Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147147
|
| Title: | 公共服務沙盒試驗促進協力創新之研究－以交通部「噗噗共乘」計畫為例
Research on Public Service Sandbox and Verification to Promote Collaborative Innovation: A Case Study of “BUBU Car Sharing” Program from the Ministry of Transportation and Communication |
| Authors: | 徐瑜涓
Hsu, Yu-Chuan |
| Contributors: | 張鎧如
徐瑜涓
Hsu, Yu-Chuan |
| Keywords: | 協力創新
公共服務沙盒
試驗政策
噗噗共乘計畫
: Collaborative Innovation
Public Service Sandbox
Pilot Policy
BUBU Car Sharing program |
| Date: | 2023 |
| Issue Date: | 2023-09-01 15:52:00 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 隨著循證風潮的興起，許多政府部門開始藉由政策設計，於政策執行前先以透過試辦或是實驗了解政策的可行性，同時提升政策實行的掌握度。面對偏鄉交通的難題，交通部於2018年提出「噗噗共乘」計畫，希望藉由公共服務沙盒此一政策工具的採用進行政策試驗，讓公私部門協力合作，創造公共創新成果，以改善偏鄉交通的困境。
本研究試圖從噗噗共乘計畫下探討政策行動者彼此如何藉由協力，開啟公共服務沙盒的創新試驗。基於此，研究以Sørensen與Torfing（2011）提出的協力創新模型為基礎並參考Jenik 和 Lauer（2017）之沙盒治理因素，透過次級資料分析與深度訪談法蒐集相關資料，希冀回答研究問題。研究發現噗噗共乘計畫運用公共服務沙盒實施協力創新之契機源自於經驗累積與政策窗開啟，而影響協力創新互動的關鍵包含事前的需求調查與公所的參與意願，研究除了依Sørensen與Torfing（2011）所提出的文化、體制、內外部組織、身分障礙中整理計畫協力創新過程所遭遇的八項阻礙，也額外新增了資源障礙，並發現突發狀況的產生將致使協力障礙更加嚴重，影響協力創新過程。此外，透過訪談也歸納影響協力創新的十四項沙盒治理因素。
經由訪談資料的交叉分析，研究也發現公共服務沙盒試驗將有助於緩解協力創新過程面臨的阻礙，尤其是文化、體制與身分上所遭遇的協力困境。然而，噗噗共乘計畫屬於試驗性質，鑒於試驗計畫的後續將轉型、落地抑或是終止端視情況的不同而有所區別。未來噗噗共乘計畫將轉型成幸福巴士2.0，轉型過程之中將有哪些改變，以及計畫成果所帶來的共享效應與機制如何發展，仍有賴後續的追蹤與觀察。基於上述，研究也分別針對實務運作與政策轉型提出幾點政策建議，希望可以讓該公共創新成果真正落實並發揮共享與擴散的效果。
With the rise of evidence-based practices, many government departments have started to conduct pilot tests before implementing policies to understand their feasibility and enhance the grasp of policy execution. Rural transportation faces challenges due to rugged terrain, regulatory restrictions, and limited resources, hindering effective public services. In 2018, the Ministry of Transportation and Communication proposed the "BUBU Car Sharing" Program, hoping to experiment with policy initiatives through the adoption of the public service sandbox and facilitating collaboration between public and private sectors to create innovative results that improve rural transportation.
The study explores how policy actors collaborate through the BUBU Car Sharing Program. Building upon the collaborative innovation model by Sørensen and Torfing (2011) and considering sandbox governance factors by Jenik and Lauer (2017), the study analyzes secondary data and conducts in-depth interviews. Our findings show that the implementation of collaborative innovation through the public service sandbox in the BUBU Car Sharing Program arose from past experience and favorable policy opportunities. Key factors influencing collaboration include prior requirement investigation and local district offices` willingness to participate. In addition to the eight barriers identified by Sørensen and Torfing (2011) including culture, institutions, internal and external organizations, and identity barriers, the study also adds resource barriers. Moreover, it reveals that the emergence of unexpected situations intensifies collaboration obstacles, impacting the collaborative innovation process. Furthermore, through interviews, the study identifies fourteen sandbox governance factors that influence collaborative innovation.
