科技演進是提升經濟發展與促進產業升級的原動力，加上近幾年各國財政較吃緊，使許多科技強國皆積極推動「評估」來加強科技計畫之研議、執行、監測、經費配置到成效追蹤，使整體科研體系能夠更環環扣合、互相反饋，也確保政策與目的之實現。若回歸到事前評估的概念，即是為了審查計畫目標是否正確、計畫內容是否能達成目的，並據以進行決策與資源分配，而其中，事前評估的嚴謹度決定了事後評估的優勢，也成為未來檢視之依據，因此，從事前審議與規劃之調整開始，為提升我國科研計畫之效率與系統性循環的第一步。

本研究第一階段先以文件分析法，探析國際組織（歐盟）、先進國家（加拿大）與我國的STI體系與其發展歷程，從政策之形成、執行到績效端逐一檢視，藉以瞭解STI的國際發展趨勢與科技發展管理機制，並以「提升計畫規劃與評估之效率與品質」為主要研究方向。在探究之過程中，發現採用邏輯模式之潛在優勢，因此從邏輯模式之介紹、導入方法、各國邏輯模式之使用現況等方向來做切入，也另從審議準則與邏輯模式的結合做探討，並特別留意計畫評估週期之連動性。第二階段則藉著專家訪談，針對我國在科技計畫制度上的困境與未來改善建議進行討論，最後藉著兩階段的學術觀察與實務經驗之匯集，共同檢視當前我國科技計畫審議機制之限制與挑戰，以期提供未來運作體系調整與改進之參考方向．

研究結果發現，於一開始設計科研計畫所需填寫的相關資料時，即應考量到未來計畫申請後，如何進行有效的審議與後續之評估，做好具系統性與連貫性的週期循環。故本研究認為，我國應朝著「導入邏輯模式來提升規劃與評估效率」、「改善科技計畫申請書之撰寫品質」、「科研計畫之思考模式調整」與「加強內部評估能量與未來創新」等面向來做調整，並強化事前和事後評估相連動之概念，來建構出更具循環性的評估機制，也使我國科研之發展能更具效率和競爭力。

Technology evolution is the driving force behind the economic development and industrial upgrading. However, in recent years, due to budget constraints, many countries have actively promoted the concept of "evaluation" to strengthen the research, implementation, monitoring and allocation of funding of Science and Technology Program and also ensured the realization of policies and objectives. If we returned to the purpose of Ex-ante evaluation, it’s applied to examine whether the goal of the program is correct and the objectives of the program can be achieved and used those results to allocate resources. Besides, the quality of Ex-ante evaluation will determine consequences of Ex-post evaluation and influence the future review. In addition, adjusting ex-ante evaluation will be the first step in enhancing the efficiency and systematic circulation of our scientific system.

The first stage of this study used Documentary Analysis to research STI system and the process of development of international organizations (EU), advanced countries (Canada) and Taiwan. By examining the formation, execution and performance evaluation of technology programs, our study realized international trends of the mechanism in development and management of technology programs and chose " enhance the quality and efficiency of Planning and Evaluation in Science and Technology Program " as the main research direction. Among those process, we found the potential advantages of using Logic Model and collected aspects from its initiation, instructions, the status of development in different countries to the combination with evaluation criteria and also focused on the linkage of the project evaluation cycle. For more practical advice and improvements, in the second stage, we conducted Expert In-depth Interview to discuss suggestions found out from Documentary Analysis and the system of Evaluation of Science and Technology Program in Taiwan. Through the collection of two phases of academic observation and practical expert experiences, our study hopes to provide the valuable references and the direction of adjustments in the future operation system.

The result shows that when designing the research proposal for Science and Technology Program, we should consider how to conduct the effective evaluation and do the systematic and coherent cycle before receiving applications. On top of this, we can try adjustments from " adopting Logic Model to increase efficiency ", " improving the current structure of Science and Technology Program proposal ", " adjusting concepts and thinking in Science and Technology Program " and " enhancing innovation and internal energy of the evaluation " to reinforce the relationship between Ex-ante and Ex-post Evaluation and construct the more cyclical evaluation mechanism of Science and Technology Program in Taiwan.

英文文獻
1. BBC. (2014). How the EU works. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23488006
2. Brenda Silverman, Cara Mai, Sheree Boulet, & Leslie O’Leary. (2009). Logic Models for Planning and Evaluation : A Resource Guide for the CDC State Birth Defects Surveillance Program Cooperative Agreement. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/models/resource1-evaluationguide2009.pdf.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Developing an effective evaluation report: Setting the course for effective program evaluation. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion(NCCDPHP), Office on Smoking and Health, Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity (DNPAO).
