지역개발사업 추진주체 평가체계에 대한 평가와 개선방안 : 도시개발공사를 사례로 = The Improvement and Evaluation of the Evaluation System on the Agents of Regional Development Project : The Case of the Urban Development Corporation

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study aimed to analyze the current system to evaluate provincial public companies in terms of its systematic establishment by focusing on UDCs (urban development corporations), an agent of regional development project. The system is organized by the government in order to evaluate business performances of the provincial public companies and promote their management improvement. This study also considered natures of the agents of regional development project with a view to establishment of an appropriate management evaluation system which enables to promote their long-term growth and development. To this end, following studies were conducted:
A comprehensive evaluation procedure was put in place to examine and review the current evaluation system of the agents of regional development project;
Changes in the evaluation system for the last 20 years were arranged, analyzed and synthesize by component of the system in order to understand its improving process and create basic data in deriving future improvement;
And lastly, the current evaluation system was diagnosed and assessed by its component in order to uncover problems and devise solutions to them.

The conclusion of the study is as follows.

First, analyses were conducted to generally examine the system to evaluate UDCs and to check the current management evaluation system to find out if the system was conducted in a proper manner. According to these analyses, the level of social validity, reliability and transparency of the evaluation system was significantly high and the system had a sound basis that allowed for it to be stably and continuously operated. As there were clearly established evaluation purposes from a legal and institutional perspective, the system was designed in a desirable way in terms of norms and criteria. A survey and in-depth interviews with experts, however, revealed that the current evaluation system of regional public companies, UDCs in particular, hasn’t been operated perfectly in reality according to legislative purposes. In the case of the workers of UDCs, many people complained that the evaluation system was partially operated to prepare “the basis for giving bonuses to workers of public companies,” which is just one of the ways to increase motivation to improve management. In addition, the management evaluation system was considered not to reflect the management reality of the corporations exactly. Therefore, a way to boost management improvement effects and to make institutions conduct evaluations that are more exact and reality based should be prepared so that the evaluation system is more in keeping with its original purposes.

Second, according to a review of the appropriateness of evaluation subjects and evaluation methods, the expertise and fairness of evaluation subjects were considered quite trustworthy, but there was a strong need to advance the evaluation period, specify the evaluation group and innovatively strengthen communication. Timely performance of evaluations and feedback from an evaluation can be thought of as important elements that should be intrinsic to an evaluation system if it is to achieve the purpose of the evaluation, or to lead companies to improve their management. If an evaluation is conducted in April-August, like it is at present, it is difficult for evaluation results to flow back until the compilation of next year’s business plans and the budget is generally completed. For this reason, it may be desirable to conduct evaluations earlier. Large UDCs or those in large cities which can conduct regional development projects relatively easily, like SH Corporation, may enjoy advantages with regard to evaluations compared with other corporations, so the evaluation group should be specified according to the size and environment of organizations to secure the fairness and exactness of evaluations.

On the other hand, considering the fact that evaluated organizations think there isn’t sufficient communication between institutions that do the evaluating and those that are evaluated, it is highly possible that evaluations can’t reflect the peculiarity of regional development sufficiently, eventually hindering the acceptance of evaluation results. It is desirable to strengthen communication between those conducting the evaluations and evaluated institutions in a way that reflects the opinions of evaluated organizations to a greater extent.

According to the survey, the current system was generally accepted in a positive manner, but with regard to UDCs, the agent of the regional development projects, it was thought that reducing the frequency of evaluations would be good, in contrast to other types of provincial public companies. In the case of regional development projects, unlike other fields, the cycle of a project tends to be two years or longer. If an evaluation is made every year, the performance of the project can change significantly following the progress report of the project, so an annual evaluation may be improper. If a public company is granted the same grade after improving performance, the ranking within the grade doesn’t go up. Considering this, it was considered necessary to find a way to grant a grade regardless of ranking based on absolute marks in terms of motivation or not to fix the grade ratio at the least.

