資訊科技治理（簡稱IT 治理）日益重要；但從學者與實務專家對IT 治理相關之 治理結構與治理程序議題各有看法，乃至於治理理念與機制之歧異，反映該議題仍有 深究發展空間。循此，本研究揭櫫一家快速成長且績效卓著的華人跨國企業之IT 治 理模式，希望藉該案例反思現有IT 治理問題與因應方式。本研究透過參與觀察、深 度訪談與次級資料收集，以詮釋個案研究方法進行個案公司的IT 治理模式與背後治理理念的分析、辯證與討論。從而建構以權責關係為運作核心之「當責IT 治理架 構」。研究發現：個案公司「當責IT 治理架構」其特徵在強調參與而非監督、提供諮 詢而不涉入、依專業授權而非以階層權責要求、鼓勵主動當責且容許犯錯、減少事前 防範但要求即時回饋。與各種IT 治理類型比較：「控制型IT 治理」核心為「階層 權責」，「合作型IT 治理」則為「個人權責」，本研究的「當責型IT 治理」則是「當 責權責」；居間不同的權責關係反映出不同的IT 治理的效應。

Information technology (IT) governance is an important issue in today’s corporations. Current corporate practices either embrace the notion of governance structure or endorse the governance process view. The distinct natures of these two schools of thought and their applicability provide opportunities for systematic research in IT governance. This paper reports a case study of a fast-growing and high performance, Chinese-owned multinational company regarding its IT governance model and related issues. We conducted the study through on-site observations, in-depth interviews as well as secondary data collection. The purpose of the study is to examine and analyze the IT governance model and the underpinning governance concepts of the case company. Among the findings, the case company was found to bridge governance structure and governance process with the accountability relationships at the core of its implementation framework. This integration leads to the format of accountability for results. Its main characteristics include the emphasis of participation rather than supervision, consultation rather than involvement, and delegation based on professionalism instead of organizational hierarchy, encourages proactive accountability, tolerating mistakes, de-emphasizing before-implementation error prevention, but relying more on real-time feedback. When contrasted with the control-oriented and the collaboration-oriented governance styles, the accountability for Result governance model is characterized by authority by accountability, whereas the control-based IT governance has hierarchical authority and collaborative governance style has personal authority as cores. The case company’s Accountability for Result model as identified by this study represents a good balance.