數位協作（digital coordination）研究過去多聚焦於具有明確邊界、預先定義目標及清楚成功標準的情境。然而，公民科技（Civic Technology）倡議日益面對具有爭議性問題界定、不斷演變的目標，以及高度不確定性的棘手問題（wicked problems）。在此類情境下，志願者社群如何透過數位工具協調分散式工作，現有研究仍缺乏系統性的理解。
本研究以臺灣最大的公民科技社群 g0v 之 558 個專案為研究對象，探討數位協作配置（digital coordination configurations）與專案發展歷程之間的關係。研究採用兩階段集群分析（two-stage cluster analysis），首先辨識三種主要協作模式，包括技術驅動型（Tech Driven）、社群導向型（Community Based）與低參與型（Low Engagement）；進一步區分出七種細緻的協作子群，各自在工具採用、參與強度及組織導向等面向呈現不同特徵。
研究結果顯示，在高度不確定的情境下，協作成效並非取決於是否複製傳統組織的結構條件，而是取決於三項配置構面的適配程度，包括議題重要性（issue salience）、技術執行能力（technical execution capacity）及組織基礎（organizational foundation）。此外，不同協作模式具有不同的成功因素，顯示有效的數位協作應依不同協作配置採取相對應的策略，而非依循單一且普遍適用的協作模式。
在理論貢獻方面，本研究將資訊系統（Information Systems, IS）協作理論由結構化任務環境延伸至棘手問題情境，說明志願驅動公民創新中的協作成效具有配置導向（configurational）的特性。在實務貢獻方面，本研究提供兩類實務工作者具體參考依據：專案發起人可運用本研究所提出之診斷架構，評估不同協作模式與專案需求的適配性，並據以配置資源；平台維運者則可依據不同協作子群的特徵，設計差異化的支援機制，以因應不同類型公民科技專案的協作需求。

Research on digital coordination has predominantly focused on contexts with stable boundaries, predefined goals, and clear success metrics. However, civic technology initiatives increasingly confront wicked problems, which are characterized by contested problem framings, evolving objectives, and fundamental uncertainty. Our understanding of how volunteer-driven communities coordinate distributed work under these conditions remains limited.
This study draws on 558 projects from g0v, Taiwan's largest civic technology community, to examine the relationship between digital coordination configurations and project progression across six developmental levels. Through a two-stage cluster analysis, we identify three broad coordination patterns Tech Driven, Community Based, and Low Engagement and seven fine grained coordination subgroups, each exhibiting distinct profiles across tool adoption, participation intensity, and organizational orientation. Our findings reveal that coordination effectiveness under high uncertainty depends not on approximating the structural conditions of conventional settings, but on the alignment of three configuration specific dimensions: issue salience, technical execution capacity, and organizational foundation. Success factors are systematically different across coordination patterns, demonstrating that pattern specific approaches are more appropriate than universal prescriptions for effective coordination.
Theoretically, this study extends IS coordination theory beyond structured task environments to wicked problem settings, establishing the configurational nature of coordination effectiveness in volunteer driven civic innovation. Practically, the findings provide actionable guidance for two key practitioner roles: project initiators, who can use the diagnostic framework developed here to assess which coordination approach fits their initiative and allocate resources accordingly, and platform maintainers, who can leverage the subgroup profiles to design differentiated support structures that address the specific coordination challenges of diverse project types.

Aguerre, Carolina, and Carla Bonina. 2024. “Open Government, Civic Tech and Digital Platforms in Latin America: A Governance Study of Montevideo’s Urban App ‘Por Mi Barrio.’” Information Systems Journal 34 (4): 1037–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12468.
Bommert, Ben. 2010. “COLLABORATIVE INNOVATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.” International Public Management Review 11 ((1)): 15–33.
Conti, Annamaria, Christian Peukert, and Maria Roche. 2025. “Beefing IT Up for Your Investor? Engagement with Open Source Communities, Innovation, and Startup Funding: Evidence from GitHub.” Organization Science 36 (4): 1551–73. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.18348.
Cui, Tingru, Hua (Jonathan) Ye, Hock Hai Teo, and Jizhen Li. 2015. “Information Technology and Open Innovation: A Strategic Alignment Perspective.” Information & Management 52 (3): 348–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.12.005.
Faraj, Samer, Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa, and Ann Majchrzak. 2011. “Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities.” Organization Science 22 (5): 1224–39. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0614.
Ferlie, Ewan, Louise Fitzgerald, Gerry McGIVERN, Sue Dopson, and Chris Bennett. 2011. “PUBLIC POLICY NETWORKS AND ‘WICKED PROBLEMS’: A NASCENT SOLUTION?” Public Administration 89 (2): 307–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01896.x.
