Basic Research on Strengthening Corporations’ Capacity for Lifelong Learning

기업 임직원들의 평생학습역량 개발은 ‘사람이 경쟁력의 핵심’인 21세기 지식기반사회를 맞아 새롭게 등장한 화두이며 풀어야 할 국가적 과제이다. 정부는 기업이 평생학습능력을 키워 지식경영의 혁신을 실천하도록 인센티브 제공에 적극적이어야 하고, 기업은 평생학습의 인프라 구축은 물론 평생학습 친화적 조직 환경 조성에 힘써야 한다. ？이 연구에서는 기업 내 평생학습 역량 강화의 구체적인 사례를 제시하여 기업이 학습조직 구축 차원에서 어떻게 임직원들의 평생학습능력을 키워나가고 있는지를 실증적으로 예시함으로써, 지식이 제조업과 서비스 업무와 통합되는 방법론을 현시하고 향후 해결해야 할 과제도 도출해 내고 있다.<br> <br> <b>주요내용<br></b><br> - 기업 내 평생학습 역량강화의 이론적 배경<br> - 기업 내 평생학습 역량 강화 프로그램 개발 방법과 절차<br> - 기업 내 평생학습 역량 프로그램 현장 사례분석<br>- 기업 내 평생학습 역량강화를 위한 정책제언</p>1. Issue Statement The study aimed at designing an in-plant lifelong learning competency building up framework and suggesting policy alternatives for deploying the designed framework into small and medium enterprises in Korea (SME). In the process of drawing relevant framework elements, previous research done by the researcher and the five case studies including L Group Training Center, H Paper Co., LTD, S bank, and M global company were reviewed. The task of designing the in-house lifelong learning competency framework required systematic linkage between the traditional instructional system design elements and self-directed learning principles as well as application of workplace practices observed from study of the four cases into the designed framework. The work of deploying the framework into Korean SMEs cannot be feasible without provision of government support programs since market principle doesn't work efficiently in the areas of SME learning competency building. Thus, tasks of designing and deploying need systematic interconnection between theory and practice, on the one hand, while they require Korean government facilitating and incentive supports, on the other one. The study faced the dilemma discussed above. Solution of it was beyond the capacity and the scope of this study, however. 2. Theoretical Background Research results completed by the researcher during the past quople of years say that lifelong learning world covers not only systems in lifelong education, but also formal, informal, and nonformal learning activities implemented on an ongoing basis. (the Cologne European Council. 1999, 6) All the relevant domains became the theoretical background. At the same time, literature review in those fields helped the researcher reaffirm the definition of in-plant lifelong learning, summarize the scope of lifelong learning competency and building up framework principle, and development procedures and methods of lifelong learning program. Based on the above, concept of in-plant lifelong learning competency enhancement was defined vis-a-vis clarification of learning organization construction competency, lifelong learning tool utilization competency, and corporate output enhancing competency thanks to efficient in-house lifelong learning. In connection with the above, rationale of the competency enhancement was justified and governing principles were suggested theoretically. Scopes as well as targeted actor focused competency was developed. 3. Contents of the Study Program run cycle of the in-plant lifelong learning process shows the circular relationship structure from the phase of learning readiness into that of the assessment. It is a comprehensive circular system where all the elements work together. For enhancement of high functionality, diagnosis of the early phase elements including learning readiness and learning needs is critical since assurance of functional interplay by those early elements guarantees smooth lifelong learning goal setting, the results of which predict efficient monitoring and time saving for the system run as a whole. The study suggests five in-plant lifelong competency building up frameworks described below: Firstly, in-plant lifelong learning readiness diagnosing competency framework was shown. Learning preferences, self-check competency of in-plant lifelong learning, and learners' preferred learning style were diagrammed and discussed. Secondly, in-plant lifelong learning need assessment guide was set up in a different way from how learner's perceived organizational need assessment is designed. Thirdly, in-plant lifelong learning goals was set and human and material resources were identified in such a way in which these works can function as an aid to prioritize the set goals, to account for the goals set, and to select and utilize the resources. Fourthly, practical ways for selection and execution of learning strategies were suggested so that they can help undertake learning contract, set evaluation criteria and utilize useful in-plant lifelong learning tools. Fifthly, evaluation guide was shown with indication of the ways in which evaluation outcomes and criteria are compared and feedback is activated. Detailed work of suggestions mentioned above was done theoretically and practically. As emphasized by this study, the task of building up in-plant lifelong learning competency at SMEs in Korea is critical and of high value. In this vein, description of the four case studies discussed below is of significance, given the detailed in-plant lifelong learning competency guide. 