Third, regarding evaluation indicators, there is a need to strengthen qualitative indicators, such as leadership strategies and indexes for important business activities, and measuring indicators, like policy observation of public companies and the clarity and accuracy of customer satisfaction indicators. As the clarity and detailed accuracy of these indicators are relatively low, it is difficult to induce active efforts to achieve goals in preparation for expected evaluations and to exactly grasp the strong points and weak points of relevant institutions in relation to each indicator. Existing evaluation indicators were analyzed in a general way not to strongly reflect the characteristics of a subject conducting regional development projects. In consequence, efforts are necessary to strengthen indicators to reflect the characteristics of projects and develop new indicators. Considering public interest goals as a semi-governmental institution, in particular, public indicators regarding regional development should be developed. Besides, it was deemed necessary to develop indicators which could enhance the utilization of evaluation results. To actively encourage institutions to improve management, utilization of evaluation results should be enhanced. This is because management evaluation indicators to confirm whether problems pointed out in the evaluation of last year have been corrected are the only means to check utilization of evaluation results, and this is not sufficient.

Finally, in relation to the utilization of evaluation results, it was deemed necessary to quicken the pace of the feedback from evaluation results, to make the contents of evaluation reports more substantially center on improvements and examples and to make evaluation reports between public companies in the same evaluation group public. In order for evaluation results to be concretely reflected to improve management the following year, evaluation results should be confirmed before October of the relevant year. Therefore, the timing of feedback should be advanced significantly and there is a necessity to explain improvements and examples in detail because it is essential to explain the causes of performance in detail to improve performance. Under a system where public companies belonging to the same evaluation group compete with one another like at present, public companies tend to be passive in voluntarily spreading news about excellent cases, so it would be desirable to make public evaluation reports between public companies in the same field, moving away from the practice of not making evaluation reports public. At present, the only incentive is receiving different pay according to evaluation results. It is necessary to actively induce management improvement through developing various incentives.

This study is meaningful in that it analyzed problems of the current evaluation system from a general viewpoint and suggested solutions by targeting UDCs which are a crucial agent of the regional development project.

First, unlike existing studies which were fragmental, this study analyzed the problems of current management evaluation system and suggested improvement plans. Some of existing studies also raised problems of the system, but in most cases, they raised only fragmental problems, such as evaluation indicators and evaluation methods, not the general management evaluation system, so there have been limitations in learning about general problems associated with entire evaluation system from a general viewpoint and a lack of solutions.

Second, this analysis was focused on UDCs which are the agent of regional development projects, in order to look for concrete and relevant improvement plans. Existing studies which examined general problems just suggested general solutions and they have limitations to solving actual problems or improving system. Even if UDCs are important in achieving results in regional development projects, they are not able to prepare actual and realistic improvement plans from the viewpoint that they are an actor conducting regional development projects.

Third, there have been attempts to systematically analyze changes in the evaluation system of regional public companies for about 20 years. As there haven’t been sufficient studies on such change processes, this study is meaningful in that it can be used as important data to look for ways to develop evaluation system by concretely and systematically arranging them.

Fourth, for this study, an analysis was conducted on management evaluation system in a comprehensive manner based on a theoretical analysis framework. Most of the existing studies were based on simple surveys of satisfaction or awareness about the current evaluation system without devising a systematic analytical framework. In this study, a model was established to analyze evaluation system based on systematic theoretical studies and efforts were made to faithfully analyze management evaluation system in a comprehensive manner based on it.

