: Policy Window Attention Curve ( ) I.. BSC MBO BSC.. 1).,. (Strategic Planning Strategic Management) (Holzer & Lee, 2004;, 2008, 2009; Halachmi & Holzer, 1986).?... 1) 모든공공조직이나름대로의평가체계를가지고있으나여기서는적어도비전과전략중심의성과관리를채택하여운영하고있는조직들을의미한다.
II. 성과관리의흐름도 Information Processing CKPI End- Results 측정정보생성분석 의사결정 (Initiatives) 실행 지표 : CKPI 관점에서의고유지표, 충돌, 협력지표, End- Results 측정 : CKPI 관점에서 4 가지항목에대한측정 분석 ( 정보생성 ): CKPI 4 개항목별장애요인 ( 내 / 외부환경 ) 및극복전략분석 의사소통 : 수평적, 수직적의사소통에의한 Initiative 의발굴 실행 : 발굴된 Initiative 의실행및 CKPI 재측정 - 개선도확인 [ 1] 위의그림에서보는바와같이성과관리의흐름도는성과지표를통한측정에
III., Policy Window Attention Curve 3) 2) 실제로행정학석사, 경영학석사를소지한전문가들이기획예산과에배치되어전략실행과성과관리와관련된일들을담당하고있다. 3) 이부분은 2009 년한구행정학회하계학술대회에서발표한필자의원고에서일부분을수정하여사용한것임을밝힌다.
1. (CKPI: Comprehensive Key Performance Index).... KPI (CKPI:Comprehensive Key Performance Index). 4) CKPI(Comprehensive Key Performance Index, 100 ) (1) (25%) + (2) (25%) + (3) CSF - (25%) + (4) - (25%), (1), (2) (3), (4).. (3) (4). CKPI. 2. (3), (4),,. CKPI (3), (4). CKPI (3), (4). (, ) 4) CKPI 에대한구체적인논의는이석환 (2008). UOFO: 신뢰받는정부와기업을위한전략적성과관리. 서울 : 법문사. 참조
. 3. 5) U U. CKPI(PC: Purified CKPI) 6) U, U (Inversed U relationship). ([ 1] ). U (Emotional Response). PC. 5) 6)
성과모형 : PC (Purified CKPI) 와 CSF 체감도간의관계 CSF 체감도 역동적성과모형 PC CSF 체감도 정태적성과모형 PC 1 [ 2] Curve 4. (Reference Point) Policy Window Attention Policy Window Attention Curve Policy Window Attention Curve (Prospect Theory).. Quattrone & Tversky (1988). (Reference Point) ([ 3 ])
U Kingdon(1984) Policy Window. (attention). (Policy Window) (Opportunity) (Kingdon, 1984). Window (Crisis) (, ) Window. Window (Reference Point). U loss (framing). (risk-aversion) (loss) (risk seeking)... (Loss) Policy Window. Window Coupling Kingdon Policy Window..
전망이론 (Prospect Theory) Value Gains Losses Reference Point 2 [ 3] Policy Window Attention Curve 7) Window.. Policy Windwo Attention Curve.. Curve Peak Attention.. 7) 본연구에서의 attention curve 의그래픽개념화는 Mark Beam 이 Collective Intelligence 사에서 2007 년에개발한그래픽개념을응용하여구성한것임을밝힘
Policy Window Attention Curve ( 예시 ) 장기성과와단기성과와의연계 성과목표별차기년도대상지표수 장기성과의관점 (LP 분석 ) 도시균형발전 (9 개지표 ) 도시기반조성 (5 개지표 ) 질서 - 선진도시 (12 개지표 ) 대내외네트워킹강화 (3 개지표 ) 당해년도성과목표체감도 단기성과의관점 ( 고객수요리드영역 ) (Policy Window Area) 문화예술인프라 ( 만화 / 애니메이션산업매출신장 / 무형문화재 ) 맑은물 / 푸른숲 ( 녹지공간 / 수돗물 ) 도시균형발전 ( 뉴타운 / 주거환경개선 ) 질서 - 선진도시 ( 대중교통이용만족도 / 불법광고물 ) 기업경쟁력강화 ( 기업지원만족도 / 로봇산업 / 공업지역재정비 ) 주민자치역량강화시민건강증진 ( 식품안전 / 건 ( 시정참여만족도 / 사회단강프로그램만족 ) 체공헌 ) 문화향유기회 ( 문화공연주민참여 ) 도시기반조성 ( 교통광장, 재난재해, 교통사고사망율 ) 지역경제활성화 ( 재래시장 / 농산물직거래 ) Attention Curve 부천시브랜드 ( 도시브랜드인지도 ) 정책환경의안정성 청결하고공해없는환경 ( 꽃묘 / 폐기물처리 ) 복지수준향상 ( 영유아보육서비스노인일자리 ) 내년도목표치조정대상지표수 Peak Attention 최저점 PC (Purified CKPI) [ 4] Policy Window Attention Curve( ) 8) 8) 위의그래프에서왼쪽의미래수요부분은미래의성과목표를예측하기위한영역으로본연구의내용과는관련이없다. 그러나편의상전체를보여주는차원에서하나의그래프로공개하는것임을밝힌다. 9) 더자세한선형계획모형의적용및응용에관한논의는안문석 (1993), 계량행정론, 박영사 pp.186-241/ 참조.
