PURPOSES : This paper presents a foundational study aimed at strengthening the competitiveness of future overseas construction engineering projects, efficiently guiding investment decisions for the government or private sectors and establishing policy suggestions for areas that need to be supplemented and linked. METHODS : The data envelopment analysis (DEA) model was used to measure the operational efficiency for individual types of work. The DEA model for measuring efficiency uses the representative Charnes, Cooper, and Rhode (CCR) and Banker, Charnes, and Cooper (BCC) models. RESULTS : By using statistics of overseas construction projects and conducting DEA, it was revealed that construction management was most needed in the energy facility sector of overseas construction projects. CONCLUSIONS : Although the capabilities of our country's companies are excellent, it was evident that the energy and industrial facilities sectors, which need to be supplemented to enhance their competitiveness, require policy support that incorporates construction management (CM). Consequently, it was confirmed that the construction management sector needs investment that should continue to be activated in the future. Additional research is needed that considers variables and environments related to overseas construction projects’ on-site conditions. To this end, the government should continue to promote research and government investment linked to CM to make progress in overseas construction sectors.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the efficiencies of project management offices in large information system construction projects using the data envelopment analysis. In addition, we tried to estimate the confidence interval of those efficiencies using bootstrap DEA to give a statistical meaning. The efficiency by the CCR model is analyzed as eight project management offices are fully efficient and 22 project management offices are inefficient. On the other hand, there are 15 project management offices are fully efficient, but 15 project management offices are inefficient in the BCC model. As the result of the scale efficiencies, of the inefficient project management offices, 13 project management offices are inefficient in scale. It is possible to eliminate the inefficiency in the CCR model by improving their project performances. And, the nine project management offices showed that the inefficiency was due to pure technical efficiency, and these companies should look for various improvements such as improvement of project execution system and project management process. In order that the inefficient project management offices be efficient, it is analyzed that more efforts must be made for on-budget and on-time as a result of examining the potential improvement potentials of inefficient project management offices.

In this paper, scale efficiencies and relative efficiencies of R&D projects in Industrial Technology Program, sponsored by Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Korea, are calculated and compared. For the process, various DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) models are adopted as major techniques. For DEA, two stage input oriented models are utilized for calculating the efficiencies. Next, the calculated efficiencies are grouped according to their subprograms (Industrial Material, IT Fusion, Nano Fusion, Energy Resources, and Resources Technology) and recipient types (Public Enterprise, Large Enterprise, Medium Enterprise, Small Enterprise, Lab., Univ., and etc.) respectively. Then various subprograms and recipient types are compared in terms of scale efficiencies (CCR models) and relative efficiencies (BCC models). In addition, the correlation between the 1st stage relative efficiencies and the 2nd stage relative efficiencies is calculated, from which the causal relationship between them can be inferred. Statistical analysis shows that the amount of input, in general, should increase in order to be scale efficient (CCR models) regardless of the subprograms and recipient types, that the 1st and 2nd stage relative efficiencies are different in terms of the programs and recipient types (BCC models), and that there is no significant correlation between the 1st stage relative efficiencies and the 2nd stage relative efficiencies. However, the results should be used only as reference because the goal each and every subprogram has is different and the situation each and every recipient type faces is different. In addition, the causal link between the 1st stage relative efficiencies and the 2nd relative efficiencies is not considered, which, in turn, is the limitation of this paper.