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Logic models Infrastructure Development Tools. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/eval/tools/logic_models/index.html.
5. Centre of Excellence for Evaluation. (2010). Supporting Effective Evaluations: A Guide to Developing Performance Measurement Strategies. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/audit-evaluation/centre-excellence-evaluation/guide-developing-performance-measurement-strategies.html#ConsiderationsPMSF
6. European Commission. (2001). EX ANTE EVALUATION
7. A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR PREPARING PROPOSALS FOR EXPENDITURE PROGRAMMES Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/evaluation/docs/ex_ante_guide_2001_en.pdf.
8. European Commission. (2006). The New Programming Period 2007-2013
9. INDICATIVE GUIDELINES ON EVALUATION METHODS : EX ANTE EVALUATION. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Retrieved from http://www.hellaskps.gr/ex-ante2007-2013/html/arxeia/WD1_Exante_EN_0806.pdf.
10. European Commission. (2011a). Accompanying the Communication from the Commission 'Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/horizon_2020_impact_assessment_report.pdf.
11. European Commission. (2011b). COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/horizon_2020_impact_assessment_report.pdf.
12. European Commission. (2012). Results and Indicators. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/19.%20results-and-indicators-10122013_en.pdf.
13. European Commission. (2014). Checks, audits, reviews & investigations. H2020 Online Manual. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/grants/grant-management/checks-audits-reviews-investigations_en.htm
14. European Commission. (2015a). Grants Manual - Section on: Proposal submission and evaluation. Retrieved from Directorate General for Research and Innovation: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/pse/h2020-guide-pse_en.pdf
15. European Commission. (2015b). Study on Network Analysis of the 7th Framework Programme Participation Final Report. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/network_analysis_of_fp7_participation_-_final_report.pdf.
16. European Commission. (2016a). Horizon 2020 Monitoring Report 2014.
17. European Commission. (2016b). Horizon 2020 Annual Monitoring Report 2015. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/horizon-2020-monitoring-report-2015.
18. European Commission. (2017a). Keys findings from HORIZON 2020 interim evaluation. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/brochure_interim_evaluation_horizon_2020_key_findings.pdf.
19. European Commission. (2017b). About the European Union. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/about-european-union_en
20. European Commission. (2017c). REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan.
21. European Commission. (2017d). The European Semester. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/european-semester
22. European Commission. (2017e). COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE MID-TERM EVALUATION : Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) Retrieved from Brussels: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2017:356:FIN
23. European Communities. (2006). EVALUATION METHODS FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION’S EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE : GUIDELINES FOR PROJECT AND PROGRAMME EVALUATION (Vol. 3). Luxemburg.
24. European Council. (2015). The Council of the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/
25. European Council. (2017). The European Council. Retrieved from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/
26. European Parliament. (2015). About Parliament Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL00002/Home
27. European Union. H2020 Online Manual- Experts roles and tasks. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/experts/expert-roles-and-tasks_en.htm
28. European Union. (2015). Horizon Magazine - EU Research Framework Programmes, 1984 - 2014. Luxembourg.
29. European Union. (2017). THE EUROPEAN UNION Facts and figures.
30. HM Treasury. (2011). The Magenta Book : Guidance for evaluation.
31. Kennedy-Chouane, M., & Lundgren, H. (2013). Evaluating Development Activities-12 Lessons from the OECD DAC. In: Paris, France: OECD.
32. Kunnasvirta, A. (2012). Evaluating European Union funded projects: case MINWA.
33. Lahey, R. (2010). The Canadian M&E System: lessons learned from 30 years of development (Vol. 23): World Bank Washington.
34. Lawton, B., Brandon, P. R., Cicchinelli, L., & Kekahio, W. (2014). Logic Models: A Tool for Designing and Monitoring Program Evaluations. REL 2014-007. Regional Educational Laboratory Pacific.
35. Lee, H., Kim, M.-S., Yee, S. R., & Choe, K. (2011). R&D performance monitoring, evaluation, and management system: a model and methods. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 8(02), 295-313.
36. Lee, T. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37. Lopez-Acevedo, G., Rivera, K., Lima, L., & Hwang, H. (2010). Challenges in monitoring and evaluation: an opportunity to institutionalize M&E systems. Washington DC: World Bank.
