기술 학습, 기업가정신, 혁신, 창의성에 대한 동기 및 관련 활동은 아시아 국가들의 경제 발전의 원동력이었다. 기술 발전의 초기에는 기술 학습과 기업가정신이 선진국들을 효과적으로 따라잡을 수 있는 방안으로 작용하였다. 왜냐하면 이를 통하여 기업들은 상대적으로 낮은 리스크를 가지고 기술과 지식을 빠르게 축적할 수 있었기 때문이다. 그러나 기술 발전의 후기에는 혁신과 창의성이 보다 중요하게 작용하였다. 본 연구의 목적은 1) 기술 학습 성과에 영향을 미치는 요소들 (학습 역량)과 2) 창의적인 조직 및 경제 환경 구축을 위한 혁신 역량 강화에 필요한 과제들을 규명하는 것이다. 본 연구의 핵심 내용은 탈추격 시대에서의 학습 역량과 연관되어 있다. 문헌 연구 및 한국의 경제발전 사례를 바탕으로 본 연구에서는 기술 학습에 영향을 미치는 다양한 요소들로 구성된 기술 학습 모형을 제시하였다. 이와 관련하여 세 가지 가설을 설정하였고, 한국의 공작기계 제조업체들로부터 데이터를 수집하였다. 또한 해당 업체들의 CEO들과 R&D 책임자들을 대상으로 구조화된 설문을 수행하였다. 이를 바탕으로 상관 분석과 ANOVA를 수행하여 가설을 검증하였다. 추가로 사례 분석과 정책 분석을 수행하여 혁신 활성인자와 방해인자들을 규명하였고, 이를 근거로 혁신 역량 강화를 위한 방안을 제시하였다. 실증 분석 결과를 기반으로 1) 기술 축적정도 2) 기술인력들의 잠재력 3) 확고한 기술적 노력 4) 학습에 대한 의지 5) 최고 경영층의 지원 6) 공식적인 기술 학습 시스템 7) 높은 학습 동기 8) 적절한 기술 선택 9) 명백한 목표 설정과 같은 기업의 학습 잠재력과 활동(학습 역량)을 규명하였다. 이와 같은 학습 역량은 경제 발전 초기 기업의 학습 성과를 결정하였다. 또한 기술발전 단계별로 기술학습을 위해 필요한 핵심 요소들이 상이하였다. 통계 및 정책 분석을 통하여 기술학습은 기술발전 과정의 본질적인 원칙으로 이해될 수 있음을 입증하였다. 선제적이고 창의적인 학습은 후기에, 대응적이고 모방적인 학습은 초기에 활성화 되었다. 추가로 본 연구에서는 탈추격 시대에서의 혁신역량 및 혁신활동 강화의 원동력 또는 촉진 요소를 탐색하였다. 예비 사례분석 결과는 1) CEO의 전략적 의지와 기업 문화 2) 리더십과 변화 주도 챔피언의 존재 3) 디자인 원칙과 방식 4) 에코시스템과 협력체계, 5) 지속적 R&D 투자가 혁신역량 및 혁신활동 강화의 촉진 요소로 작용함을 보여주었다.
