• Journal of Venture Innovation
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.51-65
• /
• 2021

The HR policy in the public sector was closed and operated mainly on written tests, but in 2006, a new evaluation, promotion and education system based on competence was introduced in the promotion and selection system of civil servants. In particular, the seniority-oriented promotion system was evaluated based on competence by operating an Assessment Center related to promotion. Competency evaluation is known to be the most reliable and valid evaluation method among the evaluation methods used to date and is also known to have high predictive feasibility for performance. In 2001, 19 government standard competency models were designed. In 2006, the competency assessment was implemented with the implementation of the high-ranking civil service team system. In the public sector, the purpose of the competency evaluation is mainly to select third-grade civil servants, assign fourth-grade civil servants, and promotion fifth-grade civil servants. However, competency assessments in the public sector differ in terms of competency assessment objectives, assessment processes and competency assessment programmes compared to those in the private sector. For the purposes of competency assessment, the public sector is for the promotion of candidates, and the private sector focuses on career development and fostering. Therefore, it is not continuously developing capabilities than the private sector and is not used to enhance performance in performing its duties. In relation to evaluation items, the public sector generally operates a system that passes capacity assessment at 2.5 out of 5 for 6 competencies, lacks feedback on what competencies are lacking, and the private sector uses each individual's competency score. Regarding the selection and operation of evaluators, the public sector focuses on fairness in evaluation, and the private sector focuses on usability, which is inconsistent with the aspect of developing capabilities and utilizing human resources in the right place. Therefore, the public sector should also improve measures to identify outstanding people and motivate them through capacity evaluation and change the operation of the capacity evaluation system so that they can grow into better managers through accurate reports and individual feedback

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.9-43
• /
• 2005

The Korean government established her first "National Space Program" in 1996, and revised it in 2000 and 2005. As embedded in the National Space Program, Korea aims to become one of the world's top countries in space technology by 2010. All of 13 satellites are planned to be put into orbit as schematized, which include 7 multi-purpose satellites, 4 science satellites and 2 geostationary orbit satellites. The Space Center in Korea is to be built at Woinara-Do, Bongrae-Myon, Koheung-Goon, Junlanam Province on the southern coast of the Korean peninsular. The first phase of the construction of the space center will be finished by 2007 for launch of KSLV-l. This will make Korea be the 13th advanced country in space development having a launching site in the world. The "Space Center" will serve as the infrastructure for the development of space technology and related technology, and plan to launch a low earth orbit satellite in 2007. A second science satellite made in Korea will be launched from the space center by 2007. From 2010, the center will be operated on a commercial basis operating launch facilities for low-to mid-altitude orbit satellites. Since the 'Aircraft Industry Promotion Act' was replaced by the 'Aerospace Industry Development Promotion Acf of 1987, this Act had been amended seven times from 1991 year to 2004. Most of developed countries has been enacted the space law including the public or private items such as an (1)DSA, (2)Russia, (3)the United Kingdom, (4)Germany, (5)France, (6)Canada, (7)Japan, (8)Sweden, (9)Australia, (10)Brazil, (11)Norway, (12)South Africa, (13)Argentina, (14)Chile, (15)Ukrainian etc. As the new Space Exploration Promotion Act was passed by the resolution of the Korean Congress on May 3, 2005, so the Korean government has made the public proclamation the abovementioned Act on May 31, this year. This Act takes effect on December 1, 2005 after elapsing six months from the date of promulgation. The main contents of Space Exploration Promotion Act of 2005 is as the following (1)establishing a basic plan for promoting space exploration, (2)establishment and function of national space committee, (3)procedure and management of domestic and international registration of space objects, (4)licensing of launch by space launch vehicles, (5)lability for damages caused by space accidents and liability insurance, (6) organizing and composition of the space accident investigation committee, (7)Support of non-governmental space exploration project, (8)Requesting Support and Cooperation of Space Exploration, (9)Rescue of Astronauts and Restitution of Space Objects, etc.. In oder to carry out successfully the medium and long basic plan for promoting space exploration and to develope space industry in Korea, I think that it is necessary for us to enlarge and to reorganize the function and manpower of the Space Technology Development Division of the Ministry of Science & Technology and the Korea Aerospace Research Institute. Korea has been carrying out its space program step by step according to the National Space Program. Korea also will continually strengthen the exchange and cooperation with all the countries in the world under the principle of equality, friendship relations and mutual benefits. Together with all other peoples around the globe, Korea will make due contribution towards the peaceful utilization of space resources and promotion of human progress and prosperity.

• Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.117-134
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to identify the stage of concern, the level of use, and the innovation configuration of Home Economics teachers regarding creativity and personality education in Home Economics(HE) classes. The survey questionnaires were sent through mails and e-mails to middle-school HE teachers in the whole country selected by systematic sampling and convenience sampling. Questionnaires of the stages of concern and the levels of use developed by Hall(1987) were used in this study. 187 data were used for the final analysis by using SPSS/window(12.0) program. The results of the study were as following: First, for the stage of concerns of HE teachers on creativity and personality education, the information stage of concerns(85.51) was the one with the highest response rate and the next high in the following order: the management stage of concerns(81.88), the awareness stage of concerns(82.15), the refocusing stage of concerns(68.80), the collaboration stage of concerns(61.97), and the consequence stage of concerns(59.76). Second, the levels of use of HE teachers on creativity and personality education was highest with the mechanical levels(level 3; 21.4%) and the next high in the following order: the orientation levels of use(level 1; 20.9%), the refinement levels(level 5; 17.1%), the non-use levels(level 0; 15.0%), the preparation levels(level 2; 10.2%), the integration levels(level 6; 5.9%), the renewal levels(level 7; 4.8%), the routine levels(level 4; 4.8%). Third, for the innovation configuration of HE teachers on creativity and personality education, more than half of the HE teachers(56.1%) mainly focused on personality education in their HE classes; 31.0% of the HE teachers performed both creativity and personality education; a small number of teachers(6.4%) focused on creativity education; the same number of teachers(6.4%) responded that they do not focus on neither of the two. Examining the level and type of performance HE teachers applied, the average score on the performance of creativity and personality education was 3.76 out of 5.00 and the mean of creativity component was 3.59 and of personality component was 3.94, higher than standard. For the creativity education, openness/sensitivity(3.97) education was performed most and the next most in the following order: problem-solving skill(3.79), curiosity/interest(3.73), critical thinking(3.63), problem-finding skill(3.61), originality(3.57), analogy(3.47), fluency/adaptability(3.46), precision(3.46), imagination(3.37), and focus/sympathy(3.37). For the personality education, the following components were performed in order from most to least: power of execution(4.07), cooperation/consideration/just(4.06), self-management skill(4.04), civic consciousness(4.04), career development ability(4.03), environment adaptability(3.95), responsibility/ownership(3.94), decision making(3.89), trust/honesty/promise(3.88), autonomy(3.86), and global competency(3.55). Regarding what makes performing creativity and personality education difficult, most HE teachers(64.71%) chose the lack of instructional materials and 40.11% of participants chose the lack of seminar and workshop opportunity. 38.5% chose the difficulty of developing an evaluation criteria or an evaluation tool while 25.67% responded that they do not know any means of performing creativity and personality education. Regarding the better way to support for creativity and personality education, the HE teachers chose in order from most to least: 'expansion of hands-on activities for students related to education on creativity and personality'(4.34), 'development of HE classroom culture putting emphasis on creativity and personality'(4.29), 'a proper curriculum on creativity and personality education that goes along with students' developmental stages'(4.27), 'securing enough human resource and number of professors who will conduct creativity and personality education'(4.21), 'establishment of the concept and value of the education on creativity and personality'(4.09), and 'educational promotion on creativity and personality education supported by local communities and companies'(3.94).