본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

중소기업의 특성이 기술혁신에 미치는 영향 -대구지역 중소 제조기업을 대상으로-

SMEs Characteristics and Technological Innovation -In the Case of Manufacturing SMEs in Daegu Region-

임재현|황수정|신진교
한국중소기업학회|2009.09|중소기업연구|제31권 제3호|pp. 73-91

0

조회

0

다운로드

19

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

SMEs중소기업재무성과Financial Performance기술혁신Technological Innovation기업 특성Firm Characteristics
주제분류경영학

초록

중소기업을 대상으로 기술혁신 결정요인을 분석한 실증연구는 부족한 실정이며, 수행된 연구 또한 단편적인 분석 수준에 머무르고 있다. 이에 본 연구는 기존연구에서 일관성을 보이지 못한 요인들과 통제변수로 도입된 요인들을 총체적으로 분석하고자 한다. 즉, 연령, 최고경영자의 기업가정신, 소유구조(경영진, 종업원, 외국인투자자 및 벤처캐피털의 주식소유), 규모 및 혁신능력이 기술혁신과 어떤 관계인지를 규명한다. 또한 기술혁신의 증가가 재무성과를 향상시키는지도 검증한다. 이를 위해 대구지역 제조기업 중 2004～2007년간 매출액이 30억원 이상인 185개 기업으로부터 설문자료를 수집하여 분석한 결과, 최고경영자의 기업가정신, 경영진․종업원․외국인투자자․벤처캐피털의 주식소유, 규모, 혁신능력은 기술혁신에 긍정적으로 유의한 영향을 미쳤으나 연령은 유의하지 않았다. 또한 기술혁신은 재무성과에 긍정적으로 유의한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구에서는 실증연구 결과의 이론적 및 실무적 시사점과 향후 연구의 방향도 함께 논의하고 있다.

