臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：政府資助研發機構計畫績效評估之研究－以經濟部科技專案為例
作者：賴志松
作者(外文)：Chih-Sung Lai
校院名稱：國立交通大學
系所名稱：經營管理研究所
指導教授：楊　千
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2001
主題關鍵詞：政府資助研發機構；科技計畫；績效評估；Government-funded Research Institute；R&D Project；Performance Evaluation
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:0
　　由於技術市場不健全、創新不足、發展需要等因素使然，不論是已開發國家或開發中國家皆試圖藉由技術政策來影響產業技術發展，以協助本國產業維持、提升競爭力；其中，以政府資助研發機構直接協助產業發展技術即為技術政策重要之一環。政府資助研發機構計畫之經費來源乃以政府公共預算浥注，受到近年來科技活動日益膨脹及各國總體預算緊縮等因素影響，要求此類計畫進行績效評估之 呼聲乃日趨高漲。為有效評估研發計畫之績效，許多學者依據研發活動的特性發展出績效評估模式，依其功能與特性可以區分為系統模式與階段模式。然因研發活動之複雜性使然，欲對其進行績效評估往往面臨許多問題，從而使得諸多評估活動與模式往往無法獲得正確的評價。
　　本研究透過文獻探討，先詳究績效評估之意涵，進而歸納出績效評估活動五要素：受評主體、衡量準則、衡量行動、評斷準則、評斷行動，再將文獻提及之龐雜問題歸整為受評主體問題、衡量問題、評斷問題等三大類，使績效評估面臨的問題得以條理分明，並將政府資助研發機構計畫之特性與此三大類問題一一比對，以收釐清政府資助研究機構計畫特性之效。
　　績效評估模式乃因應研發績效評估之困境而生，衡諸眾多模式，其內涵、目的雖然各異，本研究深加分析之後，從中推論其出共通點，從而歸納為投入、作業、產出、擴散、效益等五階段。由於績效評估模式乃屬概念模式，旨在適切表達研發活動，實際運用時必須依受評主體之特性予以調整；因此本研究將績效評估模式與政府資助研究機構計畫之特性予以連繫，以使評估模式概念足供政府資助研究機構計畫績效評估之用。
　　最後，本研究由歸整後之績效評估面臨問題分析出績效評估之要領，並配合與政府資助研究機構計畫特性連繫後之績效評估模式，再根據評估目的調整績效層面，歸納出多元尺度的評估方法。
　　Because of imperfect market for technology, insufficient innovation, and needs for development, many governments, including developed and developing countries, attempt influencing industrial technology by technology policy to assist domestic industries maintaining and elevating their competitiveness. Government-funded research institutes (GFRI), aiming to develop industrial technology directly, play an important role in technology policy. Constrained by expanding technology activities and shrinking public budget, performance evaluation of R&D project of GFRI is increasingly demanded. To evaluate effectively the performance of R&D project, many models conforming to the property of R&D project are elaborated. However, with the complexity of R&D project, evaluation would be faced with a lot of problems, and so many evaluation activities and models would not be properly justified.
　　By literature review, this study explores the meanings of performance evaluation, and infers that evaluation activity contains five elements: entity evaluated, measurement criteria, measurement activity, judgement criteria, and judgement activity. Thence, complicated problems facing performance evaluation could be clarified by inducing all the problems to three categories: problems of entity evaluated, problems of measurement, and problems of judgement. Furthermore, to elucidate the performance evaluation of GFRI, all the three kinds of problems should be paralleled with characteristics of GFRI.
　Performance evaluation models in literatures are developed to solve the predicament of performance evaluation. In spite of the fact that each model is distinct from each other in connotation and purpose, some common properties could be deduced. That is, R&D activity could be divided into five stages: input, operation, output, diffusion, and effect. For practical usage, performance evaluation models, being conceptual ones, should be adjusted to characteristics of entity evaluated. To apply effectively the concept of evaluation model for GFRI evaluation, our study associates performance evaluation model with characteristics of GFRI.
　　After inducing the recipe of performance evaluation from problems facing performance evaluation and accommodating the recipe to performance evaluation model associated with characteristics of GFRI, we conclude a multidimensional evaluation method by adjusting performance dimension according to evaluation purpose.
參考文獻
1.工研院，前瞻研發專輯，www.itis.org.tw。
2.日本工業技術院（民70），1980日本研究開發助成制度－利用指南－，王卓英譯，行政院國家科學委員會科學技術資中心，台北，9頁。
3.行政院科技顧問組（民88），第二十屆科技顧問會議結論。
4.行政院新聞局（民87），中華民國年鑑86年版，台北。
5.何雍慶（民76），工研院歷年來研究專案對產業影響之追蹤與分析，工業技術研究院。
6.經濟部技術處，www.moea.gov.tw/~meco/tech。
7.葉勝年（民79），大型工業技術研究發展成果績效評估之研究，經濟部科技顧問室。
8.葉勝年（民80），科技發展專案計畫追蹤驗證評估模式之研究，經濟部科技顧問室。
9.謝長宏、柯王孫鵬、林榮斌（民81），科技管理之基本概念與實踐經驗，行政院科技顧問組，台北。
10.唐明月、楊千等（民84），科技專案績效評估指標之研究，經濟部技術處。
11.Abernathy, W. J., Chakravarthy, B. S. (1979), Government Intervention and Innovation in Industry: A Policy Framework, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 3-18.
