政府開放資料評估指標建構及我國行政院二級機關開放表現評比

Abstract

隨著政府對於開放資料已逐漸步上軌道，各界對於開放資料的關注焦點已從其是否「開放」轉向是否「有品質地開放」。我國目前多仍仰賴由國際機構所建立之政府開放資料評估指標來衡量開放表現，然而此些評比並不完全符合我國政治、社會、經濟、文化及法律脈絡，我國尚無一較為廣泛之評比架構。基此，本研究希望透過爬梳文獻了解各現行評估指標，並建構一專屬於我國之評估架構，盼能藉由量、可近性及品質3個構面共12個評估指標，評估各機關開放表現。同時，在該評估架構上，本研究將對我國行政院轄下31個二級機關在2013年4月至2018年6月間所開放之20,697個資料集之開放表現進行評比，以了解當前政府開放資料推展狀況及不足之處，期望能藉此持續精進我國政府開放資料品質。 研究發現，行政院各二級機關以金管會在總體表現及在量的表現上最佳，勞動部則是在質的表現上最好。本研究並進一步探究發現，量與質表現間並無相關性；又，依據階層式分群結果，可將31個機關分為「質量並重組」、「重量更重質組」及「重質不重量組」等3種開放表現。本研究建議，實務上可透過訂定更廣泛及嚴謹之開放資料評獎依據與開放評比指標、整併各行政規則、各主管機關加強推廣宣傳民間加值應用成果，及由行政院或交由國發會擔任跨部會資料處理及各機關開放成果統籌機關等，增進我國資料品質。

As governments have gradually got on the track of opening government data, the focus of government data has shifted from 'whether it is opened' to' whether it is opened with quality.' In Taiwan, to some extent, we still rely on the open government data (OGD) evaluation indicators established by international organizations to evaluate the performance of OGD. However, these evaluations are not completely in line with our political, social, economic, cultural and legal contexts after all, and we are still in lack of a relatively comprehensive evaluation framework. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to construct an evaluation framework that could be exclusively applied to Taiwan. Furthermore, this study will also assess the open performance of the 20,697 datasets opened by 31 executive agencies, which aims to understand the current situation and deficiencies of OGD policy development and to continuously optimize the quality of OGD. By reviewing literature, this study established an evaluation framework with 3 dimensions (quantity, accessibility and quality) and 12 evaluation indicators. On the basis of the aforementioned evaluation framework, the findings show that the Financial Supervisory Commission has the best overall performance and quantitative performance; while the Ministry of Labor has the best qualitative performance. Based on the scoring results, this study further finds that there is no correlation between quantity and qualitative performance; and, based on the hierarchical clustering results, 31 agencies can be divided into 3 groups. This study suggests that, in practice, open performance could be enhanced by setting a more comprehensive and rigorous evaluating indicator framework, consolidating OGD administrative rules, strengthening data application and promotion strategies and coordinating open data policies by authorities at a higher level.