Browse > Article

Interaction between Innovation Actors in Innovation Cluster: A Case of Daedeok Innopolis  

Lee, Sunje (건국대학교 밀러MOT스쿨 기술경영학과)
Chung, Sunyang (건국대학교 기술경영학과, 밀러MOT스쿨)
Publication Information
Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society / v.17, no.4, 2014 , pp. 820-844 More about this Journal
Abstract
Various innovation theories, such as innovation system, innovation cluster, triple helix model, are different in their focus. However they all emphasize the interaction between innovation actors in order to generate, diffuse, and appropriate technological innovations successfully. This study analyzes how the interaction of innovation actors in Daedeok Innopolis has been changed since the introduction of innovation cluster policy like the designation of Daedeok Innopolis. Based on the analysis of survey data, Innopolis statistics, and patent joint-application data, we come to the conclusions that the Daedeok Innopolis has characteristics of multi-level governance structure, in which innovation cluster, i.e. Daedeok Innopolis, regional innovation system, and national innovation system directly overlap under the framework of innovation system. In addition, from the perspectives of triple helix model, we are able to verify that the inter-domain interactions between innovation actors, such as tri-lateral network, have been constantly increased in the Daedeok Innopolis. Based on our analysis, we identify some policy suggestions in order to strengthen the competitiveness of the Daedeok Innopolis as well as other innovation clusters in Korea. First, the network activities between innovation actors within innovation cluster should be strengthened based on the geographical accessibility. Second, private intermediate organizations should be established and their roles should be extended. Third, the entrepreneurial activities of universities within innovation cluster should be strengthened. In other words, the roles of universities within the Innopolis should be activated. Finally, the government should provide relevant policy supports to activate the interactions between innovation actors within innovation cluster.
Keywords
Innovation cluster; Innovation actors; Interaction; Daedeok Innopolis;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Yun, S. and Lee, J. (2013), "An Innovation Network Analysis of Science Clusters in South Korea and Taiwan", Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 21(2): 277-289.   DOI
2 과학기술부 (2006), 제1차 연구개발특구육성종합계획(2006-2010), 서울.
3 과학기술부.대덕전문연구단지관리본부 (2003), 대덕연구단지 30년사(1973-2003), 서울.
4 권오혁 (2005), "지역혁신체계론의 이론적 전개와 정책적 함의에 관한 비판적 검토", 한국응용경제학회, 6(2): 5-26.
5 김왕동.김기근 (2007), 혁신클러스터의 네트워크 평가지표 개발 및 적용 : 대덕IT클러스터를 중심으로, 과학기술정책연구원, 서울.
6 남재걸 (2007), "지역혁신체제론의 전개과정에서 나타난 함축된 가치와 이론적 한계", 한국지역지리학회, 13(3): 254-270.
7 류덕위 (2007), "대전지역 혁신클러스터와 지역발전", 벤처창업연구, 2(3): 103-122.
8 미래창조과학부 (2013), "과학기술과 ICT로 창조경제와 국민행복 실현", 미래창조과학부 2013년도 업무보고, 서울: 미래창조과학부.
9 박경숙.이철우 (2013), "대구문화콘텐츠산업 클러스터에서 트리플 힐릭스 주체의 상호작용 특성", 한국지역지리학회지, 19(3): 401-415.
10 박현우.유선희 (2007), "국내 혁신클러스터의 기술혁신 연계관계 연구-공동발명의 네트워크 분석을 중심으로", 기술혁신학회지, 10(1): 98-120.
11 송성수 (2009), "과학기술거점의 진화: 대덕연구단지의 사례", 과학기술학연구, 9(1): 33-55.
12 연구개발특구진흥재단 (2012), 2011년도 연구개발특구 통계조사 최종보고서, 대전.
13 연구개발특구진흥재단 (2013), 2012년도 연구개발특구 통계조사 최종보고서, 대전.
14 이상빈.한인수.오근엽.성을현.노준화.유병주 (2008), "대덕연구개발특구의 기업네트워크 특성 분석: 근접성 효과를 중심으로", OUGHTOPIA, 23(2): 217-243.
15 이장재 (2003), "지역발전과 지역혁신체제(RIS): 개념적 유용성과 한계", 공공문제와 정책, 5: 77-95.
16 이철우.김태연.이종호 (2009), "네덜란드 라흐닝언 식품산업 클러스터(푸드밸리)의 트리플 힐릭스 혁신체계", 한국지역지리학회지, 15(5): 554-571.
17 이철우.이종호.박경숙 (2010), "새로운 지역혁신 모형으로서 트리플 힐릭스에 대한 이론적 고찰", 한국경제지리학회지, 13(3): 335-353.
18 임덕순 (2002), "인도 소프트웨어 산업의 혁신클러스터 형성 과정 : 개발인가, 진화인가?", 기술혁신학회지, 5(2): 167-188.
