• 지능정보연구
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2021

글로벌 경영환경 변화로 기술개발과 시장니즈의 불확실성이 커지고 기업 간 상호 경쟁이 심화되면서 개별 기업들의 연구개발 활동에 대한 관심과 요구가 증가하고 있다. 이러한 환경변화에 대응하기 위하여 연구개발 기업들은 설비투자에 더욱 신중을 가하면서 연구개발의 질적인 경쟁력을 제고시키기 위한 수단 중 하나로 연구개발 투자를 강화하고 있다. 결과적으로 설비나 연구개발 투자 요소는 연구개발 기업들의 입장에서는 미래 불확실성을 떠안아야하는 부담이 될 수 밖에 없다. 단지 연구개발 역량을 제고시키기 위한 수단으로 연구개발 투자를 증가시키는 경영 전략은 기업성과측면에서 불확실성이 높은 것이 사실이다. 본 연구에서는 데이터마이닝 기법을 활용하여 기업들의 연구개발 역량에 영향을 주는 특성들을 기술경영능력, 연구개발능력, 그리고 기업분류 속성 관점에서 탐색하고 이러한 개별 요인들이 연구개발 역량의 수준에 따라 나타나는 특성들을 탐색하였다. 이를 위해서 국내 연구개발 기업 전체를 대상으로 증거데이터에 근거해 군집분석과 실험결과를 제시하였다. 상기의 3개 관점마다 세부 평가지표를 각각 7개, 2개, 4개로 구성하여 해당 영역에서의 개별적인 수준을 정량적으로 측정하고자 하였다. 기술경영능력과 연구개발능력의 경우 현행 기술력 평가기관들이 주도적으로 활용하고 있는 소항목 평가지표를 참조하였으며, 이때 정량적으로 자료 확보가능한지 여부를 고려하여 최종적인 세부 평가지표를 새롭게 구성하였다. 기업분류 속성의 경우에는 가장 기본적인 기업 분류 프로파일 정보를 고려하여 구성하였다. 특히 연구개발 역량수준의 동질성 파악을 위해서 기술경영능력과 연구개발능력의 세부평가지표를 활용하여 개별기업별 종합점수를 부여하였으며, 이때 역량수준을 5개의 등급으로 분류하여 군집분석 결과와 비교하였다. 분석된 군집과 역량수준 등급과의 비교평가에 따른 의미를 부여하기 위해서 군집별로 연구개발 역량수준이 높은 경향과 낮은 경향이 존재하는 군집들을 탐색하였다. 이후 해당 군집에서 세부 평가지표에 따른 특징들을 분석하였다. 이와 같은 연구수행 방법을 통해 연구 개발 역량수준이 높은 군집이 2개, 낮은 군집이 1개로 분석되었으며, 나머지 2개의 군집들은 역량수준이 거의 높은 발생 빈도로 유사하게 나타났다. 결과적으로 본 연구에서는 역량수준이 높은 2개 군집과 낮은 1개의 군집들을 대상으로 세부 평가지표에 따른 개별적 특징들을 분석하였다. 본 연구의 결과가 제시하고 있는 시사점은 기술변화 속도와 시장수요의 변화에 효과적으로 대응할 수 있는 전문 경영자의 교체주기가 빠를수록 연구개발 역량 제고에 기여할 가능성이 높다는 점이다. 개인기업의 경우에 법인기업으로의 전환을 통해 연구개발 인력들의 기업에 대한 소속감을 제고시킴으로써 연구개발 역량의 투입강도를 높일 필요가 있으며, 조직적 측면에서도 팀단위의 조직구성을 통해 책임과 권한의 정확성을 제공할 필요가 있다는 점이다. 기술상용화 실적건수나 기술인증건수는 역량제고에 기여하는 경우와 그렇지 않은 경우 모두 발생되고 있어, 경영자 입장에서 연구개발 역량제고를 위한 중요 인자로 검토하는데 한계가 있는 것으로 확인되었다. 마지막으로 실용신안출원의 경험 여부는 연구개발 역량에 중요한 영향을 미치는 요인으로 파악되어, 연구개발 역량 제고를 위해서는 실용신안출원 장려를 위한 동기부여를 제공할 필요성을 확인하였다. 이처럼 본 연구결과는 개별 기업들의 연구개발 역량 제고를 위한 기업 경영전략의 중요한 시사점을 제공할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제9권
• /
• pp.85-143
• /
• 1997

The main purpose of the investigation of an accident caused by aircraft is to be prevented the sudden and casual accidents caused by wilful misconduct and fault from pilots, air traffic controllers, hijack, trouble of engine and machinery of aircraft, turbulence during the bad weather, collision between birds and aircraft, near miss flight by aircrafts etc. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability for offender of aircraft accidents. Accidents to aircraft, especially those involving the general public and their property, are a matter of great concern to the aviation community. The system of international regulation exists to improve safety and minimize, as far as possible, the risk of accidents but when they do occur there is a web of systems and procedures to investigate and respond to them. I would like to trace the general line of regulation from an international source in the Chicago Convention of 1944. Article 26 of the Convention lays down the basic principle for the investigation of the aircraft accident. Where there has been an accident to an aircraft of a contracting state which occurs in the territory of another contracting state and which involves death or serious injury or indicates serious technical defect in the aircraft or air navigation facilities, the state in which the accident occurs must institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the accident. That inquiry will be in accordance, in so far as its law permits, with the procedure which may be recommended from time to time by the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO). There are very general provisions but they state two essential principles: first, in certain circumstances there must be an investigation, and second, who is to be responsible for undertaking that investigation. The latter is an important point to establish otherwise there could be at least two states claiming jurisdiction on the inquiry. The Chicago Convention also provides that the state where the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint observers to be present at the inquiry and the state holding the inquiry must communicate the report and findings in the matter to that other state. It is worth noting that the Chicago Convention (Article 25) also makes provision for assisting aircraft in distress. Each contracting state undertakes to provide such measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it may find practicable and to permit (subject to control by its own authorities) the owner of the aircraft or authorities of the state in which the aircraft is registered, to provide such measures of assistance as may be necessitated by circumstances. Significantly, the undertaking can only be given by contracting state but the duty to provide assistance is not limited to aircraft registered in another contracting state, but presumably any aircraft in distress in the territory of the contracting state. Finally, the Convention envisages further regulations (normally to be produced under the auspices of ICAO). In this case the Convention provides that each contracting state, when undertaking a search for missing aircraft, will collaborate in co-ordinated measures which may be recommended from time to time pursuant to the Convention. Since 1944 further international regulations relating to safety and investigation