Abstract

Technological innovation is widely recognized to be essential for the survival and growth of individual firms, and also for the sustainability of national and regional economic growth. There is strong evidence in the literature to support the view that technological innovation in manufacturing companies is one of the main reasons for industrial competitiveness and national development. According to several specialists, innovation is now unavoidable for companies which want to develop and maintain a competitive advantage and gain entry into new markets. Also, technological innovation is key to the economic performance of firms. Innovative firms grow more quickly and make higher profits. If nonetheless many firms do not dare to innovate, this has to do with several types of risks and uncertainties that lead to high failure rates. The undeniable importance of innovation for contemporary companies justifies the increasing interest that researchers are taking in it. However, if the number of papers on the topic has evolved exponentially during the last decades, there is still no precise prescription for successful technological innovation. Hence, the questions as to why some firms are technologically innovative and others are not, and what factors affect a firm's ability to innovate are fundamental to management research and practice. Namely, what determines SMEs' technological innovation? Several researchers have tested the effect of a large number of technological innovation-related variables. However, even though they tested similar variables, they discovered differing degrees of association with the rate of technological innovation. This dispersion of outcomes may have several reasons. One may be the heterogeneity regarding samples as well as methods. Samples differ as some studies investigate one specific industry whereas others cover several industries. Methods differ, as some studies are qualitative while others adopt a quantitative approach. A more general problem is that success or failure of projects is likely to have an impact on personal careers. People responsible for a successful project may tend to give the credits primarily to themselves, while in the case of failed projects one may try to shift responsibilities to others. The innovation process is thus still poorly understood and the current state of the literature contributes little to improving our understanding of the phenomenon. Accordingly, there is an obvious need to assess more systematically factors behind success of technological innovation. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of firm characteristics(firm age, CEO's entrepreneurship, ownership structure, firm size, and innovative capability) on technological innovation using the firm level data in the case of manufacturing SMEs in Daegu region. In addition, this study will identify the relationship between technological innovation and financial performance. This study suggests that firm age, CEO's entrepreneurship, ownership structure, firm size, and innovative capability have significant and positive effects on technological innovation of small and medium-sized firms and that technological innovation have significant and positive effects on financial performance. A questionnaire was developed to measure the characteristics of SMEs and technological innovation performance. To test the hypotheses, data were collected from the small and medium-sized firms located in Daegu region. In order to increase the response rate, follow-up letters, emails and phone calls were used. A total 300 questionnaires were mailed. The survey data of 185 firms were collected and integrated as the empirical base for testing the hypotheses. Most respondents were from the managers. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to examine the hypotheses. Major results are as follows: Firstly, firm age was not significantly related to technological innovation. Thus, this research support neither of the previous claims, that firm age has a positive impact on technological innovation or that it has a negative impact on technological innovation. However, future research in the SMEs of other region is needed to verify whether similar results hold true. Secondly, CEO's entrepreneurship had significant and positive effects on technological innovation. Namely, the more CEO is innovative, the more successful technological innovation will be. This study confirmed previous research result that CEO's entrepreneurship has a significant positive influence on SMEs' technological innovation. Therefore, SMEs that want to introduce successful technological innovation should have to encourage their CEO's innovativeness. Thirdly, ownership structure had significant and positive effects on technological innovation. In other words, CEO stock ownership, employee stock ownership, foreign investors ownership, and venture capital ownership were positively related to SMEs' technological innovation. This result is similar with most of previous researches dealing with corporate governance structure and organizational innovation. Hence, SMEs should have to diversify their ownership structure to carry out technological innovation. Fourthly, firm size had significant and positive effects on technological innovation. The debate on the effect of size on technological innovation goes back to Schumpeter's fundamental work in which he proposes two contradictory assumptions. In 1934, he states that entrepreneurs and start-ups represent the foremost source of new ideas and technologies. However, in 1942, he suggests that innovation actively increases more than proportionally with firm size. The debate was thereby launched and size became one of the variables most studied as a determinants of technological innovation. But, this research result showed that firm size has a positive effect on technological innovation. This means that large SMEs companies have more resources to innovate and support risky activities than do small SMEs. Fifthly, innovative capability had significant and positive effects on technological innovation. The role that internal resources such as human resource play as an innovation determinant is varied. It helps companies to create, exploit and transform new knowledge into new products and/or processes. It also helps them to absorb (i.e. acquire, assimilate, transform, and exploit) new technologies appearing on the market and to attract collaborative partners. Also, doing innovation internally is particularly important for technological innovation in new-technology settings where it is very costly and particularly difficult, even impossible, to acquire new technologies produced by competitors. This research results suggested that staffing SMEs with highly educated, technically qualified and experienced personnel with diverse background is an important determinant of technological innovation. According to this research, excellent human resources help SMEs to create new technologies and absorb outside-developed ones. Research results also suggested that technological innovation was positively and significantly associated with financial performance. This results implies that technological innovation guarantees the success of small and medium-sized firms. Previous researches on the relationships between technological innovation and financial performance in SMEs suggested two type of research results. The one is no significant, and the other is positive and significant relationships between the two variables. Researchers asserted that technological innovation of SMEs has positive influence on financial performance because technological innovation can provide SMEs with new business opportunities, first-mover advantage, market competitiveness, competitive advantage, overseas new market expansion, and long-term survival. Also, technological innovation of SMEs contribute to financial performance through the improvement of business establishment, uplift of growth possibility, market share and productivity efficiency enlargement. Especially, High production efficiency by the technological innovation can accomplish new product development which tend to offer SMEs cost efficiency and customer satisfaction. Conclusively, these results suggested that CEO's entrepreneurship, ownership structure, firm size, and innovative capability were an important means by which small and medium-sized firms can promote innovation. Several future researches need to overcome the limitations of this research. First, although firm age was not significantly related with technological innovation in this research, it was very important factor influencing technological innovation in previous research. Therefore Future research needs to implement different samples. Secondly, future research must consider any other governance mechanism such as rival companies to extend our research findings. Thirdly, more control variables could investigate different results on this issue in the future.

