정보화정책 (Informatization Policy)

한국지능정보사회진흥원 (National Information Society Agency)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

국내 디지털플랫폼정부 구현을 위한 정책연구: 국내·외 플랫폼 정부 사례의 유형화를 중심으로

A Policy Study on the Implementation of Domestic Digital Platform Government: Focusing on the Classification of Domestic and Foreign Cases of Government as a Platform (GaaP)

  • Seo, Hyungjun (Center for Security Convergence & e-Governance, Inha University)
  • 투고 : 2023.11.09
  • 심사 : 2023.12.06
  • 발행 : 2023.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 플랫폼 정부의 개념이 다양하게 인지되고 있는 상황에서, 플랫폼 정부의 유형화를 수행하였다. 플랫폼 정부 개념의 포괄성 및 모호성이 실무자들의 정책추진에 장애가 되기 때문이다. 이에 관련 문헌 및 사례를 토대로 플랫폼 정부의 유형화 기준을 도출하였다. 기술적 측면은 데이터를 핵심 요인으로 하여, 공공부문의 정보시스템 및 웹사이트 등을 통합하는 통합시스템 플랫폼과 공공부문의 데이터를 단일 창구를 통해 제공 및 활용토록 하는 데이터 플랫폼 등의 플랫폼 정부 유형을 제시하였다. 거버넌스적 측면은 이해관계자를 핵심 요인으로, 공공부문과 민간부문의 교류를 목적으로 하는 소통 플랫폼과 공공부문과 민간부문이 협업하여 새로운 산출물을 도출하는 협업생산 플랫폼 등의 플랫폼 정부 유형을 제시하였다. 각 유형에 따른 플랫폼 정부 실제 사례를 제시하고, 이에 따른 함의를 제시하였다. 추가적으로 플랫폼 정부 유형 기준을 토대로 국내 디지털플랫폼정부의 추진현황에 대해 세부과제를 중심으로 어떠한 유형으로 분류되는지 내용분석을 진행했다. 분류결과 통합시스템 플랫폼 측면이 강조되고 있는 것으로 확인되었다. 플랫폼 정부 유형화를 토대로 국내 디지털플랫폼정부 구현의 정책적 제언은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 플랫폼 정부의 다양한 유형에 대한 균형 있는 구현이 요구된다. 둘째, 이해관계자의 참여와 협업을 촉진할 방안을 마련해야 한다. 셋째, 플랫폼 정부 구현을 위한 공공부문의 재구조 및 재창조의 필요성이다.

This study aims to conduct the classification of Government as a Platform (GaaP) in a situation where the concept of GaaP can be diversely recognized. This is because inclusiveness and ambiguity in the concept of GaaP can hinder policy enforcement by working-level officials in the public sector. It drew the criteria for classification for GaaP based on literature and cases for GaaP. In the technical aspect, considering data as an overarching factor, the integrated system platform integrating the information system or websites of the public sector and the data platform as a single portal for open data to external stakeholders were sorted. In the governance aspect considering stakeholder as an overarching factor, the communication platform utilized for interaction between public and private sectors and the co-creation platform that encourages public-private partnership to create innovative outcomes were sorted. It suggested an actual implementation case and the policy implication according to each type of GaaP. Additionally, according to the classification of GaaP, it conducted contents analysis as to which type of GaaP the domestic Digital Platform Government belongs to based on its detailed assignment. Based on the classification of GaaP, it drew balanced implementation for various types of GaaP, plan for promoting the participation and collaboration of stakeholders, and necessity of restructuring and reinventing of the public sector as policy implications for the domestic digital platform government.

키워드

과제정보

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF-2022S1A5C2A03093690)

