한국전자거래학회지 (The Journal of Society for e-Business Studies)

  • 제27권1호
  • /
  • Pages.43-62
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2288-3908(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2765-3846(eISSN)
한국전자거래학회 (Society for e-Business Studies)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

독립 SW기업의 플랫폼 생태계 참여 결정요인 연구

ISV's Patent Protection, Downstream Capability and Product Portfolio to Join Platform Ecosystem

  • Lim, Geun Seok (Graduate Program of Science and Technology Policy, Yonsei University) ;
  • Ji, Yong Gu (Department of Industrial Engineering, Yonsei University)
  • 투고 : 2021.11.01
  • 심사 : 2022.01.07
  • 발행 : 2022.02.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 논문은 국내 독립 SW기업(ISV, Independent Software Vendor)이 어떤 조건을 갖추었을때 플랫폼 생태계 참여에 더 적극적인가를 분석한 연구이다. 기업은 기술혁신의 결과를 전유할 수 있을 때와 해당 기술을 가치로 전환할 수 있는 보완자산(마케팅, 제조역량 등)을 보유한 경우 기술혁신에 적극적이다. 본 연구에서는 두 조건이 플랫폼 생태계 참여에 미치는 영향을 분석하였다. 또, SW기업이 보유한 제품 포트폴리오와 플랫폼의 서비스간 경쟁관계가 플랫폼 참여에 영향을 준다고 보고, 해당 요인의 영향도 분석하였다. 디지털 플랫폼 기업들과 파트너 협약을 한 국내 독립 SW기업 그리고 이에 대응하는 비슷한 수의 플랫폼 미참여 기업으로 표본집단을 구성하여 플랫폼 참여, 특허 및 개발 후 사업화 역량, 경쟁관계 등의 데이터를 취합하고 분석하였다. 분석 결과 특허 보유 여부는 플랫폼 참여에 영향을 주지 않았다. 혁신기술과 사업모델의 노출에 따른 위험보다 플랫폼 기업과 협력으로부터 발생하는 효익이 크다고 판단한 결과로 여겨진다. 반면, 사업화 역량 보유와 경쟁 관계는 플랫폼 참여에 영향을 주었다. 협력의 결과를 가치로 전환할 수 있는 사업화 역량을 보유한 경우 플랫폼 참여 가능성이 커진다. 또, 제품 포트폴리오가 플랫폼 서비스와 경쟁보다 보완관계가 될 때 협력에 적극적이다. 본 연구는 국내 독립 SW기업과 디지털 플랫폼 기업간 협력을 다룬 실증연구로서 해외에는 유사 선행 연구가 있지만 국내에는 유사한 연구사례가 없다. 플랫폼 생태계 참여 기업과 미 참여 기업을 표본집단으로 구성하여 플랫폼 생태계 참여 결정요인을 실증분석을 통해 규명하였다는 데 의의가 있다.

This paper is a study to analyze when ISV(independent software company) has more active participation in the platform ecosystem. According to previous studies, companies are active in technological innovation when they can appropriate the outcome of innovation and when they have complementary assets (marketing, manufacturing capabilities, etc.) that can convert the innovation into value. The effect of these two conditions to join platform ecosystem is investigated. The duplication between the ISV's product portfolio and platform service is also included as an independent variable. The two sample groups are composed of independent SW companies that signed a partner agreement with platform companies and non-participating companies in the platform. As a result of empirical study, it is found that the patent rights do not affect participation in the platform. The ISVs might have believed that the benefits from cooperation with platform companies are greater than the risks of exposure to innovative technologies and unique Biz models. On the other hand, downstream's capability and the duplication of product portfolio affect participation in the platform. If ISVs have the downstream capability to transform cooperation into value creation, ISVs are actively participating in the platform. In addition, cooperation is active when the product portfolio is complementary to platform service rather than competition. This study is the empirical study of open innovation between Korean independent software companies and digital platform companies. There are similar prior studies abroad, but there are no similar studies in Korea. It is meaningful in that the determinants of platform ecosystem participation were investigated through empirical analysis by composing a sample group of companies participating in the platform ecosystem and companies not participating in the platform ecosystem.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. An, Y. B. and Chang, H. B., "A study on minimization of leakage of important information in M&A," The Journal of Society for e-Business Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 215-228, 2020.
  2. Arora, A. and Ceccagnoli, M., "Patent protection, complementary assets, and firms' incentives for technology licensing," Management Science, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 293-308, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0437
  3. Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., and Wu, D. J., "Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 263-290, 2012. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410417
  4. Chesbrough, H., "Open innovation - Then new imperative for creating and profiting from technology," Harvard Business School Press, 2003.
  5. Choi, Y. J., "A study on the competitiveness of the software industry," Institute for Information & Communications Technology Promotion, 2016. 2.
  6. Evans, P. C. and Gawer, A., "The rise of the platform enterprise: A global survey," The Emerging Platform Economy Series, The Center for Global Enterprise, 2016.
  7. Fosfuri, A., Giarratana. M. S., and Luzzi, A., "The penguin has entered the building: The commercialization of open source software," Products Organization Science, Mar/Apr 2008.
  8. Gambardella, A. and Giarratana, M. S., "Innovations for products, innovations for licensing: Patents and downstream assets in the software security industry," October 2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=935210 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.935210.
  9. Gans, J. S., Hsu, D. H., and Stern, S., "When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 571-586, 2002. https://doi.org/10.2307/3087475
  10. Huang, P., Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., and Wu, D. J., "When do ISVs join a platform ecosystem? Evidence from the enterprise software industry," ICIS 2009 Proceedings, Paper 161, 2009.
  11. Kim, Y., "Competitiveness and technology innovation of software companies: Focused on the case of Midas IT and Function Bay," Korea Business Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 155-176, 2018. https://doi.org/10.17287/kbr.2018.22.1.155
  12. Lavie, D., "Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriaton in the US software industry," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 1187-1212, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.637
  13. Li, S., Shang, J., and Slaughter, S. A., "Why do software firms fail? Capabilities, competitive actions, and firm survival in the software industry from 1995 to 2007," Information Systems Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2010.
  14. Marullo, C., Casprini, E., Di Minin, A., Piccaluga, A., "'Ready for Take-off': How Open Innovation influences startup success," Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 27, pp. 476-488, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12272
  15. Nambisan, S., Siegel, D. S., and Kenney, M., "On open innovation, platforms and entrepreneurship," Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2018.
  16. OECD, Eurostat, "The measurement of scientific, technological and innovation activities-oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition, 2018.
  17. Park, S. R. and Kwack, M. S., "Sources of software firms' growth in global market and their implications on Korean software industry," Korea Academic Society Industrial Organization, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2006.
  18. Ro, S. H. and Cho, N. W., "Analysis of the efficiency of national SW R&D Projects using DEA," The Journal of Society for e-Business Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 45-59, 2021.
  19. Teece, D. J., "Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world,," Research Policy, Vol. 47, No. 8, 2018.
  20. Teece, D. J., "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," Research Policy, Vol. 15, pp. 285-305, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2
  21. www.aws.amazon.com/ko/.