초록 close

본 연구는 중소기업의 기술혁신에 영향을 미치는 요인들을 체계적으로 규명하고 이들 요인들이 어떤 효과를 가지는지를 실증적으로 밝히려는 목적을 가지고 있다. 기존연구들을 바탕으로 기술혁신 영향요인을 내부요인(규모, 혁신능력, 최고경영자의 특성, 전략, 조직구조, 문화)과 외부요인(기술적 기회, 외부네트워크 및 정부정책지원)으로 구분하여 실증분석을 시도하고 있다. 대구지역 150개 제조 중소기업으로부터 자료를 수집하여 분석한 결과 중소기업의 규모, 혁신역량, 최고경영자의 혁신수용성, 분권화, 기술적 기회 등이 기술혁신에 긍정적으로 유의한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 중소기업의 전략, 문화, 네트워크 및 정부정책지원 등은 유의한 효과를 가지지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 본 논문에서는 실증분석 결과가 가지는 이론적 및 실무적 시사점, 한계점 및 향후 연구방향 등도 함께 논의하고 있다.


Many researchers have recognized that technological innovation of small and medium-sized firms is related positively with financial performance, competitive advantage, and sustainable growth. Consequently, most of small and medium-sized firms were focused on the technological innovation activities. And many academic persons have strived to find out success factors of technological innovation empirically. * Associate Professor, Department of Business Administration, Keimyung University. ** Department of Business Administration, Keimyung University. *** Department of Business Administration, Graduate School of Keimyung University. For example, Souitaris(2001) empirically discovered strategic factors that are influence on technological innovation in Greece manufacturing small and medium-sized firms. Research results showed that innovation rate of small and medium-sized firms related with new technology plan, CEO’s risk taking intention, future-oriented customer relation management, high competitive business environment. But definition of corporate strategy, communication of corporate strategy, time scope of corporate strategy, formalized decision making, the number of decision makers, CEO’s locus of control, recovery period of technology investment capital, CEO’s age were not significantly related with innovation rate of small and medium-sized firms. Keizer et al.(2002) also empirically analysed determinants of technological innovation. Consequently, they revealed that supporting fund for innovation, collaboration with knowledge center, R&D investment were positively and significantly related with technology innovation efforts. Futhermore, cooperation with other companies, manager’s education level, and recovery period of technology investment capital also influenced on technology innovation efforts of small and medium-sized firms. Becheikh et al.(2006) have reviewed systematically 108 research papers on the technology innovation. Resultantly, they detected that internal factors such as firm characteristics, global strategy, organizational structure, control activities, corporate culture, CEO, and asset and strategy of functional divisions, and contextual factors such as industry, location, network, knowledge and technology acquisition, government and public policy, and regional industry culture were positively and significantly related with technology innovation. But past studies have following limitations. First, most of studies dealt with large companies rather than small and medium-sized firms. Second, previous studies did not show the consistent research results in validating success factors of technological innovation in small and medium-sized firms. Third, previous empirical studies did not interest in comprehensive analysis of determinants of technological innovation. This study concluded internal and external determinants of technology innovation of SMEs based on the studies of Souitaris(2001), Keizer et al.(2002), Becheikh et al.(2006), Thamhain(2003), Panne et al.(2003), and Adams et al.(2006). Internal factors include size, innovation capability, CEO’s characteristics, strategy, organizational structure, and organizational culture. External factors include technological opportunities, external network, government’s policy support. Therefore this study aims at investigating the determinants of technological innovation empirically in Korean small and medium-sized firms. A questionnaire was developed to measure the above variables. Size was measured by the number of total employee. Innovation capability was measured by the ratio of R&D personnel compare with total employee in recent 3 years. CEO’s characteristics reflect the Duncan(1972)’s innovation acceptance(5 point scale). Strategy was measured by Miller(1988)’s innovation differentiation using 6 questionnaires(5 point scale). Organization structure was Govindarajan(1988)’ 6 questionnaires(5 point scale), and organizational culture was Brown, Davidsson and Wiklund(2001)’s 3 questionnaires(5 point scale). Technological opportunities were measured by innovation related opportunities existed in industry recent 3 years(5 point scale). External network was cooperation level with external organizations(5 point scale) and government’s policy support was Li and Atuahene-Gima(2002)’s 5 questionnaires(5 point scale). 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 619 questionnaires were mailed. The survey data of 150 firms were 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 size, innovation capability, CEO’s innovation acceptance, decentralization were positively and significantly influenced on the both product and process innovation. Secondly, innovation differentiation strategy and entrepreneurial culture were positively and significantly affected on the both product and process innovation. Thirdly, only technological opportunities positively and significantly have influence on the both product and process innovation. Fourthly, external network and government’s policy support did not have significant impact on the product and process innovation. These results suggest the following implications. First, internal factors were more important than external factors in small and medium-sized firm’s technology innovation. Secondly, Economy of scale(Schumpeter, 1942) was appeared in technology innovation. Thirdly, small and medium-sized firm needs to collect professional employee for gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Fourthly, CEO’s challenge, positive mind for market, risk taking were very important in technology innovation. Fifthly, decentralization was more important in innovative firms than noninnovative firms(Anderson and West, 1998; Hurley and Hult, 1998). Finally, technological opportunities were determinant of the speed of technology commercialization(Schoomhoven et al., 1990). Several future researches need to overcome the limitations of this research. First, this study’s sample was based on the small and medium-sized firms just located in Daegu region. This limitation may imply that empirical results can not represent overall small and medium-sized firm’s situations. Therefore, future research needs to include different samples. Secondly, this study did not consider the interaction of internal and external factors. Researchers need to test moderating or mediating effects of these factors. Finally, this study depend on the latitudinal study.