Through cross-analysis and discussion of interview data, it is revealed that the public service sandbox trials can help mitigate obstacles in the collaborative innovation process, particularly those related to cultural, institutional, and identity challenges. However, the BUBU Car Sharing Program remains a pilot policy, and its subsequent transformation, implementation, or termination will depend on various circumstances. The future transformation of the program into "Happiness Car 2.0" and the development of sharing effects and mechanisms resulting from the program`s outcomes require further monitoring and observation. Based on the above, several policy recommendations are proposed for practical operations and policy transformation, aiming to facilitate the effective implementation and dissemination of this public innovation. |
| Reference: | 王必芳（2012）。「公共服務」或「普及服務」？－以法國學說的反思和法制的演進為中心。載於李建良（編），2011行政管制與行政爭訟（113-197頁）。中央研究院法律學研究所。
王宣智（2012）。服務科學的發展與方向。Slideshare，2022年5月23日。網址 https://www.slideshare.net/reicwang/ss-11816745
安永聯合會計師事務所（2017）。隨著金融科技的發展，金融服務創新能否符合監理要求？。2022年5月23日。網址 https://dokumen.tips/documents/eeeecc-cioeeeoe-efc-cc-oecceeccc.html?page=11
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。財團法人國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心。
吳英明（1993）。公私部門協力關係和「公民參與」之探討。中國行政評論，2（3），1-14。
宋同正（2104）。服務設計的本質內涵和流程工具。設計學報，19（2），1-8。
李仲彬（2013）。政府創新的類型與分佈:我國地方政府 1999-2010 年間的觀察。公共行政學報，（44），73-112。
李宗勳（2004）。公私協力與委外化的效應與價值：一項進行中的治理改造工程。公共行政學報，（12），41-77。
李維斌（2018）。城市為生活實驗室的創新文化： 臺北市政府經驗分享。國土及公共治理季刊，6（4），106-111。
杜均煒（2022）。我國金融監理沙盒檢討－從移工沙盒到電子支付機構管理條例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立中正大學。
周諺鴻、周宏儒、味詩捷、邱紫嘉、邱慧瑜、顏育文、吳信輝、陳正杰、何孟潔（2022）。花東地區在地多元運輸共享服務經營輔導計畫（初版）。交通部科技顧問室。
林佩瑩（2018）。創新實驗機制及法制環境優化之探討。科技法律透析 ，30（11）， 33-52。
林婉琦（2018）。提升服務職能，公私協力打造臺北智慧城。政府機關資訊通報， （352） ，1-5。
林淑馨（2010）。質性研究 : 理論與實務（初版）。巨流圖書股份有限公司。
林淑馨（2018）。協力神話的崩壞? 我國地方政府與非營利組織的協力現況。公共行政學報，（55），1-36。
范晏儒（2018）。何謂「監理沙盒」？。科技法律研究所。2022年5月23日。網址 https://stli.iii.org.tw/article-detail.aspx?no=67&tp=5&d=8091
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（初版）。高等教育文化事業。
翁崇哲（2020）。論金融科技監理沙盒制度──以金融科技發展與創新實驗條例為中心〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
張世杰（2011）。公共治理與地方創新：宜蘭縣社區林業計畫的推展經驗。空大行政學報，（22），113-158。
張玲玲（2022）。數位創新服務下個人目標設定與組織目標認同之關係: 以公務員知覺風險為調節變項。文官制度，14（1），109-130。
莊文忠（2017）。循證的政策制定與資料分析：挑戰與前瞻。文官制度，10（2），1-20。
郭源安（2021）。論我國金融監理沙盒制度之光與影- 以英國、美國、新加坡之制度為核心〔未出版之碩士論文〕。東吳大學。
郭耀煌（2021）。政府數位轉型勢在必行。國家人力資源論壇，（6），1-3。
陳怡蓁（2021）。臺灣智慧醫療發展與監理沙盒機制之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
陳恆鈞（2008）。協力網絡治理之優點與罩門。研習論壇， （92） ，40-54。
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〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
陳家聲（2010）。政府機關創新服務樣態之探討。研考雙月刊，34（5），30-38.
