Publication: Success results of high performance and potential system (HiPPS) administration of thai government departments
0
0
Issued Date
2011
Resource Type
File Type
application/pdf
ISSN
19112017
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-84858265583
Rights Holder(s)
Scopus
Bibliographic Citation
Asian Social Science. Vol 7, No.5 (2011), p.42-52
Suggested Citation
Intarakamhang U., Kittipichai W., Hanpachern C., Kuljittiprasit P. Success results of high performance and potential system (HiPPS) administration of thai government departments. Asian Social Science. Vol 7, No.5 (2011), p.42-52. doi:10.5539/ass.v7n5p42 Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/7195
Abstract
The HiPPS was developed by the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC). The aim of HiPPS was to prepare the Thai government officers with high performance and potential to develop and learn through the workplace as continual learning. The objectives of this research were 1) to evaluate the success in the HiPPS administration of the government departments, 2) to compare the opinions of the five sample groups about the success factors in the HiPPS administration, and 3) to investigate the problems in the use of HiPPS. The data were collected from five groups, 694 total samples from 42 government departments. The instruments were five rating-scale (1-5 level) questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and focus group interviews. Data was analyzed by ANOVA and the content analysis. The results indicated that overall, the average HiPPS administration of the government departments were fairly strength level in grade B (X- = 3.37). In the comparison among the opinions of the five sample groups about the success factors: Context, Input, Process, Product, Outcome, and Impact, there were also statistically significant differences at. 01 (F=19.536 **, 13.010 **, 22.143 **, 6.493 **, 28.010 **, and 6.211 ** respectively). Finally, the most found problems in HiPPS administration were as follows: lacking of cooperation from executives, existence of patronage system, lacking of definite HiPPS responsible unit, frequent change in HiPPS committee, incompetency of human resource management, negative attitude of increasing workload of the officers responsible for HiPPS.