Informatization Policy (정보화정책)

National Information Society Agency (한국지능정보사회진흥원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Factors Affecting IT Project Performance: Focusing on the Results of K-PART of Central Government

정보화사업 성과 영향 요인 분석: 중앙행정기관 정보화사업 평가결과를 중심으로

  • Received : 2022.10.24
  • Accepted : 2023.01.05
  • Published : 2023.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Currently, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance operates performance evaluation of the IT projects of the central government. Recently, with the advent of the Digital New Deal and the Digital Platform Government, the budget for IT projects has significantly increased, leading to a higher level of interest in their performance. In this study, performance-related characteristics were selected through previous research, and an empirical analysis was conducted to examine whether there are actual differences in the performance of IT projects given respective characteristics. As a result of the analysis, new projects and others performed by departments or offices had a statistically significant positive effect on each final evaluation score. In contrast, IT support as well as fund-based projects had a statistically significant negative effect on each final evaluation score. This study suggests that when evaluating the performance of IT projects in the future, it is important to consider the unique characteristics of each project, as these may contribute to respective differences in performance.

1997년 정보화평가 시작 이후 평가 주관부처 및 평가방식 등의 많은 변화를 겪으며 현재 중앙행정기관 정보화사업에 대한 성과평가는 기획재정부의 재정사업자율평가가 시행되고 있다. 최근 정보화사업은 디지털뉴딜을 거쳐 디지털플랫폼정부 구현을 위해 예산이 큰 폭으로 증가하고 있으며 이에 따라 성과에 대한 관심도 높아지고 있다. 본 연구는 선행연구를 통해 성과 관련 특성을 선정하여 이에 따라 실제로 정보화사업 성과 차이가 있는지 실증 분석하였다. 분석 결과 신규사업, 처나 청에서 수행하는 사업은 최종평가점수에 통계적으로 유의미한 양의 영향을 미쳤다. 반면, 정보화지원사업과 기금사업은 최종평가점수에 통계적으로 유의미한 음의 영향을 미쳤다. 본 연구는 향후 새 정부의 디지털정부플랫폼 정부 구현, 공공데이터 개방 사업 등 정보화사업을 추진하고 이에 대한 성과를 평가할 때 사업의 고유한 특성에 따라 성과 차이가 발생할 수 있다는 점을 시사한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research has been revised and improved based on the doctoral thesis of Choi, Jeong-A (2016). I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the committee members who provided various feedback during the review process for the development of the paper.

