英文部分

第五章層級分析法研究結果與分析

二、英文部分

國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

-115-

二、英文部分

Aull-Hyde, T., Erdogan, J. & Duke, K. (2006). An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 171(1), 290-295 Baker, D.L. (2004). E-government: website usability of the most populous counties. PhD, Arizona

State University: USA.

Barnes, S. J. & Vidgen, R. (2007). Interactive e-government: Evaluating the web site of the UKinland revenue. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 3(1), 19-37.

Beech, I. B., (2001). The Delphi approach: Recent applications in health care. Nurse Researcher, 8(4), 38-47.

Belanger, F., & Hiller. (2006). A framework for e-government: Privacy implications. Business

Process Management Journal, 12(1), 48–60.

Bhatnagar, S., Rao, R. T. P., Singh, N., Vaidya, R., & Mandal., M. (2007). Impact assessment

study of e-government project in India. Ahmedabad: Center for e-Governance, Indian

Institute of Management

Bouckaert, G. W., Dooren, V., & Sterck, M. (2003). Prestaties meten in de Vlaamse overheid:

een verkennende studie. Leuven: Steunpunt Bestuurlijke Organisatie Vlaanderen.

Brookings Institution, “Improving Technology Utilization in Electronic Government around the World, 2008”, released on August, 2008.

Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2001). Achieving advanced electronic government services: An

examination of obstacles and implication from an international perspective. In Paper

presented at the National Public Management Research Conference, Bloomington, IN.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementationof cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(1): 44-55.

Buckly, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchy analysis. Fuzzy Sets and System, 17, 233-247.

Buckley, J. (2003). E-service quality and the public sector. Managing Service Quality, 13(6), 453-462.

Castelnovo, W. & Simonetta, M. (2007). The Evaluation of e-Government projects for Small Local Government Organisations. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 5(1), 21 - 28, available online at www.ejeg.com

Chircu, A. M. (2008). E-government evaluation: towards a multidimensional framework.

Electronic Government: An International Journal, 5(4), 345–363.

DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information system success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30.

Dutta, S., & Mia, I. (Eds.) (2010). The global information technology report 2009–2010: Mobility

in a networked world. Geneva: World Economic Forum & INSEAD.

Economist Intelligence Unit, (2010), the 2010 Digital Economy Rankings, Retrieved from:

http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/EIU_Digital_economy_rankings_2010_FINAL_WEB.pdf

Esteves., J. & Joseph, R. C. (2007). A comprehensive framework for the assessment of

e-Government projects. Government Information Quarterly, 25(1), 118-132.

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

European Commision, DG Information Society. (2004). Top of the web: User satisfaction and

usage survey of e-government Services. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Commission.

http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/egovernment_research/doc/top_of_the_we b_report_2004.pdf

European Commission, Information Society and Media, (2006). eGovernment Economics Project

(eGEP) Measurement Framework, Final Version. Brussels: European Commission..

Retrieved from, http://www.umic.pt/images/stories/publicacoes200709/D.2.4_Measurement_Framework_fin

al_version.pdf

European Commision, Information Society and Media, (2009a). i2010 High Level Group

Benchmarking Digital Europe 2011-2015 a conceptual framework. Brussels: European

Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/benchmarking_di

gital_europe_2011-2015.pdf

European Commision, Information Society and Media, (2009b). Digitizing Public Services in

Europe: Putting ambition into action, 9th Benckmark Measurement. Brussels: European

Commission. Retrieved from:

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/item-detail-dae.cfm?item_id=6537.

European Commision, Information Society & Media Directorate-General, (2009c). Study on User

Satisfaction and Impach in EU27. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from:

http://www.epractice.eu/files/media/media2599.pdf

European Commision, Information Society and Media Directorate-General, (2009d), Smarter,

Faster, Better eGovernment-8th eGovernment benchmarking. Brussels: European

Commission. Retrieved from:

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/egov_benchmark _2009.pdf

Flynn, N. (2002). Public Sector Management, 4th edn., Pearson Education, Harlow.

Glassey, O. & Glassey, O. F. (2004). A Proximity Indicator for e-Government. Journal of

E-Government, 1(4), 5-20

General Accounting Office. (2001). Electronic government: Challenges must be addressed with effective leadership and management. 1-2. GAO-01-959T.

