Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/60005
|
| Title: | 從科技契合歷程探討電子化政府發展的轉型:以台灣跨機關整合服務為例
The transformation of e-government development: insights from the technology alignment process-case studies of integrated public services in Taiwan |
| Authors: | 程麗弘
Cheng, Li hung |
| Contributors: | 溫肇東
Wen, Chao tung
程麗弘
Cheng, Li hung |
| Keywords: | 電子化政府
跨組織關係
科技契合歷程
交引纏繞式轉型
公共服務價值
e-government
inter-organizational relationship
technology alignment
entanglement
value of public service |
| Date: | 2010 |
| Issue Date: | 2013-09-04 11:56:44 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 政府組織導入資訊科技後，帶來進步與改變的契機。過去研究從發展階段論探討此議題，多預設科技會依獨立自主的邏輯發展而對社會造成衝擊，因此主要的管理工作是協助社會大眾適應不可逆轉的科技發展。然而，這些學理上的臆測，在田野真實性是愈往發展後期愈下降，造成理論與實務的脫節。本研究從科技與社會研究（Science, Technology and Society, STS）學術脈絡下手，從實務觀察中，致力於挖掘科技和社會間雙向互動、相互形塑的關係；並主張以契合式纏繞(aligned-entanglement) 觀點，探討科技與政府組織相互形塑呈現出轉型的動態歷程。
本研究援引交引纏繞式（entanglement model）互動的模型，加上科技契合(technology alignment)觀點，應用於電子化政府整合型服務之研究，以解釋為何纏繞產生非預期結果，以致走向轉型。因為資訊科技特性需連結兩個以上組織才可讓資訊跨組織流通，所以科技與組織互動的轉型態樣有別於以往單一組織與科技互動的態樣。本研究在分析架構上的貢獻有三：1. 提出以科技契合的交引纏繞歷程觀點探討轉型，修正及補強以交引纏繞歷程觀點來分析轉型，2.開發出探討跨組織科技契合的分析構面，抽離出田野背後的運作邏輯， 3.重新詮釋公共服務的創新擴散，將以往僅探討科技創新與採用的關係，再行深入，把科技設計者從科技創新分離出，成為探討科技設計者、科技創新以及採用的關係， 由此進一步剖析當科技展演無效而發生轉型現象的論述。
本研究根據此看法，採質性多個案研究法來分析台灣電子化政府發展中兩個整合型公共服務，分別是「農產品產銷履歷系統」以及「G2G2B公文電子交換系統」，探討社會/科技集體從萌生到關係穩定化的歷程，或是位移如何發生，由此探知轉型過程。研究發現四種交引纏繞樣態皆有可能導致社會/科技集體的轉型，分別是「科技誤用，對服務真諦不了解」、「科技挪用，妥協下的次佳選擇」、「科技不適用，未立即傳遞的服務」以及「科技不用/科技調適，端視服務內容可被替代程度而定」四個纏繞軌跡的樣態。其共同特點是剛開始科技與跨組織各要素是契合的，雖偶有不契合也多以微調方式修正即可；但是逐漸在各執行面都有一些偏差，在科技展演無效後，科技設計者在權衡情境後所採取的解決方案，進一步呈現出可能的解釋因素，分別是對「科技精神」的了解程度、設計者對環境變化的認知、或科技特性在特定歷史環境不易充分發揮、或是對服務真諦的了解程度等。
本研究提出契合式纏繞觀點，相信這樣的研究成果會深化電子化政府轉型式發展的分析。本研究建議，在無效科技展演後，要預留迴旋空間(leeway)重新開啟科技的詮釋，允許不僅檢討「進度」達成與否，更要檢討「目標」是否合適，如此該社會/科技集體的纏繞式轉型才較不會走偏。
The implementation of information technology by government entities brings opportunities for progress and change. The conventional wisdom of technology determinism considers the development of e-government as irreversible and the key objective is to assimilate the users to adopt the technology. However, these theoretical speculations tend to lose their explanation power during the later stages of e-government deployment. In other words, there is a mismatch between theory and practice.
