Authors
- Marshova Tatiana Nikolaevna PhD (Economics), Associate Professor
Annotation
Despite the experience gained in Russia and in the world of software-targeted management, the problem of forming a “high-quality” system of project indicators remains
relevant and completely unresolved. The world experience was reviewed and the requirements for the indicators of state projects and programs contained in regulatory legal and methodological documents in the Russian Federation were systematized. The analysis of passports of national and federal projects made it possible to identify the main shortcomings of the used indicators. As a way of improving the system of indicators of national/federal projects, it was proposed to include in their composition indicators reflecting the opinions of beneficiaries, the level of their satisfaction with the achieved results. Such indicators are used today in only a few projects, systematically for all projects indicators of this type are not presented. It is emphasized that the expansion of the application of this type of indicators will contribute to better identification of problems, increase the reliability and reliability of assessing the progress of implementation, effectiveness and effectiveness of projects. The importance of developing correct methods for calculating indicators of this type was noted, since the size and structure of the sample, the wording of questions can have a significant impact on the results of surveys. It is recommended to include indicators characterizing the level of satisfaction of beneficiaries in all federal projects using both traditional tools and modern digital technologies.
How to link insert
Marshova, T. N. (2022). LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OF BENEFICIARIES AS A TOOL FOR ASSESSING NATIONAL PROJECTS Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 2022 №4 (34), 89. https://doi.org/10.25688/2312-6647.2022.34.4.07
References
1.
1. Actual experience of foreign countries in the development of state strategic planning systems (Part 2): preprint WP8/2016/04 (part 2) / A. V. Klimenko [et al.]; Nats. un-t “Higher School of Economics”. Moscow: Ed. House of the Higher School of Economics, 2016. (Series WP8 “State and Municipal Administration”). 40 p.
2.
2. Grekhneva L. V., Krivov S. V., Starkin S. V. Problems of formulation of personal questions: sociological and linguistic analysis // Philology: scientific research. 2021. No. 1. P. 66–76. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0749.2021.1.34711. URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=34711
3.
3. Kaplan S, Norton D. Balanced scorecard. From strategy to action. Moscow: Olymp-Business, 2003. 210 p.
4.
4. Marshova T. N. Principles of statistical data generation for analysis and forecast of socio-economic development // Economic and socio-humanitarian research. 2017. No. 2 (14). P. 25–36.
5.
5. Sokolov I. A. Report “Methodological approaches to assessing the effectiveness of budget expenditures, including government programs” // Financial Journal. 2014. No. 2 (20). URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/doklad-metodologicheskie-podhody-kotsenke-effektivnosti-byudzhetnyh-rashodov-v-tom-chisle-gosudarstvennyh-programm
6.
6. Tsukhlo S. Methodological foundations of organization and analytical possibilities of market surveys in the Russian industry // Scientific works. Gaidar’s Economic Policy Office. No. 145R. Moscow: Gaidar’s In-t, 2010. 136 p.
7.
7. Handbook for Regulatory Proposals: Performance Measurement and Evaluation Plan. December 2009. URL: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ri-qr/documents/pmep-pmre/pmeppmre-eng.pdf
8.
8. Meyer M. W., Gupta V. The performance paradox // Research in Organizational Behavior. 1994. Vol. 16. Р. 360–369.
9.
9. Van Thiel S., Frans L. L. The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector // Public Performance and Management Review. 2002. Vol. 25. No. 3. Р. 267–281.