38. McDonald, R., & Teather, G. (2000). Measurement of S&T performance in the government of Canada: From outputs to outcomes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 223-236.
39. McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1), 65-72. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(98)00042-1
40. McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (2010). Using logic models. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 3, 55-80.
41. Milstein, B., & Wetterhall, S. F. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health.
42. MPS Department of Research and Development. (2014). A Guide for Developing Logic Models Through a Program Theory of Change.
43. National Research Council. (2014). Evaluation of the Clean Energy Fund (CEF). Retrieved from https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/evaluation/reports/2014/16534
44. National Research Council. (2016). Science and innovation at work for Canada Annual Report 2015-16. National Research Council Canada Retrieved from https://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/doc/about-apropos/planning_reporting-planification_rapports/annual-annuel/2015_2016_annual_report_e.pdf.
45. National Research Council. (2017a). About NRC. Retrieved from https://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/about/
46. National Research Council. (2017b). About NRC Industrial Research Assistance Program. Retrieved from https://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/irap/about/index.html
47. NSERC. (2011). Council's Role. Retrieved from http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Council-Conseil/CouncilTOR-MandatConseil_eng.asp
48. NSERC. (2012). Audit of Discovery Grants Program. Corporate Internal Audit Division Retrieved from http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/NSERC-CRSNG/AuditDG_e.pdf.
49. NSERC. (2014). Evaluation of NSERC’s Discovery Program Final Report KPMG Retrieved from http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Reports-Rapports/evaluations-evaluations_eng.asp.
50. NSERC. (2015). Peer Review Process. Retrieved from http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Reviewers-Examinateurs/PeerReview-EvalPairs_eng.asp
51. NSERC. (2016a). Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) — 2016-17. Retrieved from http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Reports-Rapports/DP/2017-2018/index_eng.asp#s6.1.1
52. NSERC. (2016b). Evaluation of NSERC's Scholarships and Fellowships Evaluation Report. Circum Network Inc. Retrieved from http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Reports-Rapports/Evaluations/Scholarships_report_e.pdf.
53. NSERC. (2017a). Departmental Plan 2017-18. Retrieved from http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Reports-Rapports/DP/2017-2018/index_eng.asp#s6.1.1
54. NSERC. (2017b). NSERC Discovery Grants Peer Review Manual 2017-18 Retrieved from http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Reviewers-Examinateurs/CompleteManual-ManualEvalComplet_eng.pdf.
55. NSERC. (2017c). Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Act Retrieved from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-21/page-1.html#h-5.
56. OECD. (2006). DAC CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/49756382.pdf.
57. OECD. (2010). Enhancing Public Research Performance through Evaluation, Impact Assessment and Priority Setting.
58. OECD. (2016). OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016. Paris.
59. OECD Directorate for Science Technology and Innovation. (2015). ENQUIRIES INTO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY'S ECONOMIC IMPACT. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DSTI/ICCP(2014)17/CHAP1/FINAL&docLanguage=En
60. Ontario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health. (2013). Program evaluation toolkit —Tools for planning, doing and using evaluation. Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.excellenceforchildandyouth.ca/sites/default/files/docs/program-evaluation-toolkit.pdf.
61. Parliament of Canada. (2015). Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology ABOUT. Retrieved from http://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/INDU/About
62. Picard-Aitken, M., Foster, T., & Archambault, E. (2010). EVALUATION OF THE COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS PROGRAM
63. FINAL EVALUATION REPORT. NSERC
64. Science-Metrix Retrieved from http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Reports-Rapports/evaluations/CRD_Evaluation_Report_e.pdf.
65. R.A Malatest & Associates Ltd. (2012). EVALUATION OF THE STRATEGIC PROJECT GRANTS (SPG) PROGRAM Summary Report. NSERC Retrieved from http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Reports-Rapports/Evaluations/SPGReport2012_e.pdf.
66. Research Works Inc. (2015). Guidelines for Program Logic Model Development.
67. Rogers, P. J. (2008). Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14(1), 29-48.
68. Scheirer, M. A., Shediac, M. C., & Cassady, C. E. (1995). Measuring the implementation of health promotion programs: the case of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Program in Maryland. Health Education Research, 10(1), 11-25.
69. Schwab, K., & Brende, B. (2012). The Europe 2020 competitiveness report: building a more competitive Europe. Paper presented at the World Economic Forum, Geneva.
70. Shakman, K., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2015). Logic Models for Program Design, Implementation, and Evaluation: Workshop Toolkit. REL 2015-057. Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands.