Graafland-Essersand, I. & Ettedgui, E. (2003). Benchmarking e-Government in Europe and the

US, Statistical Indicators Benchmarking the Information Society, SIBIS

Gupta, M. P. & Jana, D. (2003). E-government evaluation-A framework and case study.

Government Information Quarterly, 20, 365–387

Gupta, P. (2007). Challenges and Issues in e-Government Project Assessment. Retrieved from:

http://www.nisg.org/knowledgecenter_docs/A03040005.pdf

Gouscos, D., Kalikakis, M., Legal, M. & Papadopoulou, S. (2007). A general model of performance and quality for one-stop e-Government service offerings. Government

Information Quarterly, 24, 860–885

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

-117-

Heeks, R. (2006). Understanding and measuring eGovernment: International benchmarking

studies. In Presented at the UDESA workshop, E-Participation and E-Government:

Understanding the Present and Creating the Future, Budapest, Hungary, July (p. 2006).

Heintzman, R. & Marson, B. (2005). People, service and trust: is there a public sector service value chain. International Review of Administrative Science, 71(4), 549-575.

Holzer, M. & Kim, S. T. (2007). Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide (2007)~A

Longitudinal Assessment of Municipal Websites Throughout the World. The

E-Governance Institute National Center for Public Performance and Globale-Policy e-Government Institute, Graduate School of Governance Sung kyun kwan University.

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Campus at New York

Horan, T. A., Abhichandani, T., & Rayalu, R. (2006). Assessing user satisfaction of

e-government services: Development and testing of quality-in-use satisfaction with advanced traveler information system (ATIS). Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International

Conference on System Science, Hawaii.

Jaeger, P. T. & Thompson, K. M. (2003). E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and future directions. Government Information Quarterly, 20, 389 –394

Jassen, D., Rotthier S., & Snijkers, K. (2004). If you measure it they will score: An assessment of international e-government benchmarking. Information Polity, 9(3-4), 121-130

Kearn, I. (2004). Public Value and E-Government, Institute for Public Policy Research: London Kertesz, S. (2003). Cost-Benefit Analysis of e-Government Investments. MA.: Harvard

University.

Lester, D. L., Pamell, J.A. & Carraher, S., (2003). Organiztional Life cycle: A five stage empirical scale, The International Journal of Organizalional Analysis, 11(4), 339-354

Liu, J., Derzsi, Z., Raus, M., & Kipp, A. (2008). eGovernment Project Evaluation: An Integrated

Framework. In M. A. Wimmer, H. J. Scholl & E. Ferro (Eds.), Electronic Government,

5184(2008), 85-97: Springer-Verlag Berlin / Heidelberg.

Loiacono, E. T., Watson, R. T., & Goodhue, D. L. (2007). WebQual: An instrument for cunsumer evaluation of web sites. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11, 51-87

Maio, A. D. & McCliure, D. (2008) Using the E-Government Assessment Questionnaire. CT:

Gartner Inc.

Millard, J. (2007). Europeane-Government 2005-2007: Taking stock of good practice and

progress toward simple mentation of the i2010 e-Government Action Plan. BEL.:

European Commission.

Millard, J. (2008). E-Government measurement for policy makers. European Journal of

ePractice, 4. Retireved from: http://www.epractice.eu/files/4.3_0.pdf

Miller, G. A., 1956, The Magic Number Seven, Plus or Minus Seven: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information, Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.

Mintzberg, H. (1996). Managing government, governing management. Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 75–83.

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Millard, J & Shahin, J (2006). Towards the eGovernment vision for EU in 2010: research policy

challenges. For the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain, European

Commission, DG JRC.

Montagna, J. M. (2005). A framework for the assessment and analysis of electronic government proposals. Electronic Commerce Research and Application, 4(3), 204-219.

Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities rhetoric or reality.

Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424-433.

Moon, M. J. & Norris, D. F. (2005). Does managerial orientation matter? The adoption of reinventing government and e-government at the Municipal level. Information Systems

Journal, 15(1), 43–60.

Norris, D. F., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Advancing E-Government at the Grassroots: Tortoise or Hare? Public Administration Review, 65(1), 64–75.

Obi, T. (2009). 2009 WASEDA University e-Government Ranking. Tokyo: The Waseda University Institute of e-Government.

Obi, T. (2011). 2011 WASEDA Univeristy World e-Government Ranking. Tokyo: The Waseda University Institute of e-Government.

OECD. (2002). E-Government Projects, Seminar Vision, Responsiveness and Measurement. Paris:

OECD.

OECD. (2006). OECD e-government project: Proposal for work on an inventory of e-government

business case indicators. Paris: OECD.

Orange, G., Burke, A., Elliman, T., & Kor, A. L. (2006). CARE: An integrated framework to

support continuous, adaptable, reflective evaluation of e-government systems: A research note. In Presented at European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems,

Alicante, Spain, July.

Parasuramen, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implication for future. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 29 – 40.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Malhotra, A. (2005). E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Service Research, 7(3), 213-233.

Petter, S., Delone, W., & Mclean, E. (2008). Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 238.

Raus, M., Liu, J., Kipp, A. (2010). Evaluating IT innovations in a business-to-government context:

A frameworkand its applications. Government Information Quarterly, 27, 122–133

Rao, T. P. R, Rao, V. V., Bhatnagar, S. C. & Satyanarayana, S. J. (2004). E-Governance Assessment Frameworks (EAF Version 2.0). India: Department of Information Technology,

Government f India. Retrieved form:

http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/egov/documents/assessment-frameworks.pdf

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

-119-

Reddick, C. G., (2009). Factors that Explain the Perceived Effectiveness of E-Government- A Survey of United States City Government Information Technology Directors. International

Journal of Electronic Government Research, 5(2)

Rowley, J., (2010). e-Government stakeholders—Who are they and what do they want?

International Journal of Information Management, doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.05.005 Sakowicz, M. (2004). How Should e-Government Be Evaluated? Different Methodologies and

Methods, in: NISPAcee occasional papers, Volume V, No. 2, Spring, S. 18-26.

Santos, J. (2003). E-Service Quality: A Model of Virtual Service Quality Dimensions. Managing

Service Quality, 13(3), 233-246.

Stowers, G. N. L., (2001). Commerce Comes to Government on the Desktop: E-Commerce Applications in the public Sector. IBM Center for the Business of Government: San Francisco State University.

Sukasame, N. (2004). The development of e-service in Thai government. BU Academic Review,

3, 8. Retrieved from February 26, 2010,

http://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/jan_june2004/nittana.pdf

Schellong, A. (2009). EU eGovernment Benchmark 2010+: General remarks on the future of

benchmarking digital egovernment in the EU, Retrieved from http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/netgov/papers/schellong_2009_wp_eu_egovernment_bench marking_future_methodology.pdf

Song, H. J. (2010). Building E-Governance through Reform: the Korean Experience. Journal of

E-Governance, 33, 49–60.

Stowers, G. N. L. (2004). Measuring the Performance of E-Government. Washington, D.C.:

IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Torres, L., Pina, V., & Acerete, B. (2006). E-Governance developments in European Union cities:

Reshaping government’s relationship with citizens. Governance, 19(2), 277-302.

Torres, L, Pina, V. & Royo, S. (2005). E-government and the transformation of public administrations in EU countries: Beyond NPM or just a second wave of reforms? Online

Information Review,

UNESCAP. (2008). United Nations e-government Survey 2008 Poverty and Development Section.

New York: United Nations Economic and Social affairs.

United Nations. (2008). E-government survey 2008; from e-government to connected

governance. New York: UN.

United Nations. (2008). United Nations e-Government Survey 2008: From e-government to

connected governance. New York: United Nations.

United Nations. (2010). United Nations E-Government Survey 2010-Leveraging e-government

at a time of financial and economic crisis, New York: United States.

West, D. M. (2008). Improving Technology Utilization in Electronic Government around the

World, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/0817_egovernment_west.aspx

Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M.C. (2003). eTailQ: Dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting etail quality. Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 183-198

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

World Economic Forum, (2010). Global Information Technology Report 2009-2010-ICT for Sustainability, released on March,

Vaidya, K. (2007). Applying the DeLone and McLean information success model to measure

public e-procurement success. Paper presented at the CollECTeR 2007, Melbourne

Australia.