This study argues that the adoption of technology in governmental organizations is a result of interactions amongst factors such as strategic alignment, IT alignment, IT-structural and process alignment, business alignment, and service alignment. This study illustrates the dynamic entangled process in offering integrated services for e-government and describes the trajectories of this transformation. The aligned-entanglement perspective is then used to provide a better explanation than the punctuated-equilibrium and situated change perspectives.
Three main contributions are made by this thesis. First, it proposes a new model to explore governmental organizational transformation. Second, it develops an analytical framework and makes explicit the operation logics of field practice. Thirdly, it re-interprets the diffusion of innovation in public services by incorporating technology designers, the technology itself, and the adopters as distinct actors in the transformation process.
Qualitative case study method is used to analyze the implementation of two integrated public e-services in Taiwan: “Agriculture and Food Traceability System” and “G2G2B Electronic Document Exchange System”. The field studies show how the social/technical collective becomes stabilized overtime or how displacement occurs. This paper finds four patterns of displacement: misuse of technology through lack of understanding, the inappropriation of technology, the inapplicability of technology resulting in non-usage, and resistance or adaptation depending on suitability to the adopter’s tasks at hand. The common theme of these patterns is that, while minor misalignment can be fine-tuned in the beginning, these misalignments tend to accumulate through out the execution phases resulting in ineffective performance outcomes. Furthermore, the choices of technology designers to remedy these issues shed light on issues influencing the outcome; namely, misunderstanding of “technology spirit”, designers’ lack of sensitivity to environment change, the poor fit of technology features given its contemporary government context, and lack of understanding on the essence of services.
This study proposes aligned-entanglement perspective and enriches the understanding of transformation in e-government development. This study suggests that, upon ineffective performances in technology, one should make leeway in the calibration of the deployment. By assessing the appropriateness of the initial goals in addition to reviewing progress milestones achievement, the social/technical collective is less likely to go down the wrong path in this (transformation) process. |
| Reference: | 一、英文部分
1. Affisco, J. and Soliman, K.(2006). E-government: a strategic operations management framework for service delivery. Business Process Management Journal, vol. 12 no.1, pp.13 – 21.
2. Andriole, S. J. (2006). The collaborate/integrate business technology strategy. Communications of the ACM, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 85-90.
3. Ba, S., Stallaert, J. and Whinston, A. (2001). Research Commentary: introducing a third dimension in information systems design-the case for incentive alignment. Information Systems Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp 225-239.
4. Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P. and Sonnenstuhl, W.(1996). The organizational transformation process: the micropolitics of dissonance reduction and the alignment of logics of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 477-506.
5. Bannister, F.(2001). Dismantling the silos: extracting new value from IT investments in public administration. Information Systems Journal, vol.11, pp.65-84.
6. Bajgoric, N. and Moon, Y. (2009). Enhancing systems integration by incorporating business continuity drivers. Industrial Management & Data Systems, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 74-97.
7. Barringer, B. R. and Harrison, J. S.(2000). Walking a tightrope: creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, vol.26, no.3, pp.367-403.
8. Bensaou, M. and Venkatraman, N. (1996). Interorganizational relationships and information technology: A conceptual synthesis and a research framework. European Journal of Information Systems, no. 5, pp. 84–91.
9. Bekkers, J. J. M. and Homburg, V.(2005). The information ecology of e-government：E-government as an institutional and technological innovation in public administration. IOS Press.
10. Belanger, F., Hiller, J. and Smith, W. (2001). Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: the role of privacy, security and site attributes. Journal of strategic Information Systems, vol. 11, pp. 245-270.
11. Bergeron, F., Raymond, L. and Rivard, S. (2004). Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business performance. Information & Management, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1003-1020.
12. Berry, L.L., Shankar, V., Parish J., Cadwallader S. and Dotzel,T. (2006). Creating new markets through service innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 56-63.
13. Berry, F. S., Brower, R. S., Choi, S. O., Goa, W. X., Jang, H., Kwon, M. and Word, J.(2004). Three traditions of network research: what the public management research agenda can learn from other research communities. Public Administration Review, vol.64, No.5, pp.539-552.
14. Bijker, W.and Law, J. (1992). Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
15. Brakebill, J. (2007). Outcomes that matter: developing customer service as a lever for high performance government. In E-Participation and E-Government: Understanding the Present and Creating the Future. New York: United Nations.
