隨著人類生活水準與知識的增長，社會大眾關注的事項逐漸增加，從原本專注在自我生存，而後逐漸開始關注國家政策發展；為了因應社會大眾的變化，政府組織不斷利用轉型的方式回應，然而不同於私部門組織可以因應環境快速改變，公部門組織宛如在汪洋中修船，必須在轉型的同時使得整個國家運作能夠穩定，面對新興科技的出現，公部門組織也必須利用逐步採納的保守作法，過往學者指出公部門轉型的特性與需要關注的因素，卻較少以脈絡的方式去探究轉型的過程，因此本研究透過質性研究方法中之個案分析，以國家實驗研究院麾下之科技政策與資訊中心（簡稱科政中心）為例，透過訪談與歸納整理發現，科政中心身為政策支援單位，除了需要即時回應上級單位臨時任務需求外，也需要應對外在環境變動帶來的轉型壓力；在面對兩難下，科政中心透過審視自身既有資源，並階段性的採納新興科技來達成回應外界轉型壓力，除此之外，科政中心也不斷在轉型過程中訓練自身使用新科技來面對上級單位的臨時任務，並在此過程中產生即興創作能力。本研究的發現提供欲培養組織即興創作之組織，亦或是欲執行數位轉型之公部門組織作為參考依據。

As living standards and knowledge levels rise, public concerns have expanded beyond basic survival to include national policy development. To address these evolving concerns, government organizations have undergone transformations. However, unlike private sector entities that can swiftly adapt to changes, public sector organizations must ensure stable national operations even while undergoing transformation. Faced with emerging technologies, these organizations tend to adopt them gradually and cautiously. Although previous studies have highlighted the characteristics and key factors of public sector transformation, they have rarely explored the process contextually. This study employs a qualitative case analysis focusing on the Science and Technology Policy Research and Information Center (STPI) under the National Applied Research Laboratories. Through interviews and data analysis, the study finds that STPI, as a policy support unit, must not only respond promptly to ad hoc tasks from higher authorities but also address transformation pressures due to external environmental changes. Balancing these challenges, STPI strategically leverages existing resources and incrementally adopts emerging technologies. Additionally, the organization enhances its improvisational capacity during transformation by training in the use of new technologies. These findings provide valuable insights for organizations aiming to foster improvisation capabilities or public sector entities seeking digital transformation.

英文部分

Adomavicius, G., Bockstedt, J. C., Gupta, A., & Kauffman, R. J. (2008). Making sense of technology trends in the information technology landscape: A design science approach. MIS quarterly, 32(4), 779-809.

Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesley, D. T. (2003). Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research policy, 32(2), 255-276.

Balachandra, L. (2019). The improvisational entrepreneur: Improvisation training in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 57, 60-77.

Barrett, F. J. (1998). Managing and improvising: Lessons from jazz. Career Development International, 3(7), 283-286.

Barrett, F. J., & Peplowski, K. (1998). Minimal structures within a song: An analysis of “All of Me”. Organization Science, 9(5), 558-560.

Barrett, M., Davidson, E., Prabhu, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2015). Service innovation in the digital age. MIS quarterly, 39(1), 135-154.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559.

Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students, 161-186.

Bigley, G. A., & Roberts, K. H. (2001). The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Academy of management Journal, 44(6), 1281-1299.

Boaz, A., Grayson, L., Levitt, R., & Solesbury, W. (2008). Does evidence-based policy work? Learning from the UK experience. Evidence & Policy, 4(2), 233-253.

Brown, A., Fishenden, J., Thompson, M., & Venters, W. (2017). Appraising the impact and role of platform models and Government as a Platform (GaaP) in UK Government public service reform: Towards a Platform Assessment Framework (PAF). Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 167-182.

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change. Administrative science quarterly, 42(1), 1-34.

Burnett, B. (2009). Building new knowledge and the role of synthesis in innovation. International Journal of Innovation Science, 1(1), 13-27.

Cairney, P. (2019). The UK government’s imaginative use of evidence to make policy. British Politics, 14(1), 1-22.

Ciborra, C. U. (1996). The platform organization: Recombining strategies, structures, and surprises. Organization Science, 7(2), 103-118.

Ciuchta, M. P., O’Toole, J., & Miner, A. S. (2021). The organizational improvisation landscape: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Management, 47(1), 288-316.

Creswell, J. W., & Inquiry, Q. (1998). Research design: Choosing among five traditions. Cet. II.

Crossan, M. M. (1998). Improvisation in action. Organization Science, 9(5), 593-599.

