2014, Vol.24, No.4

Korean Society and Public Administration 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 1.89

pISSN : 1225-8652
https://journal.kci.go.kr/kspa

This article is aimed to develop a integrative model for organizational evaluation. To get this objective, comprehensive, systematic approach is adopted in this research. I suggested two evaluative dimensions, one is organizational capability and the other is organizational performance. And I suggested two evaluative areas in organizational capability dimension, one is about basic mission and the other is about organizational management.. Research method was a relative comparison method between evaluative elements. 60 professionals took part in question. The results are: Firstly, organizational performance and mission capability were perceived more important than management capability. Secondly, in a field of mission capability, special mission capability and mission leadership were perceived more important than others. Thirdly, in a field of management capability, management & support capability, managerial leadership, organizational person management capability were perceived more important than others. Fourthly, in a field of organizational performance, goal attainment, performance on the relationship of stake-holder and society, managerial efficiency in order were perceived. Fifthly, although there were some difference between organizational species, it was not significant statistically.

While privatization of public medical centers has been under thoughtful consideration in Korea due to a lack of those profitability, empirical evidence is not sufficient enough to support that privation of medical institutions is supposed to promote profitability. The aim of this study is to analyze differences in medical performance between private medical centers and public medical institutions in an empirical way. Towards this end, on the basis of data of 321 general hospitals during the past five years between 2008 and 2012 empirical analyses with respect to medical performance were conducted in terms of output-input ratio. Indicators for input are the number of beds, doctors and the number of departments while those for output are the number of patients, income and the number of hospitalization. This study shows that the performance of public hospitals is better than that of private hospitals with respect to using facilities in terms of utilizing beds as well as using human resources in terms of utilizing doctors. However, private hospitals are better than public hospitals with respect to the level of income. In addition, performance comparison, controlled by the regional variable between the capital regions and the non-capital regions, turns out to be that there is difference in performance with respect to using facilities in terms of beds. That is, public hospitals in capital regions are better and private hospitals are better in non-capital regions. This result implies that the role of public hospital should be reconsidered in the process of delivering health and medical services.

As research regarding military structural policy has mainly focused on military science or the policy-making process, change factors and decision making processes have been relatively overlooked. The present study therefore offers a comprehensive examination of the policy making processes of the Republic of Korea army in relation to change factors at the institutional-structural-actor level, defined by system changes under historical institutionalism. The predominant change factor to influence the decision making process of military structure policy since the founding of the Korean armed forces is the army command structure, which has meant that the opportunity factors as well as motivation factors for policy change pass through the three governmental cabinet. In addition, reduction of the US armed forces in Korea, based on US military strategy, means that change in the security structure of the Korean peninsular is a realistic expectation, as is a re-evaluation of the Korean armed forces structure. The army focus of the Ministry of National Defense, along with the formal and informal influence of actors, also directly impacts upon the political decision making process, but without regard to political direction. The conclusion suggests that Korean military structure policy can be described as a periodical-sociological output influenced by the institutional limits and opportunity factors of the existing policy, external-internal security structure and domestic political structure, and formal and informal initiative actors. In order to put in place a proper decision making process for military structural policy, systematic measures, based on further analysis of change factors, are required.