각부서의지표별차기년도목표치부여예시 - 기업지원과를대상으로한선형계획모형 (LP) 분석결과나타난성과지수 -9.74(2009 년도말평가기준 )->11.58(2010 년도 ) 우선순위 성과지표 2009 2010 대책 / 비고 1 관내기업매출액 (BO) 2.76 3.5 환산점수계산결과매출액 358 억목표요망 (2011 년기준 500 억목표 ) 2 기업지원만족도 3.5 3.8 기업수요파악에기초한과제개선 각부서는모든지표에대한과거최소 2 년간의실적치를제시 [ 1] LP ( )
조직의장기성과와단기성과와의연계 : 지표별투자우선순위의제시 단기 단기적관점에서의고객수요리드지표 (Attention Curve) 장기 O X 장기적관점에서의목표치조정지표 (LP 분석결과 ) O 최우선투자및관리 ( 투자 1 순위 ) 우선투자및관리 ( 투자 2 순위 ) X 우선투자및관리 ( 투자 3 순위 ) 일반관리 ( 투자 4 순위 ) [ 2] LP ( )
(2003). Balanced Scorecard in the Public Sector and Its Forward Looking Focus Revisited: Do We Need Another Balance?, 14 2, pp.273-297. (2006a), : BSC,, 10 1, pp. 135-152. (2006b). BSC :, 40 1, pp. 127-149. (2006c). ( ),,. (2008). UOFO:. :. (2009). Drucker, Peter (1954). The Practice of Management. New York : Harper and Brothers. ------------ (1958). Business Objectives and Survival Needs: Notes on a Discipline of Business Enterprises. Journal of Business, 31(2): 81-90. ----------- (1976). What Results Should You Expect?: A User's Guide to MBO. Public Administration Review, 36(1): 12-19. Halachmi, A., & Holzer, M. (1986). Introduction: Toward strategic perspectives on public productivity. In A. Halachmi, & M. Holzer (Ed.), Strategic issues in public sector productivity: The best of public productivity review (pp.5-16), 1975-1985, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Holzer, M & Lee, S-H (2004). Public Productivity Handbook (2nd eds.), NY: Marcel Dekker. Holzer, M. (1995). Building capacity for productivity improvement. In A.
Halachmi & M. Hozer (Ed.), Competent government: Theory and practices: The best of public productivity and management review, 1985-1993 (pp.457-456), Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press. Holzer, M., & Callahan, K. (1998). Government at work, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kaplan, R. & D. Norton (2006), Alignment, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992). The balanced scorecard --measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review, January-February: 71-79. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1993). Putting the balanced scorecard to work, Harvard Business Review, September-October: 134-142. Kingdon, John. (1984), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston Toronto: Little Brown & Company. National Center for Public Productivity (2003). Citizen-Driven Government Performance Measurement Curricular Project, Newark, New Jersey: Rutgers University. Quattrone, George & Tversky, Amos (1988). Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analysis of Rational Choice, American Political Science Review, 82(3): 719-736. Seok-Hwan Lee (2008). "Citizen-Driven Government Performance: Challenges & Prospects," Paper delivered at International Symposium at Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea