請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/88855
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 劉康慧 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Helen K. Liu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 李丞翎 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Cheng-Ling Li | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-08-15T18:04:02Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-11-09 | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2023-08-15 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | - |
dc.date.submitted | 2023-08-05 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 壹、 中文部分
吳其恩、胡太山、賈秉靜、解鴻年、閻克勤(2019)。智慧城市發展策略中民眾參與偏好之探討。規劃學報, 37(1),頁 1-27。 吳松澤、陳奕伶、簡國明、洪藝旻、黃永慧、許瑛璇(2021)。我國創新實驗示範場域的實踐與課題研析。財團法人國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心。 李永展(2018)。智慧城市發展之芻議。經濟前瞻(176),頁 48-51。 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),頁73-112。 何渝婷(2021)。數位轉型已成全球趨勢!台北市長柯文哲:未來數位治理將是台北市政的關鍵。KNOWING新聞。2022年10月01日,取自:https://news.knowing.asia/news/0909f910-cad7-4860-ad3f-e3dfe4731c55 李維斌(2018)。以政府為平臺,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),頁 106-111。 林金定、嚴嘉楓、陳美花(2005)。質性研究方法:訪談模式與實施步驟分析。身心障礙研究季刊, 3(2),頁 122-136。 侯鈞元、溫谷琳(2010)。標竿國家智慧城市發展趨勢下之台灣產業商機。工研院IEK。 凃孋瑛(2022)。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。國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程,臺北。 陳向明(2002)。社会科學質的硏究。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。 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,臺北。 陳映璇(2022)。垃圾車追不到?無人垃圾回收站iTrash導入家樂福,帶悠遊卡隨時都能倒。數位時代。2023年08月02日,取自:https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/70678/itrash-carrefour 曾建元、周珮甄(2016)。開放政府之理念與實踐──初探臺北市柯文哲政府。中華行政學報(18),頁 97-113。 曾憲立、廖洲棚、李天申(2022)。政府資料公私協作模式與應用案例:協作機制的研析。公共行政學報(62),頁 43-77。 黃冠華(2016)。智慧城市下都市推動策略與評估架構之研究初探。政策與人力管理, 7(1),頁 1-29。 黃暖雲(2022)。智慧城市排名出列 臺北市科技創新展實力。臺北產經。2023年03月30日,取自:https://www.taipeiecon.taipei/article_cont.aspx?MSid=1163221505514351746&MmmID=1204&CatID=653635047665065772 楊天助(2022)。以公私協力夥伴關係導入AIoT科技建設智慧城市可行性分析之探討──以智慧公廁營運為例。國立臺灣師範大學高階經理人企業管理碩士在職專班(EMBA),臺北。 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。未出版之碩士論文,國立聯合大學經營管理學系碩士班,苗栗。 楊育青(2017)。丟垃圾就能現賺回饋金 各國政府感興趣/iTrash智慧垃圾桶24小時回收不打烊。English Career。2023年08月02日,取自:https://reurl.cc/Rzl4A9 謝佳廷(2021)。臺北智慧城市協力治理之研究──以空氣盒子為例。未出版之碩士論文,臺北市立大學社會暨公共事務學系碩士在職專班,臺北。 謝金青(2011)。社會科學研究法: 論文寫作之理論與實務。威仕曼文化。 臺北市智慧城市專案辦公室。2022年10月01日、2023年07月12日、2023年08月02日,取自:https://smartcity.taipei/ 臺北市智慧城市委員會設置要點。2023年08月01日,取自:https://doit.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=38C3846BE6FF17E7&sms=4FF289E1FBE98778&s=55E3E2E546F7528A 臺北市智慧城市專案辦公室作業要點。2023年08月01日,取自:https://www.rootlaw.com.tw/LawArticle.aspx?LawID=B010340011001800-1050302 臺北市政府資訊局(2017)。全國首創!北市府推「台北市智慧城市產業場域實驗試辦計畫」廣邀民間提案 打造永續宜居城市。2022年09月25日,取自:https://doit.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=4B2B1AB4B23E7EA8&sms=72544237BBE4C5F6&s=65BA107A61D25B3C 臺北市資訊局(2018)。公私協力SHOW實證成果!北市推首座「iTrash智慧垃圾桶」 24小時服務不打烊。2023年08月02日,取自:https://doit.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=4B2B1AB4B23E7EA8&s=981E0D70BD355842 貳、 西文部分 Bekkers, V. (2011). Innovation in the public sector linking capacity and leadership: Springer. Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., & Moedas, C. (2018). Open innovation: Research, practices, and policies. California management review, 60(2), 5-16. Challenge.gov. 2023年03月01日,取自:https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/open/innovations/Challenge Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology: Harvard Business Press. Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California management review, 50(1), 57-76. Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2009). