Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Global hrd competitiveness report 2010 hun-seok oh, global hr forum 2010.pdf, seoul, korea
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Global hrd competitiveness report 2010 hun-seok oh, global hr forum 2010.pdf, seoul, korea

1,333
views

Published on

The purpose of this research was to develop an index that assesses the competitiveness of national HRD systems. Indicators that are included in national competitiveness reports published by IMD, WEF, …

The purpose of this research was to develop an index that assesses the competitiveness of national HRD systems. Indicators that are included in national competitiveness reports published by IMD, WEF, or IPS have been frequently used to measure the competitiveness of national human resources and educational systems. However, those reports have several limitations in assessing national human resource development and education systems since they focus on economic and national competitiveness of the nations and selected indicators that measure national human resource development and education systems are not based on a theoretical model. Moreover, critics on the reliability and validity of measurement are frequently raised because assessment data are largely collected by corporation executives’ survey responses.
To overcome these shortcomings, a solid theoretical model was developed to select relevant indicators and hard data was mainly utilized for the new index. Michael Porter’s diamond model of national competitiveness, Noel Tichy’s TPC Matrix, and social capital theory were served as foundation models for developing the theoretical framework. Supply conditions and demand conditions of the labor market, environmental factors (technology, culture, and globalization), and supporting systems (investment and institutions) were defined as the main determinants of the competitiveness of national HRD systems and indicators related to each determinant were selected based on previous research. National human resource development competitiveness scores that were computed based on 31 indicators of the index revealed that Norway ranked first, Sweden ranked second, Switzerland ranked third, and Korea ranked twentieth out of 31 OECD countries.

