Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice

Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (한국과학기술정보연구원 과학기술정보센터)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

R&D Transitions in Response to Digital Transformation in Korea

  • Lim, Jongyeon (Center for R&D Investment and Strategy Research, Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI)) ;
  • Lee, BangRae (Center for R&D Investment and Strategy Research, Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI)) ;
  • Won, Dongkyu (Center for R&D Investment and Strategy Research, Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI))
  • Received : 2022.04.25
  • Accepted : 2022.05.17
  • Published : 2022.06.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

With the rapid development of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and digital transformation, scientific and technological innovation measures are being devised to overcome Korea's low-growth, high-cost structure. Accordingly, by examining the R&D investment evaluation system of R&D PIE (R&D Platform for Investment and Evaluation), which has been promoted by the Korean government in response to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, from the perspective of R&D transformation, this study aims to explore a new path for a sustainable national science and technology innovation system following digital transformation. In particular, from the perspective of R&D PIE, a MLP (Multi-level Perspective), which had been conducted as an abstract theoretical study, was attempted with specific cases and analysis for each of the three layers: niche, landscape, and regime. In conclusion, R&D PIE was intended to elevate the abstract R&D investment evaluation system to a platform that leads innovation in the digital space of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In addition, it was confirmed that the R&D PIE could be replaced or enhanced as a platform for innovation in response to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, thereby providing an alternative to job creation and an escape from economic crisis.

Keywords

References

  1. Asheim, B. T., & Isaksen, A. (2002). Regional innovation systems: The integration of local 'sticky' and global 'ubiquitous' knowledge. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013100704794.
  2. Asquith, M., Backhaus, J., Geels, F., Golland, A., Hof, A., Kemp, R., Lung, T., O'Brien, K., Steward, F., Strasser, T., Sygna, L., van Vuuren, D., & Weaver, P. (2017). EEA report no 25. Perspectives on transitions to sustainability. European Environment Agency.
  3. Bresnahan, T. (2010). General purpose technologies. In B. Hall, & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation, volume 2 (pp. 761-791). Elsevier.
  4. Chang, R., Zuo, J., Zhao, Z., Soebarto, V., Zillante, G., & Gan, X. (2017). Approaches for transitions towards sustainable development: Status Quo and challenges. Sustainable Development, 25(5), 359-371. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1661.
  5. Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 945-974. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.4.945.
  6. Edquist, C. (1977). Systems of innovation approaches- Their emergence and characteristics. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions, and organizations. Cassell Academic.
  7. European Commission. (2014a). Study on methodology, work plan and roadmap for cross-cutting KETs activities in Horizon 2020. European Commission.
  8. European Commission. (2014b). Roadmap for cross-cutting KETs activities in Horizon 2020. European Commission.
  9. Freeman, C., & Perez, C. (1988). Structural crises of adjustment: Business cycles and investment behavior. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 38-66). Pinter Publishers.
  10. Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8.
  11. Geels, F. W. (2005). The dynamics of transitions in sociotechnical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860-1930). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(4), 445-476. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320500357319.
  12. Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022.
  13. Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002.
  14. Geels, F. W. (2012). A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.021.
  15. Geels, F. W., Hekkert, M. P., & Jacobsson, S. (2008). The dynamics of sustainable innovation journeys. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 521-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292982.
  16. Jovanovic, B., & Rousseau, P. L. (2005). General purpose technologies. In A. Philippe, & N. D. Steven (Eds.), Handbook of economic growth, volume 1, part B (pp. 1181-1224). Elsevier.
  17. Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310.
  18. Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Huan, H. D. (2016). ASEAN Marketing (Y. J. Hong, Trans.) Sigma Books. (Original work published 2014).
  19. Kumbhakar, S. C., Denny, M., & Fuss, M. (2000). Estimation and decomposition of productivity change when production is not efficient: A paneldata approach. Econometric Reviews, 19(4), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474930008800481.
  20. Lee, M. H., Joseph Yun, J. H., Pyka, A., Won, D. K., Kodama, F., Schiuma, G., Park, H. S., Jeon, J., Park, K. B., Jung, K. H., Yan, M. R., Lee, S. Y., & Zhao, X. (2018). How to respond to the fourth industrial revolution, or the second information technology revolution? Dynamic new combinations between technology, market, and society through open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 4(3), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc4030021.
  21. Lipsey, R. G., Carlaw, K., & Bekar, C. (2005). Economic transformations: General purpose technologies and long-term economic growth. Oxford University Press.
  22. Ljungberg, J. (2016). Introduction: Structural analysis and the process of economic development. In J. Ljungberg (Ed.), Structural analysis and the process of economic development (pp. 1-18). Routledge.
  23. Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance, 23(1), 161-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x.
  24. Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2010). The practice of transition management: Examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures, 42(3), 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.009.
  25. Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter Publishers.
  26. Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955-967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013.
  27. Nelson, R. R. (1992). National innovation systems: A retrospective on a study. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1(2), 347-374. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/1.2.347.
  28. Observatory of Public Sector Innovation. (2022). R&D Platform for Investment and Evaluation ("R&D PIE"). https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/rd-platform-for-investmentand-evaluation-rd-pie/.
  29. Pianta, M. (1995). Technology and growth in OECD countries, 1970-1990. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035302.
  30. Revilla Diez, J., & Kiese, M. (2009). Regional innovation systems. In R. Kitchin, & N. Thrift (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human geography (pp. 246-251). Elsevier.
  31. Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In S. Rayner, & E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change, volume 2: Resources and technology (pp. 327-399). Battelle Press.
  32. Rosenberg, N., & Trajtenberg, M. (2004). A general-purpose technology at work: The Corliss steam engine in the late-nineteenth-century United States. The Journal of Economic History, 64(1), 61-99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050704002608.
  33. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R. & van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680110803003.
  34. Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2009). Complexity and transition management. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(2), 184-196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00116.x.
  35. Schot, J.W., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537-554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651.
  36. Strohmaier, R., & Rainer, A. (2013). On the eonomic purpose of general purpose technologies: A combined classical and evolutionary framework. University of Munich.
  37. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). Economic analysis of product innovation. The case of CT scanners. Harvard University Press.
  38. Verspagen, B. (2004). Structural change and technology: A long view. Revue Economique, 55(6), 1099-1125. https://doi.org/10.2307/3503346.