본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

개방형 혁신이 혁신성과에 기여하는가? : 한국 중소기업으로부터의 실증적 증거

Does Open Innovation Contribute to Innovation Performance? :Empirical Evidences from Korean SMEs

권영관
한국중소기업학회|2010.06|중소기업연구|제32권 제2호|pp. 145-168

2

조회

0

다운로드

52

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

SMEs중소기업혁신성과개방형 혁신Open InnovationInnovation Performance개방형 R&D혁신네트워크Open R&DInnovation Network
주제분류경영학

초록

혁신은 경제성장 뿐 아니라 기업의 지속가능한 경쟁우위 확보에 있어서 매우 중요한 요인이다. 최근 개방형 혁신(Open Innovation)이라는 새로운 혁신패러다임으로 급속히 전환되고 있는 시대적 상황하에서 본 연구는 이론적 논의나 주로 대기업을 대상으로 한 사례연구 내지 소규모 조사자료를 바탕으로 한 기존의 연구를 보완하고, 나아가 경영실무자나 정책입안자에게 혁신전략 또는 혁신정책에 있어 중요한 시사점을 제시하는 것을 목표로 하고 있다. 이를 위해 한국 중소기업을 대상으로 한 대규모 설문조사자료를 바탕으로, 한국 중소기업들의 개방형 혁신활동과 혁신성과와의 관계에 대한 실증분석을 수행하였다. 본 연구는 개방형 혁신의 다양한 방식들 중에서 특히 ‘Inbound(outside-in process)' 개방형 혁신에 초점을 맞추고 있다. 실증분석결과는 다음과 같이 요약된다. 첫째, 중소기업의 혁신성과 향상을 위해서는 우선 자체 R&D 노력이 중요하다는 증거를 얻었다. 둘째, 자체 R&D노력과는 별도로 개방형 혁신을 위한 R&D노력은 중소기업의 혁신성과 향상에 유효하며, 그러한 유효성은 개방형 R&D의 유형에 관계없이 일치된 결과가 얻어졌다. 셋째, 개방형 혁신을 위해 외부 혁신주체들과 공식적인 네트워크를 확대하는 것은 외부 혁신주체들로부터 획득하는 지식의 다양성을 증가시킬 수 있기 때문에 중소기업의 혁신성과에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 밝혀졌다. 마지막으로 자체 R&D노력과 개방형 혁신을 위한 R&D노력을 동시에 강화시키는 것은 중소기업의 혁신성과에 오히려 부정적인 상호작용을 초래하는 것으로 밝혀졌다. 이러한 실증적 증거들은 그 동안 개방형 혁신에 대한 이론적 논의 및 주로 선진국의 대기업을 중심으로 한 사례연구들이 보여주는 개방형 혁신의 유효성이 한국 중소기업에도 유효한 혁신패러다임이라는 것을 확인시켜주고 있으며, 혁신 내지 개방형 혁신을 연구하는 학자는 물론 경영실무자, 정책입안자에게 개방형 혁신 전략 내지 혁신정책에 대한 중요한 시사점을 제공해준다는 점에서 그 의의가 크다.

