隨著現代社會對於政府的期許，在越來越多的議題上，政府需要借重大學的學術專業以完成各種政策目標。過去雖然不乏政府業務委託外包或公私夥伴關係的研究，但卻鮮少看到針對大學承接政府科技部以外之計畫，甚至是站在第一線研究助理之角度進行討論的研究。
本文主要採取紮根理論與深度訪談的方式進行，前者幫助我們整理背景以及對於受訪對象的理解，後者則搭配文獻中Barry Bozeman的繁文縟節與DeHart Davis. L有效規則概念，對研究問題作出回應與解答。另外，受惠於訪談時來自田野的建議，本文從五所大學，其網頁說明與相關流程規範的輪廓中，整理出了減輕行政負擔的可行作法。
本研究發現，計畫時程的安排，對整個委託補助計畫乃至於大學和研究助理都有直接的影響，政府若訂定過於倉促的時程，可能使原本欲借重大學學術專業的美意，無法充分落實。同時於行政體系內，不適當的模糊規則，將使得規則自行增生，降低計畫執行效率。研究助理在面對繁複或不合時宜的行政規範時，有時會輪為與行政人員互相虛應，消耗額外之研究能量。因此建議政府與學校，應重新檢視大學承接非科技部計畫的本質與適用規則，而在學校裡面，應強化授權分工與資訊系統。前者可以縮短行政流程的長度，後者可以使各處室資訊更公開好用，並且彼此進一步整合，以提升行政效率。最後，學校與校內研究團隊，應建立良好的培訓機制，增進學校行政人員與研究助理之間的交流與合作。

Evolving expectations of government performances from modern societies have resulted in government relying more and more on universities to accomplish various policy objectives related to diverse issues. In the past, although there were a lot of researches on government contracting out or on public private partnerships, few studies have touched upon government-university cooperation on non-Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) projects, especially from the perspectives of front line research assistants
This study mainly adopts grounded theory and in-depth interviews to answer it’s research question. Grounded theory is utilized in the organizing of the issue background and in the understanding of the interviewee. Data obtained from in-depth interviews are processed with Barry Bozeman’s red tape and DeHart Davis L’s green tape concepts to generate a comprehensive response to the research question. In addition, as per suggestions from interviewees, this article has also compared five universities’ rules, processes and website contents on non-MOST government projects. Results derived from these comparisons contribute toward developing concrete suggestions for the reduction of administrative burdens.
Results revealed that timing and scheduling decisions have a significant impact on university and research assistant’s approach to the project being commissioned. A hasty government project schedule would result in many areas of the project not being fully realized. On the other hand, for administrative norms, unwritten or ambiguous rules should be reduced as they can thereby lead to ever-increasing red tape. When confronted with repetitive or ill-fitting regulations, administrative staffs (regulators) and research assistants would default to performing unnecessary and superficial tasks in their interactions, all in order to fulfill compliance burdens, sapping additional research resources and time. In addition, the government should categorize each rule and relation as either in need of modification. The university should strengthen the authorization, decentralization and information systems. The former can make the administrative process shorter, and the latter can result in increased information integration to improve administrative efficiency. Finally, university and research teams should establish good training mechanisms to enhance information exchanges and stakeholders’ cooperation.
This study mainly adopts grounded theory and in-depth interviews to answer it’s research question. Grounded theory is utilized in the organizing of the issue background and in the understanding of the interviewee. Data obtained from in-depth interviews are processed with Barry Bozeman’s red tape and DeHart Davis L’s green tape concepts to generate a comprehensive response to the research question. In addition, as per suggestions from interviewees, this article has also compared five universities’ rules, processes and website contents on non-MOST government projects. Results derived from these comparisons contribute toward developing concrete suggestions for the reduction of administrative burdens.