참고문헌

  1. Andersson Schwarz, J. (2017). "Platform logic: An interdisciplinary approach to the platform-based economy." Policy & Internet, 9(4), 374-394. 
  2. Ansell, C. & Gash, A.(2018). "Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 16-32. 
  3. Bartlett, D. (2018). "Government as a platform. In Opening Government: Transparency and Engagement." In Wanna, J., & Vincent, S.(ed), the Information Age, 37-44, Australian national university Press: Canberra, Australia. 
  4. Bogost, I. & Montfort, N. (2007). New media as material constraint: An introduction to platform studies. Paper presented at the first international HASTAC conference, April 19. 
  5. Brown, A., Fishenden, J., Thompson, M. & Venters, W. (2017). "Appraising the impact and role of platform models and Government as a Platform (GaaP) in UK Government public service reform: Towards a Platform Assessment Framework (PAF)." Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 167-182. 
  6. Cordella, A. & Paletti, A. (2019). "Government as a platform, orchestration, and public value creation: The Italian case." Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101409. 
  7. Digital Platform Government committee (2023). Action plan for Digital Platform Government. 
  8. Enzerink, S. (2020). "Three Perspectives on Government as a Platform." https://www.capgemini.com/insights/expert-perspectives/three-perspectives-on-government-as-a-platform/ (Retrieved on October 5, 2023). 
  9. e-Governance Academy (2017). Welcome to Estonia. Available online: https://ega.ee/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/eGA-esitlus-eEstonia_2016_PDF.pdf (Retrieved on July 20, 2023). 
  10. Gansen, K. Van., Valayer, C. & Allessie, D. (2018). Digital Platform for public services. European Union report. 
  11. Ginsberg, W. (2011). The Obama Administration's Open Government Initiative: Issues for Congress. CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress. In Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. 
  12. Goldsmith, S. & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 
  13. Gore, A. (1993). Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less: Reengineering Through Information Technology. Report of the National Performance Review. Washington DC: Government Printing Office. 
  14. Gorwa, R. (2019). "What is platform governance?" Information, Communication & Society, 22(6), 854-871. 
  15. Finnerty, B. (2018) A Digital Government Technology Platform Is Essential to Government Transformation. Gartner report. 
  16. Janssen, M., Chun, S. A. & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2009). "Building the next generation of digital government infrastructures." Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 233-237. 
  17. Janssen, M. & Estevez, E. (2013). "Lean government and platform-based governance? Doing more with less." Government Information Quarterly, 30, S1-S8. 
  18. Kim, S. & Lee, J. (2012). "E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government." Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819-828. 
  19. Kim. S., Nam, H. & Nam, T. (2021). "The Influence of Platform Government-based Service Quality Factors on Trust in Government." The Korea Association for Policy Studies, 30(3), 115-146. 
  20. Kuhn, P., Buchinger, M., Balta, D. & Matthes, F. (2022). Barriers of applying Government as a Platform in Practice: Evidence from Germany. Paper presented at the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 4. 
  21. Lee, J., Park, H. & Nam. T. (2020). "Evolution of Network Governance? Platform Government Model and Strategy Analysis: Focusing on Gwanghwamoon 1st Street." The Korean Journal of Public Administration, 29(2), 61-96. 
  22. Margetts, H. & Naumann, A. (2017). Government as a platform: What can Estonia show the world. Research paper. University of Oxford. 
  23. Masson, L. B. & Ward, C. (2018). "Four platforms for government." 2018. Available online: https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insights/public-service/four-platforms-for-government (Retrieved on September 5, 2023) 
  24. McBride, K., Aavik, G., Toots, M., Kalvet, T. & Krimmer, R. (2019). "How does open government data driven co-creation occur? Six factors and a 'perfect storm'; insights from Chicago's food inspection forecasting model." Government Information Quarterly, 36(1), 88-97. 
  25. Mukhopadhyay, S., Bouwman, H. & Jaiswal, M. P. (2019). "An open platform centric approach for scalable government service delivery to the poor: The Aadhaar case." Government Information Quarterly, 36, 437-538. 
  26. Myeong, S., Hwang, S. & Hur, C. (2011). Government of Smart Society: Focusing on platform government model. Paper presented at the Korean Association for Public Administration Winter Conference, December 16. 
  27. Nam, H. & Nam, T. (2020). "An Exploratory Study of Platform Government in Korea: Topic Modeling and Network Analysis of Public Agency Reports." Journal of Digital Convergence, 18(2), 139-149 
  28. Moon, M. (2002). "The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality?." Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424-433.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00196
  29. National Assembly Research Service (2020). Analysis of National Audit Issues(Science and Technology Information, Broadcasting and Communications Committee, Environment and Labor Committee), 8. 
  30. OECD (2018a). Digital Government Review of Sweden. 
  31. OECD (2018b). Open Government Data Report: Enhancing Policy Maturity for Sustainable Impact, OECD Digital Government Studies. OECD Publishing, Paris. 
  32. Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Plume. 
  33. O'Reilly, T. (2011). Government as a platform. Innovation. MIT Press, 6(1), 13-40.  https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00056
  34. Owen, T. (2019). "The Case for Platform Governance." CIGI Papers, No. 231, Center for International Governance Innovation. 
  35. Pope, R. (2019). Playbook: Government as a platform. Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 
  36. Rittel, H. W. & Webber, M. M. (1973). "Dilemmas in a general theory of planning." Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. 
  37. Sanford, C. & Rose, J. (2007). "Characterizing e-participation." International Journal of Information Management, 27(6), 406-421. 
  38. Seo, H. (2017). "A Critical Review on Open, Useful, Reusable Government Data Index by OECD with Level of Domestic Open Government Data: Focusing on Comparison with Open Data Barometer." Informatization Policy, 24(2), 43-67. 
  39. Seo, H. (2021a). "Government as a Platform Revitalization Strategy Derived from Webtoon Platform Success Factors." Journal of Digital Convergence, 19(10), 1-13. 
  40. Seo, H. (2021b). "The Determinant Factors on Behavior of Information Security in Public Sector: Focusing on Mediating Effect of Perception of Information Security." The Korean Journal of Public Administration, 30(2), 173-207. 
  41. Seo, H. & Joo, Y. (2020). "Informatization Case against to COVID-19 in Korean Government with Perspective of Government as a Platform: Focusing on ICT and Data Usage." Korean Public Administration Quarterly, 32(4), 759-79. 
  42. Seo, H. & Myeong, S. (2020b). "The Priority of Factors of Building Government as a Platform with Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis." Sustainability, 12(14), 5615. 
  43. Seo, H. & Myeong, S. (2021). "Determinant factors for adoption of government as a platform in South Korea: Mediating effects on the perception of intelligent information technology." Sustainability, 13(18), 10464. 
  44. Seo, H. & Myeong, S. (2022). "Effects of Application of Information on the Expectations of Benefits from GaaP: Moderating Effects from Perceptions of IIT." Sustainability, 14(3), 1624. 
  45. Schwarz, J. A. (2017). "Platform logic: An interdisciplinary approach to the platform-based economy." Policy & Internet, 9(4), 374-394. 
  46. Shin, Y. (2017). "The Case Study of Platform Government Building: Focusing on Corporation Certify One-Stop Service and Registration." Journal of Auditing, 29, 101-126. 
  47. Spirakis, G., Spiraki, C. & Nikolopoulos, K. (2010). "The impact of electronic government on democracy: e-democracy through e-participation." Electronic Government an International Journal, 7(1), 75-88. 
  48. Styrin, E., Mossberger, K. & Zhulin, A. (2022). "Government as a platform: Intergovernmental participation for public services in the Russian Federation." Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), 101627. 
  49. Suh, B. & Shin, S. (2017). "A Study on the Research Trends on Domestic Platform Government using Topic Modeling." Informatization Policy, 24(3), 3-26. 
  50. OECD (2018). "Open Government Data Report: Enhancing Policy Maturity for Sustainable Impact." OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris. 
  51. UK government (2017). Government transformation strategy 2017 to 2020. 
  52. UK parliament (2018). Written evidence submitted by the Cabinet Office (DIG0023) Available on: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee/digital-government/written/90822.html (Retrieved on July 3, 2023) 
  53. van Alstyne, M. W., Parker, G. G. & Choudary, S. P. (2016). "Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy." Harvard business review, 94(4), 16. 
  54. World Economic Forum (2019). Platforms and Ecosystems: Enabling the Digital Economy. World Economic Forum: Koroni, Switzerland. 
  55. Yoon, K. & Kim, Y. (2020). "An Exploratory Study on the Determinants of Public Data Integration and its Mediating Effect: Focusing on Data-driven Government." Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society, 23(3), 1-22. 
  56. Yoon, S. (2006). "Institutionalization of e-participation in the Policy Making Process." Korean Journal of Social Theory, 30, 189-212. 
  57. Yoon, S. (2012). What is platform?. Seoul: Hanbitbiz