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of public administration research and theory, 19(3), 495-522. Edquist, C., Hommen, L., & McKelvey, M. D. (2001). Innovation and employment: Process versus product innovation: Edward Elgar Publishing. Ferraris, A., Santoro, G., & Pellicelli, A. C. (2020). “Openness” of public governments in smart cities: removing the barriers for innovation and entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(4), 1259-1280. Gascó, M. (2017). Living labs: Implementing open innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 90-98. Gascó-Hernandez, M., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2017). Open Innovation and Co-creation in the Public Sector: Understanding the Role of Intermediaries (pp. 140-148): Springer International Publishing. Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a theory of open innovation: three core process archetypes. Hameduddin, T. (2022). Open Innovations in Government Elgar Encyclopedia of Public Management (pp. 257-261): Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Haug, N., & Mergel, I. (2021). Public value co-creation in living labs—Results from three case studies. Administrative Sciences, 11(3), 74. Hilgers, D., & Ihl, C. (2010). Citizensourcing: Applying the concept of open innovation to the public sector. International Journal of Public Participation, 4(1). Janurova, M., Chaloupkova, M., & Kunc, J. (2020). SMART CITY STRATEGY AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS CZECH EXPERIENCE. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 15(2), 5-21. Kogan, N., & Lee, K. J. (2014). Exploratory research on the success factors and challenges of Smart City projects. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 24(2), 141-189. Kubina, M., Šulyová, D., & Vodák, J. (2021). Comparison of smart city standards, implementation and cluster models of cities in North America and Europe. Sustainability, 13(6), 3120. Kwak, Y. H., & Lee, J. (2021). Toward sustainable smart city: Lessons from 20 years of Korean programs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Lee, G., & Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492-503. Lee, S. M., Hwang, T., & Choi, D. (2012). Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries. Management decision. Leminen, S. (2013). Coordination and participation in living lab networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(11). Liu, H. K. (2021). Crowdsourcing: Citizens as coproducers of public services. Policy & Internet, 13(2), 315-331. Marchetti, D., Oliveira, R., & Figueira, A. R. (2019). Are global north smart city models capable to assess Latin American cities? A model and indicators for a new context. Cities, 92, 197-207. Margherita, E. G., Esposito, G., Escobar, S. D., & Crutzen, N. (2021). Exploring the smart city adoption process: evidence from the Belgian urban context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.05670. Meeus, M. T., & Edquist, C. (2006). Introduction product en process innovation Innovation, science and institutional change (pp. 24-37): Oxford University Press. Mergel, I. (2015). Opening government: Designing open innovation processes to collaborate with external problem solvers. social science computer review, 33(5), 599-612. Mergel, I. (2018). Open innovation in the public sector: drivers and barriers for the adoption of Challenge. gov. Public Management Review, 20(5), 726-745. Mergel, I., & Desouza, K. C. (2013). Implementing Open Innovation in the Public Sector: The Case of Challenge.gov. Public administration review, 73(6), 882-890. Mitchell, W. J. (1996). City of bits: space, place, and the infobahn: MIT press. Mu, R., & Wang, H. (2022). A systematic literature review of open innovation in the public sector: Comparing barriers and governance strategies of digital and non-digital open innovation. Public Management Review, 24(4), 489-511. