:	thesis
DOI:	10.6814/NCCU202201074
Appears in Collections:	[Master for Eminent Public Administrators] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
100201.pdf		4446Kb	Adobe PDF2	0	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...