災變發生後，救災組織常因資訊混亂、指揮失序而無法發揮正常功能。而案例顯示，協調效能不彰是導致救災效能低落的主因。然台北市政府於921東星大樓倒塌時，成立一特別臨時組織，專案處理緊急救災工作，展現良好協調效能。該臨時組織採扁平式架構，免除常見之階層式組織管理上繁瑣的流程阻礙，發揮成效，凸顯出組織結構對協調效能之影響。因此本研究以量化分析進行數據的彙整與比較，探討影響因素。根據文獻，組織協調效能源自於協調需求與能力的配適(fit)。而協調處理能力應隨所面對之外在情境變化調整，當組織處理能力得以滿足協調需求時，便呈現良好效能。於此，本研究藉由數值模擬探討兩種不同之組織架構（臨時性扁平式專案組織與常設性階層式功能組織）於東星大樓倒塌案之災變處理歷經搶救、拆損、恢復、重建等四個階段之協調效能。並在各階段以時程與品質兩種效能指標進行分析比較。數值模擬工具採VDT（Virtual Design Team）將本案之組織、作業與成員間之互動以資訊流的觀點加以連結，因此得以模擬組織結構型態進行分析。分析結果顯示，於災變處理前期兩個階段採用扁平式組織，可增強時效能耐，對於時程之掌握較佳，但到了後期在品質與時程上並未呈現明顯優勢。本文結論：組織型態對協調效能確實有明顯影響，因此緊急救災組織應視情境變化，調整組織架構。建議於災變初期緊急搶救、拆損等階段應選擇扁平式組織，以把握時效、緊急救災；而於災變處理後期逐步恢復、重建等階段應回歸原有之常設功能組織；如此不但可維持工作之品質，並減低維持專案組織所帶來之額外成本。

Facing an unexpected natural disaster, the suddenly demand of coordination while lacking of information would surely hold down an administrative organization. An ad-hoc organization comes thus an alternative strategy to deal with the inextricable challenge. This paper presents a successful case employing such strategy in the disaster mitigation in 1999, when the Taiwan earthquake knocked down a high-rise residential building in Taipei. Based on a retrospective study onto the case, this paper also presents a comparative study of the effectiveness of two kinds of organizations (an ad-hoc organization in flat formation and a functional organization in hierarchical structure) upon a four-phase work of the post-disaster mitigation (i.e. rescuing victims, demolishing the damaged building, restoration of utility systems, and reconstruction of the building). Important in-situ information is retraced via interviews with some participants of the case. Data recovered from the interviews as well as extant documentation give building blocks to develop numerical models for extensive numerical simulations employing VDT, i.e. a computational code for organization simulation. Our results show that an immediately forming ah-hoc organization is an effective practice to deal with such emergent case, which allows bypassing cumbersome barricades of coordination in a hierarchical organization. But this advantage is only good for the early two phases when timing is on the top list, and the according benefits would sharply decrease in the latter two phases. Our findings conclude that ad-hoc organization for handling emergency should enlist people who are direct involved in the formal hierarchical organization in order to cut out huge inherent coordination burdens. And those restoration and reconstruction works should leave to functional organization when emergency is no more the case. By doing so, a balance between effectiveness and cost of the management would better meet then.

1.Burton, R.M. and Obel, B., “The Validity of Computational Models in Organization Science: from model realism to purpose of model,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 57-71, (1995).
2.Carley, K.M., “Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory: perspective and directions,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 39-56 (1995).
3.Carley, K.M. and Svoboda, D.M., “Modeling Organizational Adaptation as a Simulated Annealing Process,” Sociological Methods and Research, Vol.25, No.1, pp. 138–168 (1996).
4.Christiansen, T.R., Modeling Efficiency and Effectiveness of Coordination in Engineering Design Team, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California (1994).
5.Cohen, G.P., The Virtual Design Team: An Information-Processing Model of Design Team Management, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California (1993).
6.Daft, R.L., Organization Theory and Design, Thomson South-Western, Mason, Ohio (2004).
7.Discovery, Great Quake: Mexico City, Discovery Communications, Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland (2000).
8.Duncan, R., “Multiple Decision Making Structure in Adapting to Environmental Uncertainty,” Human Relations, Vol. 26, pp. 273-291 (1973).
9.Eccles, R. G., ”The performance Measurement Manifesto”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.69, No.1, pp. 131-137 (1991).
10.ePM, SimVision Tutorial, e Project Management LLC., Austin, Texas (2006).
11.Galbraith, J., Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts (1973).
12.Galbraith, J., Organizational Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts (1977).
13.Hy, R.J. and Waugh, W.L., “The Function of Emergency Management,” in Handbook of Emergency Management: Programs and Policies Dealing with Major Hazards and Disaster, Waugh, W.L. and Hy R.J. (Eds), Greenwood Press, New York (1990).
14.Huber, G., O'Connell, M. and Cummings, L., “Perceived Environmental Uncertainty: Effects of Information and Structure,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 725-740 (1975).
15.Jin, Y. and Levitt, R.E., “The Virtual Design Team: A Computational Model of Project Organizations,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 171-195 (1996).
16.Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J., Organizations and Environment, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1967).
17.Levitt, R.E., “Computational Modeling of Organizations Comes of Age,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 127-145 (2004).
18.Malone, T.W. and Croswton, K., “Toward an Interdisciplinary Theory of Coordination,” Technological Report #20, Center for Coordination Science, Massachusetts Institution of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1991).
19.Malone, T.W. and Croswton, K., “The Interdisciplinary Study of Coordination,“ ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 87-119 (1994).
20.March, J.G. and Simon, H.A., Organizations, Wiley and Sons Inc., New York (1958).
21.Nakamura, A., “The Need and Development of Crisis Management in Japan’s Public Administration: Lessons from the Kobe Earthquake,” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 23-29 (2000).
22.Quarantelli, E.L., “Disaster Crisis Management: A Summary of Research Findings,” Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 373-384 (1988).
23.Robbins, S.P. and Judge T.A., Organization Behavior, Peason Education Inc., New Jersey (2007).
24.Robert, H., ”The Kobe Earthquake: Some Realities of Strategic Management of Crises and Disasters,” Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 4, No.5 pp 11-24 (1995).
25.Thompson, J. D., Organizations in Action, McGraw Hill, New York (1967).
26.Tushman, M.L. and Nadler, D.A., “Information Processing as an Integrating Concept in Organizational Design,” The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 613-624 (1978).
27.Webber, R.A., Management：Basic Elements of Managing Organization, Richard D.Irwin, Inc, Illinois (1975).
28.Bai, Y., Burkett, W.R. and Nash, P.T., “Lessons Learned from an Emergency Bridge Replacement Project,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132, No. 4 pp 338-344 (2006).
29.內政部營建署，921震災住宅重建進度總結報告，內政部，台北市 (2006)。
30.台北市政府消防局，九二一大地震台北市東星大樓搶救實錄，台北市政府消防局，台北市 (2000)。
31.吳崑茂，見證921震災重建 :921集集大地震五周年，傳文出版，臺北市 (2004)。
32.高麗鳳，震.慟： 台北九二一震災實錄，臺北市政府新聞處，台北市 (2000)。
33.黃正義、施邦築，台北市政府處理地震(捷運營運)災害現場處理標準作業手冊，臺北市政府研考會，台北市 (2000)。