Results revealed that timing and scheduling decisions have a significant impact on university and research assistant’s approach to the project being commissioned. A hasty government project schedule would result in many areas of the project not being fully realized. On the other hand, for administrative norms, unwritten or ambiguous rules should be reduced as they can thereby lead to ever-increasing red tape. When confronted with repetitive or ill-fitting regulations, administrative staffs (regulators) and research assistants would default to performing unnecessary and superficial tasks in their interactions, all in order to fulfill compliance burdens, sapping additional research resources and time. In addition, the government should categorize each rule and relation as either in need of modification. The university should strengthen the authorization, decentralization and information systems. The former can make the administrative process shorter, and the latter can result in increased information integration to improve administrative efficiency. Finally, university and research teams should establish good training mechanisms to enhance information exchanges and stakeholders’ cooperation.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與背景 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 11
第二章 文獻探討 13
第一節 官僚與行政流程再造 13
第二節 繁文縟節（red tape）與有效規則（green tape）18
第三章 研究方法 29
第一節 研究流程與架構 29
第二節 研究方法 34
第四章 計畫案內行政工作的現況與挑戰 43
第一節 不同體制下的共同困難 43
第二節 大學承接政府非科技部計畫的機制與比較 46
第三節 減低行政工作負擔的做法 58
第五章 利害關係人態度與理論分析 61
第一節 利害關係人的角色定位 61
第二節 協助者在非科技部計畫遇到的困難 66
第三節 利害關係人對規則態度與展望 71
第六章 結論與建議 81
第一節 研究發現與討論 81
第二節 理論意涵 86
第三節 政策建議 89
第四節 研究限制與未來研究建議 91
參考文獻 95
附錄一 訪談同意書 102
附錄二 有效規則與繁文縟節相關概念與量化測量 103

王瑞宏（2001）。從學校組織再造觀點談國小補校組織的革新。教育研究資訊，9（6），153-168。
古步鋼、林賢文（2012）。由行政流程改造探討提升政府服務品質之策略。研考雙月刊，36（5），27-41。
李仲彬（2006）。電子化政府的公民使用行為：數位資訊能力與資訊素養之影響分析。資訊社會研究，11，177-218。
李宗勳（2004）。公私協力與委外化的效應與價值：一項進行中的治理改造工程。 公共行政學報。（12），41-77。
周思伶（2008）。政府網站服務品質指標建構之研究。政治大學公共行政研究所碩士學位論文，未出版，臺北市。
林鐘沂、張榮容（2010）。管理主義及其省思。T&D飛訊，（94），1-36。
施能傑、李宗勳（2003）。政府業務委託外包之決策模式、標準化作業程序及契約訂定之研究。臺北：行政院人事行政局。
陳文瑛、黃子華（2012）。行政機關減少公文核章數之策略研析。研考雙月刊，36（5），71-80。
陳重安（2013）。規範與繁文縟節。公共行政學報，（44)），161-166。
陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂、郭思禹（2006）。官僚回應性與內部顧客關係管理：臺北市政府市長信箱個案研究。行政暨政策學報，（42），143-182。
張成福、吳俁丹（2017）。政府管制影響評價體系：國際經驗及對中國的啟示。國家行政學院學報，（1），44-49。
張松山、林錦郎、鄭舜仁、陳冠年（2014）。大學公文電子化線上簽核使用行為實證研究。工業科技教育學刊，（7），16-23。
黃大洲（1997）。以流程改造提升服務品質行政院研考會推動行政流程簡化工作成果。研考雙月刊，21（4），5-11。
黃東益（2009）。電子化政府的影響評估：內部顧客的觀點。文官制度季刊，1（3），25-53。
黃朝盟（2001）。電子化政府的網站設計與評估。臺北縣：韋伯文化。
郭昱瑩、洪綾君（2012）。行政及政策類委託研究計畫適用政府採購法問題之探討 代理人理論觀點。競爭力評論。（15），7-40。
曾冠球（2010）。「問題廠商」還是「問題政府」電子化政府公私合夥協力困境之個案分析。公共行政學報，（34），77-121。
曾冠球（2017）。良善協力治理下的公共服務民間夥伴關係。國土及公共治理季刊，5（1），67-79。
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究理論與應用。臺北市：心理出版社。
Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177-194.