참고문헌 (111)

  1. 강완규, "기술 혁신적 기업의 환경, 내부능력, 전략 및 조직분위기에 관한 연구", 인사조직연구, 1(1), pp.123~168 (1992)
  2. 김경묵, "기업 지배구조와 혁신 : 소유구조가 연구개발(R&D) 투자에 미치는 영향", 경영학연구, 32(6), pp.10~1832 (2003), 한국경영학회
  3. 김영조, "중소기업의 기술협력 활동이 기술혁신 성과 및 재무성과에 미치는 영향*-부산지역 중소 제조업체를 대상으로-", 중소기업연구, 27(3), pp.123~154 (2005), 한국중소기업학회
  4. 박노윤, "중소기업에서의 기술혁신과 영향요인의 관계", 중소기업연구, 20(2), pp.119~147 (1998)
  5. 신진교, "IT중소 . 벤처기업의 연구개발, 시장지향성, 혁신 및 성과", 벤처경영연구, 11(2), pp.25~39 (2008), 한국중소기업학회
  6. 송광선, "기술혁신의 영향요인에 관한 연구: 중소기업을 대상으로", 중소기업연구, 17(2), pp.169~192 (1995)
  7. 송상호, "기업유형과 기술혁신 영향요인 간의통합론적 연구", 경영학연구, 24(3), pp.177~213 (1995)
  8. 송상호, "기술혁신 유형과 기술혁신 영향요인에 관한 상황론적 연구", 인사·조직연구, 14(2), pp.177~213 (2006), 한국인사·조직학회
  9. 송위진, "산업별 기술혁신패턴 비교 분석", 과학기술정책, (123), pp.152~165 (2000)
  10. 신범철, "공기업 민영화 방법으로서의 ‘종업원지주제’ - 한국전력기술(주)를 중심으로", 종업원지주제 도입을 위한 공개토론회, pp.7~33 (2001)
  11. Acs,Z.J., "Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Technology, and Globalization: Introduction to a Special Issue on Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the Global Economy", Small Business Economics, 9(1), pp.1~6 (1997)
  12. Adams,R., "Innovation management measurement: A review: A review", International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), pp.21~47 (2006)
  13. Audretsch,D, "The role of small firms in U.S. biotechnology clusters", Small Business Economics, 17(1), pp.3~15 (2001)
  14. Banbury,C., "The Effect of Introducing Important Incremental Innovations on Market Share and Business Survival", Strategic Management Journal, 16, pp.161~182 (1995)
  15. Barney,J.B., "Organizational Economics: Towards a New Paradigm for Studying and Understanding Organizations" (1986), Jossey-Bass Publishers
  16. Barney,J.B, "Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage", Journal of Management, 17(1), pp.99~120 (1991)
  17. Baysinger,B.D., "Effects of Board and Ownership Structure on Corporate R&D Strategy", Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), pp.205~214 (1991)
  18. Becheikh,N., "Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993-2003", Technovation, 26(5), pp.644~664 (2006)
  19. Bedrock,R., "Managing innovation for survival and growth: Rotunda PLC — a case in point", 16th National Small Firms Policy and Research Conference (1993)
  20. Blair,M.M, "Rethinking Assumptions Behind Corporate Governance", Challenge, 38(6), pp.12~17 (1995)
  21. Brickley,J.A., "Ownership Structure and Voting on Antitakeover Amendments", Journal of Financial Economics, 20(1), pp.267~291 (1998)
  22. Brown,S.L., "The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organization", Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, pp.1~34 (1997)
  23. Bryant,A, "Some Second Thoughts on Options", New York Times, September, 21, Section 3, 1, ~ (1997)
  24. Cohen,W., "Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation", Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), pp.128~152 (1990)
  25. Covin,J.G., "Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments", Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), pp.217~234 (1989)
  26. Covin,J.G., "A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), pp.7~25 (1991)
  27. Covin,J.G, "Entrepreneurial versus conservative firm: A comparison of strategies and performance", Journal of Management Studies, 28(5), pp.439~462 (1991)
  28. Damanpour,F, "Organizational size and innovation", Organization studies, 13(3), pp.375~402 (1992)
  29. David,P., "The Influence of Activism by Institutional Investors on R&D", Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), pp.144~157 (2001)
  30. Deeds,D.L., "Strategic Alliances and the Rate of New Product Development: An Empirical Study of Entrepreneurial Biotechnology Firms", Journal of Business Venturing, 11(1), pp.41~45 (1996)
  31. Dewar,R.D., "The adoption of radical and incremental innovation: An empirical analysis", Management Science, 32, pp.1422~1433 (1986)
  32. Eisenhardt,K.M., "Patching: Restitching business portfolios in dynamic markets", Harvard Business Review, 77(3), pp.71~82 (1999)
