한국융합학회논문지 (Journal of the Korea Convergence Society)

  • 제11권4호
  • /
  • Pages.255-264
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2233-4890(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6353(eISSN)
한국융합학회 (Korea Convergence Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

성과정보 활용행태에 따른 의사결정 행태변화 실증분석

Decision Making Behavior by Performance Information Use

  • Cho, Mun-Seok (Department of Public Administration, Hansung University) ;
  • Eom, Young-Ho (Department of Public Administration, Yonsei University) ;
  • Her, Da-Hye (Department of Public Administration, Yonsei University)
  • 투고 : 2020.03.17
  • 심사 : 2020.04.20
  • 발행 : 2020.04.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 연구는 성과정보의 특성에 따른 의사결정자의 성과정보 활용 방식이 자원 배분과 관련한 의사결정에 미치는 영향을 실증적으로 분석하는 것이다. 이 연구는 이론적 논의를 토대로 일반행정, 경제정책, 환경정책의 3개 분야에 대한 성과시나리오를 설계하고, 각 시나리오에 대해 연구집단과 대조집단을 구분하였다. 연구집단은 측정지표를 활용한 성과정보를 제공하고, 대조집단에게는 달성여부에 대한 정보만을 제공하여 자원배분 의사결정 방식을 MANCOVA 비교분석한 결과 성과정보의 제공은 응답자들의 예산배분 행태의 차이를 유발하는 주요한 요인인 것으로 나타났다. 일반행정 분야의 경우 두 개 프로그램에서 연구집단과 대조집단의 예산배분 방향성에 차이가 나타났으며 나머지 두 개 시나리오에서는 동일한 방향성을 지니면서도 증액의 규모와 비율에 있어 대부분 유의미한 차이가 도출되었다. 이러한 결과를 토대로 성과정보 활용에 따른 일반적 의사결정 모형을 구축하기 위해 후속 연구에서 전문성의 편향 문제를 극복하기 위해 반복적인 실험 연구와 관료집단과 일반인의 행태를 비교-검증하는 연구를 수행할 것을 제안한다.

This research empirical explores impacts of performance information use of decision makers in distributing financial resources. Based on theoretical review and previous researches, we organized three scenarios of general public administration, economic policy, and environmental policy and investigated the difference in budget distribution between measured information and simple information of success or failure by randomly divided experimental and control groups who are not experienced bureaucratic processed. The results indicate that experimental group judge by using performance information with numeric indicators and has more diversified patterns than control group. We suggest that repeated experiments including bureaucratic members to reduce bias of expertness and generalize the decision making models using performance information in future researches.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. D. P. Moynihan. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
  2. S. D. Oh & K. H. Sim. (2019). An Empirical Study of Organizational Factors Influencing Performance Information Use Based on the Perception of Employees in Government-Funded Science and Technology Research Institutes. Korean Journal of Public Administration, 57(2), 169-200. https://doi.org/10.24145/KJPA.57.2.6
  3. B. S. Barnow. (1992). The effects of performance standardes on state and local program. in C. F. Manski and I. Garfinkel. (eds.) Evaluating welfare and training programs. pp. 277-309. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  4. B. Liner, H. Hatry, E. Vinson, R. Allen, P. Dunsenbery, S. Byrant & R. Snell. (2011). Making Rsult-Based State Government Work. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
  5. T. H. Pollit & S. Dan. (2013). Searching for Impacts in Performenace-Oriented Management Reform: A Review of the European Literature. Public Performance and Management Review, 37(1), 7-22. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576370101
  6. R. McAdam, S. Hazlett & C. Casey. (2005). Performance Management in the U.K. Public Sector: Addressing Multiple Stakeholder Complexity. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(3), 256-273. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550510591542
  7. M. H. Moore. (1995). Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  8. C. Hood. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons. Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
  9. W. Van Dooren, G. Bouchaert & J. Halligan. (2010) Performance Management in the Public Sector. London: Routledge.
  10. W. Van Dooren, C. de Caluwe & Z. Lonti. (2012). How to Measure Public Administration Performance: A Conceptual Model with Applications for Budgeting, Human Resource Management, and Open Government. Public Performance and Management Review, 35(3), 489-508. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576350306
  11. C. Agyris & D. Schon. (1996). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. (2nd edition). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  12. K. W. Park. (2013). The Effects of Performance Measures Based on Public Sector Performance Management and Decentralization on Organizational Performance. Korean International Accounting Review, 105-126.
  13. C. Heinrich. (2002). Outcomes-based Performance Management in the Public Sector: Implications for Government Accountability and Effectiveness, Public Administration Review, 62(6), 712-725. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00253
  14. S. H. Cho. (2004). A Study of the Linkage between Policy Management and Budgeting Management in Local Government - Focused on Incorporating Strategic Planning, Performance Evaluation, and Budgeting Management, The Korean Journal of Local Government Studies, 8(2), 145-166.
  15. S. M. Hronec. (1993), Vital Signs: Using Quality, Time and Cost Performance Measurements to Chart Your Company's Future, NY: Amacom,
  16. I. H. Chung, Y. J. Choi, J. H. Park & J. J. Lim. (2019). A Study on Citizen Participation in Public Service Delivery Process : Focused on the Utilization of Performance Information and Participation in Renewable Energy Policy in Energy Public Institutions. The Korean Association For Policy Analysis And Evaluation a collection of academic presentations(2019), 145-172.
  17. G. W. Park & S. Y. Yoon. (2020). A Study on the Determinants on Organizational Performance in the Public Sector: Focusing on Acceptance of Performance Management, The Korea Local Administration Review, 34(1), 091-112.
  18. H. Y. Lee & S. J. Eom. (2018). A Study on the Antecedents and Consequences of Knowledge Management: Focusing on the Interaction Effects of Information Technology with Organizational Contexts. The Korean Governance Review, 25(1), 257-296. https://doi.org/10.17089/kgr.2018.25.1.010
  19. A. K. Gupta, K. G. Smith & C. E. Shalley. (2006). The Interplay between Exploration and Exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083026
  20. J. G. March. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
  21. J. G. March. (2006). Rationality, Foolishness, and Adaptive Intelligence. Strategic Management Journal, 27(3), 201-214. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.515
  22. W. W. Powell, K. W. Koput & Laurel Smith-Doerr. (1996). Inter-organizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116-145. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393988
  23. M. S. Cho & J. R. Oh. (2019). Halo Effect in Evaluating Government Funded Art Programs: The Case of Local Representative Performing Art Festivals. Journal of Convergence for Information Technology, 9(8), 123-133. https://doi.org/10.22156/CS4SMB.2019.9.8.123
  24. M. S. Cho & J. S. Kim. (2018). Research on types of utilization form of public sector performance information: Central government agencies. Korean Public Management Review, 32(4), 155-177. https://doi.org/10.24210/kapm.2018.32.4.007
  25. M. S. Cho & J. W. Lee. (2015). A study of integrated performance management in central government agencies. Modern Society and Public Administration, 26(1), 77-103.