기술혁신연구 (Journal of Technology Innovation)

기술경영경제학회 (Korea Society for Innovation Managemetn & Economics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

지식기반산업에서 기업의 지식탐색 유형: 구성형태적 접근

Configurations of Knowledge Search in Knowledge-Intensive Industries

  • 투고 : 2017.08.07
  • 심사 : 2017.08.28
  • 발행 : 2017.08.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 국내 지식기반산업에 종사하는 기업을 대상으로 탐색의 소재(locus)와 특성을 기준으로 기업의 지식탐색 유형을 도출하고, 각 유형별로 혁신성과는 어떤 차이를 보이는지 구성형태적 관점(configurational approach)으로 분석하였다. 기존의 지식탐색 연구들은 주로 지식탐색과 결과변수와의 관계규명에 집중해왔다. 이에 따라, 실제 기업들이 어떻게 지식탐색을 조직화 하는가에 대한 이해가 상대적으로 미흡한 수준이다. 따라서, 본 연구는 기업의 지식탐색을 탐색의 소재와 특성에 따라 외부탐색 범위(external search breadth), 외부탐색 깊이(external search depth), 내부탐색 범위(internal search breadth), 내부탐색 깊이(internal search depth)로 지식탐색의 네 가지 차원으로 구분하고 군집분석(cluster analysis)을 통해 실제 기업의 지식탐색 유형을 도출하였으며, 지식탐색 유형에 따라 기업의 혁신성과가 어떤 차이를 보이는지 분석하였다. 연구의 주요 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 상이한 지식탐색 유형을 가지는 6가지 기업군을 도출하였다. 각 기업군은 모든 지식탐색 차원에 대해 적극적이거나, 일부 차원에만 집중하는 등의 차이를 보인다. 둘째, 각 기업군의 혁신성과는 지식탐색 유형의 특성에 따라 탐험적 혁신과 활용적 혁신성과에서 차이를 보이는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 환원론적 접근(reductionistic approach)에 기반한 기존 연구와는 달리, 구성형태적 접근을 적용하여, 기업의 실제 지식탐색 유형을 규명하였다는 점에서, 주요 공헌이 있으며, 연구 결과를 바탕으로 향후 연구 방향을 제시하였다.

