콘텐츠 바로가기
로그인
컨텐츠

Category Open

Resources

tutorial

Collection of research papers and materials on development issues

home

Resources
Government and Law Public Administration

Print

정부업무평가결과 환류의 정착방안 연구

Related Document
Frame of Image 는 부분입니다. 정부업무평가제도에 있어서 이처럼 환류과정이 중요함에도 불구하고 그 동안 정 부업무평가제도에 있어서 평가결과 정보들이 환류과정을 통해 정책개선, 예산, 조 직, 인사, 보수 등에 어느 정도 반영되었는지에 대한 연구는 거의 전무한 상태였습 니다. 이러한 문제인식 하에 본 연구보고서는 정부업무평가제도에서의 환류과정의 운영 실태를 파악하고 이를 통해 드러난 문제점들을 개선할 수 있는 방안을 제시 하고 있습니다. 이 연구보고서에는 정부업무평가결과의 환류에 대한 심도 있는 이론적 논의, 정 부업무평가결과 환류제도에 있어서의 운영 실태 분석, 미국, 영국, 캐나다 등 주요 국의 환류제도 비교 및 한국에의 시사점 도출, 환경적· 운영적· 인식적 측면에서 개선방안 제시 등 구체적인 내용이 포함되어 있습니다. 아무쪼록 이 보고서가 정 무업무평가제도에 있어서 환류과정을 보다 잘 정착시키는데 기여할 수 있기를 바 랍니다. 또한 환류에 관심을 있는 공무원, 학도들에게 모두 좋은 자료가 될 수 있 기를 바랍니다. 이 연구를 책임지고 수행한 한국행정연구원의 임동진, 강영철 연구위원과 이화진 연구원의 노고에 감사합니다. 아울러 이 연구의 수행과정에서 많은 도움을 주신 학계 및 실무계 인사들에게도 이 지면을 빌어 감사의 말씀을 드립니다. 2008년 12월 한국행정연구원 원장
정용덕
목차
Ⅰ서 론
1. 연구의 필요성_2 2. 연구의 목적_4 3. 연구의 범위와 방법_5
Ⅱ 환류에 대한 이론적 배경
1. 환류의 개념과 중요성_10 1) 환류의 개념_10 2) 환류의 유형_13 3) 환류의 중요성과 역할_14 2. 환류에 대한 선행연구 검토_18 1) 환류에 대한 국내·외 문헌 검토_18 2) 환류의 영향요인에 대한 선행연구 검토_22 3) 환류요인, 환류활동 및 업무성과와의 관계_29 3. 연구의 분석 틀_35 1) 연구의 분석 틀_35 2) 연구의 흐름도_37
Ⅲ 정부업무평가결과 환류제도의 운영실태 분석
1. 정부업무평가 환류제도의 주요내용_40 1) 정부업무평가제도의 주요내용_40 2) 정부업무평가제도에서의 평가결과의 활용_42 3) 정부업무평가제도에서의 평가결과의 환류_45 2. 조직적 측면의 환류의 운영실태 분석_46 1) 정책개선에의 환류실태_47 2) 예산관리에의 환류실태_49 3) 조직관리에의 환류실태_52 3. 개인적 측면의 환류의 운영실태 분석_55 1) 인사관리에의 환류실태_56 2) 보수관리에의 환류실태_57 3) 인사 및 보수관리에의 환류의 주요 특징_60
Ⅳ 인식적 측면의 환류의 운영실태 및 환류효과 분석
1. 환류인식조사를 위한 조사설계_66 1) 설문조사 설계 및 분석기법_66 2) 조사응답자의 인구사회학적 특성_69 2. 인식적 측면의 환류의 운영실태 분석_71 1) 환류제도의 운영실태에 대한 인식분석_71 2) 환류제도 분야별 반영수준에 대한 인식분석_74 3) 환류제도 문제점 및 개선방안에 대한 인식분석_80 3. 환류요인의 연구가설 검증 및 환류효과 분석_84 1) 환류요인의 연구가설 설정 및 분석 틀_84 2) 환류활동


Full Text
Title 정부업무평가결과 환류의 정착방안 연구
Similar Titles
Material Type Reports
Author(Korean)

임동진; 강영철

Publisher

서울:한국행정연구원

Date 2008-12
Series Title; No KIPA 연구보고서 / 2008-06
Pages 243
Subject Country South Korea(Asia and Pacific)
Language Korean
File Type Documents
Original Format pdf
Subject Government and Law < Public Administration
Holding 한국행정연구원