Published in: Education

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,333
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Global HRDG oba Competitiveness Reportp p 2010 Hunseok Oh Director of Korea Human Resource Research CenterDirector of Korea Human Resource Research Center at Seoul National University ohhs@snu ac krohhs@snu.ac.kr
  • 2. Contents Introduction of a New Index1 Introduction of a New Index1 Th ti l F kTheoretical Framework2 3 Indicators 4 Country Rankings Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 3. Introduction of a New Index A new index is required… to assess national competitiveness from an HRD perspectivean HRD perspective. to measure competitiveness of national HRD based on a theoretical model to reflect a ‘whole picture’ rather thanto reflect a whole picture rather than opinions of specific population Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 4. Introduction of a New Index National competitiveness reports havep p been frequently used to measure competitiveness of national humancompetitiveness of national human resources. IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook WEF Global Competitiveness ReportWEF Global Competitiveness Report IPS National Competitiveness Research Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 5. Introduction of a New Index However, this approach has the f ll i li it tifollowing limitations. Based on an economy-centered perspectiveBased on an economy centered perspective Relevant indicators are not selected based on a theoretical modelon a theoretical model Results are largely influenced byg y y corporation executives’ responses in surveyssurveys Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 6. Introduction of a New Index DevelopmentDevelopmentpp UtilizationUtilization National HRDNational HRDNational HRD System National HRD System DistributionDistributions u os u o Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 7. Introduction of a New Index Why does the index attempt to measure competitiveness of national HRD systems?systems? The ambiguity of the concept of ‘national human resources’ in the globalization era What matters is how effectively andWhat matters is how effectively and efficiently each nation develops, distributes, and utilizes human resources Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 8. Theoretical Framework What are the determinants of the titi f ti l HRDcompetitiveness of national HRD systems?y Determinants are different from achievements or outcomesachievements or outcomes. For example, national PISA scores, number of SCI theses, or Nobel Prizes are outcomes rather than determinants ofoutcomes rather than determinants of national HRD competitiveness. Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 9. Theoretical Framework Mi h l P t ’ Di d M d lMichael Porter’s Diamond Model Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 10. Theoretical Framework Noel Tichy’s TPC Matrix Technical Political CulturalTechnical System Political System Cultural System Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 11. Theoretical Framework Social Capital Theory “The collective value of all social networks and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other” (Putnam, 2000)(Putnam, 2000) Social cooperation, mutual trust, civic ti i ti d h iparticipation, and cohesiveness are manifestations of social capital. Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 12. Theoretical Framework Influences of Globalization Survival in the global market calls for increased competitionincreased competition. Increased access to cultural diversity brings about spreading of multiculturalism. Information flows between geographicallyInformation flows between geographically remote locations are active. Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 13. Theoretical Framework Environment Supply Conditions Demand ConditionsConditions Conditions Supporting S tSystems Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 14. Indicators Supply ConditionsConditions Quantity Quality f • Birth rate • Life Expectancy • Percentage of population with secondary/tertiary • Life Expectancy education • Enrollment rate (15-19 years old/(15 19 years old/ 20-29 years old) Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 15. Indicators Demand ConditionsConditions Quantity Quality • Employment rate • Percentage of active population • Employment rate of population with secondary/tertiary d ti • Employment rate education • Unemployment rate of population with • Unemployment rate secondary/ tertiary education Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 16. Indicators Environment Technology Gl b li tiC lt gy • Number of computers per Globalization • Respect for Culture • Acceptance ofcomputers per 100 population Internet sers diversity • Global citizenship • Percentage of p novel ideas • Acceptance of• Internet users per 100 population g foreign students • Number of international Acceptance of making challenges and taking risks • Mobile phone subscriptions per 100 population international meetings• Belongingness to community Korea Human Resource Research Center p p
  • 17. Indicators Supporting SystemsSystems Investment Institutions f • Public/private investment on education • Protection of intellectual property education • Public/private • Treatment of female human resources investment on R&D • Transparency of government policies Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 18. Indicators ResourcesResources OECD Education at a Glance 2010 OECD Employment Outlook 2010 Human Development Report 2009p p World Value Survey 2005-2008 International Congress & Convention AssociationInternational Congress & Convention Association 2008 T I t ti l 2009Transparency International 2009 WEF Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010 /2010-2011 IPS National Competitiveness Research 2009-2010 Korea Human Resource Research Center p
  • 19. Indicators Standardization Transformed into z scores (Mean:0 SD: 1)Transformed into z scores (Mean:0, SD: 1) P(Z<z) X 100 Computed Missing ValuesMissing Values Used most recent data if available Otherwise substituted with mean score Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 20. Country Rankings (Total)y g ( ) N Sweden Norway Iceland Switzerland New Zealand Australia Denmark Netherlands Canada Denmark 55 60 65 70 75 United Kingdom Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 21. Country Rankings (Total)y g ( ) Fi l d Austria Finland Germany United States Japan Luxembourg Ireland France p Belgium Ireland 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Korea Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 22. Country Rankings (Total)y g ( ) Czech Republic Spain Portugal Czech Republic P l d Slovak Republic Spain G Hungary Poland Italy Greece Chile Mexico 0 10 20 30 40 50 Turkey Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 23. Country Rankings (Supply Conditions)y g A t li Iceland Australia Sweden New Zealand Norway Canada United States Finland y France United States 0 20 40 60 80 Switzerland Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 24. Country Rankings (Supply Conditions)y g I l d Netherlands Ireland Belgium Japan Korea Denmark Chile Germany Greece Chile 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Luxembourg Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 25. Country Rankings (Supply Conditions)y g Poland United Kingdom Spain Poland C h R bli Austria United Kingdom Sl k R bli Italy Czech Republic Hungary Slovak Republic Mexico Portugal 0 10 20 30 40 50 Turkey Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 26. Country Rankings (Demand Conditions)y g N Switzerland Norway Iceland Netherlands Austria Denmark Australia New Zealand S United Kingdom Australia 0 20 40 60 80 100 Sweden Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 27. Country Rankings (Demand Conditions)y g C h R bli Japan Czech Republic Canada Finland Korea Germany Portugal Luxembourg United States Portugal 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Ireland Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 28. Country Rankings (Demand Conditions)y g Mexico France Belgium Mexico P l d Slovak Republic France S i Italy Poland Hungary Spain Chile Greece 0 10 20 30 40 50 Turkey Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 29. Country Rankings (Environment)y g S d United Kingdom Sweden Canada Norway Netherlands Switzerland Australia Austria New Zealand Australia 0 20 40 60 80 Luxembourg Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 30. Country Rankings (Environment)y g S i United States Spain Germany Denmark Belgium Finland France Iceland g C Ireland France 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 Czech Republic Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 31. Country Rankings (Environment)y g Japan Slovak Republic Portugal Japan K Hungary Slovak Republic It l Greece Korea Poland Italy Mexico Turkey 0 10 20 30 40 50 Chile Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 32. Country Rankings (Supporting Systems)y g S d Finland Sweden Iceland Denmark Norway Switzerland Canada United States y Australia Canada 0 20 40 60 80 New Zealand Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 33. Country Rankings (Supporting Systems)y g N th l d France Netherlands Luxembourg Germany Austria United Kingdom Japan Belgium Ireland Japan 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Korea Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 34. Country Rankings (Supporting Systems)y g Portugal Czech Republic Hungary Portugal S i Slovak Republic Czech Republic P l d Chile Spain Greece Poland Mexico Italy 0 10 20 30 40 50 Turkey Korea Human Resource Research Center
  • 35. Korea Human Resource Research Center

×