政府透過組織改造提高效能，配合行政院科技會報與科技部之成立，我國科研行政體系大致底定。科技發展計畫每年預算約為新臺幣一千億元左右，在組織改造後，科技發展計畫運作機制歷經一系列簡化計畫種類、額度分類以及審議流程等措施，使其更具效益。 行政院科技會報第十一次及第十二次會議決議推動大型科研計畫管理機制，為優化我國整體科技與創新政策規劃及治理能量，漸近完善科技決策支援體系。行政院科技會報辦公室2017年成立「科技計畫首席評議專家室」，以計畫里程碑及全程效益目標作為檢視計畫執行進度與成果的基準，革新科技計畫管理機制。 本研究以文件分析法，探析美國國防部國防先進研究計畫署、日本革新研究發展推動計畫之推動模式，與我國科技計畫首席評議專家室做比較分析，並以科技計畫審議機制為主要研究方向，做為未來運作機制精進之參考。研究發現三者皆設置計畫核心人物，惟其定位及角色不同，另在組織架構、計畫規劃與審議皆有所差異。本研究認為，以「建立誘因制度」推動科技計畫首席評議專家室，透過「精進溝通機制」強化科技計畫事前評估，促使制度更臻完善。;Through the reformation of its organizations, the establishments of Board of Science and Technology, Executive Yuan, and Ministry of Science and Technology, the scientific research administrative system of Taiwan is coming together. The budget is estimated NTD100 Billions for science and technology programs in Taiwan per year. While after the re-organization of government, the program operation system is better and much efficient by classification on program, budgeting and review process. The resolutions passed from the 11th and the 12th Board of Science and Technology meetings concluded to push forward management mechanisms for major scientific research programs, in order to improve the planning and execution of our national science and innovation related policies, and to gradually enhance the scientific decision support system. In addition, to renew its management mechanisms for scientific research programs, the Office of Science and Technology established the “Science & Technology Program Executive Review Board” in 2017 to review the executions and end results of programs by evaluating program milestone and end-point. Based on document analysis, this research analyzed the executions of DARPA of US (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and ImPACT of Japan (Impulsing Paradigm Change through Disruptive Technologies Program) in comparison with Taiwan’s Science & Technology Program Executive Review Board. It’s mainly focusing on the planning and reviewing mechanisms of scientific programs, for future references in improving operation mechanisms. It is found in this study that all three examples establish program core members though they differ in roles and functions. On the other hand, there are several differences among them in organization structures, program planning and reviewing procedures. It is proposed in this research that forming an incentive system for Science & Technology Program Executive Review Board, and enhancing preliminary studies on scientific programs through “refined communication mechanisms” will further improve our current scientific research management system.
