臺灣推動社區大學終身學習政策進入第十年，全國各地迄今已成立83 所社區大學，其中臺北市政府不僅為創辦推手，其規模與制度化亦成為各地政府學習的依據，臺北市政府以公辦民營方式委託辦理社區大學，透過定期績效評鑑機制進行社區大學監督管理，該評鑑等第攸關社區大學辦學聲譽、財務經費以及政策執行成效，故績效評鑑指標的制定實不容小覷。代表由上而下途徑的指標制定，兼具主管機關與菁英的觀點，重視客觀、標準化的規範傾向，易因重視過程、法令規章及組織運作，而出現缺乏彈性與創新、忽視地方脈絡、政策結果及績效測量的重要價值，甚至形成目標錯置與理想相左的衝突；代表由下而上途徑的指標制定，則重視執行層面的現實，包含回應性、自主性與組織學習，以及多元參與的協調與合作對話，較能反映在地脈絡與需求，此擴大社會參與納入多元的實務觀點，能厚植社區大學實踐的社會資本，及淡化政府權威監督社區大學的疑慮與衝突，不過政府需預備週轉空間與治理資本，以營造有意義的協力機制。本研究應用名目團體技術探究實務工作者的社區大學績效指標觀點，研究發現由上而下以及由下而上的制定差異為：前者強調制度化發展，重視行政與財務管理制度、教學與設備等指標；後者則重視在地耕耘與公民社會理念實踐，以及組織制度的健全與保障，參與成員背景則具有指標上的偏好，並據此提出初探性的社區大學績效指標架構，以及名目團體技術的應用建議，期能建構績效成果雙向學習機制。

The establishment of community colleges in Taiwan, based on the government’s lifelong learning policy, has entered its tenth year. 83 community colleges have been established around the country so far. The Taipei Municipal government was not only a big advocate of the community college system; its community colleges have become the benchmark for those of other local governments in terms of scale and institution. The Taipei Municipal government contracted out the community colleges to non-profit organizations or schools, and monitored them by using a performance evaluation mechanism. The evaluation rankings affect the community colleges’ reputation, financial expenses, as well as their policy effectiveness. Thus, the formulation of performance indicator plays an important role. Currently, the Taipei Municipal government uses a top-down approach to formulate the performance indicators, which adopt the bureaucratic authority’s and professional elites’ perspectives. This approach pays more attention to objective and standardized procedures, rules and regulations; in doing so, the approach lacks flexibility and innovativeness, neglects local contexts and misses on the significance of performance measurement. On the other hand, a bottom-up approach to performance indicators will place more concern on the realities of the implementation process, which involves responsiveness, autonomy, organizational learning, and coordination and cooperation of diverse participants. The expansion of social participation may also increase the social capital of community colleges as well as lower the doubts and conflicts due to government supervision. The government, however, needs turnover space and governance capital to create a meaningful participatory mechanism. In this regard, this study first examines the bottom-up viewpoint to performance indicators by utilizing a Nominal Group Technique; next, it compares and contrasts the two approaches. Results indicate that both approaches focus on the explicit establishment of organizational goals, visions and a sound administrative system. Their differences are: the top-down approach stresses on institutional development, placing emphasis on administrative and financial management, qualification of teachers, and teaching equipments; the bottom-up approach, however, emphasizes publicness, locality and sustainable development, including on matters such as community networks, concern for disadvantaged groups, public participation on the issues, interaction between community colleges, and whether the personnel and welfare system is well-established. The perspective of individual member presents its background difference. Two implications of this study are the importance of taking into consideration both multi-dimensional and practical perspectives in the construction of performance indicators for the community colleges, and application of Nominal Group Technique. Officials from both government and community colleges can and should mutually learn from one another when implementing the lifelong learning policy to establish the civil society in the future.