Abstract

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) play an important role in national economy and are also important objects of economic and industrial policies in industrialized economies. On the other hand, innovation is a critical factor for sustainable competitive advantage of firm as well as for long-run economic growth. Therefore, most innovative firms invest much resource in innovation activities including R&D, one of important business activities in firms. However, innovation can be more difficult challenge for SMEs because SMEs, in general, have lacks of innovation resources and complementary assets such as marketing and production capabilities, etc. for commercializing innovative outputs. In addition, environmental changes around innovation characterized by decreasing product life cycles, increasing uncertainty and risk of R&D, etc. are also other barriers for innovation of firms including SMEs. Accordingly, many firms tend to search new knowledge from various external sources and to pursue to achieve innovations through cooperation with broadly distributed external innovators for gaining access to or sharing innovation resources or knowledge of external innovators. This innovation strategy can be incorporated within a new conceptual framework called ‘Open Innovation', which nowadays is recognized as a new innovation paradigm by many academic scholars and business managers and is spreading rapidly to academics and business practices even though there is a controversy surrounding the open innovation. As a result, theoretical discussions and case studies related to the open innovation are fast growing. Nonetheless, there are lacks of empirical literatures dealing with the open innovation activities of firms, particularly SMEs, and thus we have little empirical evidences about how opening for innovation can shape innovation performance of firms (including SMEs). Under this context, this research empirically investigates the relationship between open innovation and the innovation performance of firms by focusing on SMEs in South Korea in basis on a large scale survey, named ‘Survey on Technology of SMEs', which has been conducted by a public organization, Korea Foundation of Small and Medium Enterprises, in South Korea from 1995. Objective of this empirical research is to complement previous literatures on open innovation and to give some implications to business managers and policy-makers interested in development and implementation of innovation strategy or policy. To do so, this research explored the effectiveness of the open innovation on innovation performance of SMEs especially by focusing on ‘Inbound' open innovation (outside-in process) even though there are many important open innovation mechanisms categorized into ‘Outbound' type (inside-out process) and the coupled process of Inbound and Outbound. More concretely speaking, the paper examined the effectiveness on SMEs' innovation performance of opening R&D processes in two perspectives of the openness, investments in open R&D activities and networking for open R&D. Open R&D activities were divided by two different categories such as ‘collaboration R&D' and ‘bought-in R&D', whereas networking for open R&D was focused on formal relationship with different types of external innovators and examined in a viewpoint of network size. Furthermore, this empirical paper also investigated how the internal R&D effort influences innovation performance of SMEs because most firms invest much resource in internal innovation activities simultaneously in spite of pursuing to open innovation strategies. In addition, this study tried to obtain empirical evidences about how interactions between the internal R&D effort and the open R&D efforts influence the innovation performance of SMEs. The data used in this study were those that had been collected for total 3,400 sample SMEs that had conducted R&D during the past two years (from 2005 to 2006), which is a largest survey of innovation activities of SMEs in South Korea. However, because the innovation performance of firms as the dependent variable was measured by sales from new or advanced products (including services) from innovation activities, the sample size used in model estimations was 2,911 by eliminating the data for firms that pursued only to process innovations during the sample period. The reason why the measure of the innovation performance of firms was used is to reflect recent trends of studies on innovation based on CIS (Community Innovation Survey) even though this approach has a weakness not of considering process innovation performance. From analysis of the sample characteristics during the past two years, 54.3% (1,580 firms) of the sample conducted open R&D for innovation, and portion of firms conduced the collaboration R&D was higher than that of the bought-in R&D during the period. Share of firms with employees less than 100 was 74.1%, and average age of sample SMEs was 13.3 years since the year of foundation. Startups that were defined by firms with age no more than 3 years shared 7.1% of total sample firms, and average R&D intensity of sample firms was 12.1%. On the other hand, results of correlation analysis showed there is negative correlation between the in-house R&D investments and the investments in the open R&D including both the collaboration R&D and the bought-in R&D, which implies potential substitution between both. In addition, size of firm showed positive correlations with the internal R&D investments as well as the open R&D investments including two sub-categories, which imply a possibility that larger firms might play more important role especially in the outside-in process of open innovation. In estimating the models which are relating the independent variables to the innovation performance as the dependent variable, several variables were introduced to control potential effects on the innovation performance of other factors different from independent variables. Those control variables include R&D intensity, size of firm, age of firm, a dummy representing startups, 14 dummies of industries. The models were estimated by Tobit regression because the dependent variable had censored distribution inherently and the sample had a selection bias to firms with R&D activities. Empirical findings can be summarized as follows : first, the internal R&D investments affected positively the innovation performance of SMEs. This is consistent with arguments that the in-house R&D efforts play an important role in increasing the innovation performance of firms. Second, SMEs conducted open R&D achieved higher innovation performance than others. In addition, estimation results showed that increasing the investments in open R&D activities was effective for enhancing the innovation performance of SMEs regardless of open R&D categories, i.e. the collaboration R&D and the bought-in R&D. Third, empirical findings also indicated that expanding formal innovation networks for open R&D enhances the innovation performance of SMEs. Forth, although both the in-house R&D effort and the open R&D effort has positive relations to the innovation performance of SMEs respectively, it was showed that both have negative interactions to the enhancement of innovation performance of SMEs. In other words, the in-house R&D investments negatively moderated the effectiveness on the innovation performance of both of open R&D investments and the size of open R&D network. Accordingly, we found the evidence that strengthening both the in-house R&D effort and the open R&D effort (investments and formal networking) simultaneously affects negatively the innovation performance of SMEs. In addition to complementing previous literatures on the open innovation mainly focusing on some advanced countries, these empirical findings show that the open innovation strategy is valid for enhancing the innovation performance of SMEs but business managers or policy-makers need to be careful in implementing or supporting the open innovation activities so as not to give rise to negative interactions with in-house innovation activities of firms.

