Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2022.10.S.10

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))
Publication Information
Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice / v.10, no.spc, 2022 , pp. 96-111 More about this Journal
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
R&D Platform for Investment and Evaluation; multi-level perspective; Fourth Industrial Revolution; digital transformation; R&D transitions; national science and technology innovation system;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Huan, H. D. (2016). ASEAN Marketing (Y. J. Hong, Trans.) Sigma Books. (Original work published 2014).
2 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.   DOI
3 Lipsey, R. G., Carlaw, K., & Bekar, C. (2005). Economic transformations: General purpose technologies and long-term economic growth. Oxford University Press.
4 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.   DOI
5 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.   DOI
6 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.   DOI
7 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.   DOI
8 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.   DOI
9 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.   DOI
10 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.   DOI
11 European Commission. (2014a). Study on methodology, work plan and roadmap for cross-cutting KETs activities in Horizon 2020. European Commission.
12 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.   DOI
13 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.   DOI
14 Trajtenberg, M. (1990). Economic analysis of product innovation. The case of CT scanners. Harvard University Press.
15 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.   DOI
16 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/.
17 Strohmaier, R., & Rainer, A. (2013). On the eonomic purpose of general purpose technologies: A combined classical and evolutionary framework. University of Munich.
18 Verspagen, B. (2004). Structural change and technology: A long view. Revue Economique, 55(6), 1099-1125. https://doi.org/10.2307/3503346.   DOI
19 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.   DOI
20 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.   DOI
21 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.   DOI
22 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.   DOI
23 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.
24 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.   DOI
25 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.   DOI
26 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.
27 European Commission. (2014b). Roadmap for cross-cutting KETs activities in Horizon 2020. European Commission.
28 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.   DOI
29 Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter Publishers.
30 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.
31 Revilla Diez, J., & Kiese, M. (2009). Regional innovation systems. In R. Kitchin, & N. Thrift (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human geography (pp. 246-251). Elsevier.
32 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.   DOI
33 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.
34 Bresnahan, T. (2010). General purpose technologies. In B. Hall, & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation, volume 2 (pp. 761-791). Elsevier.
35 Edquist, C. (1977). Systems of innovation approaches- Their emergence and characteristics. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions, and organizations. Cassell Academic.
36 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.
37 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.   DOI
38 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.   DOI