12.Ancker-Johnson, B. (1977), National Science and Technology Policy - Current Policies and Options for the Future, Research Management, January, pp.7-12.
13.Beise, M., Stahl, H. (1999), Public Research and Industrial Innovations in Germany, Research Policy, Vol. 28, pp. 397-422.
14.Betz, F. (1995), Semantics and the Politics of Technology Policy, Technology Management, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 193-194.
15.Blind, K., Grupp, H. (1999), Interdependencies between the Science and Technology Infrastructure and Innovation Activities in German Regions: Empirical Findings and Policy Consequences, Research Policy, Vol. 28, pp. 451-468.
16.Branscomb, L. M. (1997), From Technology Politics to Technology Policy, Issues in Science & Technology, Vol. 13, No. 3, Spring, pp.41-48.
17.Brown M. G., Svenson R. A. (1988), Measuring R&D Productivity, Research Technology Management, July/August, pp. 11-15.
18.Brown, W. B., Gobeli, D. (1992), Observations on the Measurement of R&D Productivity: A Case Study, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 39, No. 4, November, pp. 325-331.
19.Burton, D. F., Hansen, K. M. (1993), German Technology Policy: Incentive for Industrial Innovation, Challenge, Vol. 36, No. 1, January/February, pp. 37-47.
20.Butcher, J. (1986), UK Government Policy on Innovation, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, pp.1-11.
21.Carroll, S. J., Schneir, C. E. (1982), Performance Appraisal and Review Systems, Sciit, Foresman and Company, pp. 2-3.
22.Chiang, J. T. (1993), From Industry Targeting to Technology Targeting: A Policy Paradigm Shift in the 1980s, Technology in Society, Vol. 15, pp. 341-357.
23.Chiang, J. T (1995), Technology Policy Paradigms and Intellectual Property Strategies: Three National Models, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 49, pp. 35-48.
24.Chung, S., Lay, G. (1997), Technology Policy Between ''Diversity'' and ''One Best Practice'' - A Comparison of Korean and German Promotion Schemes for New Production Technologies, Technovation, Vol. 17, Nos. 11/12, pp. 675-693.
25.Clauser, H. R. (1977), Perspectives - News and Views of the Current Research Management Scene, Research Management, January, pp. 2-6.
26.Collier, D. W. (1977), Measuring the Performance of R&D Department, Research Management, March, pp. 30-34.
27.Crow, M. M. (1988), Assessing Government Influence on Industrial R & D, Research Technology Management, September/October, pp.47-52.
28.Dacey, G. C. (1995), The U.S. Needs a National Technology Policy, Research Technology Management, Vol. 38, No. 1, January/February, pp. 9-11.
29.D''Costa, A. P. (1998), Coping with Technology Divergence Policies and Strategies for India''s Industrial Development, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 58, pp. 271-283.
30.de Bandt, J. (1991), Alternative Approaches to Developing National Technological Policies, International Journal of Technology Management, pp. 245-255.
31.Dumbleton, J. H. (1986), Management of High-Technology Research and Development, Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, p. 189.
32.Fillon F. (1997), French Research Policy, Technology in Society, Vol. 19, No. 3-4, pp. 357-367.
33.Fortuin, L. (1988), Performance Indicators-Why, Where, and How? European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 34, pp. 1-9.
34.Geisler, E. (1994), Key Output Indicators in Performance Evaluation of Research and Development Organizations, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 47, pp. 189-203.
35.Glick, J. L. (1995), Science and Technology Policy - The Long View, Technology Management, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 155-156.
36.Hahn, Y. H., Yu, P. I. (1999), Towards a new technology policy: the integration of generation and diffusion, Technovation, Vol. 19, pp. 177-186.
37.Hemphill, T. A. (1997), U.S. Technology Policy, Intraindustry Joint Ventures, and the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, Business Economics, Vol. 32, No. 4, October, pp. 48-54.
38.Kerzner, H. (1994), Project management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling, 5th ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, p. 77.
39.Krupp, H. (1995), European Technology Policy and Global Schumpeter Dynamics: A Social Science Perspective, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 48, pp. 7-26.
40.Lall, S., Teubal, M. (1998), “Market-Stimulating” Technology Policies in Developing Countries: A Framework with Examples from East Asia, World Development, Vol. 26, No. 8, pp. 1369-1385.
41.Lee, M., Son, B., Om, K. (1996), Evaluation of National R&D Projects in Korea, Research Policy, Vol. 25, pp. 805-818.
42.Levy, L. (1977), National Science and Technology Policy - Needed: Institutional Breakthroughs, Research Management, January, pp. 21-24.
43.Lewis, J. D. (1977), National Science and Technology Policy - Its Impact on Technological Change, Research Management, January, pp.13-16.