Crossan, M. M., White, R. E., Lane, H. W., & Klus, L. (1996). The improvising organization: Where planning meets opportunity. Organizational dynamics, 24(4), 20-36.

Davies, P. (2004). Is evidence-based government possible. Jerry Lee Lecture, 19.

DeLanda, M. (2006). Deleuzian social ontology and assemblage theory. Deleuze and the Social, 250-266.

Dennis, N., & Macaulay, M. (2007). “Miles ahead”–using jazz to investigate improvisation and market orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 41(5/6), 608-623.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualization, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation and emotion, 14(2), 131-149.

Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., & Zschech, P. (2024). Generative ai. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(1), 111-126.

Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian & New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 36(6), 717-732.

Galunic, D. C., & Rodan, S. (1998). Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic management journal, 19(12), 1193-1201.

Gao, L. S., & Iyer, B. (2006). Analyzing complementarities using software stacks for software industry acquisitions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(2), 119-147.

Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research policy, 43(7), 1239-1249.

Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American political science review, 98(2), 341-354.

Guyatt, G., Cairns, J., Churchill, D., Cook, D., Haynes, B., Hirsh, J., Irvine, J., Levine, M., Levine, M., & Nishikawa, J. (1992). Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. Jama, 268(17), 2420-2425.

Hackman, J. R. (1980). Work redesign and motivation. Professional psychology, 11(3), 445.

Hadida, A. L., Tarvainen, W., & Rose, J. (2015). Organizational improvisation: A consolidating review and framework. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(4), 437-459.

Hammersley, M. (2005). The myth of research‐based practice: The critical case of educational inquiry. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(4), 317-330.

Hatch, M. J. (1999). Exploring the empty spaces of organizing: How improvisational jazz helps redescribe organizational structure. Organization studies, 20(1), 75-100.

Henfridsson, O., Nandhakumar, J., Scarbrough, H., & Panourgias, N. (2018). Recombination in the open-ended value landscape of digital innovation. Information and organization, 28(2), 89-100.

Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and organization, 28(1), 52-61.

Hmieleski, K. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2008). The contrasting interaction effects of improvisational behavior with entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance and entrepreneur work satisfaction. Journal of business venturing, 23(4), 482-496.

Howlett, M. (2009). Policy analytical capacity and evidence‐based policy‐making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian public administration, 52(2), 153-175.

Innvaer, S., Vist, G., Trommald, M., & Oxman, A. (2002). Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. Journal of health services research & policy, 7(4), 239-244.

Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. 32(3), 221-236.

Kao, J. J. (1996). Jamming: The art and discipline of business creativity. Harper Business.

Kausar, M. A., Dhaka, V., & Singh, S. K. (2013). Web crawler: a review. International Journal of Computer Applications, 63(2), 31-36.

Kohli, R., & Grover, V. (2008). Business value of IT: An essay on expanding research directions to keep up with the times. Journal of the association for information systems, 9(1), 1.

Laforest, R., & Orsini, M. (2005). Evidence‐based engagement in the voluntary sector: Lessons from Canada. Social Policy & Administration, 39(5), 481-497.

Lerner, D., Pool, I., & Lasswell, H. D. (1951). Comparative analysis of political ideologies: A preliminary statement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 715-733.

Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.-t., & Rocktäschel, T. (2020). Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 9459-9474.

Leybourne, S., Lynn, G., & Thanning Vendelø, M. (2014). Forms, metaphors, and themes: An introduction to the special issue on organizational improvisation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(4), 353-358.

Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation. MIS quarterly, 39(1), 155-176.

Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385.

Meyer, A., Frost, P. J., & Weick, K. E. (1998). The organization science jazz festival: Improvisation as a metaphor for organizing—overture. Organization Science, 9(5), 540-542.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. The American economic review, 72(1), 114-132.

Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2010). The “third hand”: IT-enabled competitive advantage in turbulence through improvisational capabilities. Information systems research, 21(3), 443-471.

Plowman, D. A., Baker, L. T., Beck, T. E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S. T., & Travis, D. V. (2007). Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Academy of management Journal, 50(3), 515-543.

Radin, B. A., & Boase, J. P. (2000). Federalism, political structure, and public policy in the United States and Canada. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 2(1), 65-89.

Sarker, S., Sarker, S., Sahaym, A., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2012). Exploring value cocreation in relationships between an ERP vendor and its partners: a revelatory case study. MIS quarterly, 36(1), 317-338.

Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American political science review, 87(2), 334-347.

Schreyögg, G., & Kliesch, M. (2003). Rahmenbedingungen für die Entwicklung organisationaler Kompetenz. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Betriebliche Weiterbildungsforschung e. V.(Hrsg.): QUEM-Materialien, 48, 1-87.

Segone, M. (2008). Evidence-based policy making and the role of monitoring and evaluation within the new aid environment. The role of monitoring and evaluation in Evidence-based policy making, 16.

Sutcliffe, S. (2005). Evidence-based policymaking: What is it? How does it work? What relevance for developing countries?

Tangi, L., Janssen, M., Benedetti, M., & Noci, G. (2021). Digital government transformation: A structural equation modelling analysis of driving and impeding factors. International Journal of Information Management, 60, 102356.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533.

Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The qualitative report, 3(2), 1-14.

Tenbensel, T. (2004). Does more evidence lead to better policy? The implications of explicit priority-setting in New Zealand's health policy for evidence-based policy. Policy Studies, 25(3), 189-207.

Vial, G. (2021). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Managing digital transformation, 28(2), 13-66.

Vogl, T. M., Seidelin, C., Ganesh, B., & Bright, J. (2020). Smart technology and the emergence of algorithmic bureaucracy: Artificial intelligence in UK local authorities. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 946-961.

Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative science quarterly, 38(3), 357-381.

Wiklund, J., Eliasson, C., & Davidsson, P. (2002). Entrepreneurial management and Schumpeterian resource recombination. Proceedings 21st Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference,

Wildemuth, B. M. (2004). The effects of domain knowledge on search tactic formulation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(3), 246-258.

Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research commentary—the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Information systems research, 21(4), 724-735.

中文部分

莊文忠. (2018)。循證的政策制定與資料分析: 挑戰與前瞻. 文官制度, 10(2), 1-20.

陳敦源、呂佳螢. (2009)。循證公共行政下的文官調查: 台灣經驗的觀點, 方法, 與實務意義. 公共行政學報(31), 187-225.

網站部分

國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心官方網站，2024年2月瀏覽，https://www.stpi.narl.org.tw

政策研究指標資料庫網站，2024年6月瀏覽，https://pride.stpi.narl.org.tw/index

AWS什麼是大型語言模型 (LLM)？，2024年6月瀏覽，https://aws.amazon.com/tw/what-is/large-language-model/

AWS什麼是資料庫？，2024年6月瀏覽，https://aws.amazon.com/tw/what-is/database/

台灣半導體產業協會 (TSIA) 官方網站，2024年6月瀏覽，https://www.tsia.org.tw

書目部分

陳向明. (2002)。 社會科學質的研究. 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.

蕭瑞麟. (2020)。 不用數字的研究: 質性研究的思辯脈絡. 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.

潘淑滿. (2022)。 質性研究: 理論與應用 (Vol. 43).

Agrawal, A., Gans, J., & Goldfarb, A. (2018). Prediction, Judgment, And Complexity: A Theory Of Decision-Making And Artificial Intelligence. In The Economics Of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda (Pp. 89-110). University Of Chicago Press.

Birkland, T. A. (2019). An Introduction To The Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, And Models Of Public Policy Making. Routledge.

Cochran, C. E., Mayer, L. C., Carr, T., Cayer, N. J., Mckenzie, M., & Peck, L. R. (1999). American Public Policy: An Introduction. Bedford Books Of St. Martin's.

Dye, T. R. (1992). Understanding Public Policy. Pearson.

Fischer, F., & Miller, G. J. (2017). Handbook Of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, And Methods. Routledge.

GLASER, B. (1967). The Discovery Of Grounded Theory. Strategies For Qualitiative Research.

Kao, J. J. (1996). Jamming: The Art And Discipline Of Business Creativity. (No Title).

Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, Argument, And Persuasion In The Policy Process. Yale University Press.

Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming The Economy And How To Make Them Work For You. WW Norton & Company.

Peters, B. G. (2018). American Public Policy: Promise And Performance. Cq Press.

Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (2018). Accountability In The Public Sector: Lessons From The Challenger Tragedy. In Democracy, Bureaucracy, And The Study Of Administration (Pp. 182-204). Routledge.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory Of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, And The Business Cycle.

Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). Information Rules: A Strategic Guide To The Network Economy. Harvard Business Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics Of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.

Weick, K. E. (2009). Making Sense Of The Organization, Volume 2: The Impermanent Organization. John Wiley & Sons.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design And Methods (Vol. 5). Sage.