This paper examines the determinates of subsidiary product innovation in the Chinese market based on a sample 680 EU subsidiaries over the period of 1998-2009. To date, the literature on EU subsidiaries has failed to consider product innovation in the marketing strategy interplay in approaching new markets overseas. Building on Resource Based view linked with Chinese institutional factors, it empirically examines the inferential product innovation strategy in an EU-China context. By applying the econometric analyses techniques to investigate innovation determinants and to test the presence of agglomeration effect of past innovation activities. The results show EU MNC subsidiaries’ innovation is influenced by both host country institutions and firm capabilities, rendering support to the theory. The analysis indicates EU subsidiaries’ innovation is positively related to firm advertisement, labour training and host market size. R&D expenditure has a negative bearing on innovation. However, openness has a negative and significant effect on product innovation in China. The findings have important implications for theory, practitioners and policy-making. This study contributes to the literature on the evolution of MNCs by exploring determinants of developed foreign subsidiaries’ innovation activities in emerging markets.

Introduction Shorter innovation cycles, the huge cost of R&D and dearth of resources compel firms to search for new innovation sources (Gassmann and Enkel 2004). Current research argues that firms need to open up their solid boundaries and seek valuable knowledge from external partners so that firms can extend the innovation function beyond their four walls (Chesbrough 2003). In this context past research has identified universities, or higher education institutions (HEIs) as an important source of innovation (e.g., Lambert 2003). Indeed, universities undertake a “third mission” in addition to their core mission of research and teaching, by focusing on “technology transfer” that engages in the process of the commercialization of science (Etzkowitz et al. 2000). Thus, firms can take huge advantages through the collaboration with universities. While relationships between firms have the risk of opportunism embedded in them, support provided by universities are hard to imitate by competitors due to the novelty and uniqueness in the ideas they provide their partner firms. Despite this important role that universities play, no systematic theoretical treatment has been attempted in academia. Ironically, university and industry links have been studied much less frequently and have been valued lesser than other sources (e.g., suppliers and customers) in terms of knowledge transfer for firm innovation (Hughes 2011). Extant research examines collaborations between universities and firms using simple descriptive analysis (e.g., Laursen and Salter 2004) and illustrates the relationship with anecdotal evidence (e.g., Cosh and Hughes 2010). Thus, extant literature provides little-to-no empirical evidence regarding firm performance, such as a firm’s innovation outcomes, when the firms are supported by universities. Our broad-based investigation makes several key contributions. First, our study is the first to demonstrate empirically what types of HEIs’ activities enhance a firm’s innovation outcomes. Because the two different types of HEI activities have different features, it helps us get a more precise understanding of which specific type of HEI-supported activity influences which firm innovation outcome. Second, our research finds that a firm’s absorptive capacity influences the relationship between HEI-supported activities and a firm’s innovation outcomes. This finding helps to identify how firm capability to absorb outside knowledge influences the relationship of HEIs’ involvement on a firm’s innovation outcomes. Conceptual Framework The most frequent form of a firm’s interaction with universities is people-based activities (Hughes 2011). Universities transfer knowledge through people-related activities such as conferences, special lectures, education programs, and social networks supporting firm innovation. Such people-based activities can influence firm innovation performance. People-based activities involve the activities conducting by firms to increase their business competitiveness. Since a firm’s employees are key to discovering new products and processes, special training programs provided by universities will help supplementing knowledge towards specific firm innovation outcomes. Additionally, other people-related activities such as placing university staff on a firm’s board of directors can also encourage exchange of knowledge and information resulting in cutting-edge new product and process innovation. Tether and Tajar (2008) found that firms that have participated in professional meetings or conferences held by HEIs have a better chance of surpassing their current innovation performance. A firm can improve its innovation performance by making human assets supported by its partners. As partners work together, this helps increasing work efficiency by improving communication, knowledge sharing, and their relative capacity to absorb knowledge for innovation. Research suggests that universities may have lower barriers to engagement with firms by removing bureaucracy, lowering transaction costs and speeding up reaction times (Mateos-Garcia and Sapsed 2011). Therefore, universities have an important role in transferring new knowledge through people-based activities, resulting in new products and processes for the firm. Thus, we hypothesize as follows: Hypothesis 1A (H1A). A firm’s people-based activities with HEIs are positively related to the introduction of new products in the firm. Hypothesis 1B (H1B). A firm’s people-based activities with HEIs are positively related to the introduction of new processes in the firm. Universities have a distinct role in affecting a firm’s innovation performance through problem-solving activities. Firms that acquire knowledge from universities improve their competitive position that helps firm acquire a competitive advantage over other firms that do not collaborate with universities (Gassmann and Enkel 2004). Universities provide problem-solving activities such as joint research, contract research, consulting services, informal advice and provision of access to specialized instrumentation, equipment or materials and of product prototyping. For example, in 2009, US firms sponsored more than $4 billion worth of university research (Kurman 2011), as a result of which U.S. universities own nearly one-quarter of new U.S. patents in the fields of nanotechnology and biotechnology. Thus, firms that collaborate with universities can