of accidents have been made, both pursuant to Chicago Convention and, in particular, through the vehicle of the ICAO which has, for example, set up an accident and reporting system. By requiring the reporting of certain accidents and incidents it is building up an information service for the benefit of member states. However, Chicago Convention provides that each contracting state undertakes collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures and organization in relation to aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all matters in which such uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation. To this end, ICAO is to adopt and amend from time to time, as may be necessary, international standards and recommended practices and procedures dealing with, among other things, aircraft in distress and investigation of accidents. Standards and Recommended Practices for Aircraft Accident Injuries were first adopted by the ICAO Council on 11 April 1951 pursuant to Article 37 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and were designated as Annex 13 to the Convention. The Standards Recommended Practices were based on Recommendations of the Accident Investigation Division at its first Session in February 1946 which were further developed at the Second Session of the Division in February 1947. The 2nd Edition (1966), 3rd Edition, (1973), 4th Edition (1976), 5th Edition (1979), 6th Edition (1981), 7th Edition (1988), 8th Edition (1992) of the Annex 13 (Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation) of the Chicago Convention was amended eight times by the ICAO Council since 1966. Annex 13 sets out in detail the international standards and recommended practices to be adopted by contracting states in dealing with a serious accident to an aircraft of a contracting state occurring in the territory of another contracting state, known as the state of occurrence. It provides, principally, that the state in which the aircraft is registered is to be given the opportunity to appoint an accredited representative to be present at the inquiry conducted by the state in which the serious aircraft accident occurs. Article 26 of the Chicago Convention does not indicate what the accredited representative is to do but Annex 13 amplifies his rights and duties. In particular, the accredited representative participates in the inquiry by visiting the scene of the accident, examining the wreckage, questioning witnesses, having full access to all relevant evidence, receiving copies of all pertinent documents and making submissions in respect of the various elements of the inquiry. The main shortcomings of the present system for aircraft accident investigation are that some contracting sates are not applying Annex 13 within its express terms, although they are contracting states. Further, and much more important in practice, there are many countries which apply the letter of Annex 13 in such a way as to sterilise its spirit. This appears to be due to a number of causes often found in combination. Firstly, the requirements of the local law and of the local procedures are interpreted and applied so as preclude a more efficient investigation under Annex 13 in favour of a legalistic and sterile interpretation of its terms. Sometimes this results from a distrust of the motives of persons and bodies wishing to participate or from commercial or related to matters of liability and bodies. These may be political, commercial or related to matters of liability and insurance. Secondly, there is said to be a conscious desire to conduct the investigation in some contracting states in such a way as to absolve from any possibility of blame the authorities or nationals, whether manufacturers, operators or air traffic controllers, of the country in which the inquiry is held. The EEC has also had an input into accidents and investigations. In particular, a directive was issued in December 1980 encouraging the uniformity of standards within the EEC by means of joint co-operation of accident investigation. The sharing of and assisting with technical facilities and information was considered an important means of achieving these goals. It has since been proposed that a European accident investigation committee should be set up by the EEC (Council Directive 80/1266 of 1 December 1980). After I would like to introduce the summary of the legislation examples and system for aircraft accidents investigation of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Swiss, New Zealand and Japan, and I am going to mention the present system, regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation in Korea. Furthermore I would like to point out the shortcomings of the present system and regulations and aviation act for the aircraft accident investigation and then I will suggest my personal opinion on the new and dramatic innovation on the system for aircraft accident investigation in Korea. I propose that it is necessary and desirable for us to make a new legislation or to revise the existing aviation act in order to establish the standing and independent Committee of Aircraft Accident Investigation under the Korean Government.