Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회논문지)

The Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Innovation Characteristics on Spillover: An Empirical Evidence from US Semiconductor Industry

기술혁신의 특성이 파급효과에 미치는 영향에 대한 분석: 반도체산업의 실증분석

  • Received : 2017.03.03
  • Accepted : 2017.06.09
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Technology innovation is regarded as the quintessential process to acquire a competitive advantage. This is especially true in high-tech industries, and firms that recognize the importance of technological innovation concentrate their capacities on developing new technologies, new products, and new processes. In general, such research requires many resources, but not all technological breakthroughs are followed by positive feedbacks. Consequently, the firms in high-tech industries are compelled to find new directions in acquiring technologies. This study examines the factors that influence technological innovation and empirically tests the effect these factors have on its diffusion. Radicality, discontinuity, and exploitation/exploration were selected as the factors from the previous literature on technological innovation and organizational learning. For the empirical test, patent data from the US semiconductor industry were used to describe innovation activities from various fields. From the result, these three factors (Ed- is this what you mean, i.e., radicality, discontinuity, and exploitation/exploration?)were found to have significant meaning as proxies for the diffusion of technological innovation.

이 논문의 목적은 기술혁신의 특징과 그에 따른 파급효과를 알아보는 것이다. 기존의 기술혁신에 대한 연구에서 기술혁신의 특징을 정의하고 분류하는 연구가 많이 진행되었다. 이런 다양한 기술혁신의 특징들 중에서 기술혁신에 대한 의사결정에 영향을 미치는 위험부담(Risk)과 관계되는 특징들을 이 연구에서 사용하였다. 첫 번째는 산업의 관점에서 본 위험부담에 관계되는 특징으로, 과거에 개발했던 기술혁신과의 연관성을 나타내는 산업기술연관성이다. 두 번째는 기업의 관점에서 본 위험부담에 관계되는 특징으로, 기업의 범위에서 과거에 개발했던 분야의 기술혁신과의 연관성을 나타내는 기업기술연관성이다. 세 번째는 시간의 관점에서 본 위험부담에 관계되는 특징으로, 기술혁신이 개발 당시 얼마나 최근의 연구인지 알려주는 최신성(Recency)이다. 2000년도 미국 반도체 산업의 특허자료(USPTO)로 분석한 결과, 기술혁신의 특징들 중 산업기술연관성과 기업기술연관성이 기술의 파급효과에 긍정적인 영향을 미친다는 것을 발견하였다. 즉, 산업의 관점과 기업의 관점 모두 위험부담이 적은 기술혁신이 더 큰 파급효과를 가지고, 시간의 관점에서 본 기술혁신의 최신성은 기술의 파급효과에 중요한 요인이 아니라는 것을 알 수 있었다. 즉, 성숙기 시장에서는 기존의 기술혁신을 향상시키는 혁신과 자기기업기술을 많이 이용한 기술혁신이 큰 파급효과를 가진다는 것을 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Giliches, Z., "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature 28, pp. 1661-1707, 1990.
  2. Hall, B.H., A.B. Jaffe and M. Trajtenberg, "The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools," NBER Working Papers 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, Oct.2001.
  3. Acs, Z.J. and D.B. Audretsch, "Patents as a measure of innovative activity," Kylos, 42, pp. 151-180, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1989.tb00185.x
  4. Archibugi, D. and M. Pianta, "Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys," Technovation, 16(9), pp. 451-468, 1996. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(96)00031-4
  5. Brouwer, E. and A. Kleinknecht, "Innovative Output, and a Firm's Propensity to Patent: An Exploration of CIS Micro Data," Research Policy, 28, pp. 615-624, 1989. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00003-7
  6. Cohen, W.M. and D.A. Levinthal, "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, 99, September, pp. 569-596, 1997.
  7. Galende, J. and J. M. de la Fuente, "Internal Factors Determining a Firm's Innovative Behavior," Research Policy, 32, pp. 715-736, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00082-3
  8. Kondo, M., "R&D Dynamics of Creating Patents in the Japanese Industry," Research Policy, 28, pp. 587-600, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00129-2
  9. Shefer, D. and A. Frenkel, "R&D, Firm Size and Innovation: An Empirical Analysis," Technovation, 25(1), pp. 25-32, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00152-4
  10. Wan, D., C.H. Ong and F. Lee, "Determinants of Firm Innovation in Singapore," Technovation, 25(3), pp. 261-268, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00096-8
  11. Griliches, Z., R&D, Patents, and Productivity, NBER Conference Proceedings. University of Chicago Press, 1984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226308920.001.0001
  12. Trajtenberg, M., "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovation," The Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1), pp. 172-187, 1990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2555502
  13. Griliches, Z., Hall, B.H. and A. Pakes, "The Value of Patents as Indicators of Inventive Activity," in P. Dasgupta and P. Stoneman, eds., Economic Policy and Technological Performance, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97-124, 1987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511559938.006
  14. Jaffe, A., M. Trajtenberg and M.S. Fogarty, "The Meaning of Patent Citations: Report on the NBER/Case-Western Reserve Survey of Patentees," in A. Jaffe and M.Trajtenberg, eds., Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002.
  15. Harhoff, D., F.M. Scherer and K. Vopel, "Citations, Family Size, Opposition and the Value of Patent Rights," Research Policy, 32(8), pp. 1343-1363, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00124-5
  16. Deng, Z., B. Lev and F. Narin, "Science and Technology as Predictors of Stock Performance," Financial Analysts Journal, 55(3), pp. 20-32, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v55.n3.2269
  17. Hall, B.H., A. Jaffe and M. Trajtenberg, "Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look," NBER Working Paper 7741, 2000.
  18. Nagaoka, S., "Patent Quality, Cumulative Innovation and Market Value: Evidence from Japanese Firm Level Panel Data," Working Paper WP#05-06, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University, 2005.
  19. Afuah, A., Innovation management: strategies, implementation and Profits, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.
  20. Abernathy, W. J. and K.B. Clark, "Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research Policy, 14, pp. 3-22, 1985. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(85)90021-6