achieve cutting-edge product and process innovation (Kurman 2011). Hosting workshops and performing joint research with universities are core problem-solving activities. For example, IBM, one of the most successful and established enterprises in the IT market, hosted 350 workshops per year and has had 50-100 ongoing research projects with universities, helping IBM to successfully launch new products into the market (Gassmann and Enkel 2004). Further, firms can also integrate partners (i.e., HEIs) to combine their different competencies to enrich their own innovation process (Gassmann and Enkel 2004). Based on the above, we hypothesize as follows:Hypothesis 2A (H2A). A firm’s problem-solving activities with HEIs are positively related to the introduction of new products. Hypothesis 2B (H2B). A firm’s problem-solving activities with HEIs are positively related to the introduction of new processes. Shorter time-to-market strategies, increasing R&D costs and a dearth of resources cause firms to search for new innovation strategies. This phenomenon is reinforced by a rapid churn in technology and customer demands. In this competitive environment, HEIs’ involvement is increasingly important for a firm’s innovation success because integrating external sources of knowledge from HEIs can result in major advantages for firms (Rappert et al. 1999). Further, people-based and problem-solving activities supported by HEIs do not replace a firm’s internal innovation activities and, as a result, the firm undertakes a great deal of its own innovation activities. Also, scholars argue that collaboration with other partners does not always provide better innovation performance because of the lack of a firm’s capability to processing valuable knowledge from the outside partners (Cohen and Levinthal 1990). This indicates that the mere acquisition and exploitation of knowledge from universities do not guarantee successful firm innovation outcomes. To create successful firm innovation, the firm should possess absorptive capacity, which is the learning capability to processing knowledge acquired from the HEIs into their internal work. Thus, firms can be expected to invest in their absorptive capacity in this situation (Tether and Tajar 2008). Further, Keller (1996) argues that successful R&D spillover (i.e., absorptive capacity) effects are dependent on the activities of human capital (i.e., people-based activities). Also, Cohen and Levinthal (1990) argue that firms can increase their absorptive capacity directly, as when they send personnel for advance technical training (i.e., people-based activities). Further, Kim (1998) argues that absorptive capacity is the major factor in developing problem-solving skills that allow a firm to create new knowledge that influences firm innovation performance. As such, absorptive capacity stresses the internal capability to acquire and assimilate outside knowledge into a firm while HEIs’ involvement is a resource that is created by external source enhancing a firm’s innovation outcomes. Therefore, identifying the role of absorptive capacity is a useful tool to explain the relationship of HEIs’ people-based activities and problem-solving activities on firm innovation performance. However, Nooteboom and colleagues (2007, pp. 1031) argue that “while there may be increasing returns in absorptive capacity, improving the general ability to understand and appreciate novelty value in collaboration, there are decreasing returns to knowledge in finding further novelty: the more one knows the further away one has to look for novelty.” This indicates that too much absorptive capacity in a firm negatively affects the impact of people-based activities on a firm’s innovation performance. While people attending conferences or lectures supported by universities may acquire novel knowledge that can influence a firm’s innovation performance, their activities may have negative impact on a firm’s innovation outcomes when a firm has greater absorptive capacity, due to diminishing impact of a firm’s absorptive capacity to create novel idea. Extant research suggests that the greater a firm’s absorptive capacity, the lesser the firm can find further novelty (Noteboom et al. 2007), which suggests that absorptive capacity makes firm innovation activities less efficient. Based on the above discussion, we hypothesize as follows:Hypothesis 3A (H3A). People-based activities with HEIs positively related to the introduction of new products and/or processes will become weaker at a higher level of absorptive capacity. Hypothesis 3B (H3B). People-based activities with HEIs positively related to new product radicalness will become weaker at a higher level of absorptive capacity. Hypothesis 4A (H4A). Problem-solving activities with HEIs positively related to the introduction of new products and/or processes will become stronger at a higher level of absorptive capacity. Hypothesis 4B (H4B). Problem-solving activities with HEIs positively related to new product radicalness will become stronger at a higher level of absorptive capacity. Methods We test the hypotheses presented across two studies. The purpose of Study 1 is to validate our prediction about how HEI activities affect firm innovation performance (H1A to H2B). Study 2 expands this initial research frame by validating the moderating effects of a firm’s absorptive capacity on firm innovation outcomes (H3A to H4B). Implications There is an argument to transfer knowledge from HEIs to firms due to the cultural differences between them (Lambert 2003). Nevertheless, universities are playing an increasingly strategic role in stimulating innovation in firms though the transfer of technology (Hughes 2011). Scholars have largely disregarded the more specific activities performed by HEIs such as people-based and problem-solving activities. Little attention has been paid to how people-based and problem-solving activities affect firm innovation performance. Further, firm innovation outcomes can be affected differently by some specific HEI activities because each activity supported by HEIs plays a different role in impacting certain types of firm innovation outcomes. Based on our results, problem-solving activities are related to new product innovation while people-based activities are related to new process innovation. Additionally, absorptive capacity had a negative moderating effect with people based activities and a positive moderating effect with problem solving activities on a firm’s innovation outcomes. This is important to theoretical and practical implications because a firm is able to know which activities are required to improve their new product or process innovation. This leads a firm to save huge costs to achieve successful innovation.

