디지털융복합연구 (Journal of Digital Convergence)

  • 제16권4호
  • /
  • Pages.95-105
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 2713-6434(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6442(eISSN)
한국디지털정책학회 (The Society of Digital Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

기술지식 교류 네트워크의 네트워크 폐쇄와 구조적 공백이 급진적 혁신에 미치는 영향

The Effect of Network Closure and Structural Hole in Technological Knowledge Exchange on Radical Innovation

  • 안재광 (금오공과대학교 경영학과) ;
  • 김진한 (금오공과대학교 경영학과)
  • Ahn, Jae-Gwang (Department of Business Administration, Kumoh National Institute of Technology) ;
  • Kim, Jin-Han (Department of Business Administration, Kumoh National Institute of Technology)
  • 투고 : 2018.04.03
  • 심사 : 2018.04.20
  • 발행 : 2018.04.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 구미 클러스터내 기술지식 교류 네트워크에서 기술적 급진성에 대한 네트워크 폐쇄와 구조적 공백의 역할을 실증적으로 검증한 연구이다. 분석을 위해 협회*기업(2-mode)네트워크 자료를 기업*기업(1-mode) 네트워크 자료로 변환하여 2,550개 기업 네트워크를 구축하였다. 또한 기업의 특성을 조사하기 위해 구미국가산업단지에 있는 기업을 대상으로 랜덤추출을 통해 101개 기업에게 설문을 실시하였으며 최종적으로는 86개 기업을 수집하였다. 분석을 위해, 네트워크 폐쇄와 구조적 공백의 사회네트워크 분석 지표인 네트워크 밀도와 효율성이 높은 수준의 다중공선성을 갖고 있어 능형회귀분석을 이용하였다. 분석결과 구조적 공백은 기업의 급진적 혁신에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며, 네트워크 밀도는 급진적 혁신에 부정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 과거의 개념적인 논의와 문헌연구에 기반 했던 네트워크 패쇄와 구조적 공백의 논쟁에 실증적 증거 제시하는데 공헌하고 나아가 급진적 혁신을 달성하기 위한 사회적 자본의 구축 전략 수립에 도움을 준다. 향후 연구에서는 다양한 네트워크의 구조적 특성을 찾아내려는 노력이 필요할 것이며, 기술 지식의 특성, 혁신 유형, 네트워크 폐쇄와 구조적 공백의 상호작용 등에 관심을 두어야 할 것이다.

