125
126
마지막 제언은 현재 시장을 선도하고 있는 그룹에 속해있는 기업들에 대한 부분인데, 선도기업은 후발주자의 기술 패러다임 변화에 대응하여 기존에 주 도하고 있던 시장과 기술궤도를 빼앗기는 상황을 막을 필요가 있다. 모바일 산업의 LG전자, 디스플레이의 Sony, 자동차의 GM과 같이 현실에 안주하여 루틴에 얽매이지 말고, 적극적으로 외부의 급격한 상황 변화를 감지하며, 신 축적 전략 변화로 외부 지식을 학습하고, 끊임없는 기술 역량 구축으로, 오히 려 먼저 기술 패러다임 변화를 일으켜 시장을 주도할 필요가 있다.
본 연구를 보다 발전시키기 위해 향후 연구에서는 보완 자산 (complimentary asset)이 좋은 연구 주제가 될 수 있을 것이다. 컴퓨팅 기 술 패러다임 변화에 의한 스마트 폰 시장 창출에 UI 기술만큼 중요한 역할을 했던 요소가 플랫폼이고, 실제로 피처 폰 1위의 노키아가 스마트 폰 시장에서 실패한 결정적인 이유가 플랫폼이기도 하다. 다만, 본 연구는 기술 전략의 측 면에 집중해서 사례 연구를 수행하였고, 플랫폼은 모바일 폰 제조사 입장에서 기술적 특징이라기 보다는 보완 자산에 해당되는 사항이므로 관련 내용이 제 외되었다. 향후 보완 자산의 측면에서 모바일 통신 산업의 패러다임 변화 원 인으로 플랫폼을 연구하는 것도 좋은 연구 주제가 될 것이다. 이는 다른 산업 들에서도 마찬가지 좋은 연구 주제가 될 수 있다.
127
참 고 문 헌
Abernathy, W., Utterback, J. (1978), Patterns of industrial innovation, Technology Review, 80 (7), 41–47.
Almeida, P., Kogut, B. (1999), Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks, Management Science, 45 : 905–917.
Breschi, Lissoni and Malerba (2003), Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification, Research policy, 32(1), 69-87.
Carpenter, G.S. and K. Nakamoto (1989), Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage, Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 285-298.
Charles W. L. Hill and Frank T. Rothaermel (2003), The Performance Of Incumbent Firms In The Face Of Radical Technological Innocation, Academy of Management Review, 28, 257-274.
Clive-Steven Curran & Jens Leker (2011), Patent indicators for monitoring convergence – examples from NFF and ICT, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 256-273.
Cohen, W., Levinthal, D. (1990), Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1) : 128-152.
Giovanni Dosi (1982), Technological paradigms and technological
128
trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change, Research policy, 11, 147-162.
Giovanni Dosi and Richard R. Nelson (1994), An introduction to evolutionary theories in economics, Evolutionary Economics, 4, 153–
172.
Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M. (1998), Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 119–127.
Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M. (2005), Patent citations and geography of knowledge spillovers: A reassessment: comment, American Economic Review, 95 (1), 461–466.
Henderson, R. and K. Clark (1990), Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and Failure of Established Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9-30.
Herriott, S.R., D.A. Levinthal, and J.G. March (1985), Learning from Experience in Organizations, American Economic Review, 75, 298-302.
Hyoseok Kang, Jaeyong Song, Keun Lee (2012), When and How Can Latecomers’Path-creating Catch-up Be Successful?: A Case Study on Interchangeable-lens Camera Industry, Journal of Strategic Management, 95-135 (in Korean).
Jaffe, A., Henderson, R., Trajtenberg, M. (1993), Geographic localization
129
of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 576–598.
Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M. (1996), Flows of knowledge from universities and federal laboratories: Modeling the flow of patent citations over time and across institutional and geographic boundaries, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(23), 12671–12677.
Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M. (1999), International knowledge flows:
Evidence from patent citations, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8, 105–136.
Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M. (2002), Patents, citations & innovations: A window on the knowledge economy, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., Fogarty, M. (2000), Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: Evidence from a survey of inventors, American Economic Review, 90 (2) : 215–218.
James C. Spohrer, Douglas C. Engelbart (2004), Converging Technologies for Enhancing Human Performance: Science and Business Perspectives, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1013(1), 50-82.
Keun Lee and Chaisung Lim (2001), Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: findings from the Korean industries, Research Policy,
130 30, 459-483.
Kim, L. (1999), Building Technological Capability For Industrialization:
Analytical Frameworks and Korea's Experience, Industrial and Corporate Change, 8(1), 111-136.
Kodama, F. (1990), Can Changes in the Techno-Economic Paradigm Be Identified Through Empirical and Quantitative Study?, Science Technology Industry Review, 7, 101-129.
Kogut, B. and U. Zander (1992), Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology, Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.