  33. Fama,E.F., "Separation of ownership and control", Journal of Low and Economics, 26, pp.301~325 (1983)
  34. Finkelstein,S., "CEO Duality as a Double-edged Sword: How Boards of Directors Balance Entrenchment and Unity of Command", Academy of Management Journal, 37, pp.1079~1108 (1994)
  35. Fitzroy,F.R., "Cooperation, productivity, and profit-sharing", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 22(1), pp.23~35 (1987)
  36. Freel,M.S, "Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity", Research Policy, 32(5), pp.751~770 (2003)
  37. Freeman,C, "The Economics of Technical Change: A Critical Survey", Cambridge Journal of Economics, 18(4), pp.463~514 (1994)
  38. Freeman,C., "The Economics of Industrial Innovation (3rd ed)" (1997), Pinter
  39. GGD publication No. 98-26), "Performance measurement and evaluation: Definitions and relationships (GAO", pp.1998, General Accounting Office
  40. George,R., "Foreign and domestic ownership, business groups and firm performance: An emerging market perspective", Proceedings of Academy of Management Seattle, 2003 (2003)
  41. Guangzhou Hu,A, "Organization, monitoring intensity, and innovation performance in Chinese industry", Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12(2), pp.117~144 (2003)
  42. Hall,L.A., "study of R&D, innovation, and business performance in the Canadian biotechnology industry", Technovation, 22(4), pp.231~244 (2002)
  43. Hall,R.H, "The strategic analysis of intangible resources", Strategic Management Journal, 13(2), pp.135~144 (1992)
  44. Hill,C.W.L., "External Control, Corporate Strategy, and Firm Performance in Research-intensive Industries", Strategic Management Journal, 9(6), pp.577~590 (1988)
  45. Hill,C.W.L, "Strategies for exploiting technological innovations: when and when not to license", Organization Science, 3(3), pp.428~441 (1992)
  46. Hoffman,K., "Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation in the UK: A literature review", Technovation, 18(1), pp.39~55 (1998)
  47. Huiban,J., "Innovation and the quality of labour factor: an empirical investigation in the French food industry", Small Business Economics, 10(4), pp.389~400 (1998)
  48. Ittner,C.D., "Quality strategy, strategic control systems, and organizational performance", Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(3), pp.293~314 (1997)
  49. Jacobs,M.T, "Short-Term America: The Causes and Cures of Our Business Myopia" (1991), Harvard Business School Press
  50. Jensen,M., "Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure", Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), pp.305~360 (1976)
  51. Kanter,R.M, "The reshaping of middle management", Management Review, 75(1), pp.19~20 (1986)
  52. Kanter,R.M, "Supporting Innovation and Venture Development in Established Companies", Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), pp.47~60 (1986)
  53. Kanter,R.M, "From Spare Change to Real Change", Harvard Business Review, 7(3), pp.122~132 (1999)
  54. Regional influences and policy in new technology-based firms: Creation and growth, "Keeble,D", Small Business Research Centre, University of Cambridge, ~, pp.Working Paper, No.34 (1993)
  55. Khan,A.M., "Innovative and Noninnovative Small Firms: Types and Characteristics", Management Science, 35(5), pp.597~606 (1989)
  56. Kitchell,S, "Corporate culture, environmental adaptation, and innovation adoption: A qualitative", quantitative approach, 1995, pp.23, 195~205
  57. Knight,K.E, "The description model of the infra- firm innovation", Journal of Business, 40, pp.478~496 (1967)
  58. Kochhar, R, "Institutional Investors and Firm Innovation: A Test of Competing Hypotheses", Strategic Management Journal, 17(1), pp.73~84 (1996)
  59. Koeller,C.T, "Union membership, market structure, and the innovation output of large and small firm", Journal of Labour Research, 17(4), pp.683~699 (1996)