16. Bucklin, L. and Sengupta, S. (1993). Organizing successful co-marketing alliances. Journal of Marketing, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 32-46.
17. Burn, J. and Szeto, C. (2000). A comparison of the views of business and IT management on success factors for strategic alignment. Information & Management, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 197-216.
18. Cane, S. and McCarthy, R. (2009). Analyzing the factors that affect information systems use: a task-technology fit meta-analysis. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, vol. 50, no.1, pp. 108-123.
19. Carroll, J. (2004). Completing Design in Use: Closing the Appropriation Cycle. ECIS 2004 Proceedings. Paper 44.
20. Chadwick, A.(2008). Web 2.0: New Challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of information exuberance. Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, vol.4, no.3.
21. Chan, Y., (2002). Why haven’t we mastered alignment: the importance of the informal organization structure. MIS Quarterly Executive, vol., 1, no. 2, pp. 97-112.
22. Chan, Y. E. and Reich, B. H.(2007). IT alignment: what have we learned?. Journal of Information Technology, vol.22, pp.297-315.
23. Chandler, A. D.(1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge: MIT Press.
24. Chong, A. and Ooi, K. (2008). Adoption of interorganizational system standards in supply chains. Industrial Management & Data Systems, vol. 108, no. 4, pp 529-547.
25. Campbell, B., Kay R., and Avison, D. (2005). Strategic alignment: a practitioner`s perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, vol. 18, no. 6, pp.653 – 664.
26. Coleman, S. and Gotze, J.(2001). Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation. London: Hansard Society.
27. Coursey, D. and Norris, D. F.(2008). Models of e-government: are they correct? an empirical assessment. Public Administration Review, vol.68, no.3, pp.523-536.
28. Croteau, A.-M and Raymond, L. (2004). Performance outcomes of strategic and IT competencies alignment. Journal of Information Technology, no.19, pp. 178-190.
29. Davenport T. and Stoddard, D. (1994). Reengineering: business change of mythic proportions?. MIS Quarterly, June, pp. 121-127.
30. den Hertog, P.(1999). Knowledge intensive business services as co-producers of innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Management, special on service innovation, pp.1-29.
31. Davison, R., Wagner, C., and Ma, L. (2005). From government to e-government: a transition model. Information Technology and People, vol. 18, no. 3, pp 280-299.
32. DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M.S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 121-147.
33. Ebrahim, Z. and Irani, Z.(2005). E-government adoption: architecture and barriers. Business Process Management Journal, vol.11, no.5, pp.589-611.
34. Eisenhardt, K. M.(1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, vol.14, no.4, pp.532-548.
35. Fountain, J. (2001). Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
36. Gersick,C. (1988).Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 31, no. 1, pp 9-41.
37. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
38. Grant, G. and Chau, D.(2005). Developing a generic framework for e-government. Journal of Global information Management, vol.13, no.1.
39. Guinea, A. and Markus, L. (2009). Why break the habit of a lifetime? Rethinking the roles of intention, habit, and emotion in continuing information technology use. MIS Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 433-444.
40. Hanna, N. and Qiang, C (2009). National e-government institutions: functions, models and trends, in Information and Communications for Development. NY: World Bank.
41. Hargrave, T., and Van de ven, A., (2006). A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management Review, vol. 31, no. 4, pp 864-888.
42. Hargadon, Andrew B. and Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electronic light. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 476-501.
43. Hauknes, Johan (2001). Innovation in the Service Economy. Oslo： STEP report.
44. Henderson, J. C. and Venkatraman, N.(1993). Strategic alignment:Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations, IBM Systems Journal, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 472-484.
45. Henriksen, H. Z. and Damsgaard, J.(2007). Dawn of e-government-an institutional analysis of seven initiatives and their impact. Journal of Information Technology, vol.22, pp.13-23.
46. Ho, A. T.-K.(2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiatives. Public Administration Review, vol.62, no.4, pp.434-444.
47. Holmström, J. and Robey, D. (2002). Inscribing organizational change with information technology: an actor network theory approach. Information Systems Research.
48. Holmström, J. and Stalder, F. (2001). Drifting technologies and multi-purpose networks: the case of the Swedish cashcard. Information and Organization, vol. 11, pp. 187-206.