참고문헌 (106)

  1. 곽수일, "중소기업의 기술 네트워킹과 혁신성과에 관한 실증연구", 중소기업연구, 20(2), pp.51~71 (1998)
  2. 김영조, "중소기업의 기술협력 활동이 기술혁신 성과 및 재무성과에 미치는 영향*-부산지역 중소 제조업체를 대상으로-", 중소기업연구, 27(3), pp.123~154 (2005), 한국중소기업학회
  3. 김영조, "기술협력 활동이 중소기업의 기술혁신 성과에 미치는 영향:지식흡수능력(Absorptive Capacity)의 조절효과를 중심으로", 경영학연구, 34(5), pp.1365~1390 (2005), 한국경영학회
  4. 배종태, "국내 중소기업의 기술협력 활동과 성과간의 관계에 관한 연구", 중소기업연구, 19(2), pp.273~296 (1997)
  5. 복득규, "한국 제조업의 개방형 혁 기술 혁신 현황과 효과 분석", 삼성경제연구소 Issue paper (2008)
  6. 유태욱, "기술혁신 활동, 기술적 성과, 경제적 성과 간의 관계에 관한 실증연구 : 기술혁신형 중소기업을 중심으로", 기업가정신과 벤처연구, 12(4), pp.69~93 (2009), 한국중소기업학회
  7. 윤진효, "클러스터간 기업의 개방형 혁신과 성과의 관계 분석연구 - 성서 및 구미 클러스터를 중심으로 -", 한국정책학회보, 17(4), pp.163~191 (2008), 한국정책학회
  8. 이병헌, "혁신형 중소기업과 일반중소기업간 기술혁신 및 성과 차이와 정책적 시사점", 벤처경영연구, 11(1), pp.79~100 (2008)
  9. 조부연, "파트너십 관계-개방형 혁신 프로세스 프레임워크에 대한 탐색적 연구", 정보관리연구, 41(2), pp.47~69 (2010), 한국과학기술정보연구원
  10. Ahuja, G, "Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation : A longitudinal study", Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), pp.425~455 (2000)
  11. Arora, A, "Complementary and external linkages : Strategies of the large firms in Biotechnology", Journal of Industrial Economics, 38(4), pp.361~379 (1990)
  12. Bechman, C, "Network Learning : The effects of partner's heterogeneity of experience on corporate acquisitions", Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, pp.92~124 (2002)
  13. Becker, W, "R&D Cooperation and innovation activities of firms-evidence for the German manufacturing industry", Research Policy, 33(2), pp.209~223 (2004)
  14. Biggs, T, "African SMES, networks, and manufacturing performance", Journal of Banking and Finance, 30(11), pp.3043~3066 (2006)
  15. Bougrain, F, "Innovation, Collaboration, and SMEs Internal Research Capabilities", Research Policy, 31(5), pp.735~747 (2002)
  16. Brioschi, F, "From the industrial district to the district group : an insight into the evolution of local capitalism in Italy", Regional Studies, 36(9), pp.1037~1052 (2002)
  17. Bruque, S, "Organisational determinants of information technology adoption and implementation in SMEs : The case of family and cooperative firms", Technovation, 27(5), pp.241~253 (2007)
  18. Bullinger, H. J, "Managing innovation networks in the knowledge-driven economy", International Journal of Production Research, 42(17), pp.3337~3353 (2004)
  19. Cesaroni, F, "Technological Outsourcing and Product diversification: do markets for technology affect firms' strategies?", Research Policy, 33, pp.1547~1564 (2004)
  20. Chen, Y. S, "The positive effects of relationship learning and absorptive capacity on innovation performance and competitive advantage in industrial markets", Industrial Marketing Management, 38(2) (2009)
  21. Chesbrough, H, "Open Innovation : The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology" (2003), Harvard Business School Press
  22. Chesbrough, H. W, "The era of open innovation", MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), pp.35~41 (2003)
  23. Cocburn, I. M, "Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery", Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), pp.157~182 (1998)
  24. Cohen, W. M, "Absorptive-Capacity-a New Perspective on Learning and Innovation", Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), pp.128~152 (1990)
  25. Cohen, W. M, "Innovation and Learning-the 2 Faces of R-and-D", Economic Journal, 99, pp.569~596 (1989)
  26. Conceicao, P, "Innovation Science and Technology Commercialization Strategies at 3M : A Case Study", Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 19(1), pp.25~38 (2002)
  27. Crepon, B, "Research, Innovation, Productivity : an econometric analysis at the firm level", Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7(2), pp.115~158 (1998)
  28. Cyert, R, "A behavioral theory of the firm" (1963), Prentice-Hall
  29. Deeds, D. L, "The role of R&D intensity, technical development and absorptive capacity in creating entrepreneurical wealth in high technology start-ups", Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18, pp.29~47 (2001)
  30. Deeds, D. L, "Strategic alliances, complementary assets, and new product development : An empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms", Journal of Business Venturing, 11(1), pp.41~55 (1996)
  31. Diez, J. R, "Innovative networks in manufacturing : some empirical evidence from the metropolitan area of Barcelona", Technovation, 20(3), pp.139~150 (2000)
  32. Dugal, S. S, "Revisiting Corporate R&D spending during a recession", Research-Technology Management, 38(4), pp.23~27 (1995)
  33. Eberhart, A. C, "An examination of long-term abnormal stock returns and operating performance following R&D increase", Journal of Finance, 59(2), pp.623~649 (2004)
  34. Enkel, E, "Open R&D and open innovation : exploring the phenomenon", R & D Management, 39(4), pp.311~316 (2009)
  35. Feinberg, E. S, "Technology Spillovers from foreign direct investment in the India pharmaceutical industry", Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), pp.421~437 (2001)
  36. Foster, R. N, "Corporate performance and technological change through investor's eyes", Research-Technology Management, 46(6), pp.36~43 (2003)
