정보관리학회지 (Journal of the Korean Society for information Management)

  • 제40권2호
  • /
  • Pages.211-241
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1013-0799(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2586-2073(eISSN)
한국정보관리학회 (Korean Society for Information Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

정보통신기술 기반 지식정보관리 프레임워크를 통한 한국 정부 조직 혁신에 관한 탐구: 외교부를 중심으로

Organizational Innovation in the Korean Government via an ICT-based IKM Framework: A focus on the MOFA

  • 이진경 (외교부 소속 주제네바대표부)
  • 투고 : 2023.05.18
  • 심사 : 2023.06.22
  • 발행 : 2023.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

급속히 발전하고 있는 정보통신기술은 기업과 조직의 운영시스템에도 영향을 미치고 있으며, 다수의 산업 분야에서 혁신적인 정보 및 지식관리 전략을 수립하기 위해 많은 연구가 진행되고 있다. 외교부는 지난 20년간 지식정보관리 관련 시스템의 많은 부분에 디지털 기술을 적용하고 있으나, 그에 맞는 전략을 분석하기 위한 기존 연구는 미흡한 실정이다. 본 연구는 인터뷰 및 외교부 내부 혁신 보고서 분석을 통해 현재 한국 외교부의 지식정보관리의 개념과 제약 사항을 진단하고, 외교부가 조직의 양면성 역량과 수용능력을 강화하여, 조직 혁신을 촉진하는 지식정보 관리체계를 제공하는 방법을 평가하는 목적으로 수행되었다. 외교부의 지식정보관리는 디지털 기술 변화에 적응할 수 있는 동적인 역량을 갖추고 있으나, 본질적인 내부의 한계(기밀 문서 처리구조, 지식정보관리 관련 협업체계 부재)와 외부의 한계(국내 정치 상황, 정부 조직의 위계질서)에 직면하고 있다. 이러한 내부적 한계와 외부적 요인으로 인한 영향을 최소화하는 방안을 마련하는 조직의 양면성 역량과 수용능력 증진을 통해 외교부가 조직 혁신을 위한 지식정보관리 체계를 개발해야 하는 것으로 관찰된다. 이를 위해 실질적으로 활용 가능한 IKM 시스템 개발을 위한 이후의 세부 연구에는 변화하는 환경에 대비한 직군 간 대화와 직원 역량 강화 방안이 포함되어야 할 것이다.