기술 학습, 기업가정신, 혁신, 창의성에 대한 동기 및 관련 활동은 아시아 국가들의 경제 발전의 원동력이었다. 기술 발전의 초기에는 기술 학습과 기업가정신이 선진국들을 효과적으로 따라잡을 수 있는 방안으로 작용하였다. 왜냐하면 이를 통하여 기업들은 상대적으로 낮은 리스크를 가지고 기술과 지식을 빠르게 축적할 수 있었기 때문이다. 그러나 기술 발전의 후기에는 혁신과 창의성이 보다 중요하게 작용하였다. 본 연구의 목적은 1) 기술 학습 성과에 영향을 미치는 요소들 (학습 역량)과 2) 창의적인 조직 및 경제 환경 구축을 위한 혁신 역량 강화에 필요한 과제들을 규명하는 것이다. 본 연구의 핵심 내용은 탈추격 시대에서의 학습 역량과 연관되어 있다. 문헌 연구 및 한국의 경제발전 사례를 바탕으로 본 연구에서는 기술 학습에 영향을 미치는 다양한 요소들로 구성된 기술 학습 모형을 제시하였다. 이와 관련하여 세 가지 가설을 설정하였고, 한국의 공작기계 제조업체들로부터 데이터를 수집하였다. 또한 해당 업체들의 CEO들과 R&D 책임자들을 대상으로 구조화된 설문을 수행하였다. 이를 바탕으로 상관 분석과 ANOVA를 수행하여 가설을 검증하였다. 추가로 사례 분석과 정책 분석을 수행하여 혁신 활성인자와 방해인자들을 규명하였고, 이를 근거로 혁신 역량 강화를 위한 방안을 제시하였다. 실증 분석 결과를 기반으로 1) 기술 축적정도 2) 기술인력들의 잠재력 3) 확고한 기술적 노력 4) 학습에 대한 의지 5) 최고 경영층의 지원 6) 공식적인 기술 학습 시스템 7) 높은 학습 동기 8) 적절한 기술 선택 9) 명백한 목표 설정과 같은 기업의 학습 잠재력과 활동(학습 역량)을 규명하였다. 이와 같은 학습 역량은 경제 발전 초기 기업의 학습 성과를 결정하였다. 또한 기술발전 단계별로 기술학습을 위해 필요한 핵심 요소들이 상이하였다. 통계 및 정책 분석을 통하여 기술학습은 기술발전 과정의 본질적인 원칙으로 이해될 수 있음을 입증하였다. 선제적이고 창의적인 학습은 후기에, 대응적이고 모방적인 학습은 초기에 활성화 되었다. 추가로 본 연구에서는 탈추격 시대에서의 혁신역량 및 혁신활동 강화의 원동력 또는 촉진 요소를 탐색하였다. 예비 사례분석 결과는 1) CEO의 전략적 의지와 기업 문화 2) 리더십과 변화 주도 챔피언의 존재 3) 디자인 원칙과 방식 4) 에코시스템과 협력체계, 5) 지속적 R&D 투자가 혁신역량 및 혁신활동 강화의 촉진 요소로 작용함을 보여주었다.
Motivation and activities for technological learning, entrepreneurship, innovation, and creativity are driving forces of economic development in Asian countries. In the early stages of technological development, technological learning and entrepreneurship are efficient ways in which to catch up with...
Motivation and activities for technological learning, entrepreneurship, innovation, and creativity are driving forces of economic development in Asian countries. In the early stages of technological development, technological learning and entrepreneurship are efficient ways in which to catch up with advanced countries because firms can accumulate skills and knowledge quickly at relatively low risk. In the later stages of technological development, however, innovation and creativity become more important. This study aims to identify a) the factors (learning capabilities) that influence technological learning performance and b) barriers to enhancing innovation capabilities for the creative economy and organizations. The major part of this study is related to learning capabilities in the post-catch-up era. Based on a literature review and observations from Korean experiences, this study proposes a technological learning model composed of various influencing factors on technological learning. Three hypotheses are derived, and data are collected from Korean machine tool manufacturers. Intense interviews with CEOs and R&D directors are conducted using structured questionnaires. Statistical analysis, such as correlation and ANOVA are then carried out. Furthermore, this study addresses how to enhance innovation capabilities to move forward. Innovation enablers and barriers are identified by case studies and policy analysis. The results of the empirical study identify several levels of firms' learning capabilities and activities such as a) stock of technology, b) potential of technical labor, c) explicit technological efforts, d) readiness to learn, e) top management support, f) a formal technological learning system, g) high learning motivation, h) appropriate technology choice, and i) specific goal setting. These learning capabilities determine firms' learning performance, especially in the early stages of development. Furthermore, it is found that the critical factors for successful technological learning vary along the stages of technology development. Throughout the statistical and policy analyses, this study confirms that technological learning can be understood as an intrinsic principle of the technology development process. Firms perform proactive and creative learning in the late stages, while reactive and imitative learning prevails in the early stages. In addition, this study identifies the driving forces or facilitating factors enhancing innovation performance in the post catch-up era. The results of the preliminary case studies and policy analysis show some facilitating factors such as a) the strategic intent of the CEO and corporate culture, b) leadership and change agents, c) design principles and routines, d) ecosystem and collaboration with partners, and e) intensive R&D investment.