Abstract

Several advanced countries in the word have taken administrative reform toward the goal of 'better government' with more efficiency. In the case of
Korea, the Korean government made the Government Evaluation Law of 2006, which was the evaluation system based on a philosophical background of
performance-oriented management. One of the ultimate objectives of the Government Evaluation System is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
government by utilizing performance information of government through the feedback process. In this context, the feedback system in the government
evaluation process is very important. Despite of the importance of feedback, previous studies related to how evaluation information in government
influences policies, budgets, personnel, and organizations in the feedback process were very limited.
Under the recognition of this research problem. this study diagnosed the status quo and operational problems of the present feedback system, and suggested policy implications to be able to provide for the betterment of feedback operation of the present Government Evaluation System through five analytic lenses: organizational; personal; perceptional; theoretical; comparative. In order to accomplish this research objective, this study conducted in-depth literature review deeply related to feedback theories, compared the feedback system of three countries such as, the US, the UK, and Canada, and utilized an empirical study using a questionnaire survey and an interview of public employees working for evaluation in the central government.
The research results of this study can be summarized as the following. First, in terms of organization management (i. e., policy improvement, budget management, organization management), the government's efforts of corrections and audits for improving policies based upon evaluation or the feedback process did not result in satisfactory outcomes. In terms of budget management, 'excellent'-evaluated programs of each government department based on evaluation were allocated more budgets than 'adequate' and 'insufficient'-evaluated programs. This is a good example for improving the efficiency of finance programs. Next, in terms of personnel management of feedback operation (e. g., personnel management and payment management), each government department has utilized evaluation information as the purpose of working contracting condition with public employees, the evaluation of public employees' performance, the selection of public employees' candidate for the position promotion, piece rate for salary, performance stipend, reward, and etc.
Second, the findings of the questionnaire survey of public employees with regard to the major causes of ill-operation of the present feedback systems show several causes of ill-feedback operation with statistical record as follows: the lack of reliability and objectiveness of evaluation methods 16.6%, the misbelief and unreality of evaluation. 13.9%, the inadequacy of evaluation index 13.6%, the lack of manpower and organizations for evaluation 9.5%, the nonprofessionalism of manpower for working for evaluation 9.4%, the lack of self-control of department 7.9%, the lack of personal and organizational
rewards 6.4%, the lack of top executives' leadership 5.8%, the misbelief on evaluators 5.8%, the non-usefulness of result information 5.7%, the lack of the learning and train system for evaluation 4.9%. Findings of this survey of public employees demonstrated that the main causes of ill-operation of the feedback system came from several secondary factors surrounding the feedback system rather than the feedback system itself. The secondary factors are as follows: the misbelief of the evaluation system, the inadequacy of evaluation indicators, the lack of manpower and organization for working for evaluation, nonprofessionalim of manpower for working for evaluation, the lack of top executives' leadership, the misbelief to evaluators, the lack of training on the
evaluation system, and etc.
Third, in the analysis of the research hypotheses regarding how feedback factors influence feedback seeking and job performance, this study demonstrated that environmental feedback factors and personal feedback factors have a positive relationship with personal feedback seeking and it showed that personal feedback seeking has a positive relationship with their job performance. This means that if government forms a feedback environment to be able to encourage feedback and it heightens the usefulness of feedback information, public employees' feedback seeking will be more activated and they will improve their job performance, and as a result, they will increase job performance of all departments of government.
Fourth, by comparing the evaluation and feedback systems of three countries: the United States; the United Kingdom; and Canada, this study suggests several implications for the feedback system of the Korean government: First, it is needed an inner team within department for evaluating each government department itself. Second, it is needed a standard or a framework for making out a strategy plan and a performance report for each government department. Third, feedback operation should be focused on program rather than organization itself. Finally, the connection between program and budget according to evaluation should be established at a gradual step.
Finally, this study suggested policy implications for changing the present feedback system into advanced one as follows. First, the present Self-Evaluation System of each government department should be changed into a more self-controled system. Second, the integration of several evaluation systems should be necessary. Third, the range of self-control of department in terms of evaluation should be extended. Fourth, the reliability and objectiveness of evaluation should be guaranteed. Fifth, the articulation and obviousness of evaluation should be needed. Sixth, an inner team within department for evaluating each department itself is needed. Seventh, the increase of manpower and professionalism for working for evaluation should be strengthened. Eighth, personal and organizational incentives based on evaluation should be extended. Ninth, the connection between program and budget according to evaluation should be established at a gradual step. Tenth, public employees' present recognition on feedback should be changed into more feedback-oriented recognition. Eleventh, public employees' learning and training for well-operation of feedback should be increased. Twelfth, top executives' strong will and leadership for activating the feedback process and feedback-seeking will be necessary. Finally, the participation of stockholders and the openness of evaluation results is necessary.