With rapidly changing technological implementation of operating systems of businesses, the Ministry of foreign affairs (MOFA) of the Republic of Korea (ROK) has been undergoing digital transformation to its overall operations with the intent to innovate information and knowledge management (IKM) strategies since the mid-2000s. However, assessment as to the effectiveness of implemented IKM has been inadequately analyzed. This study aims to assess the concepts and limitations of the MOFA's current IKM strategies and the methods it employs to deliver its IKM framework, in light of strengthening the organizational ambidexterity and absorptive capacity, and also fostering organizational innovation through a qualitative study that involves interviews and analysis of reports from MOFA. The MOFA's IKM possesses dynamic capabilities to adapt to changing digital technologies. However, the institution's IKM is constrained by limitations associated with the utilization of the IKM system such as a structure that handles confidential documents and a lack of a collaborative system for IKM, and external limitations such as changes in the domestic political situation governing MOFA's priorities and the hierarchy of government organizations. Consequently, developing the organizational ambidexterity and absorptive capacity was not possible. To develop an IKM framework for organizational innovation, the MOFA must devise a way to minimize the impact of external changes by overcoming internal limitations. To that end, a detailed study on the development of a practically usable IKM system should include establishing a dialogue between job groups and enhancing employee competency in preparation for a changing environment.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Adesina, A. O. & Ocholla, D. N. (2019). The SECI model in knowledge management practices: past, present and future. Mousaion, 37(3), 34 pages. Available: https://journals.co.za/doi/abs/10.25159/2663-659X/6557
  2. Arsac, L. (2014). South Korea's geopolitics: on the road to "influential diplomacy." Territory and Seas, 8, 108-136. Available: https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE06138574
  3. Bawden, D. (1990). User-oriented evaluation of information systems and services. Aldershot: Gower.
  4. Birkinshaw, J. & Gibson, C. (2004, July 15). Building Ambidexterity Into an Organization. MIT Sloan Management Review. Available: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/building-ambidexterity-into-an-organization/
  5. Boynton, A. C., Zmud, R. W., & Jacobs, G. C. (1994). The influence of IT management practice on IT use in large organizations. MIS Quarterly, 18(3), 299-318. https://doi.org/10.2307/249620
  6. Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
  8. Corrall, S. (2008). An interview with Sheila Corrall: Interview by Margaret Adolphus. Available: https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/archived/librarians/info/interviews/corrall.htm
  9. Daniel, J. (2011). Sampling Essentials: Practical Guidelines for Making Sampling Choices. California: SAGE Publications.
  10. Daspit, J. J. & D'Souza, D. E. (2013). Understanding the multi-dimensional nature of absorptive capacity. Journal of Managerial Issues, 25(3), 299-316. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43488823
  11. Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  12. De long (1997). Building the knowledge-based organization: how culture drive knowledge behaviors. Centers for Business Innovation-working paper, 1-29
  13. Eisenhardt, K. M. & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105-1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E
  14. Ghoshal, S. & Bartlett, C. A. (2000). The individualized corporation: A fundamentally new approach to management. New York: Random House Business.
  15. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.
  16. Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (2000). What's your Strategy for Managing Knowledge? In The Knowledge Management Yearbook 2000-2001. London: Routledge.
  17. Hislop, D. (2005). Knowledge Management in Organizations: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. Im, "John" J. H. & Seo, J. W. (2005). E-government in South Korea: planning and implementation. Electronic Government, an International Journal, 2(2), 188-204. https://doi.org/10.1504/EG.2005.007094 
  19. Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: the impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review, 57(4), 351-363. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396721
  20. Joshi, K. D., Chi, L., Datta, A., & Han, S. (2010). Changing the competitive landscape: continuous innovation through IT-enabled knowledge capabilities. Information Systems Research, 21(3), 472-495. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0298
  21. Klinger, N. (2016). Organizational ambidexterity and absorptive capacity. Otago Management Graduate Review, 14, 21-30.
  22. Lee, C. S. & Kelkar, R. S. (2013). ICT and knowledge management: perspective from the SECI model. The Electronic Library, 31(2), 226-243. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471311312401
  23. Leonard, D. & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 112-132. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165946
  24. Levinthal, D. A. & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009
  25. Liebowitz, J. (2001). Knowledge management and its link to artificial intelligence. Expert Systems with Applications, 20(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(00)00044-0
  26. Mahler, J. G. (2009). Organizational Learning at NASA: The Challenger and Columbia Accidents. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
  27. Ministry of Economy and Finance (2022). The announcement of the "New Growth 4.0 Strategic Promotion Plan". Available: https://www.moef.go.kr/com/cmm/fms/FileDown.do?atchFileId=ATCH_000000000021982&fileSn=3
  28. Ministry of Foreign Affaris (2017). Innovation Roadmap of the MOFA of the Republic of Korea.
  29. Ministry of the Interior and Safety (2017). 50 years of e-Government history. Available: https://www.mois.go.kr/frt/bbs/type001/commonSelectBoardArticle.do?bbsId=BBSMSTR_000000000012&nttId=73253
  30. Natek, S. & Zwilling, M. (2016). Knolwedge management system support SECI model of knowledge-creating process. TIIM, 16(251).
  31. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  32. O'Leary, N. (2014). Learning informally to use teaching games for understanding: the experiences of a recently qualified teacher. European Physical Education Review, 20(3), 367-384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X14534359
  33. O'Reilly, C. A. & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
  34. O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516.
  35. Orlikowski, W. J. & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.1.1
  36. Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension. In Knowledge in Organizations. London: Routledge.
  37. Rothaermel, F. T. & Alexandre, M. T. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: the moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20(4), 759-780. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0404
  38. Schopflin, K. & Walsh, M. (2019). Practical Knowledge and Information Management. London: Facet Publishing.
  39. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
  40. Stoddart, L. (2020). Determining the impact of knowledge sharing initiatives in international organizations: Case studies. IFLA Journal, 46(1), 64-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035219870198
  41. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
  42. Tushman, M. L. & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-29. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
  43. Vasconcelos, A. C., Martins, J. T., Ellis, D., & Fontainha, E. (2019). Absorptive capacity: a process and structure approach. Journal of Information Science, 45(1), 68-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551518775306
  44. Volberda, H. W. & Lewin, A. Y. (2003). Co-evolutionary dynamics within and between firms: from evolution to co-evolution. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 2111- 2136. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-6486.2003.00414.x
  45. Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(3), 320-330. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000589
  46. Ward, S. & Carter, D. (2019). Information as an asset - today's board agenda: the value of rediscovering gold. Business Information Review, 36(2), 53-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382119844639
  47. Zahra, S. A. & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6587995