DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

국가상 혁신기업선정을 위한 정성지표의 개발

Qualitative Indicator Development of National Award for Innovation Leading Company

  • Lee, Jae-Ha (Dept. of Business Management Administration, NamSeoul University)
  • 투고 : 2020.01.04
  • 심사 : 2020.03.20
  • 발행 : 2020.03.28

초록

본 연구는 정부에서 수여하는 국가 상(償)에 도전하는 혁신선도기업을 평가 및 선정하기 위한 정성지표개발에 초점을 맞추고 있다. 혁신선도기업을 지나치게 계량적으로 평가함에 따라 제품이나 기술, 서비스 등의 혁신성이나 가치 등이 평가가 절하되는 측면을 보완하는 것이 본 연구의 목적이기도 하다. 기존의 국가상 평가지표는 장점도 있지만 평가 항목이 너무 많아 혁신선도기업의 평가에는 적합하지 않은 측면이 있었다. 연구의 접근방법은 선행연구와 TF토의를 바탕으로 정성지표개발을 위한 항목을 선정하는 것으로 하였다. 기본적으로 투입-과정-산출-효과로 이어지는 일련의 흐름으로 지표항목의 체계를 갖추도록 하였다. 최종적으로 창의성, 시스템우수성, 고객가치, 기업성과, 파급효과 등의 5개 정성 지표항목이 선정되었다. 선정된 5개 지표항목에 대해서는 개념적 정의와 평가시 주안점 등을 서술하였다. 그리고 시스템 수준평가와 ADLI 접근방식도 제시하였다. 부록에는 본 연구에서 제시한 정성지표를 활용하여 실제기업을 정성적, 정량적 양식에 따라 평가한 사례도 수록하였다. 그러나 본 연구는 혁신선도기업을 정성적인 접근방식으로 평가하는 것으로 설계되어 있어, 평가자의 수준과 관점에 따라 평가결과가 변동되는 가능성을 갖는 한계점이 내포하고 있다. 향후에는 정성지표로 활용될 수 있는 후보지표들에 대한 세부연구와 혼합지표(정량, 정성)의 개발에 대한 연구가 지속되기를 기대한다.

This study focuses on the development of simple qualitative indicators for evaluating and selecting innovation leading companies that challenge National Award. Another purpose of this study is to complement the aspect in which the innovative or value of the companies' products, technologies, and services is only quantitatively evaluated. Existing evaluation indicators of national award have too many evaluation items and were not suitable for innovation-based company evaluation. The research approach is to select category for developing qualitative indicators based on previous studies and TF discussion. From the input-process-output-outcome point of view, we have set up an indicator system as a series of flows. Finally, five categories such as creativity, system excellence, customer value, performance, and ripple effects are selected as qualitative indicator. For these selected indicators, conceptual definitions and the main points of evaluation are described. And the system level evaluation and the ADLI approach are presented for reference. The appendix also includes examples of qualitative and quantitative evaluation of real companies using these indicators. However, this study implies the possibility that the evaluation results may vary depending on the level and perspective of the evaluator. We hoped that detailed research on candidate indicators that can be used as qualitative indicators and research on the development of mixed indicators(qualitative and quantitative) will continue in the future.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. S. H. Yoon & Y. H. Lee. (2010). A Study on the causal relationship between the competitiveness factor of domestic companies using the Quality Management Award Criteria. SJIS, 7(2), 32-51.
  2. D. J. Park, Y. Y. Yun, I. S. Kang, E. J. Yoo, H. G. Kim & M. Yoon. (2019). A Characteristic Analysis for Quality Competitiveness Excellent Company. J. of Society of Korea Industrial and Systems Engineering, 42(3), 95-108.
  3. H. S. Lee & K. S. Chung. (2016), Financial Performance of "Excellent Quality Competitiveness Enterprise" Awarding Companies : Focusing on the Moderating Effect of Year. J. of Korean Society for Quality Management, 44(3), 617-638. https://doi.org/10.7469/JKSQM.2016.44.3.617
  4. Y. T. Park & H.G. Song. (1998). Criteria for Quality Award and Measurement of Management Quality. J. of Korean Society for Quality Management, 26(2), 86-92.
  5. Korea Standards Association. (2019). Korea National Quality Award Guidebook.
  6. Korea Productivity Center. (2019). Korea Productivity Award Guidebook.
  7. Korea Small Business Institute. (2017). A Study on the Revision of Inno-Biz's System and Evaluation Indicators.
  8. Ministry of Knowledge Economy. (2013). Corporate Growth Promotion Performance Evaluation Indicator R&D Final Report, 70-71.
  9. E. Y. Jang & B. K. Kim. (2016). The Effects of Team Characteristics on the Innovation Performance in R&D Organizations : The Mediating Effect of Creative Climate. J. of the Korean Operations Research and Management Science Society, 41(4), 75-93. https://doi.org/10.7737/JKORMS.2016.41.4.075
  10. K. D. Kim & W. S. Hong. (2011). Effect of Firm's Activities on Their Performances. J. of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 14(2), 373-404.
  11. J. M. Park & J. M. Lee. (2011). How Do Firms' Innovation Behaviors Affect their Outputs in Korea? J. of the Korea Contents Association, 11(3), 339-350. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2011.11.3.339
  12. S. W. Hong. (2003), The Effect of Process Maturity on the Performance of Industrial R&D Projects. IE interfaces, 16(3), 362-374.
  13. K. S. Shin, M. J. Oh, W. K. Kim & S. H. Park. (2018). The Effects of R&D Process Maturity on Product Development Performance: Focused on Mediating Effect of R&D Project Performance. KIPS Transactions on Computer and Communication Systems, 7(7), 165-174. https://doi.org/10.3745/KTCCS.2018.7.7.165
  14. J. H. Joo & J. W. Kim. (2012), A Study on Relatio nships among Customer Value, Supply Chain Integration, and Business Performance. J. of Information Systems, 21(2), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.5859/KAIS.2012.21.2.27
  15. H. J. Rho. (2012), A Study on the Effect of Core Competencies and Value Innovation Strategies on Business Performance in the Manufacturing I ndustries. J. of the Korea Society of Computer and Information, 17(4), 155-161. https://doi.org/10.9708/jksci.2012.17.4.155
  16. D. W. Rhu, D. J. Rhu & G. T. Hong. (2014). The Effects of Government Awards to Small Businesses on Firm Values. Korean J. of Financial Studies, 43(1), 47-69.
  17. Y. C. Cho, M. J. Baek & S. H. Yoo. (2015). The Economic Effects of Expanding Organic Waste-To-Energy Facilities in Korea: An Input-Output Analysis. Innovation Studies, 10(2), 159-173.
  18. S. S. Kim & Y. C. Kim. (2013). A Study on the Development of Creative Management Measurement Systems. Knowledge Management Research, 14(2), 1-24.
  19. K. K. Lee & K. S. Chung. (2010). Some Suggestions to Improve the Korean Quality Awards Systems through the Comparison among Asian Countries' Awards Systems. J. of the Korean Society for Quality Management, 38(2), 202-211.