This research details firm knowledge search types based on the locus and features for Korean firms in the knowledge-based industry, and then analyzes differences in innovation performance according to the types from the view of a configurational approach. Existing research has mainly concentrated on establishing a relation between knowledge search and outcome variables. Consequently, firms have relatively insufficient understanding of how to systematize knowledge search. Hence, this research classifies knowledge search into four dimensions-external search breadth, external search depth, internal search breadth, and internal search depth-by the locus and features of search. Furthermore, the research draws actual types of knowledge search of firms and analyzes differences in innovation performance. The main result of the research is as follows. First, the research reasons out six clusters of firms which have a dissimilar knowledge search type. Each cluster shows differences while participating in every dimension of knowledge search or few dimensions. Second, as for innovation performance, each cluster shows different exploitative and exploratory innovation performance according to their knowledge search type. This research applies a configurational approach while existing research applied a reductionistic approach, thereby establishing the major contribution which enables us to study a phenomenon as it comes, not to analyze variables and relationships of variables. Lastly, the research suggests a future direction of research based on the result of this research.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 김국태.허문구 (2014), "탐험과 활용의 균형", 인사조직연구, 제22권, pp. 1-32.
  2. 문창호.김시연 (2016), "기술혁신지향성의 선행요인과 기술혁신성과에 미치는 영향: 국내 IT 중소기업 사례", 기술혁신연구, 제24권 제1호, pp. 49-84. https://doi.org/10.14383/SIME.2016.24.1.49
  3. 이윤숙.함민주.문성욱 (2015), "역동적 환경 하에 구매사/주공급사 간의 기술협력은 신제품 개발 프로젝트 성과를 향상시키는가?", 기술혁신연구, 제23권 제3호, pp. 397-431. https://doi.org/10.14383/SIME.2015.23.3.397
  4. 허문구 (2011), "지식탐색이 혁신에 미치는 영향", 경영학연구, 제40권 제5호, pp. 1247-1271.
  5. 허문구 (2015), "지식탐색과 조직양면성", 지식경영연구, 제16권 제1호, pp. 95-115. https://doi.org/10.15813/kmr.2015.16.1.005
  6. Adler P.S., & Kwon S.W. (2002), "Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 17-40. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.5922314
  7. Amara N., & Landry R. (2005), "Sources of Information as Determinants of Novelty of Innovation in Manufacturing Firms: Evidence from the 1999 Statistics Canada Innovation Survey", Technovation, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 245-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00113-5
  8. Bell G.G., & Zaheer A. (2007), "Geography, Networks, and Knowledge Flow", Organization Science, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 955-972. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0308
  9. Broekel T., & Binder M. (2007), "The Regional Dimension of Knowledge Transfers: A Behavioral Approach", Industry and Innovation, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 151-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662710701252500
  10. Clausen T.H., Korneliussen T., & Madsen E.L. (2013), "Modes of Innovation, Resources and Their Influence on Product Innovation: Empirical Evidence from R&D Active Firms in Norway", Technovation, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 225-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.02.002
  11. Cohen W.M., & Levinthal D.A. (1990), "Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation", Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 128-152.
  12. Collins C.J., & Smith K.G. (2006), "Knowledge Exchange and Combination: The Role of Human Resource Practices in the Performance of High-technology Firms", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 544-560. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.21794671
  13. Fleming L. (2001), "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search", Management Science, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.1.117.10671
  14. Fleming L., & Sorenson O. (2001), "Technology as a Complex Adaptive System: Evidence from Patent Data", Research Policy, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 1019-1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00135-9
  15. Grant R.M. (1996), "Toward a Knowledge Based Theory of the Firm", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. S2, pp. 109-122.
  16. Hansen M.T., & Lovas B. (2004), "How Do Multinational Companies Leverage Technological Competencies?: Moving from Single to Interdependent Explanations", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25, No. 8/9, pp. 801-822. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.413
  17. Hansen M.T., Mors M.L., & Lovas B. (2005), "Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: Multiple Networks, Multiple Phases", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 776-793. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803922
  18. Harrigan K.R. (1985), "Vertical Integration and Corporate Strategy", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 397-425. https://doi.org/10.2307/256208
  19. He Z.L., & Wong P.K. (2004), "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis", Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 481-494. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
  20. Hill S.A., & Birkinshaw J. (2008), "Strategy-organization Configurations in Corporate Venture Units: Impact on Performance and Survival", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 423-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2007.04.001
  21. Huber G.P. (1991), "Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures", Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 88-115. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.88
  22. Hull C.E., & Covin J.G. (2010), "Learning Capability, Technological Parity, and Innovation Mode Use", Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 97-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00702.x
  23. Inkpen A.C., & Tsang E.W. (2005), "Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 146-165. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281445
  24. Katila R. (2002), "New Product Search over Time: Past Ideas in Their Prime?", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 995-1010. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069326
  25. Katila R., & Ahuja G. (2002), "Something Old, Something New: A Longitudinal study of Search Behavior and New Product Introduction", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 1183-1194. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069433
  26. Kaufman L., & Rousseeuw P.J. (2009), Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis (Vol. 344), John Wiley & Sons.