陳啟光、謝明澄、謝安晉、于長禧（2013）。應用價值共同創造概念於顧客導向服務經營模式之建構 －以遠距居家照護為研究。福祉科技與服務管理學刊， 1（2），27-46。
陳敦源、 許弘毅、 史美強、李翠萍、 陳序廷（2019）。個案教學是公共管理專業訓練的未來嗎？一個來自實驗研究的循證論述。文官制度，11（4），21 - 71。
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、張濱璿、黃心怡、陳郁函（2021）。公共服務數位沙盒實驗機制之預評估（編號：NDC-MIS-109-003 ）。行政院國家發展委員會。
彭金隆、臧正運（2019）。金融科技監理與我國金融監理沙盒制度之檢視。管理評論，38（4），15 - 31。
彭渰雯（2006）。後實證政策分析的理論與應用。載於余致力（編），新世紀公共政策理論與實務（54-72頁）。世新大學。
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。
黃劭敏（2019）。金融科技發展與創新之監理問題與挑戰 —以我國監理沙盒制度為中心〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
黃建實（2020）。協力治理如何使得公部門創新？。公共行政學報，（58），149-156。
楊彩柔（2020）。政府資料之協力式創新－以資料英雄計畫為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣大學。
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。
董旭英、黃儀娟（2000）。次級資料研究法（初版）。弘智文化。
廖麗娟、黃子華（2012）。政府機關精進創新整合服務之策略。研考雙月刊，36（5），15-26。
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，36（5），91-104。
劉淑範（2008）。行政任務之變遷與「公私合營事業」之發展脈絡。中研院法學期刊，（2），1-108 。
盧美娟（2021）。從無人載具科技創新實驗條例論監理沙盒與法規鬆綁〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立中正大學。
蘇文彬（2021）。「臺灣無人載具沙盒實驗上路兩年成果」國產自駕車駛入多元開放場域實驗。iThome，5月23日。網址 https://www.ithome.com.tw/news/148071
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Georgetown University Press.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571.
Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2022). Cocreating SDGs through experimentation and prototyping. In C. Ansell, E. Sørensen, & J. Torfing (Eds.), Co-Creation for sustainability (pp. 105-119). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Attrey, A., Lesher, M., & Lomax, C. (2020). The role of sandboxes in promoting flexibility and innovation in the digital age. OECD iLibrary, June 20. https://goingdigital.oecd.org/data/notes/No2_ToolkitNote_Sandboxes.pdf
Ballon, P., & Schuurman, D. (2015). Living labs: concepts, tools and cases. Info,17(4), 91-105.
Bekkers, V. (2011). Innovation in the public sector linking capacity and leadership. Palgrave Macmillan.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders : The strategies for taking charge. Harper Business.
Bingham, R. D. (1978). Innovation, bureaucracy, and public policy: a study of innovation adoption by local government. Western Political Quarterly, 31(2), 178-205.
Bittencourt, M. (2012). Financial development and economic growth in Latin America: Is Schumpeter right? Journal of Policy Modeling, 34(3), 341-355.
Bommert, B. (2010). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International Public Management Review, 11(1), 15-33.
Brogaard, L. (2021). Innovative outcomes in public-private innovation partnerships: a systematic review of empirical evidence and current challenges. Public Management Review, 23(1), 135-157.
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29-43.
Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2014). Failing into cross-sector collaboration successfully. In J. M. Bryson & B. C. Crosby (Eds.), Big ideas in collaborative public management (pp. 65-88). Routledge.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross‐sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647-663.
Callander, S. (2011). Searching for good policies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 643-662.
Chen, K. B., Tsui, H. L., Yang, C. T., Ting, L. H., & Houng, H. (2010, June). A living lab model for user driven innovation in urban communities [Conference presentation]. 2010 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE), June 2-5, Lugano.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.
Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2005). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power world (Vol. 264). John Wiley & Sons.
Cunningham, P., & Ramlogan, R. (2012). The effects of innovation network policies. Manchester Institute of Innovation Research Manchester Business School, University of Manchester
Damanpour, F. (1988). Innovation type, radicalness, and the adoption process. Communication Research, 15(5), 545-567.
De Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146-166.
Eggers, W. D. & Singh, K. S. (2009). The public innovator’s playbook: Nurturing bold ideas in government. Ash Institute, Harvard Kennedy School.
Emaldi, M., Aguilera, U., López-de-Ipiña, D., & Pérez-Velasco, J. (2017). Towards citizen co-created public service apps. Sensors, 17(6), 1265.
Ettelt, S., Mays, N., & Allen, P. (2015). The multiple purposes of policy piloting and their consequences: Three examples from national health and social care policy in England. Journal of Social Policy, 44(2), 319-337.
Fischer, M. M. (1999). The innovation process and network activities of manufacturing firms. In M. M. Fisher (Ed.), Innovation, networks and localities (pp. 11-27). Springer-Verlag.
Fuglsang, L., & Sørensen, F. (2011). The balance between bricolage and innovation: Management dilemmas in sustainable public innovation. The Service Industries Journal, 31(4), 581-595.
Grotenbreg, S., & van Buuren, A. (2018). Realizing innovative public waterworks: Aligning administrative capacities in collaborative innovation processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 45-55.
Habegger, B. (2010). Strategic foresight in public policy: Reviewing the experiences of the UK, Singapore, and the Netherlands. Futures, 42(1), 49-58.
Hakansson, H. (2015). Industrial technological development (routledge revivals): A network approach. Routledge.
Halvorsen, T., Hauknes, J., Miles, I., & Røste, R. (2005). Innovation in the public sector: On the differences between public and private sector innovation (Publin Report No. D9). NIFU Step.
Harris, M., & Albury, D. (2009). The innovation imperative. NESTA
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.
Heldeweg, M.A. (2017). Normative alignment, institutional resilience and shifts in legal governance of the energy transition. Sustainability, 9(7), 1273.
Hofstad, H., Sørensen, E., Torfing, J., & Vedeld, T. (2021). Leading co-creation for the green shift. Public Money & Management, 1-10.
Huang, H., Chang, P.-H., B., Liao, Z.-P., C., & Chen, D.-Y. (2021). A matter of risk management: The effects of the innovation sandboxes on citizens’ risk perceptions [Conference presentation]. DG.O`21: The 22nd Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, June 9-11, New York.
Hughes, S., Yordi, S., & Besco, L. (2020). The role of pilot projects in urban climate change policy innovation. Policy Studies Journal, 48(2), 271-297.
Huillet, C., & Van Dijk, P. (1990). Partnerships for rural development. OECD Observer, 162, 19-23.
Jenik, I., & Lauer, K. (2017). Regulatory sandboxes and financial inclusion. CGAP.
Jenik, I., & Duff, S. (2020). How to build a regulatory sandbox: A practical guide for policy makers. Consultative Group to Assist the Poor.
Johnson, J. B., Reynolds, H. T., & Mycoff, J. D. (2015). Political science research methods. CQ Press.
Jowell, R. (2003). Trying it out: The role of `pilots` in policy-making: Report of a review of government pilots. Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office. December.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498256/Trying_it_out_the_role_of_pilots_in_policy.pdf
Karo, E., & Kattel, R. (2018). Innovation and the state: towards an evolutionary theory of policy capacity. In X. Wu, M. Howlett & M. Ramesh (Eds.), Policy capacity and governance (pp. 123-150). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Keast, R., & Mandell, M. (2014). The collaborative push: moving beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence. Journal of Management & Governance, 18(1), 9-28.
