기술이 사업화되어 수익으로 환원되는 과정은 일반적으로 오랜 기간이 소요되고, 많은 비용이 들며, 위험도도 매우 높다. 그렇지만 기술사업화에는 높은 위험-보상(high risk, high return)의 원칙이 내재되어 있다. 그렇기 때문에 그러한 위험을 사전에 예측하고 회피하거나 최소화 할 수 있도록 신기술을 사업화하기 위해 대부분 사전에 사업타당성이 있는지를 평가한다. 어느 사업화 과정도 마찬가지겠지만 신기술사업화는 일반적인 사업화보다 고려해야할 요소가 많아 더 어렵다. 일반적인 비즈니스가 가져야할 조건 외에도 특정기술을 비즈니스화하기 위한 조건이 추가되어야 하기 때문이다. 신기술의 사업화는 성장촉진이라는 국가적인 중요성을 가지고 있기에 정부도 이를 지원하기 위한 여러 노력을 하고 있다. 특히 개인 발명가나 중소기업의 기술사업화를 돕기 위해 신기술아이디어사업화타당성평가 사업을 수행하고 있다. 이 사업은 기술사업화의 실패확률이 크기 때문에 사전에 사업적인 타당성이 있는 지의 여부를 판단하도록 정부가 지원하는 사업이다. 기술사업화의 사전타당성 평가에서 중요한 점은 타당성을 평가하는 방법이다. 그럼에도 사전타당성 평가의 유효성에 대한 연구는 발견되지 않고 있다. 이러한 평가가 자주 이루어지는 것도 아니고, 사전타당성 평가보고서는 사업비밀을 포함하고 있기에 평가보고서를 입수하기도 어렵기 때문이다. 따라서 본 연구는 첫째, 신기술사업 ...
기술이 사업화되어 수익으로 환원되는 과정은 일반적으로 오랜 기간이 소요되고, 많은 비용이 들며, 위험도도 매우 높다. 그렇지만 기술사업화에는 높은 위험-보상(high risk, high return)의 원칙이 내재되어 있다. 그렇기 때문에 그러한 위험을 사전에 예측하고 회피하거나 최소화 할 수 있도록 신기술을 사업화하기 위해 대부분 사전에 사업타당성이 있는지를 평가한다. 어느 사업화 과정도 마찬가지겠지만 신기술사업화는 일반적인 사업화보다 고려해야할 요소가 많아 더 어렵다. 일반적인 비즈니스가 가져야할 조건 외에도 특정기술을 비즈니스화하기 위한 조건이 추가되어야 하기 때문이다. 신기술의 사업화는 성장촉진이라는 국가적인 중요성을 가지고 있기에 정부도 이를 지원하기 위한 여러 노력을 하고 있다. 특히 개인 발명가나 중소기업의 기술사업화를 돕기 위해 신기술아이디어사업화타당성평가 사업을 수행하고 있다. 이 사업은 기술사업화의 실패확률이 크기 때문에 사전에 사업적인 타당성이 있는 지의 여부를 판단하도록 정부가 지원하는 사업이다. 기술사업화의 사전타당성 평가에서 중요한 점은 타당성을 평가하는 방법이다. 그럼에도 사전타당성 평가의 유효성에 대한 연구는 발견되지 않고 있다. 이러한 평가가 자주 이루어지는 것도 아니고, 사전타당성 평가보고서는 사업비밀을 포함하고 있기에 평가보고서를 입수하기도 어렵기 때문이다. 따라서 본 연구는 첫째, 신기술사업 타당성평가 결과 사업화 가능성이 있다고 평가되었으나 실패한 사례들을 추적해 기술사업화 실패 원인을 살펴보는데 목적이 있다. 둘째, 신기술사업 타당성평가 결과 사업화 가능성이 부정적이라고 평가되었으나 성공한 사례들을 추적해 기술사업화 성공 원인을 살펴보는데 목적이 있다. 그리고 마지막으로 기술사업화 실패와 성공사례 연구결과를 종합적으로 비교하여 기술사업화의 성공적인 패턴을 제시하는데 그 목적이 있다.