References

  1. Benbasat, I. & Zmud, R.W. (2003). "The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline's Core Properties." MIS Quarterly, 27(2): 183-194.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30036527
  2. Choi, J., Ryu, Y. & Park, H. (2013). "A Study on the Influence Factors of Performance Management in Local Governments: Focused on Local Public Servants' Perception." Korean Public Administration Review, 10(2), 245-259. 
  3. Choi, J. (2016). "A study on Influencing Factors on the Performance and Budget of National IT Project." Doctoral Thesis, The Graduate School, Ewha Womans University. 
  4. Choi, S. (1998). "Control administration inertia and policy failure." Korean Association of Governmental Studies, 10(2), 245-259. 
  5. Gallo, N. & Lewis, D. E. (2012). "The Consequences of Presidential Patronage for Federal Agency Performance." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 22(2): 195-217.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur037
  6. Gilmour, John B. & Lewis, David E. (2006a). "Assessing Performance Budgeting at OMB: The Influence of Politics, Performance, and Program Size." Journal of Public Research and Theory, 16(2): 169-186.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muj002
  7. Gilmour, John B. & Lewis, David E. (2006b). "Does Performance Budgeting Work? An Examination of the Office of Management and Budget's PART Scores." Public Administration Review, 66(5): 742-752.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00639.x
  8. Gilmour, John B. & Lewis, David E. (2006c). "Political Appointees and the Competence of Federal Program Management." American Politics Research, 34(1), 22-50.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X04271905
  9. Ha, Y. (2013). "How Effectively the Korean Program Assessment Rating Tool Deals with the Characteristic Features of Budgetary Programs?" The Korean Journal of Public Administration, 22(3), 61-90.  https://doi.org/10.22897/KIPAJN.2013.22.3.003
  10. Ho, J. & Kim, C. (2009). "A Study on the Evaluation Models for IT Performance of Public Organizations-Validity and Balance". Informatization Policy, 16(1), 3-21. 
  11. Hwang, S. (2013). A Study on the Impact of Business Characteristics on Performance Measurement: Focused on Fiscal Business Rate Evaluation. Korean Association of Public Administration, 1291-1330. 
  12. Hyun, M. & Kim, M. (2022). "Effects of Information from Enterprise Architecture on Government IT Projects." Informatization Policy, 29(3), 61-81.  https://doi.org/10.22693/NIAIP.2022.29.1.091
  13. James S, Larson (1980). Why Government Programs Fail. New York. Praeger Publishers. 
  14. Jane E, Fountain (2001). Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Brookings Institution Press. 
  15. Jung, M. (2011). Comparative analysis of performance evaluation suitability of central government direct projects and indirect projects. Seoul: Korea Institute 
  16. Jung, M. (2012). "An Impact Analysis of the K-PART on the Administration's Budget Process." Journal of Budget and Policy, 1(2), 135-165.  https://doi.org/10.35525/NABO.2012.1.2.006
  17. Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (1992). "The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance." Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79. 
  18. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley. 
  19. Kim, J., Myung, S. & Lim, J. (2018). "The Determinants of Performance Impacts of Information Systems Projects in Public Agencies: Focusing on the Information System Success Model." Korean Comparative Government Review, 22(4). 
  20. Kim, K. (2004). "A Study on Resident Resistance in the Process of Policy Implementation-Focused on Site Selection for BUAN Radioactive Plant." International Journal of Policy Studies, 13(5), 159-184. 
  21. Kim, W., Park, S. & Kim S. (2019). "The Effects of Information System Quality on Public Information Project Performance: With a Focus on the Mediating Effects by the Users." Korea Information Processing Society Review, 8(8). 
  22. Kim, Y. (2011). "An Analysis of the Main Factors Influencing Central Government Ministry Performance Management: A Case Study of MEST and MLTM in Korea." Korean Journal of Public Administration, 49(4), 83-109. 
  23. Kouzmin, A., Loffler, E., Klages, H. & Korac-Kakabadse, N. (1999). "Benchmarking and performance measurement in public sector: towards learning for agency effectiveness." The International Journal of Public sector Management, 12(2), 121-144. 
  24. Ko, K. (2007). "The Review of Studies on Policy Network and the Application of Social Network Analysis." Korean Journal of Public Administration, 45(1), 137-164. 
  25. Kong, D., Bang, M. & Yoon, K. (2007). "What Determines Program Performance Ratings in Korea." Korean Journal of Policy Analysis and Evaluation, 17(4), 27-56. 
  26. Kong, D. (2011), Financial business performance evaluation analysis and improvement plan, 2010 Network of Financial Experts, Seoul: Korea Institute 
  27. Kwon, T. & Zmud, R. (1987). "Unifying the Fragmented Models of Information Systems Implementation." Critical Issues in Information Systems Research, 227-251. 
  28. Lee, H. & Lim, J. (2013). SPSS 20 Manual. JyphyunJae. 
  29. Lee, J., Hal G. Rainey & Chun, Y. (2009). "Of Politics and Purpose: Political Salience and Goal Ambiguity of us Federal Agencies." Public Administration. 87(3): 457-484.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01772.x
  30. Lee, J. & Lee, J. (2019). "Performance Measurement in the Korean Intelligence Police: An Analysis of the Performance Indicators(2007-2018)." The Korean Association of Police Science Review, 21(3), 161-194.  https://doi.org/10.24055/kaps.21.3.7