49. Iacovou, C., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A. (1995). Electronic data interchange and small organizations ：adopting and impact of technology. MIS Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 465.
50. Janssen, M., Gortmaker, J., and Wagenaar, R. W.(2006). Web service orchestration in public administration: challenges, roles, and growth stages. Information Systems Management, vol.23, no.2, pp.44-55.
51. Janssen, M. and Kuk, G.(2007). E-government business models for public service networks. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, vol.3, no.3, pp.54-71.
52. Janssen, M. and ven Veenstra, A. F.(2005). Stages of growth in e-government: an architectural approach. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, vol.3, no.4, pp.193-200.
53. Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Ives, B. (1993).Global business drivers: aligning information technology to global business strategy. IBM Systems Journal, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 143-161.
54. Kelly, G. and Muers, S., (2002). Creating public value: an analytical framework for public service reform. London: Cabinet Office Strategy Unit.
55. Kelly, J. (2005). The dilemma of the unsatisfied customer in a market model of public administration. Public Administration Review, vol. 65, no. 1, pp.76-84.
56. Kernaghan, K.(2000). Moving towards the virtual state: integrating services and service channels for citizen-centred delivery. International Review of Administrative Science, vol.71, no.1, pp.119-131.
57. King, M., Cragg, P. and Hussin, H.(2002). IT alignment and organisational performance in small firms. Strategic Information Systems, vol.11, no.2, pp.109-132.
58. Kolsaker, A. and Lee-Kelly, L. (2008). Citizens’ attitudes towards e-government and e-governance: a UK study. International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol., 21, no. 7, pp. 723-738.
59. Layne, K. and Lee, J.(2001). Developing fully functional e-government: a four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, vol.18, pp.122-136.
60. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61. _________(1999). A collective of humans and nonhumans: following Daedalus’s labyrinth. In Latour B. (eds.), Pandora’s Hope, Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
62. Law, J. and Hassard, J. (1999). Actor Network Theory, and After. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
63. Liu, J., Derzsi Z., Raus M., and Kipp A. (2008). E-Government project evaluation: an integrated framework. In Wimmer M.A., Scholl H.J. and Ferro E. (eds.): EGOV.LNCS 5183, pp. 85-97.
64. Lufman, J. and Brier, T.(1999). Achieving and sustaining business-IT alignment. California Management Review, vol.43, no.1, pp.109-122.
65. Miles, R., Snow, C., Meyer, A. and Coleman, H.(1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, vol.3, no.3, pp.546-562.
66. Moon, M. J.(2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality?. Public Administrative Review, vol.62, no.4, pp.424-433.
67. Moore, G. and Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 192-222.
68. Morgeson III, F. and Mithas, S.(2009). Does e-government measure up to e-business? Comparing end user perceptions of U.S. federal government and e-business web sites. Public Administration Review, vol. 69, no. 4, pp 740-752.
69. Nelson, Matthew , Shaw, M., and Qyalls W. (2005). Interorganizational system standards development in vertical industries. Electronic Markets, vol. 14, no. 4, pp 378-392.
70. Orlikowski, Wanda.J. and Gash, D. (1994). Technological Frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 174-207.
71. Orlikowski, Wanda J. and Iacono, S. (2001). Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research: a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information System Research, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 121-134.
72. Orlikowski, Wanda J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, vol. 7, no. 1.
73. __________. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 249-273.
74. __________.(2007). Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, pp. 1435-1448.
75. __________. (2010). The sociomateriality of organizational life: considering technology in management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics, no. 34, pp 125-141.
76. Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T.(1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is transforming the Public Sector. MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
77. Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. (2003). How Users Matter the Co-Construction of Technologies and Users. Cambridge, Massachusetts ：The MIT Press.
78. Palmer, J. and Markus, L. (2000). The performance impacts of quick response and strategic alignment in specialty retailing. Information Systems Research, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 241-259.
79. Parasuraman, R. (1997). “Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse”, Human Factors, vol. 39, no.2, pp. 230-253.
80. Rainey, H. G.(2003). Understand and Managing Public Organizations. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass.
81. Reich, B. and Benbasat, I. (1996). Measuring the linkage between business and information technology objectives. MIS Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 55-81.
82. __________ (2000). Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment between business and information technology objectives. MIS Quarterly, vol.24, no.1, pp.81-113.
