개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술대회자료
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 서울행정학회 서울행정학회 학술대회 발표논문집 International Conference on Government Innovation and Human Resources Development
- 발행연도
- 2007.12
- 수록면
- 157 - 177 (21page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Both domestically and internationally, changes in the administrative environment make innovations in public sectors essential for the sake of survival. Since its beginning, Roh administration has tried government innovations across the board to make the government more competitive, responding to the demands.
What makes Roh administration's government innovation distinctive from the previous administrations is that the former more focused on the human resources while the latter concentrated on the hardware such as downsizing and functional adjustments. There have been three phases in the process of Roh administration's government innovation with it changing in its orientation in the course of action. In Phase One, or innovative base-buildup period('03-'04), it focused on suggesting its innovative roadmap, setting up the reform system and introducing the concept of change management. In Phase Two, or implementation and expansion periodt('05). it focused on implementing assignments for reform for innovative leadership and strategic management for government innovation. In Phase Three, or internalization of innovation periodt('06). it concentrated on institutionalization, internalization, innovative culture, assessment based on performances, policy quality control, and citizen's confidence in government innovations.
According to the result of the government innovation management assessment, the overall central government innovation level increased from innovation level 3 to level 5 on the average with 51% of the government's institutions being innovation level 3 in 2004, 52% reaching innovation level 4 in 2005, and 48% reaching level 5 in 2006 again. This result shows that even though it was just a simple process improvement in the beginning, innovative culture rooted in finally at the end of the Roh administration's government innovation. However, it is for sure that the speed of level-up slowed down in 2006 compared to that of 2005.
The limits of Roh administration’s government innovation and their reasons are as follows; Even though it is not denied that Roh’s innovation bore fruit in a different perspective from the previous administrative reforms, the speed of innovation slows down as the innovation goes on, with resistance growing and innovation wearing out. Even aggressively innovative institutions come to a standstill at level 5, facing the barrier to internalization. the reason for this is that the current reforms are control-oriented, punitive, driven by external forces and too much focused on reforms that are biased, severed and assignment-oriented. To put it another way, it is a top-down innovation rather than a voluntary one. Besides, by bringing up a whole new innovation assignment and strategies on an annual basis, innovation was lacking in its continuity. This causes deadlock, regression, and even a U-turn without internalized or voluntary innovation and measures should be taken to secure a voluntary driving force rather than an existing external force.
Absence of the price mechanism in the public sector causes a failure of the administrative reforms or at least makes the performances poor. Roh administration's government innovation took the same course of action by neglecting to devise an automatic reward and punishment mechanism like the price, revealing its limits in the continuity and internalization of innovation. Also, Roh administration's government innovation deviated from its original cost-saving purposes, aiming at creation of values, which made the innovation burdensome and caused the expansion and waste of the innovation budget.
One of the characteristics of the Roh administration's government innovation is the introduction of the various management skills from the private sectors and their application. However, it experiences failures and side-effects, failing to properly apprly apply them, which is because it experimentally adopted various models utilized in the private sectors without the support of the theoretical base and their verification. Models poorly based on the theory may lead to a failure in the continuous and internalized innovations. Chances are the model may succeed by coming up with an innovation mechanism such as competition equivalent to the price mechanism and applying theories to it.
Roh administration opened a new era by differentiating itself from the former administrations. However, the mechanism of punishment, incentive and rewards should be adopted in the long run to internalize innovation in the public sector and secure the innovative culture. Of course, not only the application of this mechanism but also the adoption of models that are theoretically based and verified is needed.
What makes Roh administration's government innovation distinctive from the previous administrations is that the former more focused on the human resources while the latter concentrated on the hardware such as downsizing and functional adjustments. There have been three phases in the process of Roh administration's government innovation with it changing in its orientation in the course of action. In Phase One, or innovative base-buildup period('03-'04), it focused on suggesting its innovative roadmap, setting up the reform system and introducing the concept of change management. In Phase Two, or implementation and expansion periodt('05). it focused on implementing assignments for reform for innovative leadership and strategic management for government innovation. In Phase Three, or internalization of innovation periodt('06). it concentrated on institutionalization, internalization, innovative culture, assessment based on performances, policy quality control, and citizen's confidence in government innovations.
According to the result of the government innovation management assessment, the overall central government innovation level increased from innovation level 3 to level 5 on the average with 51% of the government's institutions being innovation level 3 in 2004, 52% reaching innovation level 4 in 2005, and 48% reaching level 5 in 2006 again. This result shows that even though it was just a simple process improvement in the beginning, innovative culture rooted in finally at the end of the Roh administration's government innovation. However, it is for sure that the speed of level-up slowed down in 2006 compared to that of 2005.