44.Mitchell, G. R. (1999), Global Technology Policies for Economic Growth, Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Vol. 60, 205-214.
45.Moser, M. R. (1985), Measuring Performance in R&D Settings, Research Management, Vol. 28, No. 5, September/October, pp. 31-33.
46.Nason, H. K. (1977), National Science and Technology Policy- Perceptions of Barriers to Innovation, Research Management, January, pp. 17-20.
47.Nelson, R., Romer, P. M. (1996), Science, Economic Growth, and Public Policy, Challenge, Vol. 39, No. 2, March/April, pp. 9-21.
48.OECD (1987), Evaluation of Research - A Selection of Current Practices.
49.OECD (1994), Main Definitions and Conventions for the Measurement of Research and experimental Development (R&D)--A Summary of the Frascati Manual 1993, p. 7, OECD, Paris.
50.Pages, E. R. (1996), The Rise and Fall of American Technology Policy - Elite Beliefs and the Clinton Industrial Policy, Perspectives on Political Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, Spring, pp. 64-68.
51.Papaconstantinou, G., Polt, W. (1997), Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology: An Overview, in Evaluation in Innovation and Technology -Towards Best Practices, pp.9-14.
52.Pappas, R. A., Remer, D. S. (1985), Measuring R&D Productivity, Research Management, May/June, pp. 15-22.
53.Patterson, W. C. (1983), Evaluating R&D Performance at Alcola Laboratories, Research Management, March/April, pp. 23-27.
54.Press, F. (1978), Towards New National Policies - To Increase Industrial Innovation, Research Management, July, pp. 10-13.
55.Ranftl, R. M. (1977), Improving R&D Productivity - A Study Program and Its Application, Research Management, January, pp. 25-29.
56.Rothwell, R. (1982), Government Innovation Policy — Some Past Problems and Recent Trends, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 22, pp.3-30.
57.Rubenstein A. H., Geisler E. (1991), Evaluating the Outputs and Impacts of R&D/Innovation, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 181-204.
58.Rycroft, R. W., Kash, D. E. (1992), Technology Policy Requires Picking Winners, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 6, issue 3, August, pp. 227-239.
59.Sakakibara, M. (1997), Evaluating Government - sponsored R&D Consortia in Japan: Who Benefits and How? Research Policy, Vol. 26, pp. 447-473.
60.Samuelson, R. J. (1994), The New (old) Industrial Policy, Newsweek, Vol. 123, No. 21, pp. 53.
61.Schainblatt, A. H. (1982), How Companies Measure the Productivity of Engineers and Scientists, Research Management, Vol. 25, No. 3, May, pp. 10-18.
62.Schumann, P. A. Jr., Ransley, D. L., Prestwood, D. C. L. (1995), Measuring R&D Performance, Research Technology Management, May/June, pp.45-54.
63.Sharif, M. N. (1986), Measurement of Technology for National Development, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 29, pp. 119-172.
64.Stahl, M. J., Steger, J. A. (1977), Improving R&D Productivity - Measuring Innovation and Productivity - A Peer Rating Approach, Research Management, January, pp. 35-38.
65.Stenbacka, R., Tombak, M. (1998), Technology Policy and the Organization of R&D, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 36, pp. 503-520.
66.Storey, D. J., Tether, B. S. (1998), Public Policy Measures to Support New Technology-based Firms in the European Union, Research Policy, Vol. 26, pp. 1037-1057.
67.Szántó, B. (1996), Science Policy vs. Technology Policy? Technovation, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 411-420.
68.Tanaka, Y. (1995), Effect of Japan''s Advisory Councils on Science and Technology Policy, Technology in Society, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 159-173.
69.Teubal, M. (1996), R&D and Technology Policy in NICs as Learning Processes, World Development, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 449-460.
70.The Technology Atlas Team (1987), A Framework for Technology Based National Planning, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 32, pp. 5-18.
71.Tornatzky, L. G., Fleischer, M. (1990), Issues in Applied R&D, The Processes of Technological Innovation, pp. 94-103.
72.Turpin, R. et al. (1996), A Model to Assess the Usefulness of Performance Indicators, International Journal for Quality in Health Care, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 321-329.
73.Vinkler, P. (1998), General Performance Indexes Calculated for Research Institutes of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Based on Scientometric Indicators, Scientometrics, Vol. 41, Nos. 1-2, pp. 185-200.
74.Wegloop, P. (1995), Linking Firm Strategy and Government Action: Towards a Resource-based Perspective on Innovation and Technology Policy, Technology in Society, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 413-428.
75.Yang, C., Tarng, M. Y., Lai, C. S., and Lin, Z. B. (1997), The Performance Indicators for Science and Technology Projects in Taiwan, International Journal of Materials and Product Technology, Vol. 12, Nos. 4-6, pp. 307-319.
76.Yu, H. Y., Yeh, K. S. (1996), Technology Transfer in Taiwan''s Information Industry: The Lessons, Research Technology Management, September/October, pp. 26-30.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：820（臺灣：811，外國：9） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2602775 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68397160
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上