분야별 성과지표 개선방안 연구 Ⅱ: 외교안보분야를 중심으로 = Improving Government Performance Indicators II: Focusing on the Field of Diplomacy and Security

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This research was carried out as part of a mid to long-term project to develop and improve field-specific performance indicators. The government evaluation system in Korea is generally uniform and there is not much diversity or autonomy between ministries and departments in performance management and evaluation. Therefore, ministries and departments are requiring more discretion in evaluating government work in their organizations.
This mid to long-term project aims to find the difference between performance indicators in various governmental fields and develop field-specific performance indicators. As the Korean government evaluation system cannot be changed in one day from a unified system into one in which each department has its own evaluation system, this research was conducted to develop an intermediary system of governmental evaluation between a centralized system and a decentralized one. In 2017, the economic field was selected for the first year of this project, and in 2018 the field of diplomacy and security was selected.
The purposes of this year’s study are the following. First, it aims to find the specific and unique features of performance indicators in the field of diplomacy and security. Second, it aims to suggest directions and measures for improving and developing performance indicators in this governmental field.
This year’s study selected ministries in the field of diplomacy and security, and attempted a detailed analysis through various criteria. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of National Defense in South Korea were selected and analyzed. Ministries which carried out similar governmental activities in the United States and Australia were also selected and analyzed for comparison.
The analysis of the foreign countries showed the following implications for the performance management of Korea 's diplomacy and security sector. The United States and Australia both acknowledge the necessity of confidentiality in the areas of diplomacy and security. As a result, both countries do not present specific and concrete performance goals and indicators in their governmental performance reports. Foreign countries have been using qualitative indicators and case studies in the field of diplomacy and security, and Korea should also consider expanding the use of such qualitative indicators. In addition, it can be said that it is necessary to define the time schedules and methods more flexibly in the diplomacy and security field, to reflect sudden changes in international relations.
The following four improvement directions for the field of diplomacy and security were derived from the research. First, it is necessary to strengthen the capacity of performance management through education, and enhance the diversity of evaluation systems. Second, it is important to establish a performance data system or performance knowledge system to enhance performance expertise in the field of diplomacy and security. Third, it is necessary to increase the utilization of input indicators and to increase the autonomy of performance management by diversifying performance methods and time schedules in the field of diplomacy and security. Fourth, it is necessary to acknowledge the need for confidentiality in the field of diplomacy and security.
The study proposes short-term improvement measures and mid to long-term improvement measures. The short-term improvement measures focus on items that can be improved within the current legal framework, whereas the mid to long-term improvement measures can be implemented through the revision of related laws.
This research was carried out with the purpose of identifying the specific characteristics of the performance indicators in the field of diplomacy and security, and derive measures to improve performance management in the field. The implications of this research are as follows. The first significance of this project, which started last year, is that it has triggered sectoral research in government evaluation. The second significance of this project is that the results of this study can contribute to the improvement of government performance and ultimately contribute to the interests of the people and nation.