71. STIC. (2015). Council Information. Retrieved from http://www.stic-csti.ca/eic/site/stic-csti.nsf/eng/Home
72. UNESCO. (2009). A Guide for Monitoring and Evaluating Community-Based Projects. Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France: United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organisation.
73. UNESCO. (2015). UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT Towards 2030. Retrieved from 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France: https://en.unesco.org/unesco_science_report
74. W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic Model Development Guide
75. Using Logic Models to Bring Together Planning, Evaluation, and Action: WK Kellogg Foundation.
76. Williams, M. (1997). Social surveys: design to analysis. Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
77. Ziviani, J., Darlington, Y., Feeney, R., & Head, B. (2011). From policy to practice: A program logic approach to describing the implementation of early intervention services for children with physical disability. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(1), 60-68. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.05.001

中文文獻
1. 上海市科学技术委员会. (2012). 解读欧盟“地平线2020”科技规划. 华东科技(2012年 05), 44-45.
2. 马红燕. (2017). 欧盟研发框架计划对科技专项经费的内部监管及启示. 农业科技管理(2017 年 01), 79-81.
3. 孔欣欣, & 王启明. (2013). 加拿大主要科技计划的管理办法及利益冲突避免机制 (上). 全球科技经济瞭望, 28(5), 40-47.
4. 方裕僊. (2012). 參加第5屆「歐盟研習班(EU Study and Training Programme, EUSTP)」報告. 行政院所屬各機關因公出國人員出國報告.
5. 王启明. (2011). 加拿大政府的科技政策, 管理与科技计划. 全球科技经济瞭望, 26(11), 47-54.
6. 王睦鈞. (2010). 評析我國國家科技政策運作整合系統. 臺灣經濟研究月刊, 33(7), 23-30.
7. 刘小平, & 中国科学院文献情报中心, 北., 100190. (2009). 支持卓越研究的加拿大发现资助计划及其启示. [Canadian Discovery Grants Program Supporting the Excellence in Research]. 全球科技经济瞭望(2009年 01), 9-12.
8. 行政院科技會報辦公室. (2012). 科技顧問會議會議源起. Retrieved from http://www.bost.ey.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=15F9C17AD897B71A
9. 行政院科技會報辦公室. (2016). 行政院科技會報設置要點. Retrieved from http://www.bost.ey.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=A67F74D29EC2883C
10. 行政院科技會報辦公室. (2017a). 行政院產業科技策略會議. Retrieved from http://www.bost.ey.gov.tw/news.aspx?n=FDCD0AE1B7596F11&sms=8470D4E99B0FB08E
11. 行政院科技會報辦公室. (2017b). 行政院生技產業策略諮議委員會議. Retrieved from http://www.bost.ey.gov.tw/news.aspx?n=BBF2DDAD69A41B16&sms=E1CE7A91363ABB7D
12. 行政院科技會報辦公室. (2017c). 行政院生技產業策略諮議委員會 委員總體建議. Retrieved from http://www.bost.ey.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=BBF2DDAD69A41B16&sms=E1CE7A91363ABB7D&s=22D5666022FC0A14
13. 宋海刚. (2016). 欧盟科技计划管理的咨询与决策机制研究. 全球科技经济瞭望(2016 年 08), 21-26.
14. 李宜憲. (2017). 研發型科技計畫篩選工具之可行性分析. 科技政策觀點. Retrieved from https://portal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/article/10341
15. 李國安. (2017). 2017 年 IMD 世界競爭力排名-台灣排名表現概況. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/2017%E5%B9%B4IMD%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E7%AB%B6%E7%88%AD%E5%8A%9B%E6%8E%92%E5%90%8D-%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E6%A6%82%E6%B3%81%E7%B0%A1%E6%9E%90v.2_20170605%20(1).pdf
16. 沈建中, 吳美雲, 張益銘, 傅傳鈞, & 張棕凱. (2015). 國家發展計畫管考機制. 國土及公共治理季刊, 3(3), 88-95.
17. 承立平, & 吳惠林. (2011). 論我國科技政策評估機制與決策支援體系之建構. 科技管理學刊, 16(3), 77-107.
18. 林佳慧. (2012). 從歐盟科研架構計畫執行經驗探究科技跨域整合. 臺灣經濟研究月刊, 35(2), 70-78.
19. 林金定, 嚴嘉楓, & 陳美花. (2005). 質性研究方法：訪談模式與實施步驟分析. [Qualitative Research Method: Models and Steps of Interviewing]. 身心障礙研究季刊, 3(2), 122-136.