Fifth, an empirical analysis was conducted from a balanced viewpoint. Most of the existing studies on evaluation system tend not to take a balanced approach and cannot reflect the thinking and opinions of both evaluating organizations and evaluated organizations. In this study, experts were divided into those doing the evaluations and those being evaluated to conduct a survey. In this way, the opinions of both groups could be examined in a comprehensive way and differences in opinions and thinking among the two groups were compared and analyzed to conduct a rational and comprehensive analysis and prepare alternatives. As a result, this study was successful in taking a balanced approach and increasing rationality and appropriateness in deducing alternatives.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론 1
• 제1절 연구의 배경과 목적 1
• 제2절 연구내용과 연구방법 4
• 1. 연구범위와 연구내용 4
• 2. 연구방법 및 자료 7
• 제2장 지역개발사업 추진주체 평가의 의의와 연구동향 13
• 제1절 지역개발사업 추진주체 13
• 1. 지역개발사업의 개념과 성격 변화 13
• 2. 지역개발사업 추진주체의 개념과 특성 18
• 3. 지역개발사업에 있어서 추진주체의 중요성 23
• 제2절 지역개발사업 추진주체 평가의 의의와 목적 29
• 1. 조직평가의 의의와 목적 29
• 2. 지역개발사업 추진주체 평가의 의의와 목적 31
• 3. 지역개발사업 추진주체 평가의 중요성 33
• 제3절 지역개발사업 추진주체 평가에 관한 연구동향 36
• 1. 지역개발사업 추진주체 평가에 관한 연구 패러다임의 변화 36
• 2. 지역개발사업 추진주체 평가에 관한 연구 동향 39
• 제3장 도시개발공사 평가체계 분석틀 정립 44
• 제1절 지역개발사업 추진주체 평가체계의 개요 44
• 1. 지역개발사업 추진주체 평가체계의 개념과 특성 44
• 2. 지역개발사업 추진주체 평가체계의 유형 46
• 제2절 지역개발사업 추진주체 평가체계의 조건 51
• 1. 지역개발사업 추진주체 평가체계의 필요조건 51
• 2. 지역개발사업 추진주체 평가체계의 충분조건 54
• 제3절 지역개발사업 추진주체 평가체계의 평가기준 57
• 1. 기본전제 57
• 2. 평가체계에 대한 평가기준 57
• 제4절 도시개발공사 평가체계에 대한 분석틀 60
• 1. 도시개발공사 평가체계의 특성 60
• 2. 도시개발공사 평가체계 분석틀 61
• 제4장 도시개발공사의 역할과 기능 63
• 제1절 도시개발공사의 개요 63
• 1. 설립·운영 실태 63
• 2. 사업영역 66
• 제2절 도시개발공사의 유형별 특성 69
• 1. 유형구분 기준 69
• 2. 유형별 역할과 특성 73
• 제3절 지역개발사업 추진주체로서 도시개발공사의 중요성 78
• 1. 기능적 관점에서의 중요성 78
• 2. 사업규모 관점에서의 중요성 79
• 제5장 도시개발공사 평가체계의 변천과정 82
• 제1절 평가주체 및 주관 83
• 제2절 평가방법 86
• 제3절 평가지표 89
• 제4절 평가결과의 활용 96
• 제5절 소결 97
• 제6장 도시개발공사 평가체계에 대한 평가 100
• 제1절 현행 평가체계의 실태와 특성 100
• 1. 평가목적 및 방법 100
• 2. 평가지표 102
• 3. 평가결과 활용 104
• 제2절 평가목적 및 방법 105
• 1. 평가목적에 대한 평가 105
• 2. 평가주체 및 방법에 대한 평가 111
• 제3절 평가지표 126
• 1. 평가지표의 명확성 126
• 2. 평가지표의 상세성 130
• 3. 평가지표의 적절성 134
• 4. 평가지표의 공공성 및 기업성 137
• 5. 소결 141
• 제4절 평가결과의 활용 143
• 1. 평가결과 환류시기 143
• 2. 평가보고서 내용 및 활용 145
• 3. 상벌제도 148
• 제5절 평가체계의 적합성 150
• 1. 평가체계의 전반적 적정성 150
• 2. 피 평가기관의 경영 자율성 151
• 3. 평가제도의 정당성·신뢰성·투명성 152
• 제6절 평가결과의 종합 155
• 제7장 도시개발공사 평가체계의 개선방안 158
• 제1절 평가제도 및 목적 158
• 제2절 평가주체 및 방법 160
• 1. 문제점 160
• 2. 개선방안 164
• 제3절 평가지표 167
• 1. 문제점 167
• 2. 개선방안 171
• 제4절 평가결과 활용 175
• 1. 문제점 175
• 2. 개선방안 177
• 제8장 요약 및 결론 178
• 참고문헌 184
• 부록 (설문지) 193
• Abstract 206