  21. Abernathy, W.J. and J.M. Utterback, "Patterns of innovation in technology," Technology Review, 80(7), pp. 40-47, 1978.
  22. Foster, R.N., Innovation: The attacker's advantage, Summit Books, New York, 1986. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-83742-4
  23. Henderson, R. and K.B. Clark, "Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms", Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 9-30, 1990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2393549
  24. Schumpeter, J.A., Both of Schumpeter's Positions are outlined in Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 3rd ed.Harper, New York, 1950.
  25. Tushman, M.L. and P. Anderson, "Technological discontinuities and organizational environments," Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, pp. 439-465, 1986. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392832
  26. Tushman, M.L. and L. Rosenkopf, "On the organizational determinants of technological evolution: Towards a sociology of technology," Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, pp. 311-347, 1992.
  27. Rosenkopf, L. and A. Nerkar, "Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry," Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), pp. 287-306, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.160
  28. Fleming, L., "Recombinant uncertainty in technological search," Management Science, 47(1), pp. 117-132, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.117.10671
  29. Ahuja, G. and R. Katila, "Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study," Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), pp. 197-220, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.157
  30. Heeley, M.B. and R. Jacobson, "The recency of technological input and financial performance," Strategic Management Journal, 29, pp. 723-744, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.682
  31. Egghe, L. and R. Rousseau, Introduction to Informetrics: Quantitative Methods in Library, Documentation and Information Science, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, p.220, 1990.
  32. March, J.G., "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational learning," Organization Science, 2, pp. 71-87, 1991. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
  33. Scherer, F.M., "Inter-Industry Technology Flows and Productivity Growth," Review of Economics and Statistics, 64, November 1982. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1923947
  34. Schmookler, J., Invention and Economic Growth, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674432833
  35. Caballero, R.J. and A.B. Jaffe, "How High are the Giants' Shoulders. An Empirical Assessment of Knowledge Spillovers and Creative Destruction in a Model of Economic Growth," NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1993, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, 1993. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/654207
  36. Jaffe, A.B., R. Henderson and M. Trajtenberg, "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillover as Evidenced by Patent Citations," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, pp. 577-598, 1993. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2118401
  37. Kaluzny, A.D., J.E. Veney and J. T. Gentry, "Innovation in health services: A comparative study of Hospitals and Health Departments," Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly/Health and Society, 52(1), pp. 51-82, 1974. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3349503
  38. Hill, W.L. Charles and Frank T. Rothaermel, "The Performance of Incumbent Firms in the Face of Radical Technological Innovation," The Academy of Management Review, 28(2), Apr., pp. 257-274, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/30040712
  39. Schumpeter, J. A., Capitalism, socialism and democracy, New York: Harper & Row, 1942.
  40. Christensen, C.M. The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.
  41. Cooper, A.C. and D. Schendel, "Strategic responses to technological threats", Business Horizons, 19(1), pp. 61-69, 1976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(76)90024-0
  42. Rosenbloom, R.S. and C.M. Christensen, "Technological discontinuities, organizational capabilities, and strategic commitments," In G. Dosi, D. J. Teece, & J. Chytry (Eds.), Technology, organization, and competitiveness: Perspective on industrial and corporate change, pp. 215-245, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198290969.003.0007
  43. Sull, D.N., R.S. Tedlow and R.S. Rosenbloom, "Managerial commitments and technological change in the U.S. tire industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, 6, pp. 461-501, 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/6.2.461
  44. Tripsas, M. and G. Gavetti, "Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging," Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp. 1147-1161, 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1147::AID-SMJ128>3.0.CO;2-R
  45. Utterback, J. M., Mastering the dynamics of innovation, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1994.
  46. Helfat, C.E., "Know-how and Assert Complementarity and Dynamic Capability Accumulation: The Case of R&D," Strategy management journal, 18(5), pp. 339-360, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199705)18:5<339::AID-SMJ883>3.0.CO;2-7
  47. Austin, D.H., "An event-study approach to measuring innovative output: the case of biotechnology," The American Economic Review, 83(2), pp. 253-258, 1993.
  48. Narin, F., K.S. Hamilton and D. Olivastro, "The increasing linkage between US technology and public science," Research Policy, 26, pp. 317-330, 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00013-9
  49. Hage, J., Theories of Organization, Wiley Interscience, New York, 1980.
  50. Crespi, F., "Notes on the Determinants of innovation: A Multi-perspective Analysis," Working Paper 42, Department of Economics, University of Roma Tre, Rome, Italy, 2004.
  51. Arundel, A. and I. Kabla, "What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firm," Research Policy, 27, pp. 127-141, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00033-X