20. 林冠宇. (2014). 各國科研補助制度中競爭機制之觀察-以日本, 紐西蘭, 加拿大為例. 科技法律透析, 26(7), 52-68.
21. 林浩鉅. (2016). 我國政府科技創新政策規劃機制之研究. T&D飛訊季刊, 214 21.
22. 林博文, & 徐玉梅. (2013). 我國科技計畫評估制度分析. 公共治理季刊, 1(2), 18-27.
23. 林嘉誠. (2002). 計畫管理的回顧與前瞻. 研考雙月刊, 26(4), 4-11.
24. 陈敬全. (2012). 2011 年度欧盟科技发展态势. 全球科技经济瞭望(8), 27-37.
25. 洪國棟. (2015). 如何精進政府科技發展計畫審議及管考作業以落實績效預算精神之研究. 科技部.
26. 科技部. (2015a). 中華民國科學技術白皮書(民國104年至107年). Retrieved from https://goo.gl/0pgRfE.
27. 科技部. (2015b). 科技發展計畫標準化作業流程及控制重點共通性作業範例. Retrieved from https://www.most.gov.tw/folksonomy/list?menu_id=52bc8739-d9af-4139-890f-8623f40409e5&l=ch.
28. 科技部. (2015c). 106年度政府科技發展計畫審議暨104年度計畫績效評估作業說明會. Retrieved from https://gstp.stpi.narl.org.tw/index.htm#do.
29. 科技部. (2016a). 全國科技動態調查-科學技術統計要覽. Retrieved from https://ap0512.most.gov.tw/WAS2/technology/AsTechnologyDataIndex.aspx
30. 科技部. (2016b). 105年度政府科技發展計畫績效報告書. Retrieved from https://gstp.stpi.narl.org.tw/index.htm#do.
31. 科技部. (2016c). 2016年公開徵求歐盟 Horizon 2020 (展望 2020) 計畫說明. Retrieved from https://www.most.gov.tw/most/attachments/5037eab3-a3d8-44a6-ac73-c207c4efe8e1.
32. 科技部. (2016d). 107年度政府科技發展計畫概算編製暨審議作業手冊. Retrieved from https://gstp.stpi.narl.org.tw/index.htm.
33. 科技部. (2016e). 第十次全國科學技術會議 議題四 子題(一)：強化科技決策支援系統. 科技部 Retrieved from https://www.most.gov.tw/tc/10th/images/4-5.pdf.
34. 科技部. (2017a). 規劃國家科技發展政策. Retrieved from https://www.most.gov.tw/folksonomy/list?menu_id=60a212eb-7766-426d-b828-0dc95bf8907d&subSite=&l=ch&view_mode=listView
35. 科技部. (2017b). 2017年臺加(MOST-NSERC)共同徵求雙邊合作研究計畫 International Collaborations - Concurrent Call for Joint Research Projects. Retrieved from https://www.most.gov.tw/sci/ch/detail?article_uid=27011702-0a31-4fd7-b9e8-fc8b0dd073d2&menu_id=b3aa92b4-989b-43a9-b21d-0122c2ab4bc9&content_type=P&view_mode=listView
36. 科技部. (2017c). 科技計畫審議及管考. Retrieved from https://www.most.gov.tw/pla/ch/list?menu_id=53d0432c-0850-4495-b3bb-dd36cd50c57e&view_mode=listView
37. 科技部. (2017d). 科技部 107 年度施政計畫. Retrieved from https://www.most.gov.tw/most/attachments/07ddc54c-dc95-4587-8925-3c65596c3363?
38. 徐作聖. (2001). 跨國性科技政策比較分析之研究-以美、日、韓、中華民國、中國大陸、以色列、澳大利亞、加拿大為例. 國立交通大學科技管理研究所: 行政院國家科學委員會.
39. 國家發展委員會. (2015). 行政院所屬各機關中長程個案計畫制度. Retrieved from http://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=A4EE4D2D26A30638
40. 國家發展委員會. (2017). 國家發展計畫－106至109年四年計畫暨106年計畫. Retrieved from https://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=802D5A89AEA0FC19.
41. 國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心. (2017). 2018年科技預算1,178.1億元、成長達12.8%. Retrieved from http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=13618
42. 常静, & 王冰. (2012). 欧盟 “地平线 2020” 框架计划主要内容与制定方法. 全球科技经济瞭望(5), 53-59.
