지식기반서비스산업 중소기업의 혁신유형별 기술혁신활동 특성분석과 활성화 방안

Abstract

At this paper we tried to find out the characteristics of knowledge-based service sector in small and medium enterprises in Korea. And we also identified the factors which promote technology innovation activity in these sectors. Knowledge-based service industry is related to knowledge factors-R&D activity, ICT, and skilled labor force, etc-among the activity of supporting firms' production. There are 15 industries, including telecommunications, financial services, professional service etc. Knowledge-based service is core industry which plays an important role in economic growth in 21st century. Recently the share of knowledge-based service sector in GDP is rapidly increased. In the representative knowledge based industry, telecommunication, finance insurance and business service industry, the share of production in GDP is increased to 24.6% in 2007 from 20.6% in 2000. Bart van Ark(2004) classified service industries into four innovation pattern-1) Supplier dominated, 2) Innovation in services, 3) Client-led and 4) Innovation based on their linkages or interactions between suppliers of inputs(equipment, capital, human resources and so on), service firms and clients(end users or intermediate users). We classified the 1,375 Korean knowledge-based service SMEs into these four patterns based on their industries. For the empirical analysis we used the ‘Technology Innovation Survey in Service Sectors' which conducted by STEPI in 2006. It provide a lot of information about innovation of 2,498 firm in service industry. It include the product, market, R&D, technology innovation, source of innovation, joint R&D activity, acquisition of technology, network, government support, problem in innovation, non-technological innovation activity, innovation cost and protection, result of technology innovation, etc. We drew out 1,375 SMEs which belonged to knowledge-based service industry. It took several decades before the variety in service innovation was recognised. This can partly be explained by the fact that a major part of innovation studies was for a long time focussed almost exclusively on manufacturing industries and technological innovation. The Pavitt(1984) provided four archetypal innovation trajectories or patterns i.e. ‘supplier dominated’, ‘scale intensive’, ‘specialized suppliers’ and ‘science based’. Although originally aimed at describing technological trajectories at firm level, the Pavitt classification is mostly applied at the sectoral level leading to some generalizations. Services have mostly been classified categorically as supplier dominated, suggesting that most service firms do not have an autonomous innovation function. Only during the 1990s, and thanks to the increased use of ICT in services, this passive image of service innovations has been corrected. Bart van Ark, Lourens Broersma and Pim den Hertog(2003) use the suppliers of inputs (equipment, capital, human resources and so on), service firms and clients (end users or intermediate users) interact. The influence that the client firm/organization or final consumer exerts on the innovation process gradually increases from pattern 1 to pattern 4. Pattern 1, supplier-dominated innovation; services innovations (as a rule technological innovations in the form of new technical equipment) are largely based on basically technological innovations as supplied by hardware manufacturers. These innovations from external suppliers are disseminated and implemented by service industry users, who in turn satisfy the needs of their clients. There is little scope for user industries to influence the actual product supplied by the supplier. But the adopting firm often has to bring about some organizational changes in order to be able to use the innovation-to adapt its organization, train its employees, etc.-and to offer more a efficient and higher quality service as a result. Pattern 2, innovation within services; the actual innovation and implementation is initiated by and takes place in the service firm itself. Such innovations may be technological, non-technological, or (in many cases) a combination of the two. Typical examples of this pattern involve a new product, product bundle, or delivery system, that is developed by the service firm itself, and implemented throughout the organization, possibly with ‘innovation support’ from outside. These are typically the sort of innovations that have been overlooked in the statistics because of their more conceptual nature rather than hardcore development activity. Pattern 3, client-led innovation; the service firm innovates on the basis of specific needs that are articulated by its clients. While, in a sense, every successful innovation is a reaction to a perceived market need, for some service innovations this is more explicit than for others. In some cases the demands are expressed by segments of mass markets. In many other cases the influence may come from a single client, as is often the case in business services. For instance, a client may propose to a training firm that it facilitates its face-to-face sessions with computer-based aids. And the last pattern 4, innovation through services; the service firm influences the innovation process that takes place within a client firm. The provider of intermediate services may provide knowledge resources that support the innovation process in various ways. Here especially the role of knowledge based services towards their clients can be referred to. In Korea SMEs, the highest proportion(55.6%) of knowledge-based service sector is 'Innovation through services' type which include industry code 721, 722, 730, 741, 742, 743 and 744. On the whole this type of service support other firm's innovation activity with it's own products(services). And the innovation activity of SMEs in this category is most vigorous. The most peculiar innovation pattern is 'Supplier dominated' type which include industry code 640, 871. In this pattern there is also outstanding in the viewpoint of product standardization, ICT investment, etc. We employ the regression model to identify the factors which promote technology innovation activity. The dependent variables are R&D expenditure for innovation and the number of innovation. And we used five kinds of independent variables-firm specific, product specific, market specific, innovation activity, and innovation environment variable. Regression result showed that the main factors that facilitate innovation activity of knowledge-based service sector SMEs is turned out ICT investment-proxy of product specific variable- and total innovation cost, joint research experiences-proxies of innovation activity variable. So the supporting policies for the knowledge-based service sector might be focused to promote the overall innovation cost and ICT investment and to establish the infrastructure for joint research networking. We issued five suggestion to promote innovation activity in knowledge-based service industry. First, most of all there need the policies to reinforce the linkage between main manufacturing industry and knowledge-based service industry to vitalize the innovation of knowledge based service sector. Second, it is essential to increase governmental R&D expenditure to promote innovation of SMEs. Third, the main factor for innovation in service industry is related to IT technology and equipment, so the support for IT equipment investment is required. Forth, there need to develop expert man power in knowledge-based service sector. Lastly, it is important to establish the infrastructure for facilitating innovation and reduce the cost for innovation focused on SMEs.