본 연구에서는 통합국정평가제도의 효율적인 시행을 위해 평가대상기관의 업무비중을 분석하여 평가부문별 가중치를 도출하고 이를 바탕으로 평가대상기관 유형화를 위한 대안적 방법론을 제시하는 것을 목적으로 하고 있다. 이를 위해 통합국정평가 대상기관인 45개의 중앙행정기관별로 포커스그룹 인터뷰(FGI)를 실시하고 분석적 계층화 과정법(AHP: Analytic Hierarchy Process)을 활용하여 그 결과를 분석하였다. 평가부문별 가중치를 도출한 결과 특정평가부문보다 자체평가부문의 비중이 훨씬 높았으며 자체평가부문 중에서는 핵심정책과제의 비중이 가장 높은 것으로 나타났다. 특정평가부문 중에서는 관리대상정책부문의 비중이 가장 높았으며 하위부문 중에서는 대통령지시사항의 비중이 가장 높은 것으로 나타났다. 특정평가부문의 특정시책 중에는 이공계관련시책과 여성관련시책의 비중이 큰 편이었으나 부문 간에 큰 차이는 없었다. 비교군 설정을 위한 유형화는 가중치 산정결과를 바탕으로 자체평가와 특정평가의 상대적 비중에 따라 4개군으로 유형화하고, 각 군별로 자체평가 하위부문별 가중치에 따라 다시 3개군으로 유형화하여 비교하였다. 본 연구결과는 통합국정평가제도가 객관적이고 공정한 평가시스템으로 정착되어 기존의 평가를 통합하고 자율적인 평가역량을 강화하는데 이론적인 면과 실무적인 면에서 크게 기여할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.
This study aims to derive weight values of evaluation fields through the analysis of relative importance of public service of central government agencies, and to suggest criteria of categorization on the basis of derived weight values for efficient implementation of IPSES(Integrated Public Service Evaluation System). For these aims, focus group interview was carried out focusing 45 central government agencies and the result was analysed through Analytic Hierarchy Process method. As a resut, it is found that weight of self-evaluation part is much higher than specific-evaluation part. Among self-evaluation sub-parts, core policy task part shows highest weight while managerial policy part is highest among specific-evaluation sub-parts with the highest weight of presidential direction part. Among specific-program sub-parts within sepcific-evaluation part, human resource management of scientific field and female gender program have relatively higher weights although there is no particular difference among other sub-parts. As for the categorization for comparison, 4 categories are derived according to relative levels of weights between self-evaluation and specific-evaluation parts and 3 sub-categories are derived more for each of them according to self-evaluation sub-parts. Also, average weights of the agencies grouped in the same category are derived to apply same weights to them. It is expected that the outcome of this study can be utilized in both theoretic and practical ways to integrate current evaluation schemes and to reinforce self evaluation ability through the systemization of objective and impartial evaluation process, although it has a little bit of methodological shortcomings which can be accepted.
This study aims to derive weight values of evaluation fields through the analysis of relative importance of public service of central government agencies, and to suggest criteria of categorization on the basis of derived weight values for efficient implementation of IPSES(Integrated Public Service Evaluation System). For these aims, focus group interview was carried out focusing 45 central government agencies and the result was analysed through Analytic Hierarchy Process method. As a resut, it is found that weight of self-evaluation part is much higher than specific-evaluation part. Among self-evaluation sub-parts, core policy task part shows highest weight while managerial policy part is highest among specific-evaluation sub-parts with the highest weight of presidential direction part. Among specific-program sub-parts within sepcific-evaluation part, human resource management of scientific field and female gender program have relatively higher weights although there is no particular difference among other sub-parts. As for the categorization for comparison, 4 categories are derived according to relative levels of weights between self-evaluation and specific-evaluation parts and 3 sub-categories are derived more for each of them according to self-evaluation sub-parts. Also, average weights of the agencies grouped in the same category are derived to apply same weights to them. It is expected that the outcome of this study can be utilized in both theoretic and practical ways to integrate current evaluation schemes and to reinforce self evaluation ability through the systemization of objective and impartial evaluation process, although it has a little bit of methodological shortcomings which can be accepted.