Market orientation has been extensively studied in the last 30 years. Previous studies have mainly focused on manufacturing and in the retail industry market orientation remains rather unexplored. There are only a few studies on market orientation in retailing (e.g. Elg, 2003; Kajalo & Lindblom, 2015; Liu & Davies, 1997). According to Elg (2003) market orientation in retailing differs from manufacturing in several aspects. Most importantly, in retailing individual stores have important roles to implement market orientation. They interact with customers and satisfy customer’s needs in the service encounter. Even if retailer can generate and share market knowledge in organization, the effect of market orientation on performance is weak when store organization does not adopt market oriented behaviour (Liu & Davies, 1997). Therefore, it is important for retailer to control market orientation of a retail store. Most retailers operate as retail chains to increase the scale of business. Retail chain is a multi-unit firm that manages many stores as profit units (Chang & Harrington, 2002). Retail chain includes buying and selling divisions, which specialize in different tasks. Buying division has specialized role and responsibility to search and negotiate with the suppliers, make the merchandising plan, monitor the process of merchandising, and revise the merchandising plan. In a similar manner, selling division has specialized role and responsibility to implement merchandising plan, promote retail services to customers, and manage the stores to differentiate from competitors. Buying division makes standardized merchandising plan for stores to increase scale advantage in buying, inventory management, store delivery, and advertising. Retail chains centralize the decisions of merchandising to buying divisions and formalize the process of merchandising in chain organization. On the other hand, retail chains become market - oriented organization to increase the scale advantage because this advantage depends on the effectiveness of merchandising plan. From the perspective of market orientation, the three behavioral aspects of market orientation – generation, dissemination, and response are performed by buying division and selling division of the retail chain. Buying division needs the market information generated by retail stores as selling division. Buying division makes the merchandising plan under environmental uncertainty. Buying division decreases this uncertainty to analyze the market information from stores. Market information includes not only existing market needs but also potential market needs. Buying division finds potential market needs into the market information and makes an innovative merchandising plan.In the merchandising process, selling division implements market orientation in stores. After the buying division makes merchandising plans to differentiate from competitors, the selling division implements these plans on stores. For example, store manager monitors the process of implementation and revises the action according to merchandising plans. When store managers find problems, they report these problems to the buying division and request to refine merchandising plans. In this way, the buying division takes the planning part of market orientation and the selling division takes the implementation part of market orientation. To control market orientation in chain organization, retail chain coordinate buying division and selling division by organizational structure - centralization and formalization (Lechner & Kreutzer, 2010). Organizational structure has effect on market orientation. First, formalization has opposite effect on market orientation (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). According to Ouchi (1978) formalization reduces the ambiguity of goals and makes clear the criteria of performance evaluation in organization among organizational members. When formalization motivates organizational member to be market oriented, formalization facilitates market intelligence generation and sharing of market intelligence with organizational members. On the other hand, formalization limits the behavior of organizational members (von Krog, 1998). López et al. (2006) suggest that the rules and procedures set by formalization give the pattern to organizational communication. As results, formalization reduces the chances for organization members to communicate market intelligence and interact with each other because organizational member put priority on formalized communication channel. Second, centralization has negative effect on market orientation. According to Pelham and Wilson (1996) decentralization increases organizational commitment to satisfy customer needs and motivates market orientation. Souitaris (2001) and Ouchi (2006) assert that centralization reduces the degree of information sharing among organizational members. Therefore, centralization has negative effect on market orientation. Organizational structure has indirect effect on innovation orientation of store thought market orientation. There are two streams about the relationship between market orientation and innovation orientation (Grinstein 2008). One stream suggests that market orientation is negatively related to innovation. Another stream suggests that market orientation is positive related to innovation. In this study, we argue according to recent research that market orientation is likely to enhance. To test the conceptual model that incorporates these concepts (Figure 1), a survey was conducted among Japanese retailers. The sample (N=191) consists of store managers (71), vice-store managers (22), and floor managers (98) of a Japanese retail chain. The scales used in the study were adapted from previous research (Table 1). Concerning common method bias, we conducted Harman’s one-factor test and applied confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) testing of a model with all of the items loading on a common method factor. Comparing this model with a measurement model containing seven latent variables revealed a significant deterioration in chi-square (χ2 = 378.446; p < .01). This finding suggests that common method bias is not a serious threat in the study. This data was analyzed by following a two-step structural equation modeling approach. First, a CFA was carried out to assess the reliability and validity of theconstruct measures included in the study. In order to evaluate the reliability of the latent variables, composite reliability for all latent variables was calculated. We assess scale reliability using average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR). The CR of each scale exceeds 0.80. The AVE of each scale exceeds 0.50. Discriminant validity was evaluated by Fornell and Larcker (1981). We found that the square root of the average variance extracted is greater than all of the corresponding correlations. These findings indicate that reliability and validity of the construct measures was adequate. Second, a structural equation model analysis was done to test the hypothesis. As seen in Figure 2 the SEM model exhibits good overall fit of the model. The results of the model provide several interesting contributions. First, the study shows that centralization has a statistically significant negative impact on formalization in retail chain. Second, the study demonstrates how centralization and formalization are linked to innovation orientation through three dimensions of market orientation. Third, the study demonstrates to retail managers the importance of organizational design and how good market orientation can benefit retailers in their increasingly innovation orientation. For retail chain, centralization and formalization of decision making about merchandising are important for gaining scale advantage. But centralization has negative effect on market orientation. Retail chain has trade – off between scale advantage and market orientation in practice. Overall, our framework demonstrates the effects of organizational structure on market orientation and innovation orientation in retail chain. Thus, our framework shows the direct and indirect impacts that organizational structure has on innovation orientation.