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th annual international digital government research conference: digital government innovation in challenging times. Pedersen, K. (2020). What can open innovation be used for and how does it create value? Government Information Quarterly, 37(2), 101459. Sancino, A., & Hudson, L. (2020). Leadership in, of, and for smart cities–case studies from Europe, America, and Australia. Public Management Review, 22(5), 701-725. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Smith, G. (2018). Public sector open innovation: Exploring barriers and how intermediaries can mitigate them. Chalmers Tekniska Hogskola (Sweden). Tang, T., Hou, J., Fay, D. L., & Annis, C. (2021). Revisit the drivers and barriers to e-governance in the mobile age: A case study on the adoption of city management mobile apps for smart urban governance. Journal of Urban Affairs, 43(4), 563-585. The White House. 2023年03月01日,取自:https://www.whitehouse.gov/ Van den Bergh, J., & Viaene, S. (2016). Unveiling smart city implementation challenges: The case of Ghent. Information Polity, 21(1), 5-19. Vanolo, A. (2014). Smartmentality: The smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban studies, 51(5), 883-898. Veselitskaya, N., Karasev, O., & Beloshitskiy, A. (2019). Drivers and barriers for smart cities development. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 14(1), 85-110. Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. (2011). Managing the challenges of becoming an open innovation company: experiences from Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 1(1). Yuan, Q., & Gasco-Hernandez, M. (2021). Open innovation in the public sector: creating public value through civic hackathons. Public Management Review, 23(4), 523-544. | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/88855 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 近年來民眾對於公共服務的期望越來越高,且公共問題也越來越複雜(Gascó et al, 2017;Liu, 2021;Yuan & Gasco-Hernandez, 2021),加上美國政府於2009年開啟開放政府的浪潮,原本應用於私部門的「開放式創新」漸漸被引入公部門領域。過往研究多半著重於私部門領域,近十年來才漸漸關注開放式創新於公部門的應用,但多半以個案分析為主,研究結果難以一體適用於其他地區或國家。
開放式創新的「中介機構」(innovation intermediary)(Gascó et al., 2017)支持開放式創新的流程,並提供媒合、協調、溝通、技術試驗等功能,對於開放式創新而言,「創新的中介機構」其重要性佔一席之地。創新中介機構有許多樣態與類型,而「生活實驗室」與「智慧城市」便是其中兩個較為顯著的例子(Gascó, 2017)。據此,研究創新的中介機構能夠對於開放式創新的發展有更進一步地了解,除了剖析創新中介機構於開放式創新的過程中所提供的功能以外,還能藉此探討公部門採用開放式創新的原因、其所遇之挑戰,以及公部門運用開放式創新的成效與發展,並提出相關之實務建議。 Mergel(2018)分析開放式創新中介機構──美國「Challenge.gov」於組織內、組織間以及組織外所遇到的挑戰,本研究以此為基礎,綜合其他開放式創新的文獻,整理出本研究之主要分析架構。此外,本研究以「臺北市智慧城市專案」為分析對象,以了解臺北市選擇採用開放式創新的因素、臺北市使用開放式創新時所遇到的挑戰、現今的發展,並了解創新中介機構於此之中扮演的角色究竟為何。 在研究方法上,本研究以深度訪談的方式進行,訪談對象則是臺北市智慧城市專案辦公室之相關負責人,以及參與臺北市智慧城市專案之廠商。研究結果發現,公部門採用開放式創新的原因與保守的公部門文化有關,開放式創新的作法成為創新與守舊之間的橋樑。另外,首長的大力支持與國際潮流也推動著公部門採用開放式創新的方式。在開放式創新的過程中,創新中介機構主要提供媒合、溝通、宣傳等功能,並同時擔任政府幕僚、公正第三方的角色,在開放式創新的過程中提供公部門與私部門諮詢的管道,並在開放式創新的過程中提供專業的意見回饋與評比。 開放式創新讓公部門降低失敗風險的同時又能試驗新技術,且讓公部門多了許多跨領域、跨專業、與中、小型企業合作的機會。但在開放式創新的過程中,不論是公部門或私部門,仍會遇到許多阻礙,如同本研究基於Mergel(2018)所做的分析架構,本研究發現在臺北市智慧城市專案的案例中,組織內的阻礙因素中以法律、文化、資源、不確定的過程與結果,對於開放式創新的發展具備影響力;組織間的阻礙因素以協調溝通為主;組織外的阻礙因素主要則是開放式創新的能見度。 為解決上述問題,本研究提出相關實務建議。本研究認為建立良好的獎勵機制能夠更促進彼此間的互動關係並提升合作的效率,亦能同時提高開放式創新的能見度。此外,本研究亦認為若能延續創新中介機構的功能,則能更有效地延續開放式創新的能量,對於開放式創新於公部門間的發展會有一加一大於二的效果。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In recent years, there has been an increasing public expectation for higher quality public services, and public issues have become more complex(Gascó et al., 2017; Liu, 2021; Yuan & Gasco-Hernandez, 2021). Additionally, the wave of open government initiated by the U.S. government in 2009 has gradually introduced the concept of "open innovation,"originally applied in the private sector, into the public sector. Previous research has predominantly focused on the private sector, with a growing interest in the application of open innovation in the public sector over the past decade. However, most studies have relied on case analysis, making it challenging to generalize the findings to other regions or countries.
