초록 ▼

4. 종합결론
□ 정부연구개발사업 구조의 종합적 개선을 위한 핵심 요소
○ 정부연구개발사업의 성과 제고를 위해서는 적정한 사업구조의 형성이 중요함
- 적정한 사업구조의 형성은 거시적인 수준에서 투자의 효율성과 미시적인 수준에서의 연구개발 생산성 향상 목표가 적절히 결합되어야 이루어짐
- 이것은 연구개발사업구조의 구조적 효율성과 질적인 적합성이 동시에 갖추어져야 가능함
○ 목적적합한 사업예산구조의 형성과 지식, 기술, 시장의 맥락적 적합성을 확보한 세부사업구조가 연계하여 종합적인 효율성을 제고함
- 환

4. 종합결론
□ 정부연구개발사업 구조의 종합적 개선을 위한 핵심 요소
○ 정부연구개발사업의 성과 제고를 위해서는 적정한 사업구조의 형성이 중요함
- 적정한 사업구조의 형성은 거시적인 수준에서 투자의 효율성과 미시적인 수준에서의 연구개발 생산성 향상 목표가 적절히 결합되어야 이루어짐
- 이것은 연구개발사업구조의 구조적 효율성과 질적인 적합성이 동시에 갖추어져야 가능함
○ 목적적합한 사업예산구조의 형성과 지식, 기술, 시장의 맥락적 적합성을 확보한 세부사업구조가 연계하여 종합적인 효율성을 제고함
- 환경, 전략, 예산이 연계된 사업예산구조의 목적적합성 확보가 필요하며 사업별 기술적, 시장적 맥락성이 고려된 맥락적 적합성 확보가 필요함
□ 사업구조의 질적 적합성 제고 중심의 구조화 전환
○ 기존의 구조적 효율성 중심에서 질적인 생산성 중심으로 사업구조의 질적 전환이 요구됨
- 과거 상위예산구조 중심의 사업구조 형성과 관리의 행태에서 벗어나 연구개발 생산성 제고를 위한 질적 적합성 제고 방향으로 정책적 전환이 필요함
○ 사업구조의 질적 개선과 이를 통한 연구개발사업 생산성 제고 중심으로 사업구조 관리 중심의 이동이 필요함. 사업영역의 적정성, 사업구조의 동태성 강화를 위한 사업구조 관리의 질적 전환이 필요함

Abstract ▼

The Korean government has strengthened R&D policies as core policy measures for the country’s social and economic development. To support this scheme, the Korean government has actively expanded its R&D investments. However, the productivity increase driven by this volume growth has not been as high