Motivation and activities for technological learning, entrepreneurship, innovation, and creativity are driving forces of economic development in Asian countries. In the early stages of technological development, technological learning and entrepreneurship are efficient ways in which to catch up with advanced countries because firms can accumulate skills and knowledge quickly at relatively low risk. In the later stages of technological development, however, innovation and creativity become more important. This study aims to identify a) the factors (learning capabilities) that influence technological learning performance and b) barriers to enhancing innovation capabilities for the creative economy and organizations. The major part of this study is related to learning capabilities in the post-catch-up era. Based on a literature review and observations from Korean experiences, this study proposes a technological learning model composed of various influencing factors on technological learning. Three hypotheses are derived, and data are collected from Korean machine tool manufacturers. Intense interviews with CEOs and R&D directors are conducted using structured questionnaires. Statistical analysis, such as correlation and ANOVA are then carried out. Furthermore, this study addresses how to enhance innovation capabilities to move forward. Innovation enablers and barriers are identified by case studies and policy analysis. The results of the empirical study identify several levels of firms' learning capabilities and activities such as a) stock of technology, b) potential of technical labor, c) explicit technological efforts, d) readiness to learn, e) top management support, f) a formal technological learning system, g) high learning motivation, h) appropriate technology choice, and i) specific goal setting. These learning capabilities determine firms' learning performance, especially in the early stages of development. Furthermore, it is found that the critical factors for successful technological learning vary along the stages of technology development. Throughout the statistical and policy analyses, this study confirms that technological learning can be understood as an intrinsic principle of the technology development process. Firms perform proactive and creative learning in the late stages, while reactive and imitative learning prevails in the early stages. In addition, this study identifies the driving forces or facilitating factors enhancing innovation performance in the post catch-up era. The results of the preliminary case studies and policy analysis show some facilitating factors such as a) the strategic intent of the CEO and corporate culture, b) leadership and change agents, c) design principles and routines, d) ecosystem and collaboration with partners, and e) intensive R&D investment.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
문제 정의
Many firms that have learned imported technologies and internalized them successfully in catching-up countries have distinctive characteristics. The purpose of this study is to find those characteristics and explain technological learning with them. It is somewhat difficult to accomplish this purpose, however, because there is little empirical research on the performance of learning at the organizational level.
This study assumes that the extent of technological learning capabilities results in differences in technological performance among products, firms, industries, and countries. Thus, it concentrates on the relation between technological learning capabilities and performance.
This study identifies the different roles of technological learning capabilities in promoting innovation and creativity to move along the stages of technological and economic development. Furthermore, it confirms that technological learning can be understood as an intrinsic principle of the technology development process.
가설 설정
Hypothesis 1: Firms’ technological learning performance in a developing country is dependent on learning capabilities. 1) The higher the accumulated technologies, which is related to the acquired technology, 2) the larger the potential of technical manpower, 3) the more explicit the technological efforts and investment to internalize the acquired technology, 4) the larger the readiness to learning when new technology is imported, 5) the higher the support of top management, 6) the more formalized the technological learning system, or more systematic technology accumulation and technological learning, 7) the higher the motivation to learn, 8) the more appropriate the technology choice, and 9) the more concrete and difficult the goal, the higher the performance of technological learning is.
Hypothesis 1 explains that a firm’s technological learning performance depends on its learning capabilities.
Hypothesis 1: Firms’ technological learning performance in a developing country is dependent on learning capabilities.