Innovation intermediaries, as defined by Gascó et al.(2017), are organizations that support the process of open innovation and provide functions such as matchmaking, coordination, communication, and technology testing. They play a significant role in the realm of open innovation. Innovation intermediaries come in various forms and types, with"living labs"and "smart cities"being two prominent examples(Gascó, 2017). Consequently, studying these intermediaries can contribute to a deeper understanding of the development of open innovation. In addition to analyzing the functions they provide in the process of open innovation, it also allows for an examination of the reasons why the public sector adopts open innovation, the challenges they face, and the effectiveness and development of open innovation in the public sector. Practical recommendations related to these aspects can be proposed as well. Building upon Mergel's analysis(2018)of the challenges faced by the innovation intermediary"Challenge.gov"in the United States, this study integrates other literature on open innovation to develop its primary analytical framework. Furthermore, this study focuses on the"Taipei Smart City Project"as the subject of analysis to understand the factors behind Taipei's adoption of open innovation, the challenges encountered in implementing open innovation, and the current development. Additionally, the study aims to uncover the role played by innovation intermediaries in this context. In terms of research methodology, this study employs in-depth interviews with relevant personnel from the Taipei Smart City Project Management Office and vendors participating in Taipei's smart city projects. The research findings indicate that the adoption of open innovation in the public sector is influenced by a conservative organizational culture, with open innovation serving as a bridge between innovation and tradition. Strong support from top leadership and international trends also drive the adoption of open innovation in the public sector. During the process of open innovation, innovation intermediaries primarily provide functions such as matchmaking, communication, and promotion, while also serving as government aides and impartial third parties. They provide a channel for consultation between the public and private sectors, as well as offer professional feedback and evaluation in the open innovation process. Open innovation allows the public sector to mitigate the risk of failure while experimenting with new technologies, and it provides numerous opportunities for cross-disciplinary, cross-professional, and collaboration with small and medium-sized enterprises. However, both public and private sectors encounter various obstacles in the process of open innovation. Drawing on the analytical framework developed by Mergel (2018), this study found that in the case of the Taipei Smart City project, internal barriers within organizations, such as legal, cultural, resource-related, and uncertainties in processes and outcomes, have a significant impact on the development of open innovation. Interorganizational barriers primarily revolve around coordination and communication. External barriers mainly pertain to the visibility of open innovation. To address the aforementioned issues, this study proposes practical recommendations. It is argued that establishing a robust incentive mechanism can enhance the interactive relationships among individuals and improve the efficiency of cooperation, while simultaneously increasing the visibility of open innovation. Furthermore, this study suggests that by maintaining the functions of innovation intermediaries, the energy of open innovation can be sustained more effectively, leading to a synergistic effect in the development of open innovation within the public sector. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-08-15T18:04:02Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-08-15T18:04:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 i
中文摘要 ii ABSTRACT iv 目錄 vii 圖目錄 x 表目錄 xi 第一章 前言 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的與問題 3 第二章 文獻回顧 5 第一節 開放式創新 5 壹、 公部門開放式創新緣起 5 貳、 開放式創新的定義 6 參、 開放式創新的實踐──美國「Challenge.gov」 12 肆、 開放式創新的阻礙因子 17 伍、 小結 22 第二節 智慧城市 24 壹、 智慧城市(Smart City) 24 貳、 生活實驗室(Living Lab) 29 參、 小結 32 第三章 個案介紹:臺北市智慧城市專案辦公室 35 第一節 臺北市智慧城市專案辦公室組織架構 35 第二節 提案對象與提案機制 39 第三節 專案狀態說明 43 第四章 研究架構與方法 49 第一節 研究架構 49 第二節 研究方法 52 壹、 深度訪談法 52 貳、 訪談對象 52 參、 訪談題綱設計 53 肆、 研究流程 57 第五章 研究成果 59 第一節 TPMO採用開放式創新緣由 59 第二節 創新中介機構角色與功能 62 第三節 開放式創新的發展與阻礙 70 第六章 結論 83 第一節 綜合討論與分析 83 壹、 公部門採用開放式創新,主要與公部門保守觀念有關 83 貳、 創新中介機構的角色與功能多元 84 參、 公部門採用開放式創新的挑戰與文獻相符 85 肆、 公部門採用開放式創新的優勢 87 第二節 實務建議 88 第三節 研究限制與未來方向 89 參考文獻 91 壹、 中文部分 91 貳、 西文部分 93 附錄 99 附錄一 深度訪談題綱(TPMO版) 99 附錄二 深度訪談題綱(廠商版) 101 | - |
dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
dc.title | 智慧城市之開放式創新發展:以臺北市智慧城市專案為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Open Innovation Development of Smart City:A Case Study of Taipei Smart City Project | en |
dc.type | Thesis | - |
dc.date.schoolyear | 111-2 | - |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 洪美仁;曾憲立 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Mei-Jen Hung;Hsien-Lee Tseng | en |
dc.subject.keyword | 開放式創新,創新中介機構,智慧城市,生活實驗室,臺北市智慧城市, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | open innovation,innovation intermediary,smart city,living lab,Taipei Smart City, | en |
dc.relation.page | 102 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202302815 | - |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | - |
dc.date.accepted | 2023-08-08 | - |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 公共事務研究所 | - |
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 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-111-2.pdf 授權僅限NTU校內IP使用(校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務) | 2.58 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。