  60. Koschatzky,K., "Development and innovation potential in the Slovene manufacturing industry: analysis of an industrial innovation survey", Technovation, 21(5), pp.311~324 (2001)
  61. Kosnik,R.D, "Effects of Board Demography and Directors' Incentives on Corporate Greenmail Decision", Academy of Management Journal, 33, pp.129~150 (1990)
  62. Kotabe,M., "The role of strategic alliances in high technology new product development", Strategic Management Journal, 16, pp.621~636 (1995)
  63. Kuratko,D.F., "Developing an intrapreneurial Assessment Instrument for Effective Corporate Entrepreneurial Environment", Strategic Management Journal, 11, pp.49~58 (1990)
  64. Lawless,M.W., "Generational technological change: effects of innovation and local rivalry on performance", Academy of Management Journal, 39, pp.1185~1217 (1996)
  65. Majumdar,S.K, "The determinants of investment in new technology: an examination of alternative hypotheses", Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 50(3), pp.153~165 (1995)
  66. McConnell,J., "Equity ownership and the two faces of debt", Journal of Financial Economic, 39(1), pp.131~157 (1995)
  67. McEvily,S.K, "The global acquisition, leverage, and protection of technological competencies", Strategic Management Journal, 25(8), pp.713~722 (2004)
  68. Megginson,W.L., "Venture Capitalist Certification in Initial Public Offerings", Journal of Finance, 46, pp.879~903 (2001)
  69. Miller,D., "Organization: A quantum view Englewood cliffs" (1982), Prentice-Hall
  70. Miller, D, "Innovation in Conservative and Entrepreneurial Firms: Two Models of Strategic Momentum", Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), pp.1~25 (1984)
  71. Mone, M. A, "Organizational Decline and Innovation: A Contingency Framework", Academy of Management Review, 23(1), pp.115~132 (1998)
  72. Monks, R. A. G, "Corporate Governance" (1995), Blackwell
  73. Factors constraining the growth of small high technology companies: a case study of the Cambridge sub-region, "Moore, B", Small Business Research Centre, University of Cambridge, ~, pp.Working Paper, No.20 (1992)
  74. Mosakowski,E, "Organizational Boundaries and Economic Performance: An Empirical Study of Entrepreneurial Computer Firms", Strategic Management Journal, 12(2), pp.115~133 (1991)
  75. Murphy,K.J, "Executive Compensation In Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3" (1999), North-Holland
  76. OECD, "Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data: Oslo manual" (1997), OECD
  77. Park,H, "Corporate governance, corporate social performance, financial performance and firm value in korea", Proceedings of The International Conference of the Korean Academy of Management (2002)
  78. Porter,M.E., "UK Competitiveness: Moving to the Next Stage", DTI Economics Paper, (3), pp.323~336 (2003)
  79. Pucik,V, "Strategic alliances, organizational learning and competitive advantage: the HRM agenda", Human Resource Management, 27(1), pp.77~93 (1988)
  80. Ramaswamy,K,M.Li, "Variations in ownership behavior and propensity to diversity: A study of the Indian corporate context", Strategic Management Journal, 23, pp.345~358 (2002)
  81. Roe,M.J, "Strong Managers, Weak Owners" (1994), Princeton University Press
  82. Romijn,H., "Determinant of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms in southeast England", Research Policy, 31, pp.1053~1067 (2002)
  83. Rothwell,R., "The importance of technology transfer In Barriers to Growth in Small Firms", pp.87~103 (1989), Routledge
  84. Salavou H., "Radical Product Innovations in SMEs: The Dominance of Entrepreneurial Orientation", Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(2), pp.94~108 (2003)
  85. Saleh,S.D., "The management of innovation: strategy, structure, and organizational climate", Engineering Management IEEE Transactions, 40(1), pp.14~21 (1993)
  86. Scherer,F.M., "Industrial market structure and economic performance" (1990), Houghton-Miff
  87. Scherer,F.M, "Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 2nd ed" (1980), Houghton Mifflin Company