Kindström, D., & Kowalkowski, C. (2009). Development of industrial service offerings: a process framework. Journal of Service Management,20(2),156-172.
Klijn, E. H., & Edelenbos, J. (2007). Meta-governance as network management. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 199-214). Palgrave Macmillan.
Ko, K., & Shin, K. (2017). How Asian countries understand policy experiment as policy pilots? Asian Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 253-265.
Koch, P., & Hauknes, J. (2005). On innovation in the public sector–today and beyond (Publin Report No. D20). NIFU Step.
Koenders, J. F., & Pipping, S. L. (2016). Het besluit experimenten decentrale duurzame elektriciteitsopwekking doorgelicht. Nederland Tijdschrift Voor Energiercht, 4, 146–155.
Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks: Public private controversies. Routledge.
Krause, R. M. (2011). Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations, and the adoption of climate protection initiatives by US cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(1), 45-60.
Kwok, W. M., Aquaro, V., Purcell, R., Chen, S., Hemmert, G., Palacin, V., ... & Yang, X. (2021). Sandboxing and experimenting digital technologies for sustainable development. UN DESA Economics Analysis. December 12. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/un-desa-policy-brief-123-sandboxing-and-experimenting-digital-technologies-for-sustainable-development/
Leckenby, E., Dawoud, D., Bouvy, J., & Jónsson, P. (2021). The sandbox approach and its potential for use in health technology assessment: a literature review. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 19(6), 857-869.
Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925-938.
Lopes, A. V., & Farias, J. S. (2022). How can governance support collaborative innovation in the public sector? A systematic review of the literature. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(1), 114-130.
LSE. (n.d.). Use of proof of concepts, prototypes and pilots. LSE Temporary Solution. Retrieved June 20, 2022, from https://info.lse.ac.uk/staff/services/Policies-and-procedures/Assets/Documents/temTecSol.pdf
Maia, C., & Claro, J. (2013). The role of a proof of concept center in a university ecosystem: an exploratory study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(5), 641-650.
Mannay, D., Staples, E., & Edwards, V. (2017). Visual methodologies, sand and psychoanalysis: employing creative participatory techniques to explore the educational experiences of mature students and children in care. Visual Studies, 32(4), 345-358.
Martin, E., Cohen, A., Wong, S., Soysal, S., Shaheen, S., & Brown, L. (2021). Mobility on demand (MOD) sandbox demonstration: Regional transportation authority (RTA) of Pima County adaptive mobility with reliability and efficiency (AMORE), evaluation report (No. FTA Rep. No. 0202). Department of Transportation. Federal Transit Administration.
Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work. A review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration. Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Meijer, A., & Thaens, M. (2021). The dark side of public innovation. Public Performance & Management Review, 44(1), 136-154.
Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2019). Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 124-148.
Nair, S., & Howlett, M. (2016). Meaning and power in the design and development of policy experiments. Futures, 76, 67-74.
Nair, S., & Vreugdenhil, H. (2015). Policy making: Pilot projects as predictive methods. Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, 4, 2623-2627.
Nambisan, S. (2008). Transforming government through collaborative innovation. Harvard Kennedy School of Government. https://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/NambisanReport.pdf
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.
OECD., K. (2018). OECD science, technology and innovation Outlook 2018. OECD Publishing.
OFGEM. (2018). Insights from Running the Regulatory Sandbox. Ofgem, October 23. https://www.ofgem.gov. uk/publications-and-updates/insights-running-regulatory-sandbox
Osborne, S. (2000). Public-private partnerships. Routledge.
Palumbo, R., Vezzosi, S., Picciolli, P., Landini, A., Annarumma, C., & Manna, R. (2018). Fostering organizational change through co-production. Insights from an Italian experience. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 15(3), 371-391.
