• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.1-24
• /
• 2021

The Korean government is currently expanding the business startup incubator support program and funds for new ventures with innovative technology in order to spread the second venture boom. However, despite the fact that entrepreneurial education and mentoring that entrepreneurs should have are important parts for the sustainable growth of the startup, some companies selected for government support programs are reluctant to participate in programs such as entrepreneurship education and mentoring for the sole purpose of funding commercialization. This research addressed the effects of entrepreneurial alertness with opportunity awareness as its medium and the small business mentoring service along with the number of times the mentoring has taken place, on the corporate performances. The results of empirical research are as follow: the first one is that scanning-search and evaluation-judgment can influence a company's performance (financial, non-financial) through opportunity recognition, with the exception of association-connection, which is a sub-factor of entrepreneurial alertness. Secondly, it was found to affect a company's financial and non-financial performance through opportunity recognition for financing mentoring, technical support mentoring, and management support mentoring. Thirdly, it was found that the number of mentoring also affects the financial and non-financial performance of a company through opportunity recognition. The implications of this study are that it should be revisited that program managers consider rooms that do not violate the startup founder's strategic decision-making opportunities when designing and operating the program as entrepreneurial alertness sub-factor association-connection does not affect corporate performance through opportunity recognition. This study also emphasizes the need for customized mentoring to meet the outcome goals of each startup, as it has been empirically clarified that the mentoring provided to the startup by the government's support is important. The contribution of this research is that entrepreneurial alertness and opportunity recognition that are treated as important components in research for entrepreneurship, and the factors of mentoring and mentoring frequency that are recognized as important elements in the practical aspect of startup business are clarified theoretically and empirically as an influential factor in corporate performance. And this study also provide a rationale for the startup business support agency supplying mentoring.

• Journal of Venture Innovation
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2023

This study is related to the performance of open innovation collaboration between startups and large corporations and financial institutions. In the life cycle of a typical company, the growth of a startup is difficult to predict. Startups that possess innovative technology but have only recently been established seek to verify their technology and capabilities by participating in open innovation with large corporations and financial institutions, and further strive to lay the foundation for corporate growth. However, if you approach it only as a theoretical coexistence plan, it will be viewed as a vague attempt from the startup's perspective. The purpose of this study is to differentiately verify the benefits of open innovation by analyzing the difference in sales growth of startups for the purpose of sales performance based on the open innovation participation of large companies and small and medium-sized companies(startups). In verifying this, the analysis was based on the sales results of the actual open innovation collaboration B2C model, and the difference was confirmed by comparing before and after collaboration. Here, the differentiation of the study was added by reflecting the corporate growth stage theory, a growth theory. When the corporate growth stage theory was excluded, it was confirmed that sales growth due to open innovation of startups was applied from the third month, and sales growth depending on participation was confirmed to be significant. On the other hand, when the corporate growth stage theory was applied, sales growth was not significant, but the difference in growth could be confirmed from the fourth month, and it was also confirmed in sales growth depending on participation. As a result, this study objectively confirms the effects that can be gained when startups participate in Open-innovation, and it is expected that Open-innovation led by large corporations, financial institutions, and government agencies will develop into a high-quality program environment.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.341-366
• /
• 2013

The term, Mittelstand, has no exact english translation for the definition, but, today, Mittelstand refers to small and medium-sized enterprises(SME), mostly family-owned firms in Germany. The Mittelstand is called the backbone of the German economy because it drove the economic miracle after World War II. During the global recession and the euro zone's debt crisis in recent years, in which european businesses have faced the near-collapse of competitiveness particularly in manufacturing, the German exports are booming and exceeded exports of China in 2012. Most importantly, the Germany economic performance has been widely attributed to the strength of the Mittelstand. Many of countries, even some leading public companies are seeking to emulate the success of the Mittelstand. Investors evaluate that many of Germany's investable "hidden champions" are Mittelstand companies. The purpose of this study is to present some of answers to the following questions: Firstly, what makes the German Mittelstand so successful? Secondly, what does the success of the German Mittelstand mean for the Korean SMEs in global competitiveness? Thirdly, what Korean government has to do improve the global competitiveness of the Korean SMEs? Some discussions in this study mention the managerial implications for Korean exporting SMEs particularly in manufacturing. Several factors that account for the success of the German Mittelstand are technological excellence and the tradition of family-owned management, concentration on niche market and globalization, and institutional supports. There are some of important lessons to be learned from the German Mittelstand. If the purposes of Korean SMEs want to remain in the sustainable competitive advantage and withstand unforeseen economic turbulences in the future, they must be able to meet the followings: 1) Technology that meets the global standard or exceeding it 2) Competitiveness in price in the global market 3) Active involvement in the globalization process, utilizing various entry modes Innovative products at globally competitive price are a crucial point for Korean exporting SMEs to achieve their competitive edge over others in the target markets abroad. It is time for Korean SMEs to cultivate a core competence in manufacturing in order to position Korea as a global manufacturing hub with SMEs leading.

• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.41-62
• /
• 2013

In order to facilitate the R&D of SMEs and foster innovative SMEs, the Small and Medium Business Administration is funding the SMEs in the focused supporting industries which are selected by a primary consideration of the political conformity. The correlations among the distribution of engaged SMEs, the distribution of SMEs which applied the fund, and the distribution of SMEs funded in the industries are analysed, in order to realize the effectiveness of the top-down method for selecting the focused supporting industries. As a result, there was a large deviation of both the number of the engaged SMEs and the number of the applied SMEs in the each industry, which means that the selected industries did not accurately reflect the needs for the technology development of SMEs. In addition, the distribution of the applied SMEs was strongly depended on the distribution of the engaged SMEs, which shows the trend that SMEs are trying to make R&D plans in their current industry rather than following the political drive. Moreover, because the distribution of the funded SMEs is strongly correlated with that of the applied SMEs, one could know that the selected industries were neither fostered strategically nor evenly but the fund was distributed simply according to the distribution of the applied SMEs. In this study, in order to complement the limitations of the top-down method, the bottom-up method which primarily consider the needs for the technology development of SMEs was suggested. It is desirable to consider in the order of the needs and the capabilities of SMEs, the technological perspective and marketability of the industry, and the political importance in the bottom-up method, and it is expected that the method could be flexibly used in the planning of the various programs.

• KDI Journal of Economic Policy
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.91-116
• /
• 1991

Market liberalization progressing simultaneously with high and rapidly rising domestic wages has created an adverse business environment for domestic firms. Korean firms are losing their international competitiveness in comparison to firms from LDC(Less Developed Countries) in low-tech industries. In high-tech industries, domestic firms without government protection (which is impossible due to the liberalization policy and the current international status of the Korean economy) are in a disadvantaged position relative to firms from advanced countries. This paper examines the division of roles between the private sector and the government in order to achieve a successful structural adjustment, which has become the impending industrial policy issue caused by high domestic wages, on the one hand, and the opening of domestic markets, on the other. The micro foundation of the economy-wide structural adjustment is actually the restructuring of business portfolios at the firm level. The firm-level business restructuring means that firms in low-value-added businesses or with declining market niches establish new major businesses in higher value-added segments or growing market niches. The adjustment of the business structure at the firm level can only be accomplished by accumulating firm-specific managerial assets necessary to establish a new business structure. This can be done through learning-by-doing in the whole system of management, including research and development, manufacturing, and marketing. Therefore, the voluntary cooperation among the people in the company is essential for making the cost of the learning process lower than that at the competing companies. Hence, firms that attempt to restructure their major businesses need to induce corporate-wide participation through innovations in organization and management, encourage innovative corporate culture, and maintain cooperative labor unions. Policy discussions on structural adjustments usually regard firms as a black box behind a few macro variables. But in reality, firm activities are not flows of materials but relationships among human resources. The growth potential of companies are embodied in the human resources of the firm; the balance of interest among stockholders, managers, and workers of the company' brings the accumulation of the company's core competencies. Therefore, policymakers and economists shoud change their old concept of the firm as a technological black box which produces a marketable commodities. Firms should be regarded as coalitions of interest groups such as stockholders, managers, and workers. Consequently the discussion on the structural adjustment both at the macroeconomic level and the firm level should be based on this new paradigm of understanding firms. The government's role in reducing the cost of structural adjustment and supporting should the creation of new industries emphasize the following: First, government must promote the competition in domestic markets by revising laws related to antitrust policy, bankruptcy, and the promotion of small and medium-sized companies. General consensus on the limitations of government intervention and the merit of deregulation should be sought among policymakers and people in the business world. In the age of internationalization, nation-specific competitive advantages cannot be exclusively in favor of domestic firms. The international competitiveness of a domestic firm derives from the firm-specific core competencies which can be accumulated by internal investment and organization of the firm. Second, government must build up a solid infrastructure of production factors including capital, technology, manpower, and information. Structural adjustment often entails bankruptcies and partial waste of resources. However, it is desirable for the government not to try to sustain marginal businesses, but to support the diversification or restructuring of businesses by assisting in factor creation. Institutional support for venture businesses needs to be improved, especially in the financing system since many investment projects in venture businesses are highly risky, even though they are very promising. The proportion of low-value added production processes and declining industries should be reduced by promoting foreign direct investment and factory automation. Moreover, one cannot over-emphasize the importance of future-oriented labor policies to be based on the new paradigm of understanding firm activities. The old laws and instititutions related to labor unions need to be reformed. Third, government must improve the regimes related to money, banking, and the tax system to change business practices dependent on government protection or undesirable in view of the evolution of the Korean economy as a whole. To prevent rational business decisions from contradicting to the interest of the economy as a whole, government should influence the business environment, not the business itself.