  37. Francalanci, C, "IS integration and business performance : The mediation effect of organizational absorptive capacity in SMEs", Journal of Information Technology, 23(4), pp.297~312 (2008)
  38. Freeman, C, "Technology, policy, and economic performance : lessons from Japan" (1987), Pinter Publishers
  39. Freeman, C, "Networks of Innovators : A Synthesis of Research Issues", Research Policy, 20, pp.499~514 (1991)
  40. Freeman, C, "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd ed" (1997), Pinter
  41. Frenz, M, "The impact on innovation performance of different sources of knowledge : Evidence from the UK Community Innovation Survey", Research Policy, 38(7), pp.1125~1135 (2009)
  42. Grant, R. M, "Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm", Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp.109~122 (1996)
  43. Griliches, Z, "Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth", Bell Journal of Economics, 10, pp.92~116 (1979)
  44. Griliches, Z, "Patent statistics as economic indicators : a survey", Journal of Economic literature, 28(4), pp.1661~1707 (1990)
  45. Grimpe, C, "Search patterns and absorptive capacity : Low and high-technology sectors in European countries", Research Policy, 38, pp.495~506 (2009)
  46. Hadjimanolis, A, "Barriers to innovation for SMEs in a small less developed country(Cyprus)", Technovation, 19(9), pp.561~570 (1999)
  47. Hagedoorn, J, "Strategic Technology Partnering During the 1980s : Trends, Networks, and Corporate Patterns in Non-core Technologies", Research Policy, 24, pp.207~231 (1995)
  48. Hagedoorn, J, "Inter-firmR&Dpartnerships-an overviewofpatternsand trends since 1960", Research Policy, 31(4), pp.477~492 (2002)
  49. Exploring the relationship between R&D and productivity in French manufacturing firms, "Hall, H. B", National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, ~, pp.NBER Working Papers Vol.3956 (1995)
  50. Henderson, R. M, "Scale, scope, and spillovers : the determinants of research productivity in drug discovery", The Rand Journal of Economics, 27(1), pp.32~59 (1996)
  51. Kafouros, M. I, "Industrial innovation and firm performance: The impact of scientific knowledge on multinational corporations" (2008), Edward Elgar
  52. Kafouros, M. I, "Economic returns to industrial research", Journal of Business Research, 61(8), pp.868~876 (2008)
  53. Kamien, M. I, "Market Structure and Innovation" (1982), Cambridge University Press
  54. Kaminski, P. C, "Knowledge transfer in product development processe s : a case study in small and medium enterprises(SMEs) of the metal-mechanic sector from Sao Paulo, Brazil", Technovation, 28(1-2), pp.29~36 (2008)
  55. Katila, R, "Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction", Academy of Management, 45(8), pp.1183~1194 (2002)
  56. Katila, R, "Exploiting Technological Opportunites : The timing of Collaboration", Research Policy, 32, pp.317~332 (2003)
  57. Katz, R, "Investigating the not invented here(NIH) syndrome : a look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D projects", R&D Management, 12(1), pp.7~19 (1982)
  58. Kaufmann, A, "How effective is innovation support for SMEs? An analysis of the region of Upper Austria", Technovation, 22(3), pp.147~159 (2002)
  59. Keizer, J. A, "Explaining Innovation Efforts of SMEs : An exploratory survey among SMEs in the Mechanical and Electrical engineering sector in the Netherlands", Technovation, 22(1), pp.1~13 (2002)
  60. Kennebley Jr, S, "Characteristics of Brazilian Innovative Firms : an empirical analysis based on PINTEC-industry research on technological innovation", Research Policy, 34(6), pp.872~893 (2005)
  61. Kessler, E, "Innovation Speed : a conceptual model of context, antecedents, and outcome", Academy of Management Review, 21, pp.1143~1191 (1996)
  62. Kim, H, "The impact of R&D collaboration on innovative performance in Korea : A Bayesian network approach", Scientometrics, 75(3), pp.535~554 (2008)
  63. Klevorick, A. K, "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities", Research Policy, 24, pp.185~205 (1995)
  64. Koput, K. W, "A chaotic model of innovative search : some answers, many questions", Organization Science, 8(5), pp.528~542 (1997)
  65. Larsson, S, "Innovations, competitiveness and local embeddedness", Geografiska Annaler Series B : Human Geography, 81(1), pp.1~18 (1999)
  66. Laursen, K, "Open for innovation : The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms", Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), pp.131~150 (2006)
  67. Lee, C, "Internal Capabilities, External networks, and Performance : A study on technology-based Ventures", Strategic Management Journal, 22, pp.615~640 (2001)
  68. Lee, J, "Small firms' Innovation in Two technological settings", Research Policy, 24, pp.391~401 (1995)
  69. Leonard-Barton, D, "Wellspring of Knowledge : Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation" (1995), HBS Press
  70. Levin, R. C, "Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development", Brookings Papers on Economic Activities, (3), pp.783~820 (1987)
  71. Liefner, I, "Cooperation in the innovation process in developing countries : empirical evidence from Zhongguancun, Beijing", Environment and Planning A, 38(1), pp.111~130 (2006)