  88. Schoomhoven,C., "Speeding products to market: waiting time to first product introduction in new firms", Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), pp.177~207 (1990)
  89. Schumpeter,J.A, "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy" (1942), Harper
  90. Senge,P., "Innovating Our Way to the Next Industrial Revolution", MIT Sloan Management Review,, 42(2), pp.24~38 (2001)
  91. Sharfman,M.P., "Flexibility in Strategic Decision Making: Informational and Ideological Perspectives", Journal of Management Studies, 34(2), pp.191~217 (1997)
  92. Shefer,D., "Local milieu and innovation: some empirical results", The Annals of Regional Science, 32, pp.185~200 (1998)
  93. Shefer,D., "R&D, firm size, and innovation: An empirical analysis", Technovation, 25(1), pp.25~32 (2005)
  94. Sorensen,J.B., "Aging, Obsolescence, and Organizational Innovation", Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), pp.81~112 (2000)
  95. Souder,W.M.E, "Managing New Product Innovations" (1987), Lexington Books
  96. Souitaris,V, "Technological trajectories moderators of firm-level determinants of innovation", Research policy, 31, pp.877~898 (2002)
  97. Stock,G.N., "Firm size and dynamic technological innovation", Technovation, 22(9), pp.537~549 (2002)
  98. Tether,B.S, "Small and Large Firms – Sources of Unequal Innovations?", Research Policy, 27(2), pp.725~745 (1998)
  99. Thomsen,S., "Ownership Structure and Economic Performance in the Largest European Companies", Strategic Management Journal, 21(6), pp.689~705 (2000)
  100. Tsai,W, "Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance", Academy of Management journal, 44(5), pp.996~1004 (2001)
  101. Verhees,J.H.M., "Market Orientation, innovativeness, product innovation and performance in small firms", Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2), pp.134~155 (2004)
  102. Vinod,H.D., "R&D and Promotion in Pharmaceuticals: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Exploration", Journal of Marketing Theory and Practices, 8(4), pp.10~20 (2000)
  103. Vrakking,W.J, "The innovative organization", Long Range Planning, 23(2), pp.94~102 (1990)
  104. Wolfe,R.A, "Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research directions", Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), pp.405~430 (1994)
  105. Wright,P., "Impact of Corporate Insider, Blockholder, and Institutional Equity Ownership on Firm Risk-taking", Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), pp.441~463 (1996)
  106. Yeoh P.L., "An Empirical Analysis of Sustained Advantage in the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry: Impact of Firm Resources and Capabilities", Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), pp.637~653 (1999)
  107. Zahra,S.A, "Entrepreneurship in Midium-Size Companies: Exploring the Effects of Ownership and Governance Systems", Journal of Management, 26(5), pp.947~976 (2000)
  108. Zahra,S, "Predictors and Financial Outcomes of Corporate Entrepreneurship: An Exploratory Study", Journal of Business Venturing, 6(4), pp.259~285 (1991)
  109. Zahra,S, "Environment, Corporate Entrepreneurship and Financial Performance: A Texonomic Approach", Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), pp.319~340 (1993)
  110. Zahra,S, "Governance, Ownership, and Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Moderating Impact of Industry Technological Opportunities", Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), pp.1713~1735 (1996)
  111. Zahra,S., "Contextual Influences on the Corporate Entrepreneurship-Performance Relationship: A Longitudinal Analysis", Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), pp.43~58 (1995)

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)

Reasons of Failure According to Stages of New Venture Growth이성훈, 이장우pp. 1-17중소제조업체의 기술집약도별 산업기술인력 수급불균형 원인에 대한 연구홍성민, 장선미pp. 19-37가족기업의 연구동향과 과제남영호pp. 39-54재래시장의 매출액 증가율 결정요인 분석이의영, 윤형호pp. 55-72출연연 기술협력과 고몰입 HRM 시스템이 중소기업의 기술혁신성과에 미치는 영향이병헌, 차종석, 김선영pp. 93-111
원문 보기