• Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.139-160
• /
• 2017

Technology commercialization creates effective economic value by linking the company's R & D processes and outputs to the market. This technology commercialization is important in that a company can retain and maintain a sustained competitive advantage. In order for a specific technology to be commercialized, it goes through the stage of technical planning, technology research and development, and commercialization. This process involves a lot of time and money. Therefore, the duration and cost of technology commercialization are important decision information for determining the market entry strategy. In addition, it is more important information for a technology investor to rationally evaluate the technology value. In this way, it is very important to scientifically estimate the duration and cost of the technology commercialization. However, research on technology commercialization is insufficient and related methodology are lacking. In this study, we propose an evaluation model that can estimate the duration and cost of R & D technology commercialization for small and medium-sized enterprises. To accomplish this, this study collected the public data of the National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS) and the survey data provided by the Small and Medium Business Administration. Also this study will develop the estimation model of commercialization duration and cost of R&D performance on using these data based on the market approach, one of the technology valuation methods. Specifically, this study defined the process of commercialization as consisting of development planning, development progress, and commercialization. We collected the data from the NTIS database and the survey of SMEs technical statistics of the Small and Medium Business Administration. We derived the key variables such as stage-wise R&D costs and duration, the factors of the technology itself, the factors of the technology development, and the environmental factors. At first, given data, we estimates the costs and duration in each technology readiness level (basic research, applied research, development research, prototype production, commercialization), for each industry classification. Then, we developed and verified the research model of each industry classification. The results of this study can be summarized as follows. Firstly, it is reflected in the technology valuation model and can be used to estimate the objective economic value of technology. The duration and the cost from the technology development stage to the commercialization stage is a critical factor that has a great influence on the amount of money to discount the future sales from the technology. The results of this study can contribute to more reliable technology valuation because it estimates the commercialization duration and cost scientifically based on past data. Secondly, we have verified models of various fields such as statistical model and data mining model. The statistical model helps us to find the important factors to estimate the duration and cost of technology Commercialization, and the data mining model gives us the rules or algorithms to be applied to an advanced technology valuation system. Finally, this study reaffirms the importance of commercialization costs and durations, which has not been actively studied in previous studies. The results confirm the significant factors to affect the commercialization costs and duration, furthermore the factors are different depending on industry classification. Practically, the results of this study can be reflected in the technology valuation system, which can be provided by national research institutes and R & D staff to provide sophisticated technology valuation. The relevant logic or algorithm of the research result can be implemented independently so that it can be directly reflected in the system, so researchers can use it practically immediately. In conclusion, the results of this study can be a great contribution not only to the theoretical contributions but also to the practical ones.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.38-53
• /
• 2007

In a seminal judgment of November 2002 (Case C-476/98) relating to the compatibility with Community laws of the 'nationality clause' in the 1996 amending protocol to the 1955 U.S.-German Air Services Agreement, the European Court of Justice(ECJ) decided that the provision constituted a measure of an intrinsically discriminatory nature and was thus contrary to the principle of national treatment established under Art. 52 of the EC Treaty. The Court, rejecting bluntly the German government' submissions relying on public policy grounds(Art. 56, EC Treaty), seemed content to declare and rule that the protocol provision requiring a contracting state party to ensure substantial ownership and effective control by its nationals of its designated airlines had violated the requirement of national treatment reserved for other Community Members under the salient Treaty provision. The German counterclaims against the Commission, although tantalizing not only from the perusal of the judgment but from the perspective of international air law, were nonetheless invariably correct and to the point. For such a clause has been justified to defend the 'fundamental interests of society from a serious threat' that may result from granting operating licenses or necessary technical authorizations to an airline company of a third country. Indeed, the nationality clause has been inserted in most of the liberal bilaterals to allow the parties to enforce their own national laws and regulations governing aviation safety and security. Such a clause is not targeted as a device for discriminating against the nationals of any third State. It simply acts as the minimum legal safeguards against aviation risk empowering a party to take legal control of the designated airlines. Unfortunately, the German call for the review of such a foremost objective and rationale underlying the nationality clause landed on the deaf ears of the Court which appeared quite happy not to take stock of the potential implications and consequences in its absence and of the legality under international law of the 'national treatment' requirement of Community laws. Again, while US law limits foreign shareholders to 24.9% of its airlines, the European Community limits non-EC ownership to 49%, precluding any ownership and effective control by foreign nationals of EC airlines, let alone any foreign takeover and merger. Given this, it appears inconsistent and unreasonable for the EC to demand, $vis-{\grave{a}}-vis$ a non-EC third State, national treatment for all of its Member States. The ECJ's decision was also wrongly premised on the precedence of Community laws over international law, and in particular, international air law. It simply is another form of asserting and enforcing de facto extraterritorial application of Community laws to a non-EC third country. Again, the ruling runs counter to an established rule of international law that a treaty does not, as a matter of principle, create either obligations or rights for a third State. Aside from the legal problems, the 'national treatment' may not be economically justified either, in light of the free-rider problem and resulting externalities or inefficiency. On the strength of international law and economics, therefore, airlines of Community Members other than the designated German and U.S. air carriers are neither eligible for traffic rights, nor entitled to operate between or 'free-ride' on the U.S. and German points. All in all and in all fairness, the European Court's ruling was nothing short of an outright condemnation of established rules and principles of international law and international air law. Nor is the national treatment requirement justified by the economic logic of deregulation or liberalization of aviation markets. Nor has the requirement much to do with fair competition and increased efficiency.