Baldwin, J. N. (1990). Perceptions of public versus private sector personnel and informal red tape Their impact on motivation. The American Review of Public Administration, 20(1), 7-28.
Bansal, H. S., Mendelson, M. B., & Sharma, B. (2001). The impact of internal marketing activities on external marketing outcomes. Journal of Quality Management, 6(1), 61-76.
Bennett, J. T., & Johnson, M. H. (1979). Paperwork and bureaucracy. Economic Inquiry, 17(3), 435-451.
Borry, E. L., DeHart-Davis, L., Kaufmann, W., Merritt, C., Mohr, Z. T., & Tummers, L. G. (2016). Organizational Rule Attributes and Compliance A Multi-Method Green Tape Study. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2879136.
Bozeman, B., Reed, P. N., & Scott, P. (1992). Red tape and task delays in public and private organizations. Administration and Society, 24(3), 290-322.
Bozeman, B. (1993). A theory of government “red tape”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3), 273-304.
Bozeman, B., & Scott, P. (1996). Bureaucratic red tape and formalization Untangling conceptual knots. The American Review of Public Administration, 26(1), 1-17.
Bozeman, B., & Kingsley, G. (1998). Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 109-118.
Bozeman, B. (2000). Bureaucracy and Red Tape. New Jersey. Prentice Hall.
Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2011). Rules and Red Tape: A Prism for Public Administration Theory and Research. New York, ME Sharpe.
Bretschneider, S. (1990). Management information systems in public and private organizations An empirical test. Public Administration Review, 536-545.
Brewer, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2010). Explaining variation in perceptions of red tape A Professionalism‐Marketization model. Public Administration, 88(2), 418-438.
Buchanan, B. (1975). Red-tape and the service ethic Some unexpected differences between public and private managers. Administration and Society, 6(4), 423-444.
Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (1991). Training in measurement：Always the bridesmaid. American Psychologist, 46, 653-654.
Corbin, J., Strauss, A., & Strauss, A. L. (2014). Basics of Qualitative Research： Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. California. Sage.
Coursey, D. H., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). Content domain, measurement, and validity of the red tape concept A second-order confirmatory factor analysis. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(3), 342-361.
DeHart-Davis, L., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers?. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 133-148.
DeHart-Davis, L. (2008). Green tape A theory of effective organizational rules. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 361-384.
DeHart‐Davis, L. (2009). Green tape and public employee rule abidance Why organizational rule attributes matter. Public Administration Review, 69(5), 901-910.
DeHart-Davis, L., Chen, J., & Little, T. D. (2013). Written versus unwritten rules the role of rule formalization in green tape. International Public Management Journal, 16(3), 331-356.
DeHart-Davis, L., Davis, R. S., & Mohr, Z. (2014). Green tape and job satisfaction Can organizational rules make employees happy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(3), 849-876.
Feeney, M. K., & DeHart-Davis, L. (2009). Bureaucracy and public employee behavior: A case of local government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29(4), 311-326.
Fife, J. D., & Spangehl S. D. (2012). Tools for improving institutional effectiveness. In R. D., Howard, G. W. W., McLaughlin, W. E. Knight, and associates (2012).The Handbook of Institutional Research(pp.656-672).San Francisco, Calif : Jossey-Bass.
Giauque, D., Ritz, A., Varone, F., & Anderfuhren-Biget, S. (2012). Resigned but satisfied: The negative impact of public service motivation and red tape on work satisfaction. Public Administration, 90(1), 175-193.
Goodsell, C. T. (2000). Red tape and a theory of bureaucratic rules. Public Administration Review, 60(4), 373-375.