Lee, K. (2005), Making a Technological Catch-Up: Barriers and Opportunities, Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 13(2), 97-131.
Lieberman, M.B. and D.B. Montgomery (1988), First-mover Advantages, Strategic Management Journal, 9(S1), 41-58.
Lieberman, M.B. and D.B. Montgomery (1998), First-Mover (Dis)advantages: Retrospective and Link with the Resource-based View, Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1111-1125.
Martin Zander and Jamie Anderson (2008), Breaking up mobile:
implications for firm strategy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 10(4), 3-12.
Mansfield, E. (1985), How rapidly does new industrial technology leak
131
out?, Journal of Industrial Economics, 34 (2) : 217–223.
Miller, D. (1994), What Happens After Success: The Perils of Excellence, Journal of Management Studies, 31, 325-358.
Mu, Q. and Lee, K. (2005), Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technological catch-up: the case of the telecommunication industry in China, Research policy, 34(6), 759-783.
Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney G. Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.
Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney G. Winter (2002), Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 2, 23–46.
Park, K. and Lee, K. (2006), Linking technological regimes and technological catch-up: analysis of Korea and Taiwan using the US patent data, Industrial and corporate change, 15(4), 715-753.
Perez, C. and L. Soete (1988), Catching Up in Technology: Entry Barriers and Windows of Opportunity, Technical Change and Economic Theory, 458-479.
Philip Anderson and Michael L. Tushman (1990), Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604- 633.
Rosenberg, N. (1963), Technological Change in the Machine Tool
132
Industry, 1840-1910, Journal of Economic History, 23(4), 414-443.
Rosenberg, N. (1982), Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saviotti, P.P. 1988. Information, variety and entropy in technoeconomic development, Research Policy 17, 89-103.
Shankar, V., G.S. Carpenter, and L. Krishnamurthi (1998), Late Mover Advantage: How Innovative Late Entrants Outsell Pioneers, Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 54-70.
Show-Ling Jang, Shihmin Lo, Wen Hao Chang (2009), How do latecomers catch up with forerunners? Analysis of patents and patent citations in the field of flat panel display technologies, Scientometrics, 3, 563-591.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, MA, Harvard University Press.
Soete, L. (1987), The impact of technological innovation on international trade patterns: The evidence reconsidered, Research Policy, 16 : 101–
130.
Song, J., P. Almeida, and G. Wu (2003), Learning-by-hiring: When is Mobility More Likely to Facilitate Interfirm Knowledge Transfer?, Management Science, 49(4), 351-365.
Si Hyung Joo and Keun Lee (2010), Samsung's catch-up with Sony: an
133
analysis using US patent data, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 15(3), 271-287.
Spence, M. ‘The learning curve and competition’, Bell Journal of Economics, 12, 1981, pp. 49-70.
Trajtenberg, M. (1990), A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations, RAND Journal of Economics, 20(1), 172-187.
Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., (1997), University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5, 19–50.
Tushman, M. L. and P. Anderson (1986), Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439-465.
Utterback, J.M. and W.J. Abernathy (1975), A Dynamic Model of Process and Product Innovation, The International Journal of Management Science, 3(6), 639-656.
Weitzman, M.L. (1996), Hybridizing Growth Theory, American Economic Review, 86(2), 207-212.
Weitzman, M.L. (1998), Recombinant Growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 331-360.
Zi-Lin He, Kwanghui Lim, Poh-Kam Wong (2006), Entry and competitive dynamics in the mobile telecommunications market,
134 Research policy, 35, 1147-1165
김영민, 송지영 (2013), 시장을 선도하는 R&D, LG Business Insight, 22- 34.
정진화, 남장근, 정은미, 최윤희 (2004), 신기술융합화에 따른 산업기술 패러 다임 변화와 우리의 대응, 산업연구원.
특허청 (2010a), 로드맵 차세대 이동통신 특허동향.
특허청 (2010b), 스마트 디바이스용 차세대 인터페이스 기술 개발 특허동향.
특허청 (2011), 디스플레이 특허동향.
135
Abstract
In a market with developed industries, there are leading firms that create and lead the market and others that follow. A common method for the following firms to become the leading firms is to catch up the leading firms in the existing technological trajectory. However, the recent method is not simply catching up the technological trajectory, but there are numerous cases where the following firms shift the paradigm through technological innovation so that the original technological trajectory is revised for their advantage. On the other hand, in the case of a technological paradigm shift resulting from technological innovation, incumbent firms, being latecomers, face challenges in catching up to the innovative market entrant. In the mobile communications market, the introduction of smartphones by Apple and the catch-up efforts by existing firms, which had produced feature phones, constitute a good example for study. Using patent information, we empirically analyzed the relationship between catch- up strategies of incumbent firms in reaction to an introduced innovation that creates a paradigm shift and a new technology trajectory. The analysis demonstrates that the speed and scale of