Journal of Digital Convergence (디지털융복합연구)

The Society of Digital Policy and Management (한국디지털정책학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A study on the evaluation model of project

<인생나눔교실> 사업 평가모형 개발 연구

  • Received : 2018.09.03
  • Accepted : 2018.10.20
  • Published : 2018.10.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, the evaluation index was developed to design the project evaluation model, and the weight was given through the AHP survey. project was evaluated for the first time by using the designed evaluation model for the field appraisal. As a result, it was revealed that the weight of the propriety index of the participant effect and the project content was the highest among 20 indexes. This study is significant in having built a base on which the evaluation system could be stabilized, by developing the integrative project evaluation model of . However, we have yet to adequately address the evaluator's acceptability and efficacy in evaluating indicators. The validity and continuity of the evaluation model will be secured through this.

본 연구에서는 <인생나눔교실> 사업 평가를 시행하기 위해 본 사업의 특성을 고려하여 평가지표를 설계하고 이를 사업평가 모형으로 제시하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 평가지표를 개발하고 AHP 분석을 통해 가중치를 설정하였고, 개발한 평가지표를 토대로 현장 평가를 진행하여 <인생나눔교실> 사업을 평가하였다. 그 결과 참여자 영향과 사업 내용의 적정성 지표가 20개의 지표 중에서 가장 높게 나타났다. 그리고 17년 5개 지역주관처의 현장평가를 실시한 결과, 탁월 및 우수 등급이 4개 기관, 보통 등급이 1개 기관으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 <인생나눔교실>의 사업평가 모형을 개발하여 평가를 체계적으로 시행할 수 있는 기반을 구축했다는 점에서 의의가 있다. 그러나 아직 피평가자의 수용성과 효용성에 대해서는 평가지표에 충분하게 담아내지 못했기 때문에 앞으로 이에 대한 보완이 필요하다. 또한 매년 평가 영역과 평가 지표의 가중치를 재설정하여 평가모형을 지속적으로 보완할 필요가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Arts Council Korea. (2016). Introductory textbook for mentors, Naju : Arco.
  2. Arts Council Korea. (2016). A study of project evaluation, Naju : Arco.
  3. Arts Council Korea. (2017). A study of project evaluation, Naju : Arco.
  4. J. S. Wholey. (1997). Clarifying Goals, Reporting Results. New Directions for Evaluation, 76, 95-105.
  5. T. H. Poister. (2003). Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
  6. H. P. Hatry. (1989). Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting: Its Time has Come. Washington. DC: Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
  7. J. W. Hedge & M. S, Teachout. (2000). Exploring the Concept of Acceptability as a Criterion for Evaluating Performance Measures. Group & Organization Management, 25(2), 22-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601100251003
  8. J. M. Yang. (2017). The success factors of performance evaluation on the public sector. The Graduate school the Catholic University of Korea.
  9. R. L. Dipboye & R. dePontbriand. (1981). Correlates of Employee Reactions to Performance Appraisals and Appraisal Systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(2), 248-251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.2.248
  10. G. H. Kim, J. G. Kim & S. J. Lee. (2008). Development of Ubiquitous Information Projects Evaluation Models and Indexes. The journal of digital policy & management, 6(3), 1-11.
  11. E. R. House. (1993). Professional Evaluation: Social Impact and Political Consequence. CA: Sage.
  12. D. L. Stufflebeam. (2001). Evaluation Models. New Directions for Evaluation, 89, 7-98.
  13. S. M. Lee. (2012). A Study on Evaluation Theory and Model Based on Philosophical Paradigm. Korea journal of policy analysis and evaluation, 22(1), 59-89.
  14. S. J. Yoon, K. H. Lee & J. H. Hong. (2008). Comparative analysis of overseas case on performance management system, Seoul : KIPA.
  15. S. B. Park. (2000). Lecture in Policy Studies. Seoul : Daeyoung.
  16. J. Y. Lee. (2004). Constructing the Indicators for Cultural Policy Evaluation. Korean journal of policy analysis and evaluation, 14(1), 129-150.
  17. H. S. Yim, S. H. Park, S. M. Lee & K. J. Chae. (2012). A study on development of performance evaluation model of social arts and culture education policy. Journal of digital content & cultural policy, 137-167.
  18. S. K. Baik, J. H. Gwon & J. H. Lee. (2013). The research of CT R&D's performance assessment model, 28, 189-217.
  19. B. Y. Choe & S. H. Kim. (2015). The application of the balanced scorecard for the arts and cultural sector, 33, 89-129.
  20. Korea arts & culture education service. (2017). Fundamental research on building indicators of cultural arts education effectiveness, Seoul : arte.
  21. Korea arts & culture education service. (2017). Establishment and investigation of detailed indicators of cultural arts education effectiveness, Seoul : arte.
  22. Korea arts & culture education service. (2017). The Study of Kundarak Saturday Cultural School evaluation, Seoul : arte.
  23. Korea arts & culture education service. (2017). Research on ODA project performance evaluation of culture arts education, Seoul : arte.
  24. E. S. Cho & S. J. Lee. (2011). A study on the korean performance evaluation system, 13(1), 161-198.
  25. Saaty, Thomas. L. (1982). Decision Making For Leader: The AHP for Decisions in a Complex World. CA : Wadsworth.
  26. C. Y. Kim. (2011). How to improve the evaluation methods of IT outcomes in government organizations. Journal of digital policy & management, 9(2), 15-31.