Verleye, G., Karamagioli, E., Verdegem, P., Jenner, S., & Poelmans, M. (2010). eGovernment

Monitor Network, Measure paper 3: Impact measurement, eGovMoNet. eGovernment

Monitor Network Project no.: CIP 224998. Retrieved from http://www.egovmonet.eu/Papers/Papers/Impact_Paperv1_0.pdf

Wauters, P. (2006). Benchmarking e-Government Policy within the e-Europe Program. Asilib

Proceeding, 58(5), 389-403.

Wassenaar, A. (2000). E-government value chain models: E-government from a business

(modeling) perspective. In Tjoa, A. M., Wagner, R.R., & Al-Zobaidie, A. (Eds.),

Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications. (289-293). Washington: IEEE Computer Society.

West, D. M. (2004). E-Government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15-27.

Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 646–65

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

-121-

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

附錄一

【G2B 計畫評估架構之指標建立－AHP 研究架構與解釋】

本研究AHP 層級分析法主要先建立最終目標，繼而將影響該目標的要素加以分解成數個評估項目（如第一層評估項目的六階段），各評估項目再區分成數個次項目，逐級下去來建立全部的層級結構，其關係如圖1 所示：

圖1 G2B 計畫評估指標架構－AHP 層級分析

紫色方框¹⁷表示計畫推動的各階段，屬於AHP第一層評估構面；紅色方框則代表各階段的第二層構面，淡藍色方框則代表在各階段下的第三層構面（如果沒有即代表該層構面沒有第三層構面）。紫色、紅色與淡藍色方框的構面，期望獲得您透過指標兩兩比較後的優先順序意見。

基礎環境、投入與過程階段合稱「計畫生產過程評估」（圖2.3.下方綠色箭頭），屬於政府計畫一系列的「過程評估」；從是否存在實行G2B計劃的前置作業環境（基礎設施階段），到政府願意為G2B計劃投入資源（投入階段），到政府是如何作為，將G2B計劃透過政策工具推廣給使用者（過程階段）。

產出、影響與成果階段合稱「計畫結果評估」(圖2.3.上方綠色箭頭），又分成(a)企業途徑以及(b)政府內部途徑。(a)以企業感知衡量G2B計劃產出品質（產出階段），使用者的改變與政策短期目標（影響階段），及計畫預期達到的社會目標（成果階段）；(b)則從計畫目標與計劃執行人員的感知角度衡量上述階段。「計畫生產過程評估」階段同時為兩途徑服務提供的流程評估。詳如圖1與圖2所示。

17 為方便專家填答，本 AHP 說明與問卷皆有以顏色區分構面和層級。

‧

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

-125-

指標使用途徑：(a)「計畫生產過程評估」的指標多屬客觀性指標，可以用客觀數據衡量，例如網路鋪設程度、政府計畫投資額等等；(b)「計畫結果評估」階段包含主客觀性質指標；(c) 同一指標也可能同時以主客觀的途徑來衡量；(d)各階段指標尚能因應不同的計劃評估方法搭配使用。

總而言之，本研究期望結合政府計劃的過程與結果上所需的評估指標，建立一組具政府計畫整體工作流程概念的G2B 指標架構。請您理解此架構後，瀏覽「G2B 計畫評估各階段定義」、「計畫生產過程評估」階段、企業途徑與政府內部途徑「計畫結果評估」指標定義，依照【G2B 計畫評估架構 AHP 比較問卷】填寫範例的邏輯，填寫G2B 計畫評估架構 AHP 比較問卷。