  72. Lin, B. W, "R&D Intensity and Commercialization Orientation Effects on Financial Performance", Journal of Business Research, 59(6), pp.679~685 (2006)
  73. Mairesse, J, "The importance of R&D for innovation : A reassessment using French survey data", The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1), pp.183~197 (2004)
  74. Mariti, P, "Co-operative Agreements and the Ogranization of Industry", Journal of Industrial Economics, 31(4), pp.437~451 (1983)
  75. McCutchen, W. W, "Effects of R&D expenditures and funding strategies on the market value of biotech firms", Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 12, pp.287~299 (1996)
  76. Morbey, G, "How R&D affects sales growth, productivity and profitability", Research-Technology Management, 33(3), pp.11~14 (1990)
  77. Mosakowski, E, "Organizational boundaries and economic performance : An empirical study of enterpreneurial computer firms", Strategic Management Journal, 12, pp.115~133 (1991)
  78. Mowery, D, "The relationship between intrafirm and contractual forms of industrial research in American manufacturing, 1900~1940", Explorations in Economic History, 20, pp.351~374 (1983)
  79. Nelson, R, "National innovation systems: a comparative analysis" (1993), Oxford University Press
  80. Nieto, M. J, "The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation", Technovation, 27(6, pp.7) (2007), 367~377
  81. Noori, H, "Managing the Dynamics of New Technology : Issues in Manufacturing Management" (1990), New Jersey
  82. Patel, P, "National innovation systems : why they are important, and how they might be measured and compared", Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 3(1), pp.77~95 (2000)
  83. Pavitt, K. L. R, "Technologies, products and organization in the innovating firm: what Adam Smith Tells us and Joseph Schumpeter doesn't", Industrial and CorporateChange, 7, pp.433~452 (1998)
  84. Pearce, R, "Oversee R&D and the strategic evolution of MNEs : evidence from laboratories in the UK", Research Policy, 28(1), pp.23~41 (1999)
  85. Peres, W, "Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturing Enterprises in Latin America and the Caribbean Under the New Economic Model", World Development, 28(9), pp.1643~1655 (2000)
  86. Rosenberg, N, "Inside the Black Box : Technology and Economics" (1982), Cambridge University Press
  87. Scherer, F. M, "Firm size, market structure, opportunity and the output of patented inventions", American Economic Review, 55(2), pp.1097~1125 (1965)
  88. Scherer, F. M, "Market structure and the employment of scientists and engineers", American Economic Review, 57(3), pp.524~531 (1967)
  89. Scherer, F. M, "Schumpeter and plausible capitalism", Journal of Economic Literature, 30(3), pp.1416~1433 (1992)
  90. Scherer, F. M, "Industrial market structure and economic performance" (1990), Houghton-Mifflin
  91. Schoenecker, T, "Indicators of firm technological capability : validity and performance implications", IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49, pp.36~44 (2002)
  92. Schumpeter, J. A, "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" (1942), Unwin
  93. Shaw, B, "Networking as an Innovation Strategy. in: Innovation Strategies : Theoretical Approaches, Experience, Improvements" (1992), Elsevier
  94. Szulanski, G, "Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice with the Firm", Strategic Management Journal, 41, pp.464~476 (1996)
  95. Teece, D. J, "Profiting from technological innovation : implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy", Research Policy, 15, pp.285~305 (1986)
  96. Tether, B, "Who co-operates for innovation, and why. An empirical analysis", Research Policy, 31(6), pp.947~967 (2002)
  97. Tidd, J, "Organizational and Technological antecedents for Knowledge acquisition and learning", R&D Management, 27(4), pp.359~375 (1997)
  98. Tubbs, M, "The Relationship between R&D and Company performance", Research-Technology Management, 50(6), pp.23~30 (2007)
  99. van de Vrande, V, "Open innovation in SMEs : Trends, motives and management challenges", Technovation, 29(6, pp.7) (2009), 423~437
  100. Vega-Jurado, J, "Does external knowledge sourcing matter for innovation? Evidence from the Spanish manufacturing industry", Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(4), pp.637~670 (2009)
  101. Venkatesan, R, "Strategy sourcing : to make or not to make", Harvard Business Review, 39, pp.98~107 (1992)
  102. von Hippel, E, "The sources of Innovation" (1988), Oxford University Press
  103. von Hippel, E, "Economics of Product Development by Users : The Impact of 'Sticky' Local Informantion", Managemen Science, 44, pp.629~644 (1998)
  104. Wincent, J, "Network board continuity and effectiveness of open innovation in Swedish strategic small-firm networks", R&D Management, 39(1), pp.55~67 (2009)
  105. Zahra, S. A, "New ventures' inward licensing : examining the effects of industry and strategy characteristics", European Management Review, 2, pp.154~166 (2005)
  106. Zeng, S. X, "Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs", Technovation, 30(3), pp.181~194 (2010)