83. Robey, D., and Boudreau, M-C. (2000). Organizational consequences of information technology: Dealing with diversity in empirical research. In R.W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management. Projecting the future…through the past. Cincinnati: Pinnaflex Education Resources.
84. Romanelli, E. and Tushman, M. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: an empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 37, no. 5, pp 1141-1166.
85. Ronaghan, S.(2002). Benchmarking e-government: a global perspective. New York: United Nations Division for Public Economics.
86. Sabherwal, R. and Chan,Y. (2001). Alignment between business and IS strategies: a study of prospectors, analyzers and defenders. Information Systems Research, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 11-33.
87. Sabherwal, R., Hirschheim, R., and Goles, T. (2001). The dynamics of alignment: insights from a punctuated equilibrium model. Organization Science, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 179-197.
88. Sambamurthy,V., Anandhi, B. and Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 237-263.
89. Scase, R. (1999). Britain towards 2010: the Changing Business Environment. UK Government： Department of Trade and Industry.
90. Scholl, H. (2006). What can e-commerce and e-government learn from each other?. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, vol. 151, Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Digital Government Research, 454-55, New York: ACM.
91. Scholl, H., Barzilai-Nahon, K., Ahn, J-H, Popova, O. and Re, B., (2009). E-commerce and e-government: how do they compare? What can they learn from each other?. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Wailoloa, Big Island, Hawaii.
92. Scott-Morton, M. S.(1991). The Corporation of the 1990s: Information Technology and Organizational Transformation. London: Oxford Press.
93. Sharma, S. K.(2003). Assessing e-government implementations. E-government Journal, vol.1, no.1, pp.1-18.
94. Silvius, A.J. Gilbert (2007). Business & IT Alignment in Theory and Practice. Hicss, pp.211b, 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS`07).
95. Smaczny, T.(2001). Is an alignment between business and information technology the appropriate paradigm to manage IT in today`s organizations?. Management Decision, vol.39, no.10, pp.797-802.
96. Sia, S.K. and. Soh, C. (2007). An assessment of package-organisation misalignment: institutional and ontological structures. European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 568-583.
97. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. CA: Sage.
98. Street, C.T. and Gallupe, R.B., (2006). A foundation for the study of the IS alignment process: a “competing theories” framework. ASAC 2006.
99. Soh, C. and Sia, S.K.（2004）. An institutional perspective on sources of ERP package-organisation misalignments. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol 13, no.4, pp. 375-397.
100. Teo, T. and King, W. (1996). Assessing the impact of integrating business planning and IS planning. Information & Management, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 309-321.
101. Tallon, P. P.(2008). A process-oriented perspective on the alignment of information technology and business strategy. Journal of Management Information Systems, vol.24, no.3, pp.227-268.
102. Thomas, J. and Streib, G. (2003). The new face of government: citizen-initiated contacts in the era of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 83-102.
103. Thompson, J.(1967). Organizations in Action. New York：McGraw-Hill.
104. Van de Ven, A.(1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: a research note. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 13, pp 169-188.
105. Venkatramann, N.(1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, vol.14, no.3, pp.423-444.
106. Venkatraman, N., Henderson, J. C. and Oldach, S.(1993). Continuous strategic alignment: exploiting information technology capabilities for competitive success. European Management Journal, vol.11, no.2, pp.139-149.
107. Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M. and Hjort-Madsen, K.(2007). Integration and enterprise architecture challenges in e-government: a European perspective. International Journal of Cases on Electronic Commerce, vol.3, no.2, pp.13-35.
108. Wescott, C.(2001). E-government in the Asia-Pacific Region. Asian Journal of Political Science.
109. West, D. M.(2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, vol.64, no.1, pp.15-27.
110. Workman, M.(2005). Expert decision support system use, disuse, and misuse: a study using the theory of planned behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 211-231.
111. Yin, R.(2003). Case Study Research: design and methods. CA: Sage Publications.
112. Zhang, J., Dawes, S., and Sarkis, J. (2005). Exploring stakeholders’ expectations of the benefits and barriers of e-government knowledge sharing. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 548-567.