【G2B 計畫評估各階段定義】

請您於填答前，先行參閱表1 本研究 G2B 計畫評估架構各階段之定義，並依據 AHP 研究說明的填答邏輯，進行填答：

表1 G2B 計畫評估架構各階段之定義

評估階段 定義 指標樣例

基礎設施 階段

評估政府為提供電子化服務和推動計畫，

所必須先進行的前置作業。

如政府所建置的資訊系統的品質、有無網路相關法律制度規劃

投入階段 評估計畫投入多少有形（金錢、工作人力）

無形（如政治支持）資源

如政府每年度於ICT的投資比例、政府領導人是否大力推廣等

過程階段 評估政府推動電子化計劃過程中，所可能使用的政策工具，或計畫達成過程中所需的作為。

如政策推廣的範圍與方式、有無執行人員培訓課程等。

產出階段 評估政府投資所直接獲得產出，政府計畫的e化服務質量與短期影響。

如電子化政府線上服務種類與功能、

企業對e化計畫品質評量 影響階段 評估政府透過計畫提供的e化服務，對內外

部所產生的實質改變，如態度、行為或淨利益。

如使用者利益增加、時間成本與財務成本的減少。

成果階段 評估政策的整體社會最終目標。如對政府的整體施政透明度的感受，

民主價值提升等等。

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

【G2B「計畫生產過程評估」階段指標定義】

請您於填答前，先行參閱本研究G2B「計畫生產過程評估」階段（基礎環境、

投入與過程階段）中，評估指標之定義（共分為第二層與第三層構面，如表2），

並依據AHP 研究說明的填答邏輯，進行填答。

表2 「計畫生產過程評估」階段構面定義

第二層構面 第二層構面定義 第三層構面 第三層構面定義

基礎環境階段 資料系統 電子化整備程度或通訊基礎設施指

標等

法規環境 電子化建設有法令規章依據制度 ^政府推行e 計畫所需制定之法令規

則

隱私政策 政府政策有提供隱私權的保障 安全政策 對個人資訊洩漏的安全保障 人力資源 組織內所能動用的人員與其能力 組織人力 人數與學歷背景

技術資訊背景與素養領導計畫的主管、協辦或執行機關的領

導程度

投入階段 經費 ^政府e 計畫所投入的經費

工作人力 提供計劃服務的執行人力 政治支持 ^{政治主管的重視程度}

策略政府針對計畫目標所做的決策，以及實現這些目標所需的行動及資源分配的方法

計畫策略 針對服務標的來設定計畫願景 資源分配 財政分配與控制

過程階段 推廣 ^政府e 計畫政策推廣行為

教育訓練 計畫執行人員技能培訓

管理 ^政府推動e 計畫過程中內部具計畫性的操作行為

知識管理 內部資訊分享管道與行為 參與管理 溝通管道、行為，部屬決策權 風險管理 包括政治、技術、執行風險等

(政府)整合 分成流程和系統整合流程如整合前/後端流程、資訊長設置與否

系統 IT 系統的交互操作性

‧

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

【政府內部途徑計畫評估指標第三層－AHP 比較問卷（續）】

構面

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

構面絕

對重要

極重要

頗重要

稍微重要

同等重要

稍微重要

頗重要

極重要

絕對重要 政府內部途徑影響第三層構面-目標達成

計畫目標

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

^組織目標 政府內部途徑成果第三層構面-行政民主化

施政透明

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

^政府課責 施政透明

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

^公平性 政府課責

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

^公平性

【問卷到此結束感謝您的填答】

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

-137-

附錄三

AHP 各別專家權重表－企業途徑

企業途徑 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 基礎環境

階段

.309 .031 .095 .033 .407 .167 .024 .072 .368 .067 .084 .283 .124 .039

資料系統 .050 .040 .188 .143 .066 .035 .033 .104 .076 .138 .125 .260 .063 .097 法規環境 .050 .167 .165 .143 .181 .287 .261 .088 .348 .295 .090 .138 .513 .059 制度 .179 .167 .106 .143 .541 .375 .129 .331 .348 .088 .299 .260 .129 .242 隱私政策 .500 .500 .500 .500 .875 .250 .167 .500 .833 .250 .333 .500 .250 .500 安全政策 .500 .500 .500 .500 .125 .750 .833 .500 .167 .750 .667 .500 .750 .500 人力資源 .380 .079 .081 .143 .031 .128 .063 .041 .121 .184 .418 .082 .033 .097 組織人力 .750 .750 .333 .167 .875 .500 .833 .250 .333 .200 .250 .167 .167 .500 技術 .250 .250 .667 .833 .125 .500 .167 .750 .667 .800 .750 .833 .833 .500 領導 .341 .547 .460 .429 .181 .174 .513 .435 .106 .295 .068 .260 .261 .504 投入階段 .072 .052 .116 .033 .355 .167 .039 .195 .154 .067 .237 .090 .267 .161 經費 .086 .055 .081 .118 .526 .059 .087 .095 .181 .333 .124 .083 .262 .313 工作人力 .291 .118 .090 .055 .042 .206 .042 .037 .073 .167 .482 .083 .055 .063 政治支持 .291 .262 .217 .565 .107 .468 .622 .606 .588 .333 .075 .417 .565 .313 策略 .333 .565 .613 .262 .325 .267 .250 .262 .158 .167 .320 .417 .118 .313 計劃策略 .250 .750 .750 .167 .875 .500 .833 .800 .250 .167 .667 .833 .500 .500 資源分配 .750 .250 .250 .833 .125 .500 .167 .200 .750 .833 .333 .167 .500 .500 過程階段 .072 .088 .055 .068 .030 .167 .074 .036 .127 .067 .091 .283 .077 .178 推廣 .143 .058 .076 .167 .066 .115 .039 .178 .076 .148 .122 .125 .262 .250 教育訓練 .064 .124 .191 .167 .272 .081 .095 .171 .193 .231 .573 .125 .055 .250