This study empirically test the roles of network closure and structural hole on radical innovation in technological knowledge exchange network in Gumi cluster. In doing so, we build 2,550 firm network, transforming association*firm(2-mode) to firm*firm(1-mode) network data. In addition, in order to investigate firms' attributes, we conduct survey for 101 firms in Gumi cluster using random sampling, and finally collect 86 firm samples. For analysis, we use ridge regression since network density and efficiency, indices of network closure and structural hole respectively, has a high level of multicollinearity. The findings show that structural hole has a significant and positive impact on radical innovation, but network closure has a significant and negative impact on radical innovation. This study contributes to present an empirical evidence of debate on network closure and structural hole based on past conceptual discussions and literature review and further goes a long way towards strategy formulation to establish social capital in accomplishing radical innovation. Further research is required that pays closer attention to features of technological knowledge, innovation types and interaction between network closure and structural hole, directing efforts to structural characteristics of various networks.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Coleman. J.S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  2. Burt. R.S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  3. Kim, Y., Choi, T.Y., Yan, T. & Dooley, K. (2011). Structural investigation of supply networks: A social network analysis approach. Journal of Operations Management, 29(3), 194-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.11.001
  4. Broekel, T., Balland, P.A., Burger, M. & van Oort, F. (2014). Modeling knowledge networks in economic geography: a discussion of four methods. The annals of regional science, 53(2), 423-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-014-0616-2
  5. Jenssen, J.I. & Nybakk, E. (2013). Inter-organizational networks and innovation in small, knowledge-intensive firms: A literature review. International Journal of innovation management, 17(2), 1350008. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919613500084
  6. Eggers, F., Kraus, S. & Covin, J.G. (2014). Traveling into unexplored territory: radical innovativeness and the role of networking, customers, and technologically turbulent environments. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8), 1385-1393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.08.006
  7. Porter, M.E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition (Vol. 76, No. 6, pp. 77-90). Boston: Harvard Business Review.
  8. Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N. & Pinch, S. (2004). Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 29(2), 258-271. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.12736089
  9. Gnyawali, D.R. & Srivastava, M.K. (2013). Complementary effects of clusters and networks on firm innovation: A conceptual model. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 30(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.11.001
  10. Zaheer, A. & George, V.P. (2004). Reach out or reach within? Performance implications of alliances and location in biotechnology. Managerial and decision economics, 25(6-7), 437-452. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1200
  11. McCann, B.T. & Folta, T.B. (2011). Performance differentials within geographic clusters. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 104-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.04.004
  12. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American sociological review, 61(4), 674-698. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096399
  13. Powell. W.W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization, Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295-336.
  14. De Carolis, D. M. & Saparito, P. (2006). Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial opportunities: A theoretical framework. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 30(1), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00109.x
  15. Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social Capital in the Development of Human Capital: The Ambiguous Position of Private Schools.
  16. Lin. N. (2001). Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge.
  17. Collier. P. (1998). Social Capital and Poverty, Center for Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector(IRIS). University of Maryland. Working Paper, 4.
  18. Bellamy, M.A. & Basole, R.C. (2013). Network analysis of supply chain systems: A systematic review and future research. Systems Engineering, 16(2), 235-249. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21238
  19. Echols, A. & Tsai, W. (2005). Niche and performance: The moderating role of network embeddedness. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 219-238. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.443
  20. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic management journal, 19(4), 293-317. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199804)19:4<293::AID-SMJ982>3.0.CO;2-M
  21. Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of economic perspectives, 19(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330053147958
  22. Inkpen, A.C. & Tsang, E.W. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of management review, 30(1), 146-165. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281445
  23. Nahapiet J. & Ghoshal. S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225
  24. Yawson. R.M. (2009). The Ecological System of Innovation: A New Architectural Framework for a Functional Evidence-Based Platform for Science and Innovation Policy. The Future of Innovation. Proceedings of XX ISPIM 2009 Conference.
  25. Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic management journal, 20(5), 397-420. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199905)20:5<397::AID-SMJ35>3.0.CO;2-K
  26. Dewar, R.D. & Dutton, J.E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management science, 32(11), 1422-1433. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1422
  27. Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of product innovation management, 19(2), 110-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(01)00132-1
  28. Capaldo, A. (2007). Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability. Strategic management journal, 28(6), 585-608. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.621
  29. Nieto, M. J. & Santamaria, L. (2007). The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation, 27(6-7), 367-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.10.001
  30. Koka, B.R. & Prescott, J.E. (2002). Strategic alliances as social capital: A multidimensional view. Strategic management journal, 23(9), 795-816. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.252
  31. Granovetter. M. (1973). The strength of weak ties, The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
  32. Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G. & van den Oord, A. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research policy, 37(10), 1717-1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.010
  33. Xiao, Z., & Tsui, A.S. (2007). When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.1
  34. Gargiulo, M. & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization science, 11(2), 183-196. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.2.183.12514
  35. Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy of management journal, 36(4), 794-829. https://doi.org/10.2307/256759
  36. Zaheer, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange. Strategic management journal, 16(5), 373-392. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160504
  37. Pathak, S.D., Day, J. M., Nair, A., Sawaya, W.J. & Kristal, M.M. (2007). Complexity and adaptivity in supply networks: Building supply network theory using a complex adaptive systems perspective. Decision sciences, 38(4), 547-580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00170.x
  38. Knoke D. & Yang. S. (2008). Social Network Analysls. Thousand Oaks, California : SAGE Publications Inc.
  39. Christensen, C.M. (1997). The Innovators Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
  40. Tsai, W. & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of management Journal, 41(4), 464-476.
  41. Souitaris, V. (2002). Technological trajectories as moderators of firm-level determinants of innovation. Research policy, 31(6), 877-898. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00154-8
  42. Chen, J., Zhu, Z., & Yