政府資訊公開和開放資料均係促進公民社會政治參與的方式之一，使人民對攸關個人或社群權益的政府施政有知的權利。然而，政府開放資料政策之推行所涉及的影響層面眾多，例如：開放政府資料所涉及之資料的範圍、深度及內容複雜程度；行政端軟硬體的設備與人事成本；需求端公開資料之內容能否符合民間與機關間之需求。因此，本研究透過層級分析法(Analytic hierarchy process, AHP)針對公務機關之高階主管人員、承辦人員做施測與訪談，祈能分析出重要的影響因素。
本研究針對四大構面及各構面下所含之三項評估準則：(1) 科技法律因素：法令文義明確性、資料格式難易度、系統操作複雜度；(2)組織因素：經費充裕度、高層支持度、績效顯著度；(3)外部環境因素：社會壓力、隱私權保障、成本效益；(4)操作人員因素：承辦人配合度、同儕競爭壓力、獎勵考核制度，遂發展四構面、十二項評估準則來編製「以層級分析法探討公務機關推動開放資料政策之關鍵因素」量表。
研究結果指出，主管人員較認為開放政府資料政策推行上主要的構面在於操作人員(權重：0.350275)，依次序為外部環境(權重：0.286353)、組織管理(權重：0.202323)與科技法律(權重：0.161049)。其中外部環境所可能包含的輿論、媒體與公眾壓力，印證了公務機關主管須服膺高層政策指導與須承擔民眾對業管機關的期待及媒體監督的壓力均高於一般基層承辦人員。
另一方面，承辦人員針對構面所分析的結果，可顯示出主承辦人員較認為開放資料政策推行上主要的構面在於科技法律(權重：0.393961)、組織管理(權重：0.220863)、外部環境(權重：0.198272)、操作人員(權重：0.186904)。承辦申請資料上的系統操作等皆須一般人員做第一線處理。因此，科技法律構面及其相關的評估準則對於承辦人員至關重要。本研究結果能提供機關高階主管人員與承辦人員的多元、於政策推行間多層次的視角，以備未來開放政府資料法令之訂定、推行政策流程之精進做進一步的參考與建議。

Open government information and open government information are also one of the ways to promote civil society and political participation, so that people have the right to know the government's governance that affects the rights and interests of individuals or communities. However, the implementation of the government's open data policy involves many levels of influence, such as the scope and depth of the data involved in the open government data, the complexity of the content, the administrative software and hardware equipment, and personnel costs. In terms of the demand for information disclosure, whether the content of the disclosure can meet the needs of the private sector. Therefore, this study uses Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to conduct surveys and interviews with senior executives and contractors of public agencies to facilitate the analysis of important influencing factors.

This research focuses on the four major dimensions and the three evaluation criteria contained in each dimension: (1) Technological and legal factors: clarity of legal text, difficulty of data format, complexity of system operation; (2) Organizational factors: funding sufficiency, high-level support, performance notability; (3) External environmental factors: social pressure, privacy protection, cost-effectiveness; (4) Operator factors: the degree of cooperation of the contractor, peer competition pressure, and reward and assessment system. Four dimensions and twelve evaluation criteria have been developed to compile the scale of "Exploring the Key Factors of Public Service's Promoting Open Data Policy by Hierarchical Analysis".

The results of the study pointed out that supervisors believed that the main aspect of the implementation of the open government data policy was the operator (weight: 0.350275), followed by the external environment (weight: 0.286353), organization management (weight: 0.202323), and technology law (weight: 0.161049). The external environment may include public opinion, media, and public pressure, and it is true that the competent personnel of the public service agency must bear the pressure of the public and media supervision of the competent organization than the general basic-level contractor.

On the other hand, the results of the analysis of the dimensions by the undertaking staff can show that the main undertaking staff believe that the main dimensions for the implementation of the open data policy are science and technology laws (weight: 0.393961), organizational management (weight: 0.220863), and external environment. (Weight: 0.198272), operator (weight: 0.186904). General personnel are required to handle the system operations on the application materials. Therefore, the legal aspect of science and technology and its related evaluation criteria are very important for the contractor. The results of this study can provide a diverse and multi-level perspective on policy implementation for senior executives and contractors of the agency, in order to prepare for further reference and suggestions for the formulation of the future open government information law and the improvement of the implementation of the policy process.

