• Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2021

As the global business environment changes, uncertainties in technology development and market needs increase, and competition among companies intensifies, interests and demands for R&D activities of individual companies are increasing. In order to cope with these environmental changes, R&D companies are strengthening R&D investment as one of the means to enhance the qualitative competitiveness of R&D while paying more attention to facility investment. As a result, facilities or R&D investment elements are inevitably a burden for R&D companies to bear future uncertainties. It is true that the management strategy of increasing investment in R&D as a means of enhancing R&D capability is highly uncertain in terms of corporate performance. In this study, the structural factors that influence the R&D capabilities of companies are explored in terms of technology management capabilities, R&D capabilities, and corporate classification attributes by utilizing data mining techniques, and the characteristics these individual factors present according to the level of R&D capabilities are analyzed. This study also showed cluster analysis and experimental results based on evidence data for all domestic R&D companies, and is expected to provide important implications for corporate management strategies to enhance R&D capabilities of individual companies. For each of the three viewpoints, detailed evaluation indexes were composed of 7, 2, and 4, respectively, to quantitatively measure individual levels in the corresponding area. In the case of technology management capability and R&D capability, the sub-item evaluation indexes that are being used by current domestic technology evaluation agencies were referenced, and the final detailed evaluation index was newly constructed in consideration of whether data could be obtained quantitatively. In the case of corporate classification attributes, the most basic corporate classification profile information is considered. In particular, in order to grasp the homogeneity of the R&D competency level, a comprehensive score for each company was given using detailed evaluation indicators of technology management capability and R&D capability, and the competency level was classified into five grades and compared with the cluster analysis results. In order to give the meaning according to the comparative evaluation between the analyzed cluster and the competency level grade, the clusters with high and low trends in R&D competency level were searched for each cluster. Afterwards, characteristics according to detailed evaluation indicators were analyzed in the cluster. Through this method of conducting research, two groups with high R&D competency and one with low level of R&D competency were analyzed, and the remaining two clusters were similar with almost high incidence. As a result, in this study, individual characteristics according to detailed evaluation indexes were analyzed for two clusters with high competency level and one cluster with low competency level. The implications of the results of this study are that the faster the replacement cycle of professional managers who can effectively respond to changes in technology and market demand, the more likely they will contribute to enhancing R&D capabilities. In the case of a private company, it is necessary to increase the intensity of input of R&D capabilities by enhancing the sense of belonging of R&D personnel to the company through conversion to a corporate company, and to provide the accuracy of responsibility and authority through the organization of the team unit. Since the number of technical commercialization achievements and technology certifications are occurring both in the case of contributing to capacity improvement and in case of not, it was confirmed that there is a limit in reviewing it as an important factor for enhancing R&D capacity from the perspective of management. Lastly, the experience of utility model filing was identified as a factor that has an important influence on R&D capability, and it was confirmed the need to provide motivation to encourage utility model filings in order to enhance R&D capability. As such, the results of this study are expected to provide important implications for corporate management strategies to enhance individual companies' R&D capabilities.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.67-75
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The study is to check the specialty of radiotherapists working in the department of radiation oncology and find job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job commitment having an effect on professional parts. After making analysis of the mutual relation, it is to provide radiotechnologists with making progress in the future. Materials and Methods: From March 2 to March 30, we had carried out a survey with email. It is possible to have 272 questionnaires answered in the survey. We make use of SPSS 13.0 for Windows to analyze the data collected for study. Frequency and a percentage are meant to show general characteristics, and t-test and ANOVA to do the difference between general properties and professionalism. Pearson's correlation coefficient also is meant to do the correlation of professionalism, organizational job commitment and job satisfaction, and multiple regression analysis to do the factor for a relevant variable to affect professionalism. Results: There are subdivisions in the professionalism informing us of the self-regulation $17.74{\pm}2.32/3.55{\pm}.46$, a sense of calling $17.58{\pm}2.63/3.52{\pm}.53$, reference of the professional $17.14{\pm}2.39/3.43{\pm}.48$, service to the public $15.97{\pm}2.48/3.19{\pm}50$, and autonomy $15.68{\pm}2.28/3.14{\pm}46$. Grand mean turns out to be $83.89{\pm}7.63$(Summation of items)/$3.37{\pm}0.49$ (Numbers of items). When it comes to a statistical relation between general characteristics and professionalism, the statistics have it that these come within age (P<.001), period of employment (P<.001), education status (P<.05), a monthly income (P<.001), radiotherapists who get a special license (P<.001), the position (P<.001), and an opportunity for developing (P<.001). As a result of organizational commitment, job commitment, and job satisfaction, grand mean in organizational commitment proves to be $80.10{\pm}8.15/3.34{\pm}.34$. There are subvisions showing affective commitment $28.64{\pm}4.61$/3.58, continuance commitment $27.54{\pm}4.22/3.44{\pm}.53$, and normative commitment $23.95{\pm}2.94/2.99{\pm}.37$ in order of precedence. The average grade in job commitment is $32.47{\pm}5.77/3.30{\pm}.60$ and that in job satisfaction is $63.39{\pm}10.16/3.17{\pm}.51$, respectively. We find the positive relationship between professionalism and organizational commitment (r=.522, P<.05), between professionalism and job commitment (r=.444, P<.05), and between professionalism and job satisfaction (r=.507, P<.05). And we also get the positive relationship between organizational commitment and job commitment (r=.549, P<.05), between organizational commitment and job satisfaction (r=.433, P<.05), and between job commitment and job satisfaction (r=.462, P<.05). To catch the factors influencing the professionalism of radiotherapists, we used multiple regression analysis. According to the final model, it appears affective commitment (B=.755, P<.05), normative commitment (B=.305, P<.05), job satisfaction (B=.092, P<.05), an opportunity for developing (B=-1.505, P<.05), and the position (B=-1.155, P<.05) in order of precedence. It seems that explaining influece on $R^2$ is 0.504. Conclusion: The results of the factors that influence professionalism working as radiotherapists in the department of radiation oncology have it that the more affective commitment, normative commitment, and job satisfaction we feel, the more professionalism we recognize. We think that the focus of professionalism is increased if getting the chances for radiotherapists to have little to do with developing opportunities given.