（專題）國立大專校院預算員額調控機制之研究：政策問題之建構與分析

卷期：67卷第2期
日期：2022年6月
頁碼：125-153
DOI：https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202206_67(2).0005

摘要：
現行國立大學進用人力，包含經行政院核定有案的編制內員額及編制外人員，依法並得控留部分編制內員額改進用以校務基金自籌經費支出，即以契約用人方式取代。惟學校如有員額需求，多傾向控留編制員額向教育部請增，而非統籌分配運用校內現有缺額，與少子女化趨勢及政府員額精簡政策違背。本研究旨在針對國立大專校院編制員額調控機制進行問題的建構與分析，以多元觀點分析法的技術觀點、組織觀點與個體觀點為分析架構。透過文件分析法、員額數據的統計分析，並訪談與座談計30所國立大專校院的人事主任，以及行政院與教育部的相關單位，試圖探討問題及其導因與影響為何，以釐清問題的癥結與嚴重性，作為後續決策的基礎。研究發現，導致國立大專校院預算員額調控機制問題的根本原因有三：一、教育部與學校員額回收與統籌分配的運作不佳；二、教育部與大學之間的員額控管權責與機制不明；三、學校之間針對員額配置的條件與需求差異。根據研究結論，本研究嘗試提出針對國立大專校院員額調控機制的建議：一、釐清教育部與大學之間員額控管的權責並建立明確的控管機制；二、鼓勵並協助學校厚實員額調控及經費自籌的能力；三、研發能促進學校之間及其內部人力配置及效率運用的策略。文末並基於研究發現研提政策建議，期能精進國立大專校院員額控管機制之運作，進而提升高等教育治理的效率與效能。

關鍵詞：人事管理、員額調控、高等教育、問題建構、編制員額

《詳全文》

1. 丘昌泰（2008）。公共政策：基礎篇。巨流。【Chiou, C.-T. (2008). Public policy: The basics. Chuliu.】
2. 林政逸、楊思偉（2011）。我國公立大學策略性人力資源管理模式之建構。高等教育，6（2），33-76。https://doi.org/10.3966/199254762011120602002【Lin, J.-Y., & Yang, S.-W. (2011). Strategic human resource management model for public universities in Taiwan. Journal of Higher Education, 6(2), 33-76. https://doi.org/10.3966/199254762011120602002】
3. 林峻瑩、謝亞恆、陳成宏（2014）。臺灣地區大專院校教師對學校評價的影響機制：學校屬性與教師分級的區隔作用。教育科學研究期刊，59（3），29-58。https://doi.org/10.6209/　JORIES.2014.59(3).02【Lin, C.-Y., Hsieh, Y.-H., & Chen, C.-H. (2014). Taiwanese college instructors’ evaluation of their schools: The differences among school attributes and instructor ranks. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 59(3), 29-58. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2014.59(3).02】
4. 林鍾沂（2005）。行政學。三民。【Lin, C.-Y. (2005). Public administration. San Min.】
5. 張世賢（2011）。公共政策分析。五南。【Chang, S.-H. (2011). Public policy analysis. Wu-Nan.】

(Special Issue) The Mechanism of Managing Budgeted Staff in National Universities and Colleges:Problem Construction and Analysis

Vol.&No.：Vol. 67, No. 2
Date：June 2022
Pages：125-153
DOI：https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202206_67(2).0005

Abstract：
Research Motivation and Objective
The staff of national universities and colleges include authorized and contract staff. According to the law, national universities and colleges may maintain positions for authorized staff but hire additional contract-based employees whose salaries can be paid using national university funds. However, instead of improving the efficiency of their management of budgeted staff, universities and colleges generally request authorization for an increase in their allotted number of staff members from the Ministry of Education when they have a higher demand. This practice conflicts with the limitations of the national low-birth rate trend and the government’s policy of downsizing. This study focused on problem construction by incorporating technical, organizational, and individual perspectives to understand the process of managing budgeted staff in national universities and colleges.
Literature Review
Problem construction is crucial and involves understanding conscious choice through quantitative and qualitative analyses (Checkland, 2006). This study elucidated problems underlying budgeted staff management in national universities and colleges, which are closely associated with the rights and responsibilities of many decision-makers and stakeholders with conflicts of value or interest. In consideration of these ill-structured problems (Dunn, 2012), stakeholders’ views and insights were integrated into the problem construction process, which was developed using an approach of multiple perspective analysis, referring to technical, organizational, and individual perspectives. The focus of the technical perspective was micro-economics, cost-benefit analysis, input-output analysis, and decision analysis, through which causal relationships and statistical inferences can be determined. The organizational perspective involved the procedures, principles, and routines of engaged organizations. The individual perspective involved individuals’ perceptions, needs, and values (Dunn, 2012), which were used to determine individuals’ views on specific problems.
Research Methods
1. Document analysis: Documents, laws, rules, and meeting transcripts were collected from the Ministry of Education, the Directorate-General of Personnel Administration, and national universities and colleges to understand and construct problems.
2. Secondary data analysis: To obtain the actual and budgeted numbers of budgeted staff, data from 2020 were collected from the websites of the Ministry of Education and national universities and colleges. Statistical analysis of the secondary data provided basic findings for interviews and focus groups.
3. Interviews: Purposive sampling was used to recruit interview participants. Interviews were conducted with 7 personnel chairs and one accounting chair to understand the personnel operations and related budgets of national universities and colleges. Moreover, interviews were conducted with 4 individuals from the Ministry of Education and the Directorate-General of Personnel Administration to determine decision-makers’ thoughts and opinions.
4. Focus groups: Four focus groups were held that included 27 staff members from national universities and colleges to determine the influence of student scale, budget scale, year of establishment of a school, whether the school was a comprehensive or technical university, and the faculty composition on the process of managing budgeted staff.
Findings
Findings regarding the construction of the problem underlying the process of managing budgeted staff in national universities and colleges, which was determined from technical, organizational, and individual perspectives, are summarized as follows:
1. Technical perspective: National universities and colleges generally request more budgeted staff from the Ministry of Education when the universities and colleges expand new departments, programs or consider future development in emerging technology. In addition, universities experienced difficulty in reducing their allotted number of budgeted staff after they were allocated to departments or colleges.
2. Organizational perspective: Allocating budgeted staff and a corresponding budget created tension between the Ministry of Education and national universities and colleges with respect to their autonomy. Moreover, tension was present within different agencies of the Ministry of Education, such as those related to personnel, accounting, and higher education.
3. Individual perspective: The insufficiency or inequity of resources among national universities and colleges may contribute to different aspects of managing budgeted staff, which renders unified methods of management from the Ministry of Education impossible.
Discussion and Suggestions
According to the findings, clarifying responsibilities for managing budged staff of the Ministry of Education and national universities and colleges should be a priority. The Ministry of Education should empower national universities and colleges to manage their own faculty numbers but retain control over the total staff numbers. Moreover, because national universities and colleges wish to gain autonomy and free themselves of pressure from the Ministry of Education, they must become self-sufficient rather than request additional budgeted staff or budgets as new needs arise. That is, under the circumstance of constrained resources, national universities and colleges should strengthen their capacities to self-support with respect to financial and human resources. In addition, national universities and colleges generally recruit contract-based staff to mitigate their immediate or temporary staff shortages; they must assume responsibility for the budget preparation and allocation of an appropriate combination of budgeted and contact staff. In summary, the prosperity of higher education is dependent on good governance and solid collaboration between the Ministry of Education and national universities and colleges.

Keywords：personnel management, staff number regulation, higher education, problem construction, authorized complement