성과관리계획상의 만족도지표 실태분석 및 개선방안 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

I. Research Background and Objective□Background of the Research○The government performance evaluation system in Korea has been improved to reinforce the autonomy of performance evaluation in the central government since enacting the 2006 Government Performance Evaluation Law. That is, the reinforcement of the autonomy of the government performance evaluation system has been reformed to reduce the burden of evaluation work and to guide performanceoriented public management.- Even though the government performance evaluation system is widely discussed to reinforce the self- evaluation of each government agency and the autonomy of performance management in terms of institution and system, there is little discussion about the analysis and improvement of performance indicators playing an important role in the self- evaluation of the Performance Management Plan. Therefore, considering the adaptability of performance indicators is important for establishing the performance management system related to government activities.□Objective of the Research○This paper provides an analysis for improving the government performance management system using satisfaction indicators in terms of criteria of meta- evaluation. This research focuses only on satisfaction indicators among other performance measurement indicators in the 2008 Performance Management Plan of 39 central government agencies. It builds up an analytic frame on customers` satisfaction and analyzes satisfaction indicators as a performance indicator. - This paper analyzes the current conditions of satisfaction surveys and satisfaction indicators used in government agencies and provides policy implications for better utilization. In addition, the paper suggests a standard manual of satisfaction surveys for public employees working for evaluation.II. Analysis Results□Analysis Results of Satisfaction Indicators○When satisfaction indicators of 39 central government agencies were reviewed, the satisfaction indicators were 14.5 percent as 910 out of 6,292 performance tasks, and 16.6 percent as 190 satisfaction indicators in 1,148 performance objectives. Also, 38 indicators being 3.5 percent of all satisfaction indicators are only providing a measurement model in satisfaction surveys. Only 32 percent of all satisfaction indicators shows the persons polled in the satisfaction surveys. Only 6 percent (65 indicators) of all indicators provide a specific research method for surveys in the Performance Management Plan. 47 out of 65 indicators are making use of internet and the computer as a survey method.□Public Employees` Survey Results○In the environmental aspect of satisfaction surveys, public employees understand the objectives, necessity, and pros and cons of the surveys very well; however, they evaluate that satisfaction indicators have relatively lower suitability in terms of performance measurement, validity and reliability of satisfaction surveys.○In the input aspect of satisfaction surveys, there are few pre- tests for those surveyed. The questionnaires are self- inspected, and they do not have enough budget for satisfaction surveys.○In the performance and process aspect of satisfaction surveys, the surveys are fulfilled by external professional institutions rather than by agencies themselves. In this case, public employees believe that there is higher reliability in terms of those surveyed, the size of sample, statistical significance, and the survey process.○In the output aspect of satisfaction surveys, when the result of satisfaction surveys is low, there are few re- tests. It is established that the results of satisfaction surveys are kept in the form of CDs or reports, and that many organizations use the results of satisfaction surveys for improving public projects or policies and for evaluating organizations or individuals. Despite the use of the results of satisfaction surveys, government employees believe that there is no close relationship between the results of satisfaction surveys and real governmental performance.○In the operation condition aspect of satisfaction surveys, it is established that often about 35 percent is the sampling size and that there also exist very small sampling size at times, about 5 percent (ex, 10 people 1,2% (n=2), 20 people 1.8% (n=3), 30 people 2.4% (n=4)). Therefore, satisfaction surveys need a guideline for appropriate sample size. Relative to satisfaction surveys, 75 percent of public employees do not have any education and expert advice. That is, they need a standard manual for the design and use of surveys, training, and expert advice.○Public employees in government agencies usually have utilized satisfaction indicators in Performance Management Plan due to several reasons: satisfaction indicators are suitable, it is not easy to change present satisfaction indicators into other performance indicators, and upper level governments (Prime Minister`s Office and Ministry of Strategy and Finance) strongly recommend the use of satisfaction indicators.○The results of the survey on the question of how to utilize satisfaction indicators as a performance indicator show that 58.8 percent of public employees are satisfied with the present level, while 23.9 percent want to decrease the use of satisfaction indicators and 16.1 percent hope to increase it. As it were, about 60 percent of public employees want to sustain the present level (proportion) in the use of satisfaction indicators.○In the operation problem aspect of satisfaction survey, the scarcity of manpower and public employees` specialties are major problems for using satisfaction survey. Also, there is an acute shortage of education and training for satisfaction surveys. Therefore, these reasons make satisfaction surveys more and more distrusted. ○Finally, several suggestions in order to improve the overall satisfaction level with regard to the satisfaction surveys (indicators) are as follows: in the environmental aspect, public employees feel keenly the necessity, reliability and suitability of satisfaction survey. Next, in the input aspect, they need suitable education and training for research design, and they need to secure a budget for satisfaction surveys. Third, in the operation condition aspect, they need to make higher reliability and validity for those surveyed, sample size, characteristics, sampling method, period, and the use of the results. In the use aspect of survey results, the results should be open to the public and be utilized for achieving the objectives of policy/organization/ performance/budget.III. Policy Recommendations○First, the Prime Minister`s Office that supervises the performance management of the central government agencies, needs to provide government agencies with important information related to the standard of satisfaction indicators. More than 1,000 performance indicators of customer satisfaction cannot be applied to the same research method due to the difference of customers and work. Nonetheless, at least the Prime Minister`s Office must offer essential information for securing reliability and validity in satisfaction surveys. Satisfaction indicators will become more important than before in terms of evaluating organizational and individual performance. Nonetheless, satisfaction indicators have many controversial issues in terms of their utilization as a performance indicator. For these reasons, the Prime Minister`s Office has to develop a standard manual for satisfaction surveys, both scientifically and systematically. The Office should periodically supervise each government agency on whether they use the standard manual or not and whether they use appropriately the survey results. ○Second, public employees working for performance management have to develop or use performance indicators through a standard manual or general research method. Also, they need continuous education and training about satisfaction surveys. ○Finally, we need to consider the Canadian case as a good benchmarking model wherein all public agencies use a common research method for satisfaction survey. Canada developed a Common Measurement Tool (CMT) scientifically and systematically. The Canadian federal government recommends the use of CMT for all public agencies. Even though it is difficult for all public agencies to apply CMT, it is shown that the classification of customers such as pay-customers, beneficiaries and so on, is very helpful in the use of satisfaction surveys.