Hypothesis 2: Critical influencing factors change according to the technological development stage. In the early internalization stage, learning motivation, top management support, and appropriate technology choice are more important, whereas in the late internalization stage, explicit technological efforts, technology accumulation, and formal learning systems are more critical.
Hypothesis 3: The higher the technology development stage, the higher the level of technological learning is. Learning is more reactive in the initialization stage than proactive; on the contrary, proactive learning is performed much more in the internalization stage.
Taken together, this study aims to identify the factors that influence technological learning performance in the catch-up innovation era and analyze whether these influencing factors vary along the stages of technology development. In this regard, this study posits following three research questions a) what is relations between learning capabilities and technological performance? b) Does critical technological learning capabilities change according to the technological development stages? and c) what is relations between technological learning levels and technology development stages?
제안 방법
The shows that the following factors are promoting and facilitating successful transition from catch-up to post catch-up innovation, such as: a) strategic intent of founders and CEOs and corporate culture, b) leadership and change agents, c) design principles and routine, d) ecosystem including collaboration with partners, and e) committed resources and intensive R&D investment. Further studies are needed to elaborate the analyses and fact findings. Table 9 represents successful post catch-up innovations of FINEX by POSCO.
Taken together, this study aims to identify the factors that influence technological learning performance in the catch-up innovation era and analyze whether these influencing factors vary along the stages of technology development. In this regard, this study posits following three research questions a) what is relations between learning capabilities and technological performance? b) Does critical technological learning capabilities change according to the technological development stages? and c) what is relations between technological learning levels and technology development stages?
Good examples are selected firms in the semiconductor, automobile, steelmaking, and online game industries. They conducted a preliminary case study on new iron-making tech- nology called FINEX, commercialized by POSCO. The shows that the following factors are promoting and facilitating successful transition from catch-up to post catch-up innovation, such as: a) strategic intent of founders and CEOs and corporate culture, b) leadership and change agents, c) design principles and routine, d) ecosystem including collaboration with partners, and e) committed resources and intensive R&D investment.
This study suggests a technological learning theory based on the review of related literature and preliminary case studies and analyzes the proposed theory empirically. Although it tries to identify the factors influencing the performance of technological learning, technological learning is an underlying process and is not easily observed.
데이터처리
To examine the relations between technology learning capabilities and learning performance in Hypothesis 1, we employed correlation analysis. Because Hypothesis 2 tests the differences of the importance of each technology learning capabilities according to each technology development stage, ANOVA test and Duncan multiple range test were used. Regarding Hypothesis 3, this study employed chi-square test to examine whether there are significant differences of learning level among categories by the types of learning and each technology development stage.
Because Hypothesis 2 tests the differences of the importance of each technology learning capabilities according to each technology development stage, ANOVA test and Duncan multiple range test were used. Regarding Hypothesis 3, this study employed chi-square test to examine whether there are significant differences of learning level among categories by the types of learning and each technology development stage.
참고문헌 (50)
Adler, P. S. and K. B. Clark (1991). "Behind the learning curve: A sketch of the learning process," Management Science 37, 267-281.
Argyris, C. and D. A. Schon (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Addison-Wesley, MA.
Bell, M. (1984). "Learning and the accumulation of industrial technological capacity in developing countries," In: M. Fransman and K. King (eds.). Technological capability in the third world. McMillan, London.
Bell, M., D. Scott-Kemmis, and W. Satyarakwit (1982). "Limited learning in infant industry: A case study," In: F. Stewart and J. James (eds.). The economics of new technology in developing countries, Westview Press, Colorado.
Bell, R. and S. Hill (1978). "Research on technology transfer and innovation," In: F. Brandbury et al. (eds.). Transfer process in technical change. Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.
Caiazza, R. and T. Volpe (2016). "Innovation and Its Diffusion: Process, Actors and Actions," Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 1-9.