기술이 사업화되어 수익으로 환원되는 과정은 일반적으로 오랜 기간이 소요되고, 많은 비용이 들며, 위험도도 매우 높다. 그렇지만 기술사업화에는 높은 위험-보상(high risk, high return)의 원칙이 내재되어 있다. 그렇기 때문에 그러한 위험을 사전에 예측하고 회피하거나 최소화 할 수 있도록 신기술을 사업화하기 위해 대부분 사전에 사업타당성이 있는지를 평가한다. 어느 사업화 과정도 마찬가지겠지만 신기술사업화는 일반적인 사업화보다 고려해야할 요소가 많아 더 어렵다. 일반적인 비즈니스가 가져야할 조건 외에도 특정기술을 비즈니스화하기 위한 조건이 추가되어야 하기 때문이다. 신기술의 사업화는 성장촉진이라는 국가적인 중요성을 가지고 있기에 정부도 이를 지원하기 위한 여러 노력을 하고 있다. 특히 개인 발명가나 중소기업의 기술사업화를 돕기 위해 신기술아이디어사업화타당성평가 사업을 수행하고 있다. 이 사업은 기술사업화의 실패확률이 크기 때문에 사전에 사업적인 타당성이 있는 지의 여부를 판단하도록 정부가 지원하는 사업이다. 기술사업화의 사전타당성 평가에서 중요한 점은 타당성을 평가하는 방법이다. 그럼에도 사전타당성 평가의 유효성에 대한 연구는 발견되지 않고 있다. 이러한 평가가 자주 이루어지는 것도 아니고, 사전타당성 평가보고서는 사업비밀을 포함하고 있기에 평가보고서를 입수하기도 어렵기 때문이다. 따라서 본 연구는 첫째, 신기술사업 타당성평가 결과 사업화 가능성이 있다고 평가되었으나 실패한 사례들을 추적해 기술사업화 실패 원인을 살펴보는데 목적이 있다. 둘째, 신기술사업 타당성평가 결과 사업화 가능성이 부정적이라고 평가되었으나 성공한 사례들을 추적해 기술사업화 성공 원인을 살펴보는데 목적이 있다. 그리고 마지막으로 기술사업화 실패와 성공사례 연구결과를 종합적으로 비교하여 기술사업화의 성공적인 패턴을 제시하는데 그 목적이 있다.
This study focused on identifying the causative factors of failure in cases where commercialization was successful in commercializing technology even though there were indicators that commercialization was feasible. It also sought to identify the factors of success in cases where there was no predic...
This study focused on identifying the causative factors of failure in cases where commercialization was successful in commercializing technology even though there were indicators that commercialization was feasible. It also sought to identify the factors of success in cases where there was no predicted feasibility but where innovators were successful in commercializing technology. As a conclusion this thesis evaluated a success pattern of commercializing technology through investigation of success cases and failure cases. For the study, 92 feasibility reports of new technologies were collected and its 4 studies of definite failure in commercialization of technology were analyzed in depth. Furthermore 4 studies of definite success in commercialization of technology were also analyzed in details. Further analysis was based on specific factors pointed out by previous frameworks such as 1) a study on success or failure in innovation, 2) a study on success or failure in new product development, 3) discussion on success or failure in commercialization of technology, 4) that of venture company, and 5) valuation of technology studies. Previous studies pointed out success and failure factors such as lack of funding, uncontrollable accidents, managing ability, inability for mass production and so forth, which showed little variation from the pre-feasible evaluation of four cases. These studies agree that the key factors of major success and failure factors are depending on market understanding, customers’ comprehension, manager’s character and degree of concern, and company organization comprising development team, and research/technical members. However these studies have different points of emphasis. First of all, innovation theory, customer’s participation and external network are used for emphasis and prototype development theory along with company capability was emphasized. Commercialization of technology and technical factors are emphasized in relation with conventional technology, intellectual property, management capability of technology, etc. In the related studies on venture business, technologies, complex capability of early stage of business are emphasized and evaluation of technical value, profitability, and risk are unlikely emphasized. However, the real reasons for failure were in fact a fundamental lack of understanding in technologies such as composition of technologies, production technologies required by stages and lack of understanding of floor technologies. These misunderstandings occurred regardless of CEO's experience and expertise. Technical understanding is based on product configuration, the factors of production technology, and development strategies. This is a different assertion to append an understanding of technology from the SAPPHO project which emphasizes understanding of market or serious consideration of users, when discussing success and failure in commercializing technology. In this project, understanding of technology is granted but this study shows an understanding of technology has to be based when the study is pointing out company-inner-problems by new product development theory and participation problem of market and customer by innovation theory. Therefore, under technology commercialization, the critical factor is going "back to basics" in understanding of technology rather than any other factors. Meanwhile, the overall implications on the success and failure in technology commercialization are as follows. Firstly, understanding of technology is essential for technology commercialization regardless of the success. This point is emphasized differently from the case of study on venture business and study of technology valuation. Secondly, step-by-step strategy is needed to look for technical possibility with a consideration of excessive company resources and market conditions, not looking for a technical possibility by constraint. This study has several limitations. First, the study only evaluated a total of eight cases with four failed and successful case studies respectively, which makes the research findings difficult to generalize and to represent all the industries. Second, there are statistical limits in the amount of data collection with just three industry sectors of Life Science, Chemistry, Software and other industries were not included in the research. Therefore, it is recommended that future research should cover the untouched industries to ensure sufficient case studies and meaningful research data. Also tracking and analyzing the best practice success patterns of technology commercialization will contribute to the nation’s success rates of technology commercialization and to the competitiveness of SMEs, which will make a big difference in the nation’s sustainable developments.