  31. Lee, K. & Jung, S. (2022). "A Study on the Performance Improvement of Defense Information System Construction Project : Focusing on the Defense Acquisition Information System Establishment Project." Military Research and Development, 16(1), 173-198. 
  32. Lee, W. (2011). The study on the enhancement of effectiveness for the Mid-term Local Finance. Korean Association For Local Finance, 49-73. 
  33. Lim, Y. & Ha, Y. (2014). A Study on the Impact of Project Characteristics on the Results of Fiscal Business Rate Evaluation. Korea Policy Studies Association. 
  34. Lowi, Theodore J. (1964). "American Business Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory." World Politics, 16(4), 677-715.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2009452
  35. Merton, R. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York, NY: Free Press. 
  36. Moynihan, Donald P. (2005). "Why and How Do State Governments Adopt and Implement 'Managing for Results' Reform?" Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 219-243.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui012
  37. Moynihan, Donald P. & Sanjay K. Pandey (2005). "Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15: 421-439. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui016
  38. Nam, K. (2008), Policy Science, Seoul: Bobmunsa. 
  39. National Computerization Agency (1997). A Study on Informatization Promotion Plan through Failure Case Analysis of US Administrative Informatization Project. Seoul: NCA 
  40. National Information Society Agency (2021). National Intelligent Informatization White Paper 
  41. Noh, M. (2021). "The Impacts of Convergence Hospital Information System Quality on Satisfaction and Performance." Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 12(9). 
  42. Noh, H. (2006). Policy Evaluation, Bobmunsa. 
  43. Nutt, P. C. & Backoff. R. W. (1992). Strategic Management of Public and Third Sector Organization: A Handbook for Leaders. CA.: Jossey-Bass. 
  44. Park, N. (2005). A Study on Performance Evaluation and Introduction of Economic Incentives in the Public Sector-Focusing on Implications for the Introduction of Performance Management Budget System, Seoul: Korea Institute of Public Finance. 
  45. Park, N. & Won, J. (2012). Financial Project Performance Analysis and Policy Implications. Seoul: Korea Institute of Public Finance. 
  46. Park, W. & Kim, H. (2022). "Effecting Information Quality of Information System on Corporate Performance: Focused on Internet Insurance". Asia-pacific Journal of Convergent Research Interchange (APJCRI), 8(5). 
  47. Pierre, J. (1995). "7. Governing the welfare state: public administration, the state and society." Bureaucracy in the modern state: An introduction to comparative public administration, 140. 
  48. Pollitt, C. (1986). "Beyond the managerial model: the case for broadening performance assessment in government and the public services." Financial Accountability & Management, 2(3), 155-170. 
  49. Ryu, S. (2004). "ICT Trends and Implications in Healthcare Sector." Health and welfare policy forum, 92(0), 62-71. 
  50. Scott, J. (1991). Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, London: Sage. 
  51. Seo, H., Choi, M. & Son, S. (2004). "Establishing IT Outsourcing Performance Measurement Framework through the IT BSC." Entrue Journal of Information Technology, 3(1), 111-121. 
  52. Song, H. & Choi, J. (2012). "In the shadow of success: Focusing on low-performed IT projects." Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society, 15(2), 51-67 
  53. Song, H. & Cho, T. (2007). "Electronic Government of Korea: Performance and Tasks". Informatization Policy, 14(4), 20-37. 
  54. Song, H. & Lee, O. (2007). Performance analysis of ICT in education. Association for Economics, Humanities and Social Sciences Cooperative Research Series. Korea Information Society Development Institute. 
  55. Stewart, John & Walsh, Kieron (1994). "Performance Measurement: When Performance Can Never Be Finally Defined." Public Money & Management. 14(2), 45-49.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540969409387815
  56. Vedung, E. (1997). Public Policy and Program Evaluation, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction 
  57. Wamsley, G. L. & M.N. Zald. (1973). The Political Economy of Public Organizations. Lexington, MA: Heath. 
  58. Wholey, J. S. & Kathryn E. Newcomer (1997). Clarifying Goals, Reporting Results. in Kethryn E. Newcomer, ed. Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and Nonprofit Programs, San Franscisco. CA: Jossey-Bass. 91-98. 
  59. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York. NY: Free Press. 
  60. Wilson, Q. James (1989). Bureaucracy- What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books. 
  61. Yoon, K. & Kong, D. (2012). "Does Performance Affect Budgetary Decision?: Using the Korea-PART Results 2008-2010." The Korean Journal of Public Administration, 21(2), 165-197. 
  62. Yoon, S. (2005). "An Empirical Analysis on Success Factors of IT Projects in Public Sector: Focused on the Experience and Perception of Public Officials in Information Management Division." Korean Journal of Policy Analysis and Evaluation, 15(3), 57-83.  https://doi.org/10.23036/KAPAE.2005.15.3.003
  63. Yoo, S. (2013). "Searching for the Paradox of Performance Measurement in Financial Performance Management of Government Agencies." Korean Journal of Public Administration, 51(3), 135-166.