  27. Koput K.W. (1997), "A Chaotic Model of Innovative Search: Some Answers, Many Questions", Organization Science, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 528-542. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.5.528
  28. Laursen K., & Salter A. (2006), "Open for Innovation: The Role of Openness in Explaining Innovation Performance among UK Manufacturing Firms", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 131-150. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507
  29. Leiponen A., & Helfat C.E. (2010), "Innovation Objectives, Knowledge Sources, and the Benefits of Breadth", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 224-236. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.807
  30. Levinthal D.A., & March J.G. (1993), "The Myopia of Learning", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. S2, pp. 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009
  31. Levinthal D., & March, J.G. (1981), "A Model of Adaptive Organizational Search", Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 307-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(81)90012-3
  32. Levitt B., & March J.G. (1988), "Organizational Learning", Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 319-338. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001535
  33. Mahdi S. (2003), "Search Strategy in Product Innovation Process: Theory and Evidence from the Evolution of Agrochemical Lead Discovery Process", Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 235-270. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/12.2.235
  34. March J.G. (1991), "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning", Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
  35. Martin X., & Mitchell W. (1998), "The Influence of Local Search and Performance Heuristics on New Design Introduction in a New Product Market", Research Policy, Vol. 26, No. 7, pp. 753-771. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00037-1
  36. Miller D. (1981), "Toward a New Contingency Approach: The Search for Organizational Gestalts", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1981.tb00088.x
  37. Miller D. (1987), "The Genesis of Configuration", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 686-701. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4306720
  38. Miller D. (1996), "Configurations Revisited", Strategic Management Journal, pp. 505-512.
  39. Mol M.J., & Birkinshaw J. (2009), "The Sources of Management Innovation: When Firms Introduce New Management Practices", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, No. 12, pp. 1269-1280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.001
  40. Mudambi R., & Swift T. (2011), "Proactive R&D Management and Firm Growth: A Punctuated Equilibrium Model", Research Policy, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 429-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.10.014
  41. Nelson R.R., & Winter S.G. (1982), "The Schumpeterian Tradeoff Revisited", The American Economic Review, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 114-132.
  42. Paruchuri S., & Awate S. (2017), "Organizational Knowledge Networks and Local Search: The Role of Intra-organizational Inventor Networks", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 657-675. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2516
  43. Raisch S., & Birkinshaw J. (2008), "Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators", Journal of Management, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 375-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058
  44. Reeves T.C., Duncan W.J., & Ginter P.M. (2003), "Strategic Configurations in Health Services Organizations", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00203-X
  45. Rothaermel F.T., &Alexandre M.T. (2009), "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity", Organization Science, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 759-780. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0404
  46. Rosenkopf L., & Nerkar A. (2001), "Beyond Local Search: boundary‐spanning, Exploration, and Impact in the Optical Disk Industry", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 287-306. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.160
  47. Sidhu J.S., Commandeur H.R., & Volberda H.W. (2007), "The Multifaceted Nature of Exploration and Exploitation: Value of Supply, Demand, and Spatial Search for Innovation", Organization Science, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 20-38. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0212
  48. Subramaniam M., & Youndt M.A. (2005), "The Influence of Intellectual Capital on the Types of Innovative Capabilities", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 450-463. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17407911
  49. Teece D.J. (2007), Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature and Microfoundations of (sustainable) Enterprise Performance, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28, No. 13, pp. 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
  50. Urban G.L., & Von Hippel E. (1988), "Lead User Analyses for the Development of New Industrial Products", Management Science, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 569-582. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.34.5.569
  51. Venkatraman N. (1989), "Strategic Orientation of Business Enterprises: The Construct, Dimensionality, and Measurement", Management Science, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 942-962. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.942
  52. Venkatraman N., & Prescott J.E. (1990), "Environment Strategy Coalignment: An Empirical Test of Its Performance Implications", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250110102
  53. Von Hippel E. (1986), "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts", Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 791-805. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791
  54. Von Hippel E., & Tyre M.J. (1995), "How Learning by Doing is Done: Problem Identification in Novel Process Equipment", Research Policy, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(93)00747-H
  55. Wang H., & Li J. (2008), "Untangling the Effects of Overexploration and Overexploitation on Organizational Performance: The Moderating Role of Environmental Dynamism", Journal of Management, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 925-951. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321547
  56. Winter S.G., Cattani G., & Dorsch A. (2007), "The Value of Moderate Obsession: Insights from a New Model of Organizational Search", Organization Science, Vol. 18, No. 3), pp. 403-419. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0273