Cooperation Strategy in the Business Ecosystem and Its Healthiness: Case of Win - Win Growth of Samsung Electronics and Partnering Companies

기업생태계 상생전략과 기업건강성효과: 삼성전자와 협력업체의 상생경영사례를 중심으로

  • 성창용 (서울과학종합대학원 경영학) ;
  • 김기찬 (가톨릭대학교 경영학부) ;
  • 인성용 (익투스 인터내셔널 법률회사)
  • Received : 2016.09.29
  • Accepted : 2016.10.31
  • Published : 2016.12.31

Abstract

With increasing adoption of smart products and complexity, companies have shifted their strategies from stand alone and competitive strategies to business ecosystem oriented and cooperative strategies. The win-win growth of business refers to corporate efforts undertaken by companies to pursue the healthiness of business between conglomerates and partnering companies such as suppliers for mutual prosperity and a long-term corporate soundness based on their business ecosystem and cooperative strategies. This study is designed to validate a theoretical proposition that the win-win growth strategy of Samsung Electronics and cooperative efforts among companies can create a healthy business ecosystem, based on results of case studies and surveys. In this study, a level of global market access of small and mid-sized companies is adopted as the key achievement index. The foreign market entry is considered as one of vulnerabilities in the ecosystem of small and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs). For SMEs, the global market access based on the research and development (R&D) has become the critical component in the process of transforming them into global small giants. The results of case studies and surveys are analyzed mainly based on a model of a virtuous cycle of Creativity, Opportunity, Productivity, and Proactivity (the COPP model) that features the characteristics of the healthiness of a business ecosystem. In the COPP model, a virtuous circle of profits made by the first three factors and Proactivity, which is the manifestation of entrepreneurship that proactively invests and reacts to the changing business environment of the future, enhances the healthiness of a given business ecosystem. With the application of the COPP model, this study finds major achievements of the win-win growth of Samsung Electronics as follows. First, Opportunity plays a role as a parameter in the relations of Creativity, Productivity, and creating profits. Namely, as companies export more (with more Opportunity), they are more likely to link their R&D efforts to Productivity and profitability. However, companies that do not export tend to fail to link their R&D investment to profitability. Second, this study finds that companies with huge investment on R&D for the future, which is the result of Proactivity, tend to hold a large number of patents (Creativity). And companies with significant numbers of patents tend to be large exporters as well (Opportunity), and companies with a large amount of exports tend to record high profitability (Productivity and profitability), and thus forms the virtuous cycle of the COPP model. In addition, to access global markets for sustainable growth, SMEs need to build and strengthen their competitiveness. This study concludes that companies with a high level of proactivity to invest for the future can create a virtuous circle of Creativity, Opportunity, Productivity, and Proactivity, thereby providing a strategic implication that SMEs should invest time and resources in forming such a virtuous cycle which is a sure way for the SMEs to grow into global small giants.