Christensen, C. M. and S. P. Kaufman (2009). "Assessing your organization's capabilities: Resources, processes and priorities," 153-164. In Burgelman, R. A., C. M. Christensen, and S. C. Wheelwright (eds), Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Choung, J. Y., H. R. Hwang, and W. Song (2014). "Transitions of innovation activities in latecomer countries: An exploratory case study of South Korea," World Development 54, 156-167.
Cohen, W. M. and D. A. Levinthal (1990). "Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation," Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 128-152.
Dahlman, C. J. and L. E. Westphal (1981). The acquisition of technological mastery in industry. Department of Economic Development, World Bank, April.
Ettlie, J. E. and A. H. Rubenstein (1981). "Stimulating the flow of innovations to the U.S. automotive industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1, 33-55.
Fiol, C. M. and M. A. Lyles (1985). "Organizational learning," Academy of Management Review 10, 803-813.
Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, Jul.-Aug.
Gil, Y., S. Bong, and J. Lee (2003). "Integration model of technology internalization modes and learning strategy: globally late starter Samsung's successful practices in South Korea," Technovation 23, 333-347.
Guglielmino, P. J., L. M. Guglielmino, and H. B. Long (1987). "Self-didrected learning readiness and performance in the workplace," Higher Education 16, 303-317.
Kolb, D. (1974). "On management and the learning process," In: D. A. Kolb, I. M. Rubin, and J. M. McIntyre (eds.). Organizational psychology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Kim, D. H. (1993). "The link between individual and organizational learning," Sloan Management Review 35, 37-50.
Kim, L. (1997). Imitation to innovation: The dynamics of Korea's technological learning, Harvard Business Press.
Kim, L. (1998). "Crisis construction and organizational learning: Capability building in catching-up at Hyundai Motor," Organization Science 9, 506-521.
Larkin, J. H. (1979). "Processing information for effective problem solving," Engineering Education 70, 285-288.
Lee, J., Z. Bae, and D. Choi (1988). "Technology development processes: A model for a developing country with a global perspective," R&D Management 18, 235-250.
Mohaghar, A., A. Monawarian, and H. Raassed (2012). "Evaluation of technology transfer strategy of petrochemical process," Journal of Technology Transfer 37, 563-576.
Nadler, D. and E. Lawler (1983). "Motivation: A diagnostic approach," In: J. R. Hickman et al. (eds.). Perspectives on behavior in organizations, McGraw-Hill, NewYork.
Nevis, E., A. DiBella, and J. M. Gould (1995). "Understanding organizations as learning systems," Sloan Management Review 37, 73-85.
Nonaka, I. (1994). "A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation," Organization Science 5, 14-37.
Radnor, M., A. H. Rubenstein, and D. A. Tansik (1970). "Implementation in operations research and R&D in government and business organization," Operations Research 18, 967-991.
Rosenberg, N. (1982). "Learning by using," In: N. Rosenberg (eds.). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge University Press.
Rothwell, R., C. Freeman, A. Horlsey, V. T. P. Jervis, A. B. Robertson, and J. Townsend (1974). "SAPPHO updated: Project SAPPHO phase II," Research Policy 3, 259-291.
Rubenstein, A., A. Chakrabarti, and R. O'Keefe (1974). Final technical report on field studies of the technical innovation process. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, Northwestern University, September.
Senge, P. M. (1990). "The leader's new work: Building learning organizations," Sloan Management Review 32, 1-23.
Sitkin, S. B., K. E. See, C. C. Miller, and M. W. Lawless (2011) "The paradox of stretch goals: Organizations in pursuit of the seemingly impossible," Academy of Management Review 36, 544-566.
Steers, R. M. and L. W. Porter (1979). Motivation and work behavior. McGraw-Hill, New York.
TDRI (1989). The development of Thailand's technological capability in industry: Capability development for the electronics and information technology-based industries. TDRI Final Report, 5, March.
Veugelers, R. and B. Cassiman (1999). "Make or buy in innovation strategy: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms," Research Policy 28, 63-80.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.