請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71494
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 黃心怡(Hsini Huang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Hsiao-Chu Tseng | en |
dc.contributor.author | 曾筱筑 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T06:01:48Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-12-25 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2020-12-25 | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2020-11-24 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文部分 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。 江思穎,2014,《政府資料開放評估標建立》,台北:國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士學位論文。 余孝先、趙祖佑,2015,〈巨量資料應用,打造資料驅動決策的智慧政府〉,《國土及公共治理季刊》,3(4):27-37。 李仲彬,2011,〈「信任」在電子治理中所扮演的角色:以文獻檢閱為基礎的初探性分析〉,《公共行政學》,39:105-147。 李孟洋,2014,《開放資料之產業效益-以天氣風險管理開發股份有限公司為例》,新竹:國立清華大學科技管理學院經營管理碩士在職專班碩士論文。 李治安、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。 邱羿儂,2012,《開放政府資料之推動策略研究-英國、美國與台灣之比較》,台北:國立臺灣大學管理學院資訊管理研究所碩士論文。 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。 陳敦源,2009,〈透明之下的課責: 台灣民主治理中官民信任關係的重建基礎〉,《文官制度季刊》,1(2):21-55。 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。 項靖,2008,《電子治理關係之調適》,行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告。 項靖,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研究報告。 項靖,2015,《開放資料及其對政府治理與個人隱私影響之研究》,國家發展委員會研究報告。 黃心怡、蘇彩足、蕭乃沂,2016,〈再探開放政府資料的政策與發展〉,《國土及公共治理季刊》,4(4):18-28。 黃東益、李仲彬,2010,〈電子治理與民眾對政府信任:台灣的個案分析〉,《行政暨政策學報》,51:77-124。 廖洲棚、廖興中、黃心怡,2018,《開放政府服務策略研析調查─政府資料開放應用模式評估與民眾參與公共政策意願調查》,國家發展委員會委託研析報告。 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:以台中市政府為例〉,《教育資料與圖書館學》,54(2):185-219。 錢鉦津,2013,〈政府資訊開放的資料品質與測試概念(下)〉,《品質月刊》,49(6):15-20。 戴豪君、顧振豪,2015,〈建構資料開放之良善法制環境〉,《國土及公共治理季刊》,3(4):17-26。 韓佩軒、李昇暾、許明暉、呂宗學,2016,〈臺灣政府衛生福利開放資料現況及利用率分析〉,《臺灣公共衛生雜誌》,35(4):395-405。 羅晉,2008,〈實踐審議式民主參與之理想: 資訊科技、網路公共論壇的應用與發展〉,《中國行政》,79:75-96。 羅晉,2015,〈政府資料開放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。 蘇彩足,2013,〈我國公共治理之挑戰與因應〉,《公共治理季刊》,1(1):52-60。 蘭韻綺,2015,《我國產銷履歷開放資料現況與困境之研究》,台中:東海大學行政管理暨政策學系研究所碩士論文。 貳、西文部分 Attard, J., F. Orlandi, S. Scerri S. Auer. 2015. “A systematic review of open government data initiatives.” Government Information Quarterly 32(4): 399-418. Barber, B. R. 1998-99. “Three Scenarios for the Future of Technology and Strong Democracy.” Political Science Quarterly 113(4): 573-589. Barry, E. Bannister, F. 2014. “Barriers to open data release: A view from the top.” Information Polity 19(1): 129-152. Behn, R. D. 2003. “Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures.” Public Administration Review 63(5):586-606. Black, J. 1997.Transparent Policy Measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Braunschweig, K., J. Eberius, M. Thiele W. Lehner. 2012. “The state of open data - limits of current open data platforms.” Paper presented at 21st World Wide Web Conference 2012, April 16-20, Lyon, France. Cabinet Office. 2012. “Open Data: unleashing the potential” In https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78946/CM8353_acc.pdf .Latest update 10 March 2020. Conradie, P. Choenni S.. 2012. “Exploring process barriers to release public sector information in local government.” Paper presented at the ICEGOV 12, October 22-25, Albany, NY Cranefield J., O. Robertson G. Oliver. 2014. “Value in The Mash-Exploring The Benefits, Barriers and Enables of Open Data APPs.” Paper presented at the 22nd European Conference on Information Systems, June 9-11, Tel Aviv, Israel. Dawes, S. S. 1996. “Interagency information sharing- Expected benefits, manageable risks.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15(3):377-394. Greiling, D. Spraul. K. 2010. “Accountability and the Challenges ofInformation Disclosure.” Public Administration Quarterly 34(3): 338-377. Hood, C. Heald. D. 2006. Transparency: The Key to Better Governance? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Janssen, M., Y. Charalabidis A. Zuiderwijk. 2012. “Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government.” Information Systems Management 29(4): 258-268. Kassen, M. 2013. “A promising phenomenon of open data: A case study of the Chicago open data project.” Government Information Quarterly 30(4):508-513. Kostovski, M., M. Jovanovik D. Trajanov. 2012. “Open data portal based on semantic web technologies.” Paper presented at 7th South East European Doctoral Student Conference, September 24-25, Thessaloniki, Greece. Landsbergen D. Wolken G.. 2001. “Realizing the Promise: Government Information Systems and the Fourth Generation of Information Technology” Public Administration Review 61(2): 206-220. Lee, G. Kwak. Y. H. 2012. “An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement.” Government Information Quarterly 29(4):492-503. Maali, F., R. Cyganiak V. Peristeras. 2010. “Enabling interoperability of government data catalogues” Paper presented at 9th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, August 29- September 2, Lausanne, Switzerland. Máchová, R. Lněnička. M. 2017. “Evaluating the Quality of Open Data Portals on the National Level” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 12(1):21-41. Nye, J. S., P. D. Zelikow, D. C. King. 1997. Why people don’t trust government. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Office of Management and Budget. 