제품의 복잡성이 증대될수록 기업의 전략은 나홀로(stand-alone)전략과 경쟁중심 전략에서 기업생태계 전략과 협력전략으로 이행할 필요성이 높아진다. 기업의 상생경영 및 동반성장이란 기업생태계 협력전략을 통해 대기업과 협력기업간의 기업건강성을 추구하여 장기적으로 지속가능한 성장을 하기 위한 노력이다. 본 연구는 기업 간 상생경영 및 동반성장 전략을 통해 기업생태계가 건강해질 수 있다는 이론적 명제를 삼성전자 협력업체의 사례분석과 종단적 자료에 기반한 추세분석을 통해 검증해보고자 한 것이다. 특히 본 연구에서는 중소기업생태계의 취약점의 하나인 글로벌화와 해외시장개척의 정도를 주요한 성과척도로 활용하였다. 왜냐하면 한국중소기업들이 연구개발과 창조성노력이 해외시장개척으로 연결되지 못하고 있는 연구개발 패러독스에 빠져있는 경우가 많기 때문이다. 그러므로 해외시장 개척없이는 기업생태계의 건강성 유지가 어려우며, 협력기업들은 글로벌 시장개척여부가 강소기업으로 가는 진화경로의 핵심이기 때문이다. 이를 위해 기업생태계 건강성의 특성을 나타내는 COPP 모델의 4대요소를 중심으로 분석하였다. COPP 모델이란 창조성(Creativity), 시장성(Opportunity), 생산성(Productivity), 그리고 선제적 대응성(Proactivity)이 선순환 해야 기업생태계의 지속가능성장이 만들어 질 수 있다는 것이다. 선제적 대응성(Proactivity) 이란 현재 만들어진 이익을 미래환경변화에 미래 선제적으로 투자하려는 기업가정신의 발로이며, 이러한 미래투자 없이는 현재의 저주(Curse of Incumbency)를 극복하기 어렵기 때문이다. 이 모델을 중심으로 삼성전자 동반성장의 주요 성과를 살펴보면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 시장성이 창조성, 생산성, 그리고 수익창출의 매개변수가 되고 있음을 발견 하였다. 즉, 수출(시장성)하는 협력기업일수록 연구개발투자(창조성)가 기업의 생산성, 수익성으로 연결되고 있었다. 반면 수출을 하지 않는 협력업체일수록 연구개발투자가 수익 성과로 연결되지 않는다는 것을 발견하였다. 둘째, 창조성, 시장성, 생산성, 미래 선제적 대응성의 순환 구조에 있어서, 선제적 대응성의 결과인 미래를 위한 연구개발비 투자를 많이 할수록(선제적 대응성) 특허를 많이 등록(창조성)하고, 특허를 많이 등록한 기업은 수출을 많이 하고(시장성), 수출을 많이 하는 기업은 영업이익(생산성, 수익성)이 높다는 것을 발견할 수 있었다. 이제 중소기업은 글로벌시장에 진출할 수 있는 경쟁력 보완 없이 지속적인 성장은 어렵다. 본 연구의 결과, 미래를 위한 투자인 선제적 대응성이 높은 기업일수록 창조성-시장성-생산성의 선순환이 이루어지고, 이것이 글로벌강소기업으로 진화하는 길임을 보여주는 전략적 시사점을 얻을 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Adner, R. (2006). "Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem," Harvard Business Review 84(4), 98-107.
  2. Afuah, A. (2000). "How much do your co-opetitors' capabilities matter in the face of technological change?" Strategic Management Journal 21(3), 397-404. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<397::AID-SMJ88>3.0.CO;2-1
  3. Iansiti, M. and R. Levien (2004a). "The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability," Harvard Business School Press.
  4. Iansiti, M. and R. Levien (2004b). "Strategy as Ecology," Harvard Business Review (March 2004).
  5. Iansiti, M. and R. Levien (2004c). "Keystones and Dominators: Framing Operating and Technology Strategy in a Business Ecosystem," Harvard Business School, Boston.
  6. Kim, K. C. (2009). "R&D Strategy and Platform Leadership from Perspective of Corporate Ecosystem: Implications on Win-win Cooperation and R&D of Conglomerates and Small and Medium Businesses," Korean Small Business Review 32(2), 157-176.
  7. Kim, K. C. (2011). Development of Corporate Ecosystem for Growth of Long-living Companies, FKI LSC.
  8. Kim, K. C. (2012). "Health Evaluation on Small and Medium Businesses and Creation of Global Small and Medium Businesses Based on R&D," Office of the Secretary to the President for Economy and Finance.
  9. Kim, K. C. (2013). Health Analysis on the Ecosystem of Korean Companies and Strategic Implications, International Seminar on Comparison of Corporate Ecosystem Between Korea and Taiwan, Yonsei Business Research Institute.
  10. Kim, K. C., S. S. Lee, and J. Y. Park (2013). Study of Corporate Ecosystem Strategy for Sustainable Development of Companies in Bucheon-si, Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation of Catholic University of Korea.
  11. Moore, J. F. (1993). "Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition," Harvard Business Review 71(3), 75-86.
  12. Moore, J. F. (1996). The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems, Harper Business.
  13. Nalebuff, B. J. and A. M. Brandenburger (1997). "Co-opetition: Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy," Strategy & Leadership 25(6), 28-35. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054655
  14. Nelson, R. R. and S. G. Winter (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. MA: Belknap Press.
  15. O'Reilly, C. and M. Tushman (2008). "Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma," Research in Organizational Behavior 28, 185-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
  16. Teece, D. J. (2007). "Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance," Strategic Management Journal 28, 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640