| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 行政管理碩士學程 === 102 === As the age of innovation comes, the government satisfies the public’s latest needs and builds a better way to interact with the public by carrying out innovative policies. Besides, innovation had played a key role in increasing governmental service quality for the past few years. Meanwhile, through mutual imitation of innovation between governments, the diffusion of innovations, pointed out by E.M.Rogers, was formed.
Based on New York City’s Hotline 133, Hotline 1999 was launched in Taipei by Taipei City Government in 2005, and was then adopted by totally 17 cities and counties one after another until January 2014, including Kaohsiung and New Taipei City, which showed the effect of Hotline 1999’s policy diffusion, and the significant impact to the relation between local governments and among governments and the public. Thus Hotline 1999 project was analyzed by 4 aspects in this study: 1. The diffusion condition of Hotline 1999 on local governments, 2. The roles played by Change agent of Taipei City government, as an innovation pioneer, in each stage of diffusion, 3. Innovation policy decision process in the metropolitan areas of Taipei, and 4. The consequences of the above said diffusion. To discuss the whole process of Hotline 1999 from the very beginning to implementing, the data will be complied and analyzed though document analysis, secondary data analysis, and In-Depth Interviews. Besides, through Innovation Diffusion Theory as the framework, we discuss the learning effect of local governments and the process of innovation policy decision that influenced organizations for the further reference to other cities and counties.
The research findings include the following: 1. Directly Controlled Cities and the metropolis that neighbor on innovators score higher in innovativeness, 2. Change Agent played different roles as problem locators and innovation satisfaction, etc, 3. Taipei’s metropolitan areas have several innovation advantages: incentive to implement, relative advantage, stronger network among governments, and abundant resources and bigger scope, and 4. Public’s awareness was raised mainly by opinion leader, and degree of satisfaction depends on whether public needs are met. The suggestions are as follows : 1. Build a knowledge base for local government innovation policies, 2. Provide a mechanism for exchange of innovation policies, and 3. Central government should encourage the entire nation to implement the project.
|
|---|