Gegenhuber, Thomas, Johanna Mair, René Lührsen, and Laura Thäter. 2023. “Orchestrating Distributed Data Governance in Open Social Innovation.” Information and Organization 33 (1): 100453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2023.100453.
Gordon, Eric, and Rogelio Alejandro Lopez. 2019. “The Practice of Civic Tech: Tensions in the Adoption and Use of New Technologies in Community Based Organizations.” Media and Communication 7 (3): 57–68. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i3.2180.
Hamm, Andrea, Yuya Shibuya, Stefan Ullrich, and Teresa Cerratto Cerratto Pargman. 2021. “What Makes Civic Tech Initiatives To Last Over Time? Dissecting Two Global Cases.” Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 6, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445667.
Head, Brian W., and John Alford. 2015. “Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management.” Administration & Society 47 (6): 711–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601.
Huang, Zhexue. n.d. Extensions to the K-Means Algorithm for Clustering Large Data Sets with Categorical Values.
Humble, Jez, and David G. Farley. 2011. Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software Releases through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation. 7th printing 2013. A Martin Fowler Signature Book. Addison-Wesley.
Janssen, Marijn, and Haiko Van Der Voort. 2016. “Adaptive Governance: Towards a Stable, Accountable and Responsive Government.” Government Information Quarterly 33 (1): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.02.003.
Kankanhalli, Atreyi, Anneke Zuiderwijk, and Giri Kumar Tayi. 2017. “Open Innovation in the Public Sector: A Research Agenda.” Government Information Quarterly 34 (1): 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.12.002.
Kaufman, Leonard, and Peter J. Rousseeuw. 2005. Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Wiley.
Lindberg, Aron, Nicholas Berente, James Gaskin, and Kalle Lyytinen. 2016. “Coordinating Interdependencies in Online Communities: A Study of an Open Source Software Project.” Information Systems Research 27 (4): 751–72. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0673.
Majchrzak, A., and A. Malhotra. 2013. “Towards an Information Systems Perspective and Research Agenda on Crowdsourcing for Innovation.” The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 22 (4): 257–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2013.07.004.
Majchrzak, Ann, and Arvind Malhotra. 2016. “Effect of Knowledge-Sharing Trajectories on Innovative Outcomes in Temporary Online Crowds.” Information Systems Research 27 (4): 685–703. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0669.
Majchrzak, Ann, Arvind Malhotra, and Michael A. Zaggl. 2021. “How Open Crowds Self-Organize.” Academy of Management Discoveries 7 (1): 104–29. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0087.
McCord, Curtis. 2022. Civic Participation and Democratic Experience: Civic Tech in Toronto.
Meyer, Renate E. 2025. “Wicked Crises and the (In)Capacity to Act.” Administrative Science Quarterly, August 15, 00018392251363998. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392251363998.
Rittle, H. W. J., and M. M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy SciencesPolicy Sciences 4: 155–69.
Splitter, Violetta, Leonhard Dobusch, Georg Von Krogh, Richard Whittington, and Peter Walgenbach. 2023. “Openness as Organizing Principle: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Organization Studies 44 (1): 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406221145595.
Termeer, Catrien J. A. M., Art Dewulf, Gerard Breeman, and Sabina J. Stiller. 2015. “Governance Capabilities for Dealing Wisely With Wicked Problems.” Administration & Society 47 (6): 680–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712469195.
Termeer, C.J.A.M, A. Dewulf, S. I. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, M. Vink, and M. van Vliet. 2016. “Coping with the Wicked Problem of Climate Adaptation across Scales: The Five R Governance Capabilities.” Landscape and Urban Planning 154 (October): 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.007.
Thorndike, Robert L.Thorndike, Robert L. 1953. "Who Belongs in the Family?" Psychometrika. 18 (4): 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289263.
Von Krogh, Haefliger, Spaeth, and Wallin. 2012. “Carrots and Rainbows: Motivation and Social Practice in Open Source Software Development.” MIS Quarterly 36 (2): 649. https://doi.org/10.2307/41703471.
Wilson, Bev, and Arnab Chakraborty. 2019. “Planning Smart(Er) Cities: The Promise of Civic Technology.” Journal of Urban Technology 26 (4): 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2019.1631097.
Zhang, Weiyu, Gionnieve Lim, Simon Perrault, and Chuyao Wang. 2021. A Review of Research on Civic Technology: Definitions, Theories, History and Insights. https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.11461.