由於運動場館的硬體設施與空間配置是未來發展運動休閒產業的基礎與重要策略,為了給市民更有保障的運動空間,臺北市政府以「增設公共運動設施」、「提升運動設施使用效益」為具體市政建設目標,自2003年起,啟用臺北首座運動中心並陸續在12個行政區中各興建一座運動中心。目前已營運的市民運動中心,是由臺北市體育處進行公開招標,以「公辦民營」(operate- and- transfer, OT)的公營造物委外經營方式進行委外,在臺北市12個行政區中,分別由遠東集團、社團法人中國青年救國團、財團法人臺北市中華基督教青年會等承包經營。由於其間承包的民間單位各有企業與非營利組織等不同態樣,因此本研究的核心主要在於釐清市民運動中心的委外經營過程中,政府、企業與非營利組織所建立出的公私協力網絡互動機制與運作模式,並對企業代理人與非營利組織代理人進行比較分析。 本研究以公私協力理論做為基礎,以質化研究途徑中的文獻分析法與深度訪談法瞭解影響公私協力經營市民運動中心的因素,分目的、規範、資源、行動、風險等五大互動領域進行探討,主要的研究成果如下: 1. 除了公部門行政體系對於市民運動中心的營運方向有較大的影響力外,立法機關在協力網絡中亦扮演著關鍵角色。 2. 適用法律改為促參法並未徹底改變公部門高權式的管理型態,有別於先行研究多探討協力過程中私部門的代理人問題,在本研究中反而是公部門常會因「市政因素」而違反協力網絡之規範。 3. 公私雙方解決衝突的方法是「行政命令-監督」與「議價」並行,有別於傳統的委外,主管機關會先力圖與經營者達成共識,不可行時再以契約中的開放性條款強制要求私部門配合。 4. 公部門對於企業與非營利組織採取一視同仁的互動態度,但組織特性依然會影響到雙方的互動關係。本研究除了對協力參與者在各領域的互動模式進行合致化程度分析外,亦以市民運動中心委外經營政策之目的,歸納出企業較能符合「提升運動設施使用效益」之市政建設目的,而非營利組織更可造就一個「教育化」、「功能多元化」的運動場館。
Because the structures and disposed of the sports&recreation centers are the basic and import strategies of the sport recreation and leisure industry. Since 2003, Taipei city government had start using the first Taipei Sport Center and the other 11 in each district continually. Using the operate-and-transfer(OT)mode, Taipei sports office contracted out the 12 Taipei sport centers to Far East Co., China Youth Corps, and YMCA. Because the contractors include both business and NPO, the focus of this study is to figure out the partnership between government, business and NPO, the interaction mechanism and operational process of the network, and comparative analysis the different between the business agency and the NPO agencies. This study based on Public-Private Partnership theory, using the methods of literature review and in-depth interviews to understand the factors those affect the partnership. Divided into 5 interactive areas include goal, norm, resource, activity, and risk to discussed. The main research results are as follow: 1. In addition to the administrative system of public sector have the greater influence on the operational direction of Taipei Sports Centers; the legislature also plays a key role in the network. 2. Promotion of Private Participation Act didn’t change the oversee management of the public sector, unlike many prior studies to explore the private sectors’ agency problems in the process of collaboration, in this study, the public sector instead often violate the norm of the network because of the “municipal factors”. 3. The solutions to the conflicts between public and private include both “Executive order- supervision” and “Bargain”. Unlike traditional contract-out, authorities will try to reach consensus with the operators first, when not feasible, than force private sector to carry out base on the openness of the contract. 4. Toward business and NPO, public sector adopt the same attitude when interact, but organizational characteristics will still affect the interaction between the different sectors. In addition to analysis the degree of harmonization between sectors in each interactive area, in this study, also generalize that base on the policy purposes of Taipei Sport Centers, business can better meet the municipal purpose that ”enhance the efficiency of sports centers” , on the other hand, NPO can create “education” and “diverse functions” of the sport centers.