零基準豫算制에 있어서 豫算決定表의 開發에 관한 硏究 = A Study on the Development of Decision Packages in Zero-Base Budgeting

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Allen Schick noted that budgeting always has been conceived as a process for system-atically relating the expenditures of funds to the accomplishment of planned objectives.
Even in the initial strings of budget reform more than 60 years ago, there were cogent statements on the need for a budget system to plan the objectives and activities of government and to furnish reliable data on what was to be accomplished with public funds.
However, this orientation was not explicitly reflected in the budget systems that were introduced during the first decades of this century.
The plain fact is that planning is not the only function that must be served by a budget system. The management of ongoing activities and the control of spending are two functions which, in the past, have been given priority over the planning function.
After the world experienced oil shocks, there has been emerged the fourth budget function which Schick had not foreseen in 1996. The fourth is cutback function.
It is generally conceived that budget reform is being motivated by the orientation of the budget function.
The following table is showing the relation between budget functions and forms of budgeting.
◁표 삽입▷(원문을 참조하세요)
Problems of financing activities and evaluating their effectiveness are not confined to government. Business and industry also have had to confront these issues and try to deal with them. It is no accident that zero-base budgeting developed in industry during the same period when some in government-notably state government-were installing elements of it there. Zero-base budgeting (ZBB) got its start at Texas Instruments, Inc., under the guidance of Peter Pyhrr, who later helped implement it in Georgia during the administration of governor Jimmy Cater (171∼1975). It is from this base that ZBB has been launched in about a dozen other states, numerous industries, some local governments, and in the federal government.
ZBB involves three basic procedural elements within each administrative entity. The first is identification of "decision units", the lowest-level entities in a bureaucracy for which budgets are prepared-staffs, branches, programs, functions, even individual appropriations items. Second is analysis of these decision units and formulation of "decision packages" by identifiable manager with authority to establish priorities and prepare budgets for all activities within the administrative entity. The analysis begins with basic questions about the consequences if the decision unit were eliminated (or given a "zero" dollar allocation) and about cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the unit, then proceeds to formulation of decision packages. The third procedural element is ranking of decision packages in an order from highest to lowest priority. Higher-level agency officials next establish priorities among all packages from all units, with the probable available funding in mind. The high-priority packages that can be funded within the probable total dollar allocation are then included in the agency budget request, and the others are dropped.
An important aspect of the whole process is that each manager prepares several different decision packages pertaining to the same set of activities, so as to allow those conducting higher-level reviews to select from alternative sets of proposals for essentially the same program or function. Packages receive higher priority as their cost declines, again assuming the same activity or set of activities.
ZBB as it has been put into operation in the private sector and in government has not had the effect of literally reducing budgetary allocations to zero before analysis of activities is begun, or of reallocating funds on a large scale from some policy areas to others. While ideally it calls for reexamining every item in the budget periodically-every one, two, or five years, for example-realistically this would not be workable; "it demands too much budgetary upheaval without equipping budget makers with the tools to redirect budgetary outcomes."
In practice, according to Allen Schick, zero-base budgeting is "more a form of marginal analysis than a requirement that the budget be built up from scratch each year. It is a device for shifting some budget attention from increments above [additions to] the base to decrements below [subtractions from] the base." The “zero" in ZBB could be misleading if one takes it literally as a statement of intent, but it has proved useful nevertheless.
In Georgia, where ZBB has bee in use since fiscal 1973, three advantageous results have been development of a planning phase prior to the budget's preparation, better management information, and more involvement by lower management personnel in the budget-making process.
The supporting system for zero-base budgeting consists of two documents: a decision package form, with worksheets if desired, and a procedure manual.
The Decision Package
A decision package has been defined as a documents that "identifies a discrete activity, function, or operation in a definitive manner for management evaluation and comparison with other activities." There is no "model" decision package. Formats will vary widely among and even within organizations, depending primarily on what you're trying to accomplish.
What items should be included in a decision package? Regardless of its purpose, all decision packages will incorporate the following minimum elements:
Basic identifying data, including the program name, program number and level, a brief description of the program's goals and objectives, as well as the sponsoring organization, cost center, author, and date.
Feasibility assessment, including, details on the program's economic benefits and costs and the risks of not acting. In addition, many organizations require an assessment of the program's legal necessity and technical and operational feasibility.
Alternative courses of action, including a brief description of other ways considered but not recommended to accomplish the same objective.
In principle, a decision package may include any of a number of other items to facilitate administration of the system. For example, where the system is being used to develop an operating budget, the format of the packages might also include:
Intangibles that cannot be quantified (such as improved morale, management development, or public image). These aspects often merit heavy consideration when a hard choice has to be made between two packages of equal economic merit.
Account level detail to facilitate translating approved packages quickly into the existing accounting and control system.
Head count of exempt and nonexempt workforce associated with the program where the organization controls its operations on personnel as well as expense dollars.
The Worksheet
After spending a little time understanding each of the annotated exhibits and the model procedure, filling in each of the sections of a decision package should be an easy task-with one possible exeption: For every activity, zero-base budgeting requires the identification and evaluation of alternatives of accomplishing it. The principle is simple but prompts the most questions and attendant confusion. Yet, to a large degree it is a key building block to fostering innovation.
How do we identify and evaluate alternatives in zero-base budgeting? Alternatives to accomplish any activity are of two types. The first focuses on the different ways of performing the same function. In most application of zero-base budgeting, different ways of doing the same thing are mutually exclusive. Thus, although two or three ways might be considered and evaluated, only one can be selected.
The second kind of alternative focuses on the different levels of effort that can be used to perform one of the alternative functions. Such levels are additive from a minimum level that can stand alone through as many increments as are practical. Any or all of the several levels may in fact be approved.
Korean Government introduced ZBB in 1982, applying the zero-base approach first in the preparation of FY 1983 Budget.
As decision units and decision packages are very rudimental, we should refine them further.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 緖 論
• 1. 硏究의 目的
• 2. 硏究의 方法
• Ⅱ. 豫算機能의 變化와 豫算改革
• 1. 豫算機能의 變化와 豫算制
• 2. 豫算改革의 展開過程
• Ⅲ. 零基準豫算制의 槪念과 主要節次
• 1. ZBB의 槪念과 沿革
• 2. ZBB의 主要節次
• Ⅳ. 豫算決定表의 作成
• 1. 豫算決定單位의 設定
• 2. 豫算決定表의 作成
• Ⅴ. 韓國의 零基準豫算制
• 1. 政府의 豫算改革推進
• 2. 政府의 豫算決定表
• 3. 私企業界의 零基準豫算制
• Ⅵ. 結 論
• 英文要約