관련 논문AI추천

중소기업의 결합형 개방형 혁신이 기업성과에 미치는 효과: R&D 및 R&D 이외의 혁신협력활동을 중심으로박지훈, 이정우한국지식경영학회 · 지식경영연구2022 · 제23권 제4호중소 제조기업의 개방형 혁신 특성에 관한 연구이병윤한국전문경영인학회 · 전문경영인연구2014 · 제17권 제4호개방형 혁신이 중소기업의 혁신성과에 미치는 영향: 3단계 최소자승법을 이용한 추정정명선한국디지털정책학회 · 디지털융복합연구2021 · 제19권 제5호개방형 혁신과 조직의 혁신역량이 성과에 미치는 영향주혜린, 황정윤중소벤처기업연구원 · 중소기업정책연구2020 · 제5권 제1호개방형 혁신과 혁신 성과에 관한 연구 : 한국의 제조업을 중심으로김병일, 정도범사단법인 인문사회과학기술융합학회 · 예술인문사회 융합 멀티미디어 논문지2017 · 제7권 제1호기업 내･외부요인과 개방형 혁신활동 및 개방형 혁신성과에 관한 실증연구최위, 정진섭한국기업경영학회 · 기업경영연구2015 · 제22권 제6호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)

기대감사시간과 감사품질이 비상장기업의 감사보수 결정에 미치는 영향곽수근, 박종일pp. 1-28기업규모 및 상장시장에 따른 재무분석가의 이익예측치 미달 회피성향의 차이최종학, 남혜정pp. 29-48퍼지집합이론을 이용한 중소기업 교육훈련 사업 평가이해춘, 심우일pp. 49-65하도급거래에서 고객업체와 공급업체의 위험분담에 관한 연구홍장표pp. 67-81대기업과 중소기업 사이 성과공유제 성공요인 분석김기학, 윤병섭, 장지인pp. 83-113
원문 보기