| Session Title: New Direction of Government Research and Development Program Evaluation in Korea |
| Multipaper Session 570 to be held in Wekiwa 7 on Friday, Nov 13, 1:40 PM to 3:10 PM |
| Sponsored by the Research, Technology, and Development Evaluation TIG |
| Chair(s): |
| June Seung Lee, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning, jslee@kistep.re.kr |
| Abstract: The goal of this session is to provide participants with insight into current best practices and challenges of evaluating national R&D program and government-funded research institutes, etc. that can be used for comparative, management and policy purposes in Korea. Panelists will share Korea's expertise and experience in R&D performance evaluation, in-depth evaluation of R&D Program and the effect of institutional evaluation system on the performance of government-funded research institutes and discuss current approaches used in Korea to measure and compare the performance of R&D programs and policies. |
| Reformation of National Research and Development (R&D) Program Evaluation System |
| Dong-Jae Lee, Ministry of Strategy and Finance Korea, lee4326@mosf.go.kr |
| Apart from general finance program, the unique performance evaluation at R&D program has been conducted since 1999. In Feb. 2008, the function of performance evaluation at R&D program transferred from National Science and Technology Council (NSTIC) to Ministry of Strategy and Finance (MOSF) due to amendment of the government organization law and related laws. In the meantime, with the continued increases of government R&D investment, the importance of performance perspectives on government is increasingly emphasized. Responding to this situation, MOSF lays and promotes a scheme of reorganizing R&D program performance evaluation system of 'Practical R&D program performance evaluation' through 'Choice and Concentration'. It has reformed the R&D performance evaluation system in order to support the R&D investment efficiency through simplification of evaluation, reinforcement of department self-evaluation, in-depth analysis. |
| In-depth Evaluation of Research and Development (R&D) Program in Korea |
| Seung Jun Yoo, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning, biojun@kistep.re.kr |
| Boo-jong Kil, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning, kbjok@kistep.re.kr |
| Woo Chul Chai, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning, wcchai@kistep.re.kr |
| The purpose of R&D program evaluation is to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the program. In-depth evaluation is a way of program evaluation addressing evaluation questions using logic model with corresponding methods. In in-depth evaluation, appropriate methods should be applied depending on the types of R&D program and performance information. Each year about 10 R&D programs are selected for in-depth evaluation after reviewing and surveying issues to evaluate by evaluation group, national assembly, NSTC, BAI, etc. Evaluation is more valuable when the results are appropriately used according to types of the results (corrections). Currently, there are four types of correction as follows, 1) improve program delivery system, 2) coordinate budget allocation, 3) improve research environment, 4) consult program planning. In-depth evaluation reinforces the qualitative analysis to find out the in-efficient or in-effective issues and to correct the problems for the corresponding program to be efficient and effective. |
| Evaluation of National Science and Technology Innovation Capacity |
| Seung Ryong Lee, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning, leesr7376@kistep.re.kr |
| Chi Yong Kim, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning, cykim@kistep.re.kr |
| Dong Hoon Oh, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning, smile@kistep.re.kr |
| As science & technology(S&T) has become a source of global competitiveness in knowledge-based economy, the level of S&T capacity determines a nation's competitive power. Countries, therefore, have been enhancing investment and political supports to strengthen S&T capacity. Most of all, accurate analysis and assessment of the level of nation's S&T ability is needed to make effective policy measures. On the basis of the framework of the NIS(National Innovation System), this paper suggests indexes to cover the entire cycle of S&T innovation. And it creates models to measure S&T capacity comprehensively, and tries to appraise 30 OECD members Although IMD and WEF competitiveness reports, which are regarding S&T as just one of components of nation's competitiveness, include S&T domains, these survey are insufficient to measure a nation's S&T capability synthetically and systematically. |
| The Effect of Institutional Evaluation System of GRIs on the Receptivity of Evaluation Result and the Performance of GRIs: Focusing on Economic and Human Society Research Council |
| Byung Yong Hwang, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning, byhwang@kistep.re.kr |
| Soon Cheon Byeon, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning, sbyeon@kistep.re.kr |
| Byung Tae Yoo, Hanyang University, btyoo@hanyang.ac.kr |
| The purpose of the study is to propose plans to improve evaluation systems of GRIs of research councils, whose purpose is to strengthen the performance of GRIs, especially focusing on the National Research Council. Through the analysis of the 23 research institutes and their 551 employees, it is confirmed that the Council's institutional evaluation system for GRIs has a positive influence on performances of research institutes, and receptivity of evaluation result is related to performances of research institutes. In addition, it is also confirmed that institutes with high performances, in general, have high level of receptivity of evaluation result along with positive recognition of institutional evaluation system. As a result, this study drew up several ways to improve institutional evaluation system: switch the current evaluation system to in-depth performance evaluation, motivate GRIs, and focus on optimizing performances. It also suggested ways to enhance receptivity of evaluation result and improve performances. |