• Save

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

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

on

  • 1,593 views

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.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,593
Views on SlideShare
1,593
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

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

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