• Korean small business review
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.77-93
• /
• 2011

Since 2000, the employment rate of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) has dwindled while the creation of new jobs and the emergence of healthy SMEs have been stagnant. The fundamental reason for these symptoms is that the economic structure is disadvantageous to SMEs. In particular, the greater gap between SMEs and large enterprises has resulted in polarization, and the resulting imbalance has become the largest obstacle to improving SMEs' competitiveness. For example, the total productivity has continued to drop, and the average productivity of SMEs is now merely 30% of that of large enterprises, and the average wage of SMEs' employees is only 53% of that of large enterprises. Along with polarization, rapid industrialization has also caused anti-enterprise consensus, the collapse of the middle class, hostility towards establishments, and other aftereffects. The general consensus is that unless these problems are solved, South Korea will not become an advanced country. Especially, South Korea is now facing issues that need urgent measures, such as the decline of its economic growth, the worsening distribution of profits, and the increased external volatility. Recognizing such negative trends, the MB administration proposed a win-win growth policy and recently introduced a new national value called "ecosystemic development." As the terms in such policy agenda are similar, however, the conceptual differences among such terms must first be fully understood. Therefore, in this study, the concepts of win-win growth policy and ecosystemic development, and the need for them, were surveyed, and their differences from and similarities with other policy concepts like win-win cooperation and symbiotic development were examined. Based on the results of the survey and examination, the study introduced a South Korean model of win-win growth, targeting the promotion of a sound balance between large enterprises and SMEs and an innovative ecosystem, and finally, proposing future policy tasks. Win-win growth is not an academic term but a policy term. Thus, it is less advisable to give a theoretical definition of it than to understand its concept based on its objective and method as a policy. The core of the MB administration's win-win growth policy is the creation of a partnership between key economic subjects such as large enterprises and SMEs based on each subject's differentiated capacity, and such economic subjects' joint promotion of growth opportunities. Its objective is to contribute to the establishment of an advanced capitalistic system by securing the sustainability of the South Korean economy. Such win-win growth policy includes three core concepts. The first concept, ecosystem, is that win-win growth should be understood from the viewpoint of an industrial ecosystem and should be pursued by overcoming the issues of specific enterprises. An enterprise is not an independent entity but a social entity, meaning it exists in relationship with the society (Drucker, 2011). The second concept, balance, points to the fact that an effort should be made to establish a systemic and social infrastructure for a healthy balance in the industry. The social system and infrastructure should be established in such a way as to create a balance between short- term needs and long-term sustainability, between freedom and responsibility, and between profitability and social obligations. Finally, the third concept is the behavioral change of economic entities. The win-win growth policy is not merely about simple transactional relationships or determining reasonable prices but more about the need for a behavior change on the part of economic entities, without which the objectives of the policy cannot be achieved. Various advanced countries have developed different win-win growth models based on their respective cultures and economic-development stages. Japan, whose culture is characterized by a relatively high level of group-centered trust, has developed a productivity improvement model based on such culture, whereas the U.S., which has a highly developed system of market capitalism, has developed a system that instigates or promotes market-oriented technological innovation. Unlike Japan or the U.S., Europe, a late starter, has not fully developed a trust-based culture or market capitalism and thus often uses a policy-led model based on which the government leads the improvement of productivity and promotes technological innovation. By modeling successful cases from these advanced countries, South Korea can establish its unique win-win growth system. For this, it needs to determine the method and tasks that suit its circumstances by examining the prerequisites for its success as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each advanced country. This paper proposes a South Korean model of win-win growth, whose objective is to upgrade the country's low-trust-level-based industrial structure, in which large enterprises and SMEs depend only on independent survival strategies, to a high-trust-level-based social ecosystem, in which large enterprises and SMEs develop a cooperative relationship as partners. Based on this objective, the model proposes the establishment of a sound balance of systems and infrastructure between large enterprises and SMEs, and to form a crenovative social ecosystem. The South Korean model of win-win growth consists of three axes: utilization of the South Koreans' potential, which creates community-oriented energy; fusion-style improvement of various control and self-regulated systems for establishing a high-trust-level-oriented social infrastructure; and behavioral change on the part of enterprises in terms of putting an end to their unfair business activities and promoting future-oriented cooperative relationships. This system will establish a dynamic industrial ecosystem that will generate creative energy and will thus contribute to the realization of a sustainable economy in the 21st century. The South Korean model of win-win growth should pursue community-based self-regulation, which promotes the power of efficiency and competition that is fundamentally being pursued by capitalism while at the same time seeking the value of society and community. Already existing in Korea's traditional roots, such objectives have become the bases of the Shinbaram culture, characterized by the South Koreans' spontaneity, creativity, and optimism. In the process of a community's gradual improvement of its rules and procedures, the trust among the community members increases, and the "social capital" that guarantees the successful control of shared resources can be established (Ostrom, 2010). This basic ideal can help reduce the gap between large enterprises and SMEs, alleviating the South Koreans' victim mentality in the face of competition and the open-door policy, and creating crenovative corporate competitiveness. The win-win growth policy emerged for the purpose of addressing the polarization and imbalance structure resulting from the evolution of 21st-century capitalism. It simultaneously pursues efficiency and fairness on one hand and economic and community values on the other, and aims to foster efficient interaction between the market and the government. This policy, however, is also evolving. The win-win growth policy can be considered an extension of the win-win cooperation that the past 'Participatory Government' promoted at the enterprise management level to the level of systems and culture. Also, the ecosystemic development agendum that has recently emerged is a further extension that has been presented as a national ideal of "a new development model that promotes the co-advancement of environmental conservation, growth, economic development, social integration, and national and individual development."