The paper addresses the phenomenon of the opportunism that arises from a parent (principal) toward an IJV (agent) and its antecedents. This study integrates Agency Theory and Resource Dependence Theory (RDT) to discover its determinants from the perspectives of principal opportunism. Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) techniques and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) based on a sample of 185 Chinese-foreign IJVs in China, which are useful to reals the overall story of the principal opportunism. This study finds an IJV depends on parents’ support in both knowledge- and property-based resources has more chances to subject to principal opportunism. The result also indicates that psychic distance has a negative impact on principal opportunism. fsQCA, however, provides further solutions that the specific combinations of these predictors or their negation predicts principle opportunism.

본 연구에서 우리는 혁신시스템 국제화의 측정을 위한 프레임워크를 수립하고 한국원자력산업과 우주산업에 적용을 통해서 혁신시스템 국제화와 리더십의 연관관계에 대 한 사례연구를 수행하였다. 이 프레임워크를 통해 혁신시스템의 국제화 정도와 기술수준과 의 연관관계를 살펴본 결과, 한국 원자력산업은 기술수준의 선도그룹으로서 추격그룹인 우주 산업 대비 혁신시스템 국제화의 주요기능에서 국제적 적법성의 생성을 제외하고 높은 수준 을 보여주었다. 이를 통해 혁신시스템 국제화의 정도는 리더십과 높은 연관관계를 보임을 확 인할 수 있었다. 이처럼 한 국가 내에서 산업간 혁신시스템의 국제화 정도는 차이를 보이며 리더십을 획득하기 위해서는 혁신시스템 국제화의 흐름의 대응이 필요함을 제시하고 이에 대한 정책적인 시사점을 도출하였다. 이 프레임워크의 적용을 통해서 한국 산업의 국제적인 리더십에 대한 사례를 심층 분석 할 수 있게 하며, 또한 전략적 딜레마에 빠진 산업에서의 기술경영을 위한 시사점들을 제공 한다.

역삼투 기반 해수담수화 기술은 전 세계 물 부족 문제 해결의 대안으로 주목 받아왔다. 최근에는 에너지 효율의 한계를 극복하기 위한 차세대 저에너지 기술들이 연구되고 있다. 정삼투 공정의 해수 희석을 통해 역삼투 공정에 필요한 에너지를 낮추는 FO-RO 공정, 그리고 압력지연삼투를 통한 에너지 회수와 막증발 기술을 통한 고수량 확보의 MD-PRO 공정이 미래의 해수담수화 기술들이다. 하지만 수처리 분야에서는 현재 시행 가능하며 역삼투 기술 본연의 효율을 극대화시키는 기술을 필요로 하고 있다. 이에 KORAE 연구단은 세계 최고 수준의 저에너지 3.3 kWh/m3 해수담수화 플랜트 구축을 목표로 하여 적조 및 고염 대응 전처리, 역삼투막 및 모듈 시스템 개발을 진행하며 해수담수화 기술의 최적화를 연구 중이다.