參考文獻
中文文獻
1. 蘇文彬(2020/01/07)。立專法保證政府開放資料品質，國發會揭臺灣首部開放資料法草案推動時程和方向。iThome電腦報。取自https://www.ithome.com.tw/news/135213
2. 陳灯能，賴佳吟與梁定澎(2016)。臺灣資訊管理研究之回顧與展望。管理學報，33(1)，P.61-86。
3. 曾志強(2004)。政府資訊公開之政策與立法。國防管理學院法律研究所碩士學位論文。取自臺灣碩博士論文系統 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ghcv6g
4. 榮泰生(2011)。Expert Choice在分析層級程序法(AHP)之應用。臺北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
5. 褚志鵬(2009)。Analytic Hierarchy Process Theory層級分析法AHP。才華有限實驗室。取自: http://faculty.ndhu.edu.tw/~chpchu/POMR_Taipei_2009/AHP2009.pdf
6. 賴泱州與楊東謀(2017)。地方政府機關之開放資料影響因素探討：以台中市政府為例。教育資料與圖書館學，54(2)，P.185-219。
7. 羅傳賢 (1990)。行政資訊公開法制之研究。立法院院聞，18:12，P.64-69。
8. 羅傳賢(2004)。行政程序法論。臺北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
 
英文文獻
1. Bhushan, N., & Rai, K. (2007). Strategic decision making: applying the analytic hierarchy process. Springer Science & Business Media.
2. Bigdeli, A. Z., Kamal, M., & de Cesare, S. (2013a). Information sharing through inter‐organisational systems in local government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy.
3. Bigdeli, A. Z., Kamal, M. M., & De Cesare, S. (2013b). Electronic information sharing in local government authorities: Factors influencing the decision-making process. International Journal of Information Management, 33(5), 816-830.
4. Cheung, C.-K., & Scherling, S. A. (1999). Job satisfaction, work values, and sex differences in Taiwan's organizations. The Journal of Psychology, 133(5), 563-575.
5. Cron, W. L., & Slocum Jr, J. W. (1986). The influence of career stages on salespeople's job attitudes, work perceptions, and performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 119-129.
6. Dahlan, A. R. A., Dahan, H. M., & Saman, M. Y. M. (2013). The government information sharing (GIS) in natural disaster management and risk reduction. 2013 5th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for the Muslim World (ICT4M),
7. Forman, E. H., & Gass, S. I. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process—an exposition. Operations research, 49(4), 469-486.
8. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Chengalur-Smith, I., & Duchessi, P. (2007). Collaborative e-Government: impediments and benefits of information-sharing projects in the public sector. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 121-133.
9. Gil-García, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2005). E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations. Government information quarterly, 22(2), 187-216.
10. Helbig, N., Gil-García, J. R., & Ferro, E. (2009). Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government information quarterly, 26(1), 89-97.
11. Korman, A. K., Greenhaus, J. H., & Badin, I. J. (1977). Personnel attitudes and motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 28(1), 175-196.
12. Landsbergen Jr, D., & Wolken Jr, G. (2001). Realizing the promise: Government information systems and the fourth generation of information technology. Public administration review, 61(2), 206-220.
13. Lunenburg, F. C. (2012). Organizational structure: Mintzberg’s framework. International journal of scholarly, academic, intellectual diversity, 14(1), 1-8.
14. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review, 63(2), 81.
15. Newstrom, J. W., Davis, K., & Pierce, J. L. (1993). Organizational behavior: Human behavior at work.
16. Pardo, T. A., Tayi, G. K., Zhang, P., Fan, J., & Yu, S. (2007). Interorganizational information integration: A key enabler for digital government. Government information quarterly, 4(24), 691-715.
17. Pollock, T. G., Whitbred, R. C., & Contractor, N. (2000). Social information processing and job characteristics. A simultaneous test of two theories with implications for job satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 26(2), 292-330.
18. Price, J. L. (1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. International journal of manpower.
19. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2012). Essentials of organizational behavior.
20. Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical modelling, 9(3-5), 161-176.
21. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research, 48(1), 9-26.
22. Saaty, T. L., & Peniwati, K. (2013). Group decision making: drawing out and reconciling differences. RWS publications.
23. Saracoglu, B. O. (2013). Selecting industrial investment locations in master plans of countries. European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 7(4), 416-441.
24. Schmitt, N. W., Highhouse, S. E., & Weiner, I. B. (2013). Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
25. Sharma, S. (2005). A brief history of history: some models of history and lessons for leadership and management. Journal of Human Values, 11(2), 123-137.
26. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences (Vol. 3). Sage.
27. Stávková, J., Stejskal, L., & Toufarová, Z. (2008). Factors influencing consumer behaviour. ZEMEDELSKA EKONOMIKA-PRAHA-, 54(6), 276.
28. Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., & England, G. W. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire. Minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation.
29. Wind, Y., & Saaty, T. L. (1980). Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Management science, 26(7), 641-658.
30. Xu, Y., Chong, T. W., Krilavičius, T., & Man, K. L. (2015). Perceived benefits, risks and trust on Online Shopping Festival. International Conference on Information and Software Technologies.
31. Zhang, Z., Liu, X., & Yang, S. (2009). A Note on the 1-9 Scale and Index Scale in AHP. International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making.