Potts, J. (2009). The innovation deficit in public services: The curious problem of too much efficiency and not enough waste and failure. Innovation, 11(1), 34-43.
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.
Rosemberg, C., Potau, X., Dijkstal, F., Vinnik, A., Tiriduzzi, C., Daved, A., & Blind, K. (2020). Regulatory sandboxes and innovation testbeds. A look at international experience and lessons for Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter-American Development Bank, IDB.
Roth, A. E. (1995). Introduction to experimental economics. The Handbook of Experimental Economics, 1, 3-109.
Schoeman, M., Baxter, D., Goffin, K., & Micheli, P. (2012). Commercialization partnerships as an enabler of UK public sector innovation: the perfect match? Public Money & Management, 32(6), 425-432.
Schumpeter, J., & Backhaus, U. (2003). The theory of economic development. In J. A. Schumpeter (Ed.), Joseph Alois Schumpeter (pp. 61-116). Springer.
Shepard, H. A. (1967). Innovation-resisting and innovation-producing organizations. The Journal of Business, 40(4), 470-477.
Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2012). Policy diffusion: Seven lessons for scholars and practitioners. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 788-796.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234-258.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society, 43(8), 842-868.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Enhancing social innovation by rethinking collaboration, leadership and public governance. NESTA Paper, 1-10.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2017). Metagoverning collaborative innovation in governance networks. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(7), 826-839.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2022). The three orders of public innovation: Implications for research and practice. Nordic Journal of Innovation in the Public Sector, 1(1), 35-52.
Sørensen, F., Mattsson, J., & Sundbo, J. (2010). Experimental methods in innovation research. Research Policy, 39(3), 313-322.
Swanson, D., Barg, S., Tyler, S., Venema, H., Tomar, S., Bhadwal, S., ... & Drexhage, J. (2010). Seven tools for creating adaptive policies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(6), 924-939.
Thabane, L., Ma, J., Chu, R., Cheng, J., Ismaila, A., Rios, L. P., ... & Goldsmith, C. H. (2010). A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10(1), 1-10.
Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 2(4), i.
Toivonen, M., Tuominen, T., & Brax, S. (2007). Innovation process interlinked with the process of service delivery: a management challenge in KIBS. Economies et sociétés, 41(3), 355.
Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. In S. P. Osborne & L. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of innovation in public services. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Torfing, J. (2019). Collaborative innovation in the public sector: The argument. Public Management Review, 21(1), 1-11.
Torfing, J., Cristofoli, D., Gloor, P. A., Meijer, A. J., & Trivellato, B. (2020a). Taming the snake in paradise: combining institutional design and leadership to enhance collaborative innovation. Policy and Society, 39(4), 592-616.
Torfing, J., Krogh, A. H., & Ejrnæs, A. (2020b). Measuring and assessing the effects of collaborative innovation in crime prevention. Policy & Politics, 48(3), 397-423.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590-607.
van der Waal, E. C., Das, A. M., & van der Schoor, T. (2020). Participatory experimentation with energy law: Digging in a ‘regulatory sandbox’ for local energy initiatives in the Netherlands. Energies, 13(2), 458.
Vreugdenhil, H., Slinger, J., Thissen, W., & Rault, P. K. (2010). Pilot projects in water management. Ecology and Society, 15(3), 1-26.
Walker, R. M. (2008). An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organizational and environmental characteristics: Towards a configuration framework. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 591-615.
Zetzsche, D. A., R. P. Buckley, J. N. Barberis, and D. W. Arner. 2017. Regulating a revolution: From regulatory sandboxes to smart regulation. Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law, 23(1), 31-105.
Zwick, R., & Rapoport, A. (Eds.). (2002). Experimental business research. Springer Science & Business Media. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
109256005 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109256005 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [公共行政學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 600501.pdf | 2644Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 151 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