In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping put forward to build “Silk Road Economic Belt”and "21st Century Maritime Silk Road”(One Belt One Road). “One Belt One Road” would also directly contribute to the continues growth of China's FDI. FDI is one of the key issues in the process of economic development all around the world. With the rapid development of China-Korea economic, the FDI between Korea and China is particularly attracting extensive attention. In this paper, by using South Korea to China's FDI as a carrier, the determinants of FDI from South Korea to China has been studies under conditions of both practical evidences and experience. In the aspect of practical evidence, green data KTL is introduced timely along with the use of PANELDATA data, which is the product with the development of global green economy, knowledge and technological innovation has been imported to econometric model as determinants. On the other hand, the FDI from China to Korea has been analyzed while with its successful experience. Results shows that GDP (market and the scale of economies), TIEC (Industrial clusters and regional attraction), WAGE (cost and factors), KTL (knowledge innovation and technology) are the determinants of South Korea to China's FDI. Selecting the target stage by stage, implementation of the Chinese localization, taking resource-oriented and making reasonable choice of business focus, concentrating its attention to technology innovation and patent protection is South Korea's successful experience to outward FDI.

The CEO leadership and employee’s concerning and participation to quality management innovation activity is critical factor for improving the business performance. This empirical study is aims to find that whether the quality management activity is significant or not in the automotive parts suppliers. To perform this research, we distributed 250 sheets totally, and withdraw 194 sheets. We analysed 169 sheets that we could use for this research using SPSS 18.0 and AMOS 18.0. We had the results that CEO leadership is significantly positive effects on the employees’s participation to quality management. And the result of process improvement have positively effective and significant effects on the product improvement result and business performance of firms.

본 연구는 우리나라의 대표적인 혁신클러스터인 대덕연구개발특구를 대상으로 혁신클러스터의 성장에 미치는 영향요인을 제도적⋅물리적⋅사회적 구성요인으로 구분하여 고찰한 사례연구이다. 특히 이들 구성요인은 지난 15년간 대덕연구개발특구의 변화와 발전을 통해 성장에 영향 을 미쳐왔으며, 향후에도 지속적 발전에 중요한 영향요인이 될 것이다. 이러한 측면에서 본 연구는 보완적으로 대덕특구의 혁신활동에 있어서의 혁신주체들의 위상 변화 및 환경, 제도 ⋅정책변화 등을 제도적⋅물리적⋅사회적 구성요인 측면에서 다각적으로 살펴보았다. 또한 도출된 대덕특구의 성장에 영향을 미치는 구성요인에 대해 AHP분석 방법을 통해 내부 혁신 주체들이 인식하는 중요도를 측정하였다. 본 연구는 대덕특구를 대상으로 장기적인 관점에서 혁신클러스터의 성장에 영향을 미치는 구성요소들을 제시하고 그 중요도를 도출함으로써 지역혁신 및 혁신클러스터 정책적 시사점 을 제공한다.

본 연구는 각각의 혁신역량 요소가 기업의 혁신방법 선택에 미치는 영향을 EU 국가와 비교함으로써 국내 제조기업의 기술수준을 파악하고, 최신 자료를 통해 그 변화를 살 펴 혁신역량 제고를 위한 정책적 시사점을 도출하고자 한다. 이를 위해 유사한 데이터와 모 형으로 분석하였으며 그 결과, 2005년 한국은 대략 EU의 부진국가와 중간국가 사이에 위치 하며, 2014년에는 혁신비용지출에 따른 연구개발비 비중의 증가, 내부혁신활동 수행, 고기술 업종의 연구개발 선택 등 혁신역량이 일부 개선된 모습을 보였다. 따라서 혁신역량제고를 위 해서는 기업의 혁신비용지출에 대한 지원과 고기술기업, 특허출원 및 산학연 협력을 실시하 는 기업을 위한 제도적 보완이 필요할 것으로 보인다.