二、中文部分
1. 王良原 (2009)。《農產品產銷履歷制度推動之調查及分析計畫》。台北市：行政院農委會。
2. 王美雅(2005)。《概念型創新的動態擴散歷程：複雜理論觀點》。國立政治大學科技管理研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
3. 艾傑頓(Edgerton, D.) (2004)。<從創新到使用：十道兼容並蓄的技術史史學提綱>。《科技渴望性別》，吳嘉苓、傅大為、雷祥麟編，頁131-170。台北市：群學。
4. 江明修(2004)。《運用資訊與通訊科技實現「全民參政理想」之規劃研究》, 台北市：資訊工業策進會。
5. 行政院研考會( 2002)。《電子化政府報告書》。台北市: 行政院研考會。
6. 行政院研考會(2004)。《電子化政府》。台北市: 紅螞蟻。
7. 行政院研考會(2010)。《電子治理成效指標與評估：G2G與G2》。台北市：行政院研考會。
8. 行政院研考會(2010)。《電子化政府報告》。台北市：行政院研考會。
9. 行政院農委會(2009)。《「精緻農業健康卓越方案」行動計畫》。台北市：行政院農委會。
10. 宋餘俠(2008)。 《電子化政府實踐與研究》。 台北市: 孫運璿基金會。
11. 吳思華 (2000)。策略九說。台北市：臉譜。
12. 拉圖， 布魯諾 (Bruno Latour) （2004）。 <直線進步或交引纏繞？人類文明長程演化的兩個模>。《科技渴望社會》，吳嘉苓、傅大為及雷祥麟主編。台北市：群學。
13. 休斯(Hughes, T.) (2004) 。<美國的電氣化過程：系統建構者>。《科技渴望社會》，吳嘉苓、傅大為、雷祥麟等主編。台北市：群學。
14. 周宣光及曾德宜(2008)。<Web 2.0與政府部門資訊應用創新>。《研考雙月刊》，第32卷第1期，頁19-27。
15. 林東清(2008)。 《資訊管理》。台北市: 智勝。
16. 林文源 (2006)。<漂移之作本體論：由血液透析病患的存在與行動談社會本體論>，台灣社會學，第十二期。
17. 柯特勒(Kotler P.) (2003)。《行銷管理學》。方世榮譯。台北市：東華。
18. 彭台光、高月慈、林鉦琴(2006)。<管理研究中的共同方法變異：問題本質、影響、測試和補救>。管理學報，第23卷第1期，頁77-98。
19. 孫百佑( 2003)。 英國電子化政府Gov-Talk參訪報告(行政院及所屬各機關出國報告)。台北市：行政院研考會。
20. 郭月娥(2006)。韓國與日本電子化政府考察報告(行政院及所屬各機關出國報告)。台北市：行政院研考會。
21. 陳信宏(2006)。《理解科技的後採用困難：實務契合度觀點的質化研究》。政治大學資訊管理系博士論文，未出版，台北市。
22. 陳祈睿(2008)。<我國推動農產品產銷履歷之執行成果>。農政與農情，二月。
23. 陳武雄 (2011)。<推動與國際接軌之農產品產銷履歷制度>。農政與農情，五月。
24. 黃東益（2009）。《電子治理成效指標與評估：G2C與G2B》。台北市：電子治理研究中心報告。
25. 曾冠球 (2008)。<資訊科技與官僚制度：虛擬政府的辨證>。台灣民主季刊，第五卷第三期，頁 203-209。
26. 鄒鴻泰 (2008)。《公司間共同發展能力對電子化服務創新之影響》。元智大學管理研究所博士論文，未出版，桃園中壢市。
27. 楊弘任 (2010)。「川流發電」的綠能技術行動網絡。論文發表於台灣科技與社會第二屆年會，台北市。
28. 羅吉斯(Rogers, E.) (2006)。《創新的擴散》。唐錦超譯。台北市：遠流。
29. 蕭瑞麟(2008)。 《科技創新與組織變革》。 台北市: 麥格羅希爾。
30. 經濟部商業司(2007)。《企業e幫手計畫》。台北市：經濟部。 |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
科技管理研究所
91359506
99 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0913595061 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 506101.pdf | | 1721Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 449 | View/Open | | 506102.pdf | | 1721Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 758 | View/Open | | 506103.pdf | | 1721Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 563 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