4. Case Studies Four cases were selected as ones representing big conglomerates, manufacturers, banks, and global divisions, respectively. They are LG Training Center (L Group Center), Hansol Paper manufacturing (H Paper), Shinhan Bank (S Bank), and Sun Microsystems (M Global). L Group Center, called Human Resource University, shows excellence in corporate learning. System, execution, learner perormance, evaluation, and all others are well developed. Core competency drawn from the Group's key philosophy, JeongDo management is cultivated, based on which target-based competency driven training is deployed. H Paper conducts emphasizes performance and change innovations in delivering competency building up training activities. It has its own department dealing with the tasks. Level-, target-, domain-specific programs are designed and executed. S Bank emphasizes more volunteerism. Evaluation of employees' performance is strict, too. M Global adopts system and program execution designed by its headquarter in USA. L, H, and S are originated in Korea while M is in USA. In general, qualification levels in the four remains the same except one thing. M undertakes better than the other three in ensuring seamless convergence among the five phases, learning preference identification, needs analysis, goal setting, strategy selectionand execution, and evaluation and feed back. 5. Significance and Policy Suggestions Significance of this study lies in that value of SME lifelong learning competency enhancement should be prioritized by Korean government. SMEs are reluctant in initiating the task not because management is ignorant of the importance. Human resource shortage as well as high mobility of capable workforces are the main cause. Government should provide incentives. SMEs will begin to be kin to value of in-house learning competency cultivation. It takes time. Enhancement of in-plant lifelong learning competency across the country takes time and investment, but it is of significance as long as Korea wants to upgrade SME competitiveness through in-plant lifelong learning at SMEs. Detailed action plan should be designed by Prime Minister Office. It should be Minister-specific one. Incentives must be tailor-made. Guideline need to be specified but practical. Assessment of all performance should be strict but flexible execution is required since facilitation is not to be discouraged. Cooperation among SMEs, government, R&ampD including universities, and communities is most critical. Input to the government initiatives and feedback from the stake holders should be utilized as key resources. SMEs should take initiatives in securing exemplar cases of increasing corporate output thanks to the corporate learning. They should be developed into the form of contents for promotion.목 차 요 약 제1장 서론 1 제1절 필요성과 목적 1 제2절 선행 연구 사업 2 제3절 연구 내용 8 1. 연구내용 8 2. 연구범위 9 제4절 연구의 방법 9 1. 문헌 및 자료분석 9 2. 전문가 협의회 10 3. 설문조사 10 제5절 연구의 제한 11 제2장 기업 내 평생학습 역량강화의 이론적 배경 13 제1절 기업 내 평생학습 역량강화 개념 13 1. 기업 내 평생학습역량이란 13 2. 기업 내 평생학습 역량강화의 세 가지 구성 요소 15 3. 기업 내 평생학습 역량강화 주체와 대상 20 제2절 기업 내 평생학습 역량강화의 정당성과 관리원칙 22 1. 기업 내 평생학습 역량을 강화의 정당성 22 2. 기업 내 평생학습 역량 강화의 관리원칙 37 제3절 기업 내 평생학습 역량 범주와 개발 원리 39 1. 기업 내 평생학습 역량 범주 39 2. 기업 내 평생학습 역량 개발 원리 41 제4절 기업 내 평생학습 주요 주체별 역량 개발 49 1. 최고학습책임자의 역량 개발 49 2. 평생학습관리자 역량 개발 51 3. 학습자 역량 개발 52 제3장 기업 내 평생학습 역량 강화 프로그램 개발 방법과 절차 55 제1절 평생학습 역량 강화를 위한 학습준비도 진단 가이드 56 1. 학습선호도 분석(Learning Preferences) 56 2. 기업평생학습역량 자가진단 58 3. 개인별 선호 학습유형(Learner's Preferred Learning Style) 62 제2절 학습목표 설정을 위한 요구분석 가이드 66 1. 학습자가 인지하는 소속조직의 요구분석 66 2. 역량강화 과업 평가(Job or Task Assessment) 67 제3절 학습목표 설정 및 인적ㆍ물적 자원 확보 69 1. 학습목표 우선순위 정하기 69 2. 학습목표 설정 71 3. 필요한 학습자원 선택과 활용 73 제4절 학습 전략 선택 및 실행 76 1. 학습 계약 76 2. 평가기준 정하기 78 3. 학습 실행 관련 도구 80 제5절 평가 82 1. 검토과정과 평가 성과물 82 2. 평가기준과의 비교과정을 거친 평가결과 83 3. 피드백 84 4. 새로운 그리고 지속되는 학습요구 정리 85 제4장 기업 내 평생학습 역량 프로그램 현장 사례분석 87 제1절 L그룹 연수원 88 1. 사례개관 88 2. 학습조직 구축 89 3. 기업 내 평생학습역량 강화수준 91 4. 평생학습 역량 프로그램과 실행 범위 92 5. 기업 내 평생학습 평가 역량과 지속적 개선수준 95 6. 향후 발전과제 96 제2절 H제지 96 1. 사례개관 96 2. 학습조직 구축 98 3. 기업 내 평생학습역량 강화수준 101 4. 평생학습 역량 프로그램과 실행 범위 102 5. 기업 내 평생학습 평가 역량과 지속적 개선수준 104 6. 향후 발전과제 105 제3절 S은행 106 1. 사례개관 106 2. 학습조직 구축 107 3. 기업 내 평생학습역량 강화수준 112 4. 평생학습 역량 프로그램과 실행 범위 113 5. 기업 내 평생학습 평가 역량과 지속적 개선수준 115 6. 향후 발전과제 116 제4절 M글로벌사 116 1. 사례개관 116 2. 학습조직 구축 117 3. 기업 내 평생학습역량 강화수준 120 제5장 기업 내 평생학습 역량강화를 위한 정책제언 121 제1절 정부정책과제 121 제2절 기업과제 122 제3절 기업 내 평생학습 담당자 과제 124 제4절 5단계별 과제 125 SUMMARY 127 <부록 1> 설문조사지 135 참고문헌 14