在文檔中以層級分析法建構G2B計畫評估架構與指標-從價值鏈觀點出發 - 政大學術集成 (頁 127-153)

第五章 層級分析法研究結果與分析

二、 英文部分

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

二、 英文部分

Process Management Journal, 12(1), 48–60.

study of e-government project in India. Ahmedabad: Center for e-Governance, Indian

een verkennende studie. Leuven: Steunpunt Bestuurlijke Organisatie Vlaanderen.

examination of obstacles and implication from an international perspective. In Paper

Electronic Government: An International Journal, 5(4), 345–363.

in a networked world. Geneva: World Economic Forum & INSEAD.

http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/EIU_Digital_economy_rankings_2010_FINAL_WEB.pdf

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

usage survey of e-government Services. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Commission.

http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/egovernment_research/doc/top_of_the_we b_report_2004.pdf

(eGEP) Measurement Framework, Final Version. Brussels: European Commission..

Benchmarking Digital Europe 2011-2015 a conceptual framework. Brussels: European

Europe: Putting ambition into action, 9th Benckmark Measurement. Brussels: European

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/item-detail-dae.cfm?item_id=6537.

Satisfaction and Impach in EU27. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from:

http://www.epractice.eu/files/media/media2599.pdf

Faster, Better eGovernment-8th eGovernment benchmarking. Brussels: European

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/egov_benchmark _2009.pdf

E-Government, 1(4), 5-20

US, Statistical Indicators Benchmarking the Information Society, SIBIS

Government Information Quarterly, 20, 365–387

Information Quarterly, 24, 860–885

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

studies. In Presented at the UDESA workshop, E-Participation and E-Government:

Longitudinal Assessment of Municipal Websites Throughout the World. The

e-government services: Development and testing of quality-in-use satisfaction with advanced traveler information system (ATIS). Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International

Framework. In M. A. Wimmer, H. J. Scholl & E. Ferro (Eds.), Electronic Government,

progress toward simple mentation of the i2010 e-Government Action Plan. BEL.:

ePractice, 4. Retireved from: http://www.epractice.eu/files/4.3_0.pdf

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

challenges. For the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain, European

Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424-433.

Journal, 15(1), 43–60.

business case indicators. Paris: OECD.

support continuous, adaptable, reflective evaluation of e-government systems: A research note. In Presented at European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems,

http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/egov/documents/assessment-frameworks.pdf

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Journal of Electronic Government Research, 5(2)

Methods, in: NISPAcee occasional papers, Volume V, No. 2, Spring, S. 18-26.

Service Quality, 13(3), 233-246.

http://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/jan_june2004/nittana.pdf

benchmarking digital egovernment in the EU, Retrieved from http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/netgov/papers/schellong_2009_wp_eu_egovernment_bench marking_future_methodology.pdf

E-Governance, 33, 49–60.

Information Review,

governance. New York: UN.

connected governance. New York: United Nations.

at a time of financial and economic crisis, New York: United States.

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

public e-procurement success. Paper presented at the CollECTeR 2007, Melbourne

Monitor Network, Measure paper 3: Impact measurement, eGovMoNet. eGovernment

Proceeding, 58(5), 389-403.

第五章層級分析法研究結果與分析

二、英文部分

立政治大學

二、英文部分

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

【問卷到此結束感謝您的填答】

立政治大學