The Korean government has strengthened R&D policies as core policy measures for the country’s social and economic development. To support this scheme, the Korean government has actively expanded its R&D investments. However, the productivity increase driven by this volume growth has not been as high as it was originally expected. So, improving the efficiency of government R&D investments has now emerged as one of important national agenda.
To improve the efficiency of government R&D investments, the Korean government has pushed forward various policies and schemes to improve the use of government R&D budget. However, due to the overlapping programs between government inistries, this inefficiency issue has been continuously raised. In addition, fragmented or unconnected projects have caused the value generated from government R&D to drop.
To improve the efficiency of government R&D investments, the present study presents a comprehensive analysis and proposes some improvement ideas to help enhance the efficiency and adequacy of government R&D program structure.
So far, the government’s approach to designing the structure of government R&D programs has been geared toward improving the efficiency of program budget structure, without ever attempting a qualitative structural improvement. Instead of a comprehensive analysis of program structure, the efficiency in the process of allocating R&D budget has been the prime concern. For a comprehensive structural analysis of government R&D programs, this study adopts a differentiated approach considering different characteristics of government R&D programs at different levels, macro and micro levels. This means, at macro level, the importance is on the efficiency of budget allocation system while the qualitative adequacy of R&D project structure is considered an important factor at micro level.
At the macro level, the following issues have been identified. First, there is a need to develop government R&D strategy that takes national innovation strategy and capability into key consideration and ensure the adequacy of budget allocation to support this need. However, the current reality shows missing linkages between such strategy and budget allocation practice. This implies that a systematic planning to implement such strategy is not in place, making a strategic approach to budget allocation difficult.
Second, practical program-based budgeting system is not under operation. In case of program budget structure, the unit of evaluation is project, so the actual budget planning is done at the project level. As result, the higher-level program-based and goal-oriented budget allocation is not in place. Instead, the implementation feasibility at the individual project level is emphasized.
Third, as the allocation of government R&D budget is structured around individual projects, the inter-ministerial or intra-ministerial competition to secure necessary budget at the project level is ever intensifying. This has made government R&D program structure much more complicated and diverse centering around individual projects and the number of projects has increased immensely, exceeding the manageable level. This is causing the issues of overlap and redundancy as well as the extra management cost to control the overlap and redundancy.
Fourth, as the program adjustment and evaluation system is focused on the visible element of inefficiency such as project overlap, the actual adjustment is not being done efficiently. In other words, program adjustment or evaluation is made at the individual project level mainly looking into the issue of project overlap, which makes meaningful adjustment or evaluation impossible. As result, the program adjustment or evaluation is no more than a partial evaluation of the efficiency of budget.
Fifth, the coordination of roles and responsibilities as well as cooperation between ministries is not being efficiently made, causing inefficiency in the structure of government R&D programs. As roles and responsibilities are distributed among different ministries mainly in the areas of comprehensive policies or functions, the overlap with relevant programs or multi-faceted programs is inevitable. In addition, regardless of the themes or contents of cooperation, cooperation is being handled at the ministry level, without leaving much room for flexibility in the cooperation targets and contents.
To improve the afore-mentioned issues, this study proposes the following improvement ideas. To improve the program budget structure, the following initiatives need to be pursued.
First, the strategic feature of budget allocation needs to be strengthened. This means systemizing budget allocation by channeling resources in accordance with the strategic goals. For this purpose, strengthening program-based budget system and refining program evaluation focused on strategic goals and programs are needed.
Second, it is necessary to build a system of reflecting changes in roles and demands. Changes in innovation environment have also brought changes in the roles of government and created new demands, which all need to be reflected in a structural system. Especially it is deemed necessary to build a program structure that helps create values from knowledge convergence and strengthen infrastructure for knowledge creation and knowledge flow reflecting changes in knowledge environment.
Third, the inefficiency of program budget structure should be improved. To improve the structural issue of overlap in the current program, it is necessary to redefine roles and responsibilities of respective ministries. To improve the issue of inter- ministerial cooperation, a clear distinction between inter-ministerial policy coordination and cooperation for program linkage should be made.
Fourth, the program budget system needs to be improved. Among issues to be resolved are conflicts caused by competition to secure budget at the project level and ineffectiveness of program budget system. To resolve these issues, it is necessary to maintain balance between competitive budgeting and ministry-based stable budgeting, improve multilayered program budget structure, introduce a budgeting system for pan-ministerial programs, and improve budget ceiling system.
Based on the afore-mentioned initiatives, the following measures to improve R&D program structure at the macro level have been presented. First, government R&D program structure needs to be reshuffled in accordance with the changes in the roles of government ministries. This means grouping government ministries into two groups, one in charge of building a foundation and the other in charge of solving problems. The specific roles of ministries who belong to the latter group are defined according to their expertise, which is again reflected in the R&D program restructuring by ministry.
Second, a strategic budget management system needs to be introduced in R&D program. Systematic structural management can be applied to areas requiring strategic budget investment.
Third, transition from project-based structure to pan-ministerial program-based structure is needed. For this transition, the current project structure which is complex and multi-staged needs to be simplified, so that the focus can be shifted to program level.
Fourth, the structure of program evaluation needs to be shifted to a policy or program-based one. With the transition to program-based project structure, the project evaluation system needs to be restructured to focus on the evaluation at the programlevel. In addition, policy evaluation needs to be strengthened to evaluate the outcome of strategy implementation.
For analyzing the structure of micro-level projects, the correlation between R&D productivity and project structure needs to be analyzed, based on which improvement measures can be presented. When it comes to the question of improving R&D productivity, the following have been reviewed as important factors; economy of scope and coherence, coherence and technology relatedness, roles of a knowledge creation field, leadership and autonomy, and the coherence of knowledge and the organizational context from the context theory. Based on this review, the basic R&D program model based on the adequacy and the dynamics of program fields from contextual coherence have been presented and an empirical comparative analysis has been conducted.
When compared with the National Institute of Health (NIH) in the U.S., the Korean government R&D program in healthcare field turned out to have many structural issues. Projects are not structured around technologies or markets but round comprehensive policy goals. Institutions who are supposed to play the role of national hubs have limits in systematically managing the dynamics of project structure.
Therefore, it is deemed necessary to review the overall structure of government R&D program and design new program architecture.
Based on the results of these analyses, the following policy measures to improve government R&D program structure have been proposed.
First, from the perspective of technology and market, the adequacy of government R&D program structure needs to be evaluated. Based on this evaluation, the fields of knowledge creation need to be redesigned. Second, to secure the dynamics of program structure, research hubs for each adequate research area need to be developed. Third, as is the case with the U.S., multi-layered implementation mechanism should be established for basic research. This multi-layered mechanism is necessary for securing basic knowledge required for conducting R&D and maximizing the effect of knowledge convergence by securing knowledge of context. Fourth, within the adequate research areas, knowledge creation and utilization need to be linked. This means, in order to generate the practical impact of knowledge utilization, knowledge should be utilized in a close linkage with knowledge creation within the boundary of adequate project areas.
As has been described, the structure of government R&D program has contrasting elements at macro and micro levels and these contrasting elements need to be combined in an integrated program structure with higher efficiency. The efficiency of program structure should be ultimately aiming at enhancing the efficiency of government R&D investment. For this purpose, enhancing the efficiency of budget allocation structure and R&D productivity should be pursued simultaneously. The structure of current government R&D program, however, is focused on program planning and management driven by higher-level budget allocation structure, not paying enough attention to the importance of R&D productivity. Therefore, the focus of program management should be shifted toward emphasizing productivity of micro-level projects. This implies that focus should be placed on securing R&D productivity by improving the adequacy of micro-level project structure, rather than on improving macro-level efficiency of budget structure. Such shift of focus is extremely important for improving the overall efficiency of government R&D structure and is critical for enhancing the efficiency of R&D investment.

