Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.22640/lxsiri.2018.48.1.93

A study on the metrical indicator of the major projects of public organizations -Focused on the case of Korea Land and Geospatial InformatiX Co.-  

Jeong, Jong Dae (Department of Land Management, Cheongju University)
Kim, Young Hag (Department of Land Management, Cheongju University)
Publication Information
Journal of Cadastre & Land InformatiX / v.48, no.1, 2018 , pp. 93-109 More about this Journal
Abstract
The Ministry of Strategy and Finance of South Korea accesses public organizations annually for increasing outcomes with effective and clear managements. The management assessment is categorized into the business management applied all organizations and the main business assessed by purposes and characters of organizations. This study analyzes metrical indexes of main businesses with using the logic model and suggests the direction of developing metrical indexes of organizations. Metrical indexes of the Korea Land and Geospatial Informatix Corporation in 2017 were analyzed to develop indexes. The results indicates that metrical indexes of the Korea Land and Geospatial Informatix Corporation are mainly consisted of the commitment and process. The logic model was suggested to analyze proprieties of metrical indexes of the main business. This study shows that organizations develop metrical indexes of the main business with classifying that these are from calculation indexes or result indexes. Thus, this study suggests that organizations consider result indexes based on the logic model for developing metrical indexes of the main business.
Keywords
Management assessment; Major project; Metrical indicator; Logic models; Outcome indicator;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Niven, P. (2003). Balanced Scorecard Step by Step for Government and Nonprofit Agencies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, p. 156
2 Ministry of Strategy and Finance. 2017. 2017 Executive Assessment Manual.
3 Korea Land and Geospatial Informatix Corporation. 2017. 2017 Management Performance Report.
4 Kwak CK. 2003. Role and operational performance of management evaluation system for controlling inefficiency of government-invested institutions. Public Enterprise Report. 15(1):49-91.
5 Kwak CK. 2010. Public Institutional Issue: Evaluation and Development Direction of Public Institution Management Evaluation. KIPF Public Institution Trend. 2:22-53.
6 Park SH. 2009. Recent Issues and Tasks of Public Management Evaluation System. Conference of the Korean Association for Public Administration. p. 1547-1564.
7 Park YK, Song YR. 2007. A Study on the Problems and Improvement Measures of Public Enterprise Management Indicators. Social Science Research. 13:5-30.
8 An SC. 2014. A Study on the Management Evaluation Results and Institutional Characteristics of Public Institutions. Journal of the Korean Management Association. 27(6):835-859.
9 Yoo H, Bae YS, Lee WH. 2011. Public Enterprise. Bobmunsa.
10 Oh YM. 2011. Analysis of the Factors which Affect Management Performance Evaluation System used in Public Institutions. Seoul National University.
11 Ji EK, Jong HS, Jeong HM. 2012. Program Evaluation and Logic Model. Hakjisa.
12 Lee YG. 2007. A Study on the Management Evaluation Index of the Local Government Organizations. Korean Journal of Policy Studies. 7(2):23-44.
13 Lee HW. 2005. Study on Applicability of BSC as the Performance Appraisal Method of the Government Investment Organization. Social Science Research. 11(2):81-88.
14 Jang DH, La hm. 2011. The Analysis of The Linkage of Local Enterprises' Management Evaluation Index. The Korea Local Administration Review. 25(2):181-208.
15 Ji EK. 2012. The possibility of the using and limitations of logic model and BSC model for measuring performance in non-profit organizations. Journal of Social Science. 31(1):385-401.
16 Jo T. 2008. A Study on Performance Evaluation System of Quasi-Governmental Bodies Its Change and Reform Proposal. The Korean Association for Governance. 15(3): 155-178   DOI
17 Jo T, Lee CG. 2010. A Study on the Validity of Quantitative Index in the Public Body Management Evaluation. The Journal of the Korean Association for Governance. 17(3):239-270.