我國政府推行電子化已多年，從國際評比中已見中央政府之成效，惟針對地 方政府電子治理成效之評估研究則相對少見。本研究目的之一在於建構合宜之地 方政府電子治理評估架構與工具，以充實此研究領域之文獻。目的之二在於運用 此一評估架構設計問卷，對我國22縣市政府進行成效認知之實務調查，透過調查 發現，提出增進地方政府電子化治理成效之相關實務建議。本研究之評估架構採 組織價值成效評估三層次分析結構，即目標領域（Goal Area，簡稱GA)、主要績 效領域（Key Performance Area，簡稱 KPA)與主要績效指標（Key Performance Indicators，簡稱KPI)三層評估架構。評估內容概念的發展依序從GA先定義評估 的主要目標範圍，範圍確定後進一步劃分評估構面也就是KPA，然後再發展出衡 量指標KPI。先藉由文獻探析歸納出適合地方政府電子化治理之面向，繼而採用 層級分析法結合德菲法，確立評估目標、構面與指標之項目與計分權重。從四項 績效領域之評估調查分析，發現受訪者認為電子化在提升公民導向的成效給予相 對最高評價，此調查結果可能與政府近年來倡議顧客導向服務以及民主行政有 關；而受訪者對電子化的品質給予相對最低分數，此結果可能與資訊人力不足及 經費短絀有關。本研究成果主要提供地方政府自我評估之工具，而調查結果與建 議可做為改善地方電子化政府運作效能之重要政策參考。

Evaluating e-governance is an underdeveloped area whether in academia or governmental practice. Taiwan’s e-governance performance at the national level has been recognized by several credible global evaluation reports. At the local level, however, the conditions and natural endowments vary, which makes objective performance evaluation more challenging. The authors argue that it is misleading to use evaluation instruments that generate absolute performance scores of ranking across localities. This study establishes a self-evaluation framework by adopting a three-level model: goal area (GA), key performance area (KPA), and key performance indicator (KPI). Using Delphi method combining Analytical Hierarchical Process, two weighted GAs, four KPAs, i.e., citizen-centered functionality (CCF), organizational integration (OI), perceived quality (PQ), information security (IS), and their subordinate KPIs were developed. As an exploratory study, a nationwide survey based on the framework was conducted to investigate local public servants’ perceptions of e-governance performance of the local governments in which they worked. It is found that CCF is by and large perceived the best performer, while PQ the least satisfying. The findings about CCF may result from recent administrative reforms that emphasize customer-oriented services and democratic administration. The result about PQ is likely related to the widespread problem of lacking information technology manpower and budget.