본 연구에서는 IPO시점을 전후하여 기업의 혁신 활동과 성과의 변화에 대한 분석을 목적으로 연구개발 투자 비중이 높은 의료 및 의약 분야의 코스닥 IPO 상장 기업을 대상으로 7개의 투입, 산출 모형에 대한 효율성 분석과 비교를 실시하였다. 의약분야 기업의 IPO 전후 3년간의 혁신활동 효율성을 측정하고 차이를 분석하기 위해 DEA모형을 적용하였 다. 본 논문의 주요한 결과는 첫째, 의약분야의 IPO 기업의 창업에서 IPO까지 평균 12.86년 이 소요되었고, 혁신활동은 평균적으로 IPO 이전보다 더욱 활발해져 연구개발 투자액이 증 가되었다. 출원특허의 수는 IPO 이전 3년 동안 8.43개에서 IPO 이후 3년 동안에는 상장기업 평균 16.67로 급증하였으며 기업의 기술 영역도 전후 3년 동안 상장기업 평균 11개에서 22개 기술분야로 크게 확대되는 모습을 보였으나, 재무적 측면에서 성장 추이와 수익성은 IPO 이 전보다 낮아졌다. 둘째, 연구개발 투자와 특허출원 활동에 대한 재무적인 성과는 IPO 이후 효율성이 모두 약화되었으며, 최종적인 성과에 이르기까지 투자와 활동을 분리하여 연구개발 투자에 따른 특허 출원 성과, 특허 출원 활동에 따른 재무적인 성과에 대한 효율성 역시 IPO 이전보다 모두 낮아진 것으로 분석되었다. 셋째, 특허활동에 따른 재무성과에 대한 효율성은 연구개발 투자에 따른 특허 출원 성과, 연구개발투자와 특허활동에 따른 재무성과에 대한 효 율성에 비해 낮았고, 특히, IPO 이후 특허활동에 따른 재무성과의 비효율성은 규모의 비효율 성으로 인해 발생되었음이 분석되었다. 마지막으로, 본 연구에서 IPO 이후 전체적인 효율성 하락은 IPO를 퉁한 연구개발투자 확대가 시장의 재무적 성과로 이어지지 못하였고, IPO 이 후 전체적인 비효율성은 연구개발투자를 통한 혁신의 결과 도출 단계보다는 혁신활동의 결 과물이 시장의 성과를 이끌어 내는 데 나타나는 비효율성으로 인한 것으로 분석되었다.

오늘날의 기술경쟁은 매우 역동적(Dynamic Competition)이어서 새로운 영역에서 신기술 탄생이 점차 가속화되고 있다. 그리고 하나의 상품에 수백 수천 개의 특허가 사용되어 각각의 기술을 한데 모아서 활용할 필요성이 강화되었다. 특허풀(Patent Pool)은 이러한 시대적 도전에 대응할 적절한 수단이 될 수 있다. 특허풀을 통하여 기 술혁신을 위한 표준화의 장점을 살리면서도 표준 보유자의 특허권남용을 제어할 수 있는 수단을 적절히 강구할 필요가 있다. 혁신기업들이 특허풀을 구성하는 단계에서 애초에 부당한 공동행위에 해 당하지 않도록 국가가 사전에 안내하거나 유도해 준다면 해당 기업에게 매우 큰 도움이 될 것이다. 이에 본 논문에서는 혁신을 촉진하기 위한 수단으로서 특허풀의 유용성을 살펴보고 그 경쟁제한성 을 사전에 제거할 수 있는 제도적 방안에 대하여 고찰해 보기로 한다.

기업의 생존력과 경쟁력을 위하여 기술혁신을 지속적이고 장기적으로 추구하 고 추진하려는 기업의 전반적인 사고방향을 나타내는 기술혁신지향성의 중요성이 대두하고 있다. 기술혁신지향성이 기업의 지속적인 경쟁우위 확보에 개념적으로나 실무적으로 중요한 의미를 내포하고 있지만, 기업의 성공적인 기술혁신과 성과를 위한 기술혁신지향성의 역할에 대한 체계적인 연구는 현재까지 제한적으로 수행되어 왔다. 기술혁신지향성에 대한 기존 연 구의 미비점을 인지하여, 본 연구에서는 기술혁신지향성에 영향을 미칠 수 있는 기업 내외부 의 핵심적인 요인들을 선택하여, 선행요인들과 기술혁신지향성 및 기술혁신지향성 사이의 상 황관계를 나타내는 연구모델과 가설들을 제안하고 이를 실증분석 하였다. 제안된 연구모델 에서 선택된 기술혁신지향성의 선행요인들은 최고경영자의 기술기능 직무경력과 기능 간 상호통합(cross-functional integration)의 두 내부요인과 환경 불확실성과 경쟁강도의 두 외부 요인을 포함하였고 이 요인들이 결과적으로 기술혁신지향성을 매개로 기업의 기술혁신성과 에 영향을 미치는 것으로 제시하였다. 또한 이 연구모델에서는 환경 불확실성과 경쟁강도의 두 환경요인이 기술혁신지향성과 기술혁신성과 사이의 관계를 긍정적으로 조절하는 효과를 갖는 것으로 제시하였다. 86개의 국내 IT중소기업을 대상으로 분석한 결과, 최고경영자의 기 술기능 직무경력, 기능 간 상호통합, 그리고 환경 불확실성이 기업의 기술혁신지향성에 긍정 적인 영향을 미치고 기술혁신지향성이 기업의 기술혁신성과에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으 로 나타났다. 또한, 환경 불확실성은 기업의 기술혁신지향성과 기술혁신성과간의 관계를 긍 정적으로 조절하는 효과를 갖는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구결과가 제시하는 이론적, 실무적 시사점의 중요성에 대해서 논의하였다.