Goodsell, C. T. (2004). The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic. Washington：CQ Press.
Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 72-92.
Hall, R. H. (1968). Professionalization and bureaucratization. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 92-104.
Hall, R. H. (2002). Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes (8th ed.). New Jersey. Prentice Hall.
Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation: Manifesto for Business Revolution. Harper Business. New York.
Holzer, M. (2017). A Classic Revisited: In Praise of Red Tape. Public Administration Review,77(6), 957–958.
Hummel, R. P. (1994). The Bureaucratic Experience: A Critique of Life in the Modern Organization. New York: St. Martin’s.
Johnston, K. B. (1993). Busting Bureaucracy: How to Conquer Your Organization's Worst Enemy. Visionary Publications Inc.
Kaufman, H. (2015). Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses, and Abuses. Washington：Brookings Institution Press.
Kaufmann, W., & Tummers, L. (2017). The negative effect of red tape on procedural satisfaction. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1311-1327.
Kraemer, K., & King, J. L. (2003). Information technology and administrative reform will e-government be different. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 2(1), 1-20.
Marshall, G. W., Baker, J., & Finn, D. W. (1998). Exploring internal customer service quality. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 13(45), 381-392.
Moon, M. J., & Bretschneider, S. (2002). Does the perception of red tape constrain IT innovativeness in organizations? Unexpected results from a simultaneous equation model and implications. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(2), 273-292.
Pandey, S. K., & Bretschneider, S. I. (1997). The impact of red tape's administrative delay on public organizations' interest in new information technologies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(1), 113-130.
Pandey, S. K., & Kingsley, G. A. (2000). Examining red tape in public and private organizations: Alternative explanations from a social psychological model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 779-800.
Pandey, S. K., & Scott, P. G. (2002). Red tape A review and assessment of concepts and measures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 553-580.
Pandey, S. K., Coursey, D. H., & Moynihan, D. P. (2007). Organizational effectiveness and bureaucratic red tape: A multimethod study. Public Performance and Management Review, 30(3), 398-425.
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex Organization a Critical Essay (3th ed.). New York. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Perrow, C. (1991). A society of organizations. Theory and Society, 20(6), 725-762.
Perry, James L. (2012). Continuity and Change. Public Administration Review 72(1), 3–8.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65-105.
Rai, G. S. (1983). Reducing bureaucratic inflexibility. Social Service Review, 57(1), 44-58.
Rainey, H. G. (1983). Public agencies and private firms: Incentive structures, goals, and individual roles. Administration and Society, 15(2), 207-242.
Rainey, H. G., Pandey, S., & Bozeman, B. (1995). Research note Public and private managers' perceptions of red tape. Public Administration Review, 567-574.
Rosenfeld, R. A. (1984). An expansion and application of Kaufman's model of red tape The case of community development block grants. Western Political Quarterly, 37(4), 603-620.
Rutgers, M. (2010). Theory and scope of public administration An introduction to the study’s epistemology. Public Administration Review, 1-45.
Scott, P. G., & Pandey, S. K. (2000). The influence of red tape on bureaucratic behavior: An experimental simulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 615-633.
Shafritz, J. M., & Russell, E. W. (2005). Introducing Public Administration（4th ed）. New York. Pearson Education.
Titah, R., & Barki, H. (2006). E-government adoption and acceptance: A literature review. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 2(3), 23-57.
Tummers, L., Weske, U., Bouwman, R., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2016). The impact of red tape on citizen satisfaction: An experimental study. International Public Management Journal, 19(3), 320-341.
Turaga, R. M. R., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Red tape and public managers' decision making. The American Review of Public Administration, 35(4), 363-379.
Wang, Y., & Zhao, Z. J. (2018). Performance of Public–Private Partnerships and the Influence of Contractual Arrangements. Public Performance and Management Review, 41(1), 177-200.
Wright, B. E. (2004). The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector application of goal and social cognitive theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(1), 59-78.