한국도서관정보학회지 (Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society)

한국도서관정보학회 (Korean Library and Information Science Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

서울시 공공도서관 운영 분석을 통한 서비스 성과관리 설계의 방향성 연구

A Study on the Outcome Management through the Analysis of Public Library Operations and Services in Seoul

  • 김신영 (경일대학교 아동문헌정보전공) ;
  • 권나현 (명지대학교 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 김선애 (경성대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • 투고 : 2020.08.25
  • 심사 : 2020.09.16
  • 발행 : 2020.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 서울지역 공공도서관의 운영 분석을 통하여 서비스 성과관리 설계의 방향성을 제시하는데 목적이 있다. 이를 위하여 「제2차 서울시도서관발전종합계획(2018~2022)」과 「제3차 도서관발전종합계획(2019-2023)」에 따른 서울시의 시행계획을 연계하여 분석하고, 서울시민의 공공도서관 서비스에 대한 인식도 조사를 종합하여 정책개발 쟁점을 도출하였다. 이어 서울시 25개 자치구 173개 공공도서관의 투입지표와 자료서비스, 프로그램 이용실적, 웹이용, 상호대차 등 서비스 현황을 분석하였다. 이러한 분석 결과를 바탕으로 자치구별 도서관 서비스의 성과를 가시화 할 수 있는 성과관리 방향성을 제시하였다. 구체적으로 공공도서관 서비스 성과관리를 위하여 전략목표와 핵심과제의 선정에 내실화, 성과관리의 범주 설정, 이용자 중심의 성과지표 개발, 정성지표 한계점 개선 등의 방안을 제안하였다. 물리적인 투입지표의 부실로 인하여 산출지표로 표현되는 서비스의 질적 저하가 우려되는 개연성이 있기 때문에 투입을 강화하는 한편, 이들 지표 간의 관련성이나 인과관계를 논리적으로 설명하기 위한 성과관리체계의 구축을 통하여 서비스 격차의 해소를 독려할 필요성이 있다.

The purpose of this study is to present the directivity of outcome management through the analysis of public library operations in Seoul. For this purpose, author evaluated the public library policies by linking the 「Metropolitan Comprehensive Library Advancement Plan 2018~2022」 and 「The Third Comprehensive Library Advancement Plan: 2020 implementation plan」 and compiled to draw up the issue of policy development on the awareness of public library services by Seoul citizens. Nest, author analyzed and compared the core infrastructure, collection services, programs and activities of 173 public libraries in 25 local governments. Based on these results, author suggested the directivity of outcome management as follow. All public libraries in Seoul must emphasize the development scope and management methods of the performance indicators. For outcome management, this study emphasized building a strategy planning with the development procedures of performance indicators, categorizing outcome management indicators, developing user-centered indicators, and improving qualitative indicators. As there is a possibility that the quality of services expressed in the output may deteriorate due to the failure of the physical input indicators, it is necessary to strengthen the input and encourage the resolution of the service gap by establishing a performance management system to logically explain the relevance or causal relationship between these indicators.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. National Library Statistics System. [cited 2019. 5. 10].
  2. Kim, Gyu-Hwan and Young-Joon Nam. 2008. "A Study on Development of Performance Indicators for Korean Public Libraries." Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 42(4): 113-138. https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2008.42.4.113
  3. Kim, Jeong-Taek. 2009. "A Study on Developing BSC-based Public Library Performance Indicator Model." Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 40(1): 47-71. https://doi.org/10.16981/kliss.40.1.200903.47
  4. President's Committee on Library and Information Policy. 2020. The Third Comprehensive Library Advancement Plan: 2020 Implementation Plan. Seoul: The Institute.
  5. Park, Sung-Jae and Yong-Gu Lee. 2015. "Measuring Library Outcomes Using a Logic Model." Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science, 26(2): 269-287. https://doi.org/10.14699/kbiblia.2015.26.2.269
  6. Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2018a. 2018 Summary of Survey Results of Reading Culture of Seoul Citizen. Seoul: The Government.
  7. Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2018b. Survey Results of Library Use Status of Seoul Citizen: The Case of Small Libraries. Seoul: The Government.
  8. Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2018c. Survey Results of Public Library Use Status of Seoul for Order Adults. Seoul: The Government.
  9. Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2018d. The Second Seoul Metropolitan Comprehensive Library Advancement Plan 2018-2022. Seoul: The Government.
  10. Yoon, Hae-Young. 2010. "A Study on the Efficiency Evaluation of the Public Libraries." Journal of Information Management, 41(3): 67-84. https://doi.org/10.1633/JIM.2010.41.3.067
  11. Yoon. Hee-Yoon. 2018. "Current Status and Policy of Public Library in Seoul." Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 49(2): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.16981/KLISS.49.2.201806.1
  12. Lee, Mi-Kyung and Sung-Been Moon. 2012. "Analysis of Factors Influencing the Performance Management of Public Libraries." Journal of the Korean Society of Information Management, 29(1): 303-329. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2012.29.1.303
  13. Cha, Mee-Kyung and Soon-Hee Pho. 2008. "A Study on the Development of Enjoyment Indicators of Public Libraries." Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 42(4): 329-354. https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2008.42.4.329
  14. Pho, Soon-Hee. 2012. "The Comparative Study of Public Library Valuation Using CVM: Case of the Payment Vehicles." Journal of the Korean Society of Information Management, 29(2): 173-191. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2012.29.2.173
  15. Pho, Soon-Hee, Young-Man Ko, and Won-Sik Shim. 2011. "A Study on the Variables Affecting Public Library's Use Value." Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 42(2): 323-341. https://doi.org/10.16981/kliss.42.2.201106.323
  16. ALA. 2019. State of America's Libraries 2019. [cited 2020. 5. 9].
  17. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 2015. Global Libraries Impact Planning and Assessment Guide. [cited 2020. 6. 9].
  18. ISO. 2014. Information and Documentation: Methods and Procedures for Assessing the Impact of Libraries. [cited 2019. 7. 8].
  19. PLA. 2017. Project Outcome: 2017 Annual Report. [cited 2020. 6. 10].
  20. Scottish Library and Information Council. 2014. How Good is Our Public Library Service? [cited 2019. 6. 9].
  21. The State of Library of Victoria. 2011. The Being the Best We Can Framework. [cited 2019. 6. 30].
  22. UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport. 2016. updated in 2018. Libraries Deliver: Ambition for Public Libraries. [cited 2019. 6. 30].
  23. Vakkari, P. and S. Serola. 2012. "Perceived Outcomes of Public Libraries." Library and Information Science Research, 34(1): 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2011.07.005