목차 Contents

• 표지 ... 1
• 발간사 ... 5
• 요약 ... 7
• 목차 ... 29
• 표목차 ... 33
• 그림목차 ... 35
• 제1장 서 론 ... 39
• 제1절 연구의 필요성과 목적 ... 39
• 제2절 연구의 범위 및 접근방법 ... 43
• 1. 연구 기본 모형 ... 43
• 2. 연구 범위와 접근방법 ... 45
• 제3절 연구의 구성 ... 49
• 제2장 창조적 혁신환경과 정부의 역할 ... 51
• 제1절 지식 자본과 창조적 혁신 ... 51
• 1. 지식기반경제의 발전 ... 51
• 2. 창의성 기반 혁신가치 창출 ... 57
• 제2절 혁신시스템 변화와 정부의 역할 ... 63
• 1. 국가혁신시스템과 지식가치연계구조 ... 63
• 2. 혁신환경과 시스템 구조의 문제 ... 65
• 3. 창의지식가치 제고와 정부의 역할 ... 72
• 제Ⅰ편 정부연구개발예산과 사업구조 ... 75
• 제3장 정부연구개발사업 발전과정 분석 ... 77
• 제1절 시대별 발전과정과 특징 ... 77
• 제2절 역사적 발전 추이와 시사점 ... 94
• 제4장 정부연구개발사업 예산구조 분석 ... 102
• 제1절 정부연구개발사업 예산투자구조 추이 분석 ... 102
• 제2절 정부연구개발사업 예산구조 및 사업조정체계 분석 ... 124
• 제3절 정부연구개발사업 예산구조 특징 및 문제점 ... 143
• 제5장 정부연구개발예산 및 사업구조 개선방안 ... 147
• 제1절 사업구조 개선방향 ... 147
• 제2절 예산구조 개선방안 ... 150
• 제3절 사업구조 개선방안 : 거시적 수준 ... 162
• 제Ⅱ편 정부연구개발사업구조와 생산성 ... 167
• 제6장 연구개발 생산성과 사업구조 ... 169
• 제1절 접근방향과 핵심요소 ... 169
• 제2절 연구개발 생산성과 사업구조의 관계 ... 173
• 제3절 연구개발사업구조의 기본모형 ... 199
• 제7장 정부연구개발사업구조 사례 비교 분석 ... 207
• 제1절 사례분석 대상과 절차 ... 207
• 제2절 미국 국립보건원(NIH) 사례 ... 210
• 제3절 우리나라 보건의료 영역 사례 ... 234
• 제4절 국내외 사례 비교 분석 및 시사점 ... 249
• 제8장 정부연구개발사업구조 진화과정과 새로운 개선방안 ... 260
• 제1절 정부연구개발사업구조의 진화과정 ... 260
• 제2절 정부연구개발사업구조의 개선방안 : 미시적 수준 ... 280
• 제9장 종합결론 및 정책제언 ... 290
• 참고문헌 ... 297
• SUMMARY ... 307
• CONTENTS ... 312
• 끝페이지 ... 318