개방형 혁신이 비즈니스 현장 및 학계의 관심을 받으면서, 개방형 혁신의 특성 을 파악하고 이를 효과적으로 수행하기 위한 많은 연구가 이루어져 왔다. 특히 개방형 혁신 의 프로세스에서 매우 중요하게 다루어져 온 기존 연구는 협력대상자를 어떻게 선정하는가 하는 문제이다. 개방형 혁신에서 협력대상자를 탐색하기 위해서는 해당 기업/기관과 협력했 을 때 기업의 성과가 어느 정도로 향상되었는가를 파악하는 것이 필수적이기 때문에, 협력 대상자와의 협력 이후의 성과를 보다 체계적으로 측정하는 것이 필수적이다. 본 연구에서는 이러한 협력대상자 탐색을 효과적으로 지원하기 위해 Balanced ScoreCard (BSC)와 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) 가 결합된 평가 프로세스를 제안하고자 한다. 즉 협력 대상자의 선정에 있어 협력 이후 기업의 성과를 가장 최대화할 수 있도록 협력대상자를 선 정하기 위해 BSC를 활용하며, BSC 프레임워크에서 활용된 구체적 평가기준들 간의 가중치를 산정하고 실제 협력대상자를 평가하는 데 있어서는 다기준 의사결정 방법인 AHP를 활 용한다.

에너지자원의 안정적인 확보는 국가발전을 위한 가장 중요한 요소 중 하나이다. 본 연구는 혁신시스템 관점에서 우리나라의 에너지관련 정책결정시스템을 분석하고 그 문제점을 도출하였다. 혁신시스템의 구성요소 중 혁신주체 측면에서는 에너지의 안정적인 수송을 위한 전략적인 강화방안이 미흡하다는 한계를 가지고 있었으며, 연계측면에서는 국방영역을 제외한 혁신주체들 간의 연계는 비교적 양호하였으나 안보적 관점에서 중요한 역할을 담당하는 국방영역과 타 혁신주체들 간의 연계는 미흡한 것으로 분석되었다. 하부구조 측면에서는 에너지안보 관점에서 국방영역의 하부구조인 전력건설 논의가 미흡한 것으로 나타났으며, 마지막으로 제도적 측면에서는 에너지안보에 관한 국방영역의 역할에 대한 제도적 정립이 미흡하여 향후 국가 에너지안보와 관련된 거버넌스에서 국방영역의 참여가 제도적으로 명시될 필요가 있는 것으로 분석되었다.

Recently, companies and organizations are becoming increasingly dependent on external resources to keep their competitive advantages under the turbulence of global business environmental changes. Therefore, they focus on the paradigm ‘Open Innovation (OI)’ which is reported as a convincing strategy to improve competitive advantage in terms of budget and time-to-market. The management of Incheon International Airport Corporation (IIAC) also considers the introduction of Open Innovation not only to adapt the business environmental changes but also to be devoted its social role as a public corporation. In this paper, we describe how we derived the promotion tasks for the introduction of OI and prioritized the tasks, performing our research on the IIAC Open Innovation. For these purposes, this research conducted the following three steps; the first stage for the analysis of current situation on the IIAC Open Innovation, the second stage for the elicitation of promotion tasks, and the last stage for the prioritization of the promotion tasks. In the first stage, critical success factors (CSFs) for open innovation introduction were derived from different research papers and case studies. In the following stage, promotion tasks were elicited from the IIAC based on the CSFs. In the last stage, the promotion tasks were evaluated on the base of criteria by using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). And then the promotion tasks were grouped by the result of the evaluation. In this case, thirteen promotion tasks were derived for open innovation, ten promotion tasks except three inevitable promotion tasks were evaluated, and then they were grouped into four categories based on the importance-possibility analysis.

This study analyzes the business performance of research and development(R&D) and especially studies the effect of technology management activity and technology innovation competency on commercialization performance. According to previous studies, the technology management activity can be composed of technological innovativeness, analysis of market, R&D method, and appropriateness for commercialization plan. Also, the technology innovation can be divided into patent, R&D manpower, R&D investment ratio, production capability, and marketing capability. On the result of the analysis, all the components of technology management activity are positively related with commercialization performance. In case of technology innovation competency, however, only production and marketing capabilities have influence on the business performance. Especially, marketing capability controls the effect of technology management activities on the commercialization performance. Consequently, technology management is very important activity for SMEs to succeed commercialization and SMEs should collaborate with production and marketing departments from the early stage of R&D.