The limits of Roh administration’s government innovation and their reasons are as follows; Even though it is not denied that Roh’s innovation bore fruit in a different perspective from the previous administrative reforms, the speed of innovation slows down as the innovation goes on, with resistance growing and innovation wearing out. Even aggressively innovative institutions come to a standstill at level 5, facing the barrier to internalization. the reason for this is that the current reforms are control-oriented, punitive, driven by external forces and too much focused on reforms that are biased, severed and assignment-oriented. To put it another way, it is a top-down innovation rather than a voluntary one. Besides, by bringing up a whole new innovation assignment and strategies on an annual basis, innovation was lacking in its continuity. This causes deadlock, regression, and even a U-turn without internalized or voluntary innovation and measures should be taken to secure a voluntary driving force rather than an existing external force.
Absence of the price mechanism in the public sector causes a failure of the administrative reforms or at least makes the performances poor. Roh administration's government innovation took the same course of action by neglecting to devise an automatic reward and punishment mechanism like the price, revealing its limits in the continuity and internalization of innovation. Also, Roh administration's government innovation deviated from its original cost-saving purposes, aiming at creation of values, which made the innovation burdensome and caused the expansion and waste of the innovation budget.
One of the characteristics of the Roh administration's government innovation is the introduction of the various management skills from the private sectors and their application. However, it experiences failures and side-effects, failing to properly apprly apply them, which is because it experimentally adopted various models utilized in the private sectors without the support of the theoretical base and their verification. Models poorly based on the theory may lead to a failure in the continuous and internalized innovations. Chances are the model may succeed by coming up with an innovation mechanism such as competition equivalent to the price mechanism and applying theories to it.
Roh administration opened a new era by differentiating itself from the former administrations. However, the mechanism of punishment, incentive and rewards should be adopted in the long run to internalize innovation in the public sector and secure the innovative culture. Of course, not only the application of this mechanism but also the adoption of models that are theoretically based and verified is needed.
목차
ABSTRACT
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 참여정부 혁신의 특징
Ⅲ. 정부혁신의 성과
Ⅳ. 정부혁신의 한계와 원인에 대한 고찰
Ⅴ. 정책제언
Ⅵ. 결어: 향후 정부혁신이 나아갈 방향
참고문헌
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
개방형 혁신(Open Innovation)의 이론과 현상에 관한 탐색연구
통상정보연구
2009 .06
-
호텔기업의 자원지향성이 혁신활동과 경영성과에미치는 영향에 관한 연구
관광경영연구
2018 .01
-
Design Thinking을 통한 Innovation
한국경영학회 융합학술대회
2010 .08
-
Performance Management and Government Innovation : Explore the concept, definition, and function of performance management & its impact on government innovation in the United States
한국공공관리학보
2012 .12
-
제조업과 서비스업의 기술혁신 결정요인 비교
서비스경영학회지
2010 .06
-
소프트웨어 기업의 기술혁신 활동과 혁신 성과에 관한 연구
한국IT서비스학회지
2009 .01
-
혁신적 기업 육성을 위한 기술혁신효율성 분석과 영향 요인에 관한 연구
무역연구
2019 .01
-
China's Innovation-Driven Development Strategy and Prospects
[KIEP] KIEP Opinions
2016 .12
-
정부지원이 중소서비스기업의 개방형 서비스 혁신활동과 혁신성과에 미치는 영향
서비스경영학회지
2017 .06
-
서비스혁신 연구 동향: 국내 및 해외 주요 학술지를 중심으로
Asia pacific journal of information systems
2014 .01
-
기술혁신과 기업생산성과의 관계 실증연구
기술경영경제학회 학술발표회
2006 .01
-
행정혁신의 저항요인
한국사회와 행정연구
2008 .11
-
서비스 혁신 리뷰
한국서비스경영학회 학술대회
2014 .11
-
Doesin-bound FDI Increase Firm Innovation? An Organizational Learning Perspective
한국경영학회 융합학술대회
2014 .08
-
서비스 혁신 리뷰
서비스경영학회지
2014 .12
-
IS 조직혁신의 영향요인과 성과에 관한 연구 - IS 개발방법론을 혁신 대상으로 -
경영정보학연구
2002 .01
-
Paths for Effective Innovation in the Public Sector : Based on Korean Public Employees’ Recognition
한국정책과학학회보
2009 .09
-
한국 서비스기업들의 혁신에 대한 실증적 분석
서비스경영학회지
2016 .03
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-350-014644413