This study focused on identifying the causative factors of failure in cases where commercialization was successful in commercializing technology even though there were indicators that commercialization was feasible. It also sought to identify the factors of success in cases where there was no predicted feasibility but where innovators were successful in commercializing technology. As a conclusion this thesis evaluated a success pattern of commercializing technology through investigation of success cases and failure cases. For the study, 92 feasibility reports of new technologies were collected and its 4 studies of definite failure in commercialization of technology were analyzed in depth. Furthermore 4 studies of definite success in commercialization of technology were also analyzed in details. Further analysis was based on specific factors pointed out by previous frameworks such as 1) a study on success or failure in innovation, 2) a study on success or failure in new product development, 3) discussion on success or failure in commercialization of technology, 4) that of venture company, and 5) valuation of technology studies. Previous studies pointed out success and failure factors such as lack of funding, uncontrollable accidents, managing ability, inability for mass production and so forth, which showed little variation from the pre-feasible evaluation of four cases. These studies agree that the key factors of major success and failure factors are depending on market understanding, customers’ comprehension, manager’s character and degree of concern, and company organization comprising development team, and research/technical members. However these studies have different points of emphasis. First of all, innovation theory, customer’s participation and external network are used for emphasis and prototype development theory along with company capability was emphasized. Commercialization of technology and technical factors are emphasized in relation with conventional technology, intellectual property, management capability of technology, etc. In the related studies on venture business, technologies, complex capability of early stage of business are emphasized and evaluation of technical value, profitability, and risk are unlikely emphasized. However, the real reasons for failure were in fact a fundamental lack of understanding in technologies such as composition of technologies, production technologies required by stages and lack of understanding of floor technologies. These misunderstandings occurred regardless of CEO's experience and expertise. Technical understanding is based on product configuration, the factors of production technology, and development strategies. This is a different assertion to append an understanding of technology from the SAPPHO project which emphasizes understanding of market or serious consideration of users, when discussing success and failure in commercializing technology. In this project, understanding of technology is granted but this study shows an understanding of technology has to be based when the study is pointing out company-inner-problems by new product development theory and participation problem of market and customer by innovation theory. Therefore, under technology commercialization, the critical factor is going "back to basics" in understanding of technology rather than any other factors. Meanwhile, the overall implications on the success and failure in technology commercialization are as follows. Firstly, understanding of technology is essential for technology commercialization regardless of the success. This point is emphasized differently from the case of study on venture business and study of technology valuation. Secondly, step-by-step strategy is needed to look for technical possibility with a consideration of excessive company resources and market conditions, not looking for a technical possibility by constraint. This study has several limitations. First, the study only evaluated a total of eight cases with four failed and successful case studies respectively, which makes the research findings difficult to generalize and to represent all the industries. Second, there are statistical limits in the amount of data collection with just three industry sectors of Life Science, Chemistry, Software and other industries were not included in the research. Therefore, it is recommended that future research should cover the untouched industries to ensure sufficient case studies and meaningful research data. Also tracking and analyzing the best practice success patterns of technology commercialization will contribute to the nation’s success rates of technology commercialization and to the competitiveness of SMEs, which will make a big difference in the nation’s sustainable developments.
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.