19 임덕순.김왕동.유정화 (2004), "대덕연구단지의 발전과정 및 국제비교: 혁신클러스터 관점에 서", 기술혁신학회지, 7(2): 373-395.
20 임덕순 (2008), "혁신클러스터의 발전 과정 및 성공 요인 : 대덕연구개발특구 사례를 중심으로", 혁신클러스터학회지, 1(1): 15-38.
21 임종빈.김예슬.정선양 (2014), "창조경제를 위한 ICT 융합 혁신 클러스터 구축 사례 연구", 기술혁신학회지, 17(1): 1-24.
22 정선양 (1996), "국가혁신시스템에 관한 이론적 고찰: 사용자-생산자 관계의 측면에서", 과학기술정책동향, 과학기술정책관리연구소, 10: 46-59.
23 정선양 (1999), 지역혁신체제 구축방안, 과학기술정책연구원, 서울.
24 정선양 (2011), 전략적 기술경영, 3판, 박영사.
25 정선양 (2012), 기술과 경영, 2판, 경문사.
26 정선양.임덕순.김왕동 등 (2012), 연구개발특구 활성화를 위한 네트워크 사업 발전방안 수립 정책연구, 연구개발특구진흥재단, 대전.
27 한국산업단지공단 (2005), 클러스터정책 평가모형 개발 연구, 2005-3.
28 최종인 (2008), "혁신 클러스터 성공 요인 : 대덕특구를 중심으로", 혁신클러스터학회지, 1(1): 67-90.
29 최종인.장승권.홍길표 (2011), "혁신클러스터 지표개발", 2011년 혁신클러스터학회 추계학술대회 발표논문집.
30 특허청 (2013), 2001-2012 한국의 특허동향, 특허청.
31 황혜란.김경근.정형권 (2013), "기술집약형 중소기업의 기술사업화 지원정책 연구 : 대덕연구개발특구의 사례", 벤처창업연구, 8(3): 39-52.
32 Ben Letaifa, S. and Rabeau, Y. (2013), "Too Close to Collaborate? How Geographic Proximity Could Impede Entrepreneurship and Innovation", Journal of Business Research, 66: 2071-2078.   DOI
33 Chesbrough, H. (2003), Open Innovation : The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
34 Cooke, P. and Morgan, K. (1998), The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions and Innovation, Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
35 Chung, S. (2002), "Building a National Innovation System through Regional Innovation Systems", Technovation, 22(8): 485-491.   DOI
36 Chung, S. (2011), Korean National Innovation System and Its Implications to Uzbekistan, Presented to the 2011-2012 KSP with Uzbekistan, Tashkent, January 25.
37 Etzkowitz, H. (2008), The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government in Action, London: Routledge.
38 Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000), "The Dynamics of Innovation: From National System and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relation", Research Policy, 29: 109-123.   DOI   ScienceOn
39 Freeman, C. (1987), Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, London: Pinter Publishers.
40 Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. I. (1997), "Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm", Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 718-49.
41 Lundvall, B. A. (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter, London.
42 Hospers, G. J., Desrochers, P. and Sautet, F. (2009), "The Next Silicon Valley? On the Relationship between Geographical Clustering and Public Policy", Int Entrep Manag J, 5: 285-299.   DOI
43 Howells, J. (2006), "Intermediation and the Role of Intermediaries in Innovation", Research Policy, 35: 715-728.   DOI
44 Inzelt, A. (2004), "The Evolution of University-Industry-Government Relationships during Transition", Research Policy, 33: 975-995.   DOI
45 Marques, J. P. C., Cara ab, J. M. G. and Diz, H. (2006), "How Can University-Industry- Government Interactions Change the Innovation Scenario in Portugal? The Case of the University of Coimbra", Technovation, 26: 534-542.   DOI   ScienceOn
46 OECD (2001), Innovation Clusters: Drivers of National Innovation Systems, Paris.
47 Oughton, C., Landabaso, M. and Morgan, K. (2002), "The Regional Innovation Paradox: Innovation Policy and Industrial Policy", Journal of Technology Transfer, 27: 97-110.   DOI
48 Porter, M. E. (1998), "Clusters and the New Economics of Competition", Harvard Business Review, 76(6): 77-90.
49 Saxenian, A. (1994), Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
50 Schartinger, D., Rammera, C., Fischer, M. M. and Frohlich, J. (2002), "Knowledge Interactions between Universities and Industry in Austria: Sectoral Patterns and Determinants", Research Policy, 31: 303-328.   DOI   ScienceOn
51 Smedlund, A. (2006), "The Roles of Intermediaries in a Regional Knowledge System", Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(2): 204-220.   DOI
52 Teece, D. J. (1986), "Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy", Research Policy, 15: 286-305.