아키텍처 혁신은 급진적 혁신과 달리 기술적 불연속성의 정도는 낮지만 제품 아키텍처의 변경을 통한 기술적 성능개선 폭은 큰 혁신으로 이해되고 있다. 신생 산업의 초 기, 급진적 혁신 제품의 개발에 성공한 기업은 이후, 열등한 아키텍처 효율성 문제를 극복하 지 않으면 더 이상 기술적 성능 개선이 둔화되는 시점에 도달하게 된다. 이 지점에서는 급진 적 혁신 단계에서의 열등하지만 창의성이 깃든 제품 아키텍처의 창출 경험은 오히려 아키텍 처 혁신의 장애물로 작용하게 될 수 있다. 본 연구는 아키텍처 혁신 전후의 시장 요구변화와 이에 대한 기술적 해결 전략을 단계모델의 관점과 문제해결 모델의 관점이 결합된 분석틀의 구축을 통해 이해해보고자 하였다. 한국의 중소기업 자화전자(주)는 산업 초창기 휴대폰에 장착되는 진동모터의 급진적 혁신에 성공 후 아키텍처 혁신과 연관된 장애물들을 극복함으로써 마침내 자신이 개발한 진동모터의 본격적 확산에 성공할 수 있었다. 본 연구는 진동모 터의 개발과정에 대한 능동적 참여관찰을 통해 단일 사례를 종단적으로 깊이 연구함으로서, 이 과정이 어떻게 진행되었는지를 이해하고자 하였다.

국가가 새로운 경제체제로 들어서게 되면서 겪는 어려움과 피해는 생각보다 크 다. 지금까지 경제 패러다임이 바뀌면서 국가들이 겪었던 과정을 거치며 경제의 성장과 수렴 을 일으킨 여러 가지 요인이 있었다. 특히 혁신과 제도는 그간의 경제성장에 있어서 중요한 요소임에도 횡단면 분석이나 경제적 모형측면에서만 다루어졌던 한계성이 있다. 본 연구에 서는 국가혁신역량의 다양성과 제도의 질이 국가의 경제성장에 미치는 요인을 살펴보려고 한다. 또한 최근 경제성장의 주요요인으로 다루어지고 있는 인적자본역량과 해외직접투자와 의 관계도 살펴보며, 경제성장 모형에 대한 심층적 고찰을 한다. 경제수준에 따라서 총 4개의 국가그룹으로 64개 국가를 대상으로 분석하였으며, 1995년부터 2011년까지의 데이터를 기반 으로 패널모형을 사용해 연구문제에 대해 구조적인 측면의 시사점을 살펴보았다. 연구결과, 국가의 경제수준에 따라서 연구개발 비중과 혁신역량의 다양성은 경제성장에 의미있는 변화 를 주었으며, 해외직접투자는 모든 소득그룹에서 경제성장에 긍정적인 효과를 보였다. 국가 혁신역량에 있어서는 확산성과 개방성이 경제성장에 가장 의미있는 변수였으며, 이는 경제수준이 높은 국가들의 혁신역량이 경제성장에 미치는 영향이 크기 때문이라고 보인다. 반대로, 경제수준이 낮을수록 혁신역량 및 제도의 수준이 경제성장에 부정적인 영향을 미친다. 개별 국가의 제도의 질 및 경제수준에 따라서 차별적이기에 모호한 측면이 있다고 판단된다. 본 연구를 통해서 국가의 경제수준에 따른 혁신 요소 및 제도적 요인의 적절한 투입과 정책수립 에 중요하다는 시사점을 줄 수 있다고 보인다.

The purpose of this study includes: Firstly, to examine the effects of corporate entrepreneurship on market orientation, radical innovation, and organizational performance. Secondly, to examine the mediating effect of the market orientation, radical innovation on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and organizational performance. In order to verify the relationships and mediating effect, data were collected from convenient sample of 269 employees at small and medium enterprises in Busan, Ulsan, Gyeongju city to test theoretical model and its hypotheses. All data collected from the survey were analyzed using with SPSS 18.0 and AMOS 18.0. This study reports findings as followed: first, the relationship between the corporate entrepreneurship and the market orientation is positively related. Second, there was also a positive correlation between the corporate entrepreneurship and the radical innovation. Third, there was also a positive correlation between the market orientation and the radical innovation. Fourth, the relationship between the market orientation and the organizational performance is positively related. Fifth, there was also a positive correlation between the corporate entrepreneurship and the organizational performance. Sixth, there was also a positive correlation between the radical innovation and the organizational performance. Finally, the market orientation played as a partial mediator on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and radical innovation. The market orientation and radical innovation played as a partial mediator on the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and organizational performance. Also, the radical innovation played as a partial mediator on the relationship between market orientation and organizational performance. Based on these findings, the limitations of the study and some directions for future studies were presented.