| Summary: | 本研究利用 Colin Talbot (2008, 2010)提出的績效體系框架為基礎，以及利用蘇偉業（So, 2012）點出的個案比較成果，來進行研究對話，分析我國監理站在其所處之「績效體系」(performance regime)下會呈現出什麼樣的績效行為。本研究主要目的，希望能更準確的觀察內、外部的績效干預行為及其因果關係。並以績效體系為基準，將研究範圍區分為三個層次。首先，辨別出影響機關績效表現的外部組織或是利害關係人有哪些？第二，了解外部組織或是利害關係人是以何種方法來影響該機關？最後，是機關如何回應以及其產出的績效行為為何？本研究最重要的發現有二，監理站作為一整個行政體系的末梢單位，其實就是抱持「天高皇帝遠」的心態，任何制度對其的影響力都很低，原因是因為從上級開始將稽核權力下放，以及監理站本身又將其業務外包，將責任委外，也因此許多的業務對其失去考核作用。第二，本研究提出監理站的政策及服務輸送機制分析圖，上級機關負責制定政策目標，同時也設定量化的績效指標，但這種辨識政策需求並非單一方向的，也會有從社區市場出現要求的可能性。最後，在本研究所選擇的案例中，可發現在我國政府經常使用的績效管理機制因為「衡量衰竭」(measurement degradation)等作用，在實際上對監理站無法達成績效管理的目標，而使得績效管理機制淪為紀錄的功能，而最終失去管理的作用。 === This research is based on Colin Talbot (2008, 2010) who indicated the performance regime, and also based on the case study of So (2012),to analyze the performance in Taichung Motor Vehicles Office.
The main purpose of this study is that hoping to accurately observe the performanceof internal and external intervention and causality. And based on the performance system, the scope of the study is divided into three levels.
First, identify which external organizations or stakeholders affect the performance of this organization. Second, to understand what methods are used by those external organizations or stakeholders to influence the authorities? Finally, how the authorities respond and the performance of their output.
The most important findings of this study are three. One is based on the performance framework that Colin Talbot (2008, 2010) proposed, combined with the finding from in-depth interviews, to propose the performance system diagram of our supervision station.
Second, to propose the mechanism analysis chart that policy and service are delivered in the Supervision Station, in which, the higher authorities are responsible for setting policy goals, as well as to set quantified performance indicators. However, the need of identifying policy is not only one-way, there are possibilities that the needs are required by community market.
Finally, according to the selected cases in this study, it is found that the performance management system used by most government departments often fail to reach the goal of performance management because of measurement effect (measurement degradation), etc., and makes the performance management mechanism only left record function, eventually lost the role of management.
|
|---|