43. 張嘉祥, & 周東鳳. (2017). 台歐盟第二期Targeted Opening Call提案專家評估會議. 行政院所屬各機關因公出國人員出國報告.
44. 張錦俊. (2013). 政府績效評估制度改革途徑之國際脈絡. 公共治理季刊, 1(2), 72-84.
45. 張錦俊, & 李宜憲. (2015). 加拿大政府計畫管理評估機構考察出國報告書. 國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心: 行政院所屬各機關因公出國人員出國報告.
46. 許瓊文, & 洪世章. (2011). 科技計畫績效評估指標的剖析. [Analysis of the Assessment Indicators of Science and Technology Projects]. 科技管理學刊, 16(3), 29-51.
47. 郭耀煌, & 許華欣. (2017). 科技計畫管理機制之研析. 國土及公共治理季刊, 5(3), 8-19.
48. 陳立功. (2008). 97年北美科技政策研究與資訊機構參訪. 行政院所屬各機關因公出國人員出國報告.
49. 陳良基. (2011). 2.1 大學科研產業化與價值創造. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/31_%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%B8%E7%A7%91%E7%A0%94%E7%94%A2%E6%A5%AD%E5%8C%96%E8%88%87%E5%83%B9%E5%80%BC%E5%89%B5%E9%80%A0.pdf.
50. 陳怡之. (2003). 科技研究機構組織績效評估之探討. 研考雙月刊, 27(5), 62-79.
51. 陳明俐, 紀凱齡, 邱錦田, & 楊智元. (2014). 國家科技發展計畫管考評估機制之現況分析. 科技政策觀點. Retrieved from https://portal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/article/23
52. 曾冠球. (2016). 從政策評估觀點精進我國個案計畫之審議機制. 國土及公共治理季刊, 4(3), 58-68.
53. 黃慧真. (2014). 科技發展計畫之規劃與成果評估－專訪台灣大學應用力學研究所張培仁教授. 臺灣經濟研究月刊, 37(10), 14-20.
54. 溫大君. (2017). 歐盟物聯網推動措施重點與趨勢觀察. 科技政策觀點. Retrieved from https://portal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/article/10299
55. 鄒篪生. (2010). 科技計畫績效評估及指標設計. 政府科技發展計畫研擬及績效指標訂定及實作研習會: 國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心.
56. 廖麗娟, 莊麗蘭, 吳怡銘, & 陳黛玲. (2013). 專訪行政院研究發展考核委員會宋主任委員餘俠：我國推動良善公共治理之現況與發展願景─借鏡歐盟經驗. 公共治理季刊, 1(4), 9-17.
57. 裴瑞敏, & 胡智慧. (2014). 加拿大 “经济行动计划” 成效及其科技创新政策分析. 全球科技经济瞭望, 29(12), 15-23.
58. 劉一萍. (2012). 績效衡量的尺度-科技計畫效益評估指標的選定與管理. 臺灣經濟研究月刊, 35(2), 36-42.
59. 劉彥蘭, & 袁孝維. (2016). 歐盟多層次科研計畫推動. 科技報導. Retrieved from http://scitechreports.blogspot.tw/2016/07/blog-post_37.html
60. 劉華美. (2010). 歐盟科技研發計畫及其法制基礎. 月旦法學雜誌(178), 128-145.
61. 歐盟科研架構國家聯絡據點台灣辦公室. (2014). 展望2020暨歐盟國家聯絡據點計畫簡介. Retrieved from https://www.ncp.tw/tw/
62. 蔡宛栩. (2015). 方案理論與邏輯架構概念與實作. 國家實驗研究院 Retrieved from https://gstp.stpi.narl.org.tw/index.htm.
63. 蔡旻樺, & 洪文琪. (2007). 公共研發績效評估趨勢－韓國研發計劃評估系統之實例介紹. [Trends of Public R&D Evaluation: The Case of R&D Program Evaluation System in Korea]. 研考雙月刊, 31(2), 112-122.
64. 盧智芳, & 李雪莉. (2012). 誰在決定台灣的科技政策？. 天下雜誌(248期).
65. 錢宗良. (2015). 科技發展計畫規劃_撰寫及績效指標訂定研習 : 如何撰寫符合科技發展之計畫書. 科技部.
66. 羅愛雁. (2017). 淺談加拿大評估制度演變及其省思. Retrieved from https://portal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/article/10344
67. 羅愛雁, 張錦俊, 劉玳縈, 戴政安, 張玄熹, & 李宜憲. (2017). 我國科技發展計畫績效評估機制研析: 國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心.