2013. “M-13-13, Open Data Policy – Managing Information as an Asset” In https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-13.pdf. Latest update 10 March 2020. Open Government Working Group. 2007. “The Annotated 8 principles of Open Government Data” In https://opengovdata.org. Latest update 20 April 2020. Open Knowledge Foundation. 2015. “Open Definition 2.1” In https://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/. Latest update 20 April 2020. Open Knowledge Foundation. 2016. “2016/2017 Global Open Data Index” In https://index.okfn.org/methodology/. Latest update 20 April 2020. Open Knowledge Foundation. 2017. “Open data quality – the next shift in open data?” In https://blog.okfn.org/2017/05/31/open-data-quality-the-next-shift-in-open-data/. Latest update 20 April 2020. Pardo, T. A. Tayi. G. K. 2007. “Interorganizational information integration: A key enabler for digital government.” Government Information Quarterly 24: 691-715. Peixoto, T. 2013. “The uncertain relationship between open data and accountability: A response to Yu and Robinson's the new ambiguity of 'open government'.” UCLA Law Review Discourse 60: 200-213. Postman, N. 1993. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Knopf. Radnor, Z. Barnes. D. 2007. “Historical analysis of performance measurement and management in operations management.” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 56(5/6):384-396. Stirton, L. J. Lodge. M. C. 2004. “Transparency Mechanisms: Building Publicness into Public Services?” Journal of Law and Society 28(4): 471-489. Thomas, C. W. 1998. “Maintaining and Restoring Public Trust in Government Agencies and their Employees.” Administration and Society 30(2): 166-193. Tim Berners-Lee. 2010. “5 ★ OPEN DATA” In http://5stardata.info/en/ Latest update 9 April 2020. Ubaldi, B. 2013. “Open Government Data: Towards Empirical Analysis of Open Government Data Initiatives” OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, 22: 1-61 United Nations. 2016. “UN E-Government Survey 2016” In https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2016-e-government-survey.html. Latest update 16 March 2020. Vetrò, A., L. Canova, M. Torchinao, C. O. Minotas, R. Iemma, F. Morando, 2016. “Open data quality measurement framework: Definition and application to open government data.” Government Information Quarterly 33(2): 325–337. Wang, R. Y. Strong. D. M. 1996. “Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means to Data Consumers.” Journal of Management Information Systems 12(4):5-33. Wholey, J. S., Hatry. H. P. 1992. “The Case for Performance Monitoring.” Public Administration Review 52(6): 604-610. World Wide Web Foundation. 2017. “Open Data Barometer 4th Edition” In https://opendatabarometer.org/4thedition/?_year=2016 indicator=ODB. Latest update 20 April 2020. Yang T. M. Wu. Y. J. 2014. “Exploring the determinants of cross- boundary information sharing in the public sector: An e-Government case study in Taiwan.” Journal of Information Science 40(5):649-668. Zhang, J. Dawes. S. S. 2006. “Expectations and Perceptions of Benefits, Barriers, and Success in Public Sector Knowledge Networks.” Public Performance Management Review 29(4):433-466. Zuiderwijk, A. Janssen. M. 2014. “Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison.” Government Information Quarterly 31(1): 17-29. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71494 | - |
dc.description.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。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | 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. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T06:01:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2111202020555800.pdf: 5218698 bytes, checksum: dea01c90d3e3ff1b166b214649fffb7d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 I 中文摘要 II 英文摘要 III 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的與問題 2 第二章 文獻回顧 5 第一節 政府開放資料之內涵與理論 5 第二節 政府開放資料之政策發展 9 第三節 政府開放資料原則與評比 14 第四節 開放表現評比的重要性 36 第五節 影響開放表現之可能因素 42 第三章 研究方法 51 第一節 評比指標建構 51 第二節 資料來源與處理分析策略 51 第三節 開放表現評比與機關分群 54 第四章 評估指標及開放表現 57 第一節 本研究建構之資料集評估指標架構 57 第二節 我國行政院各二級機關開放表現 76 第五章 研究結論與建議 119 第一節 研究結論 119 第二節 政策建議 121 第三節 研究限制與後續建議 125 參考文獻 131 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 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 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Establishing Open Government Data Evaluation Indicators and Assessing Open Performance of Datasets Opened by Subordinate Agencies under Executive Yuan | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 109-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 洪美仁(Mei-Jen Hung),廖興中(Hsin-Chung Liao) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 電子治理,開放政府,政府開放資料,開放資料評比,資料品質, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | e-goverence,open government,open government data,open data evaluation,data quality, | en |
dc.relation.page | 138 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202004347 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2020-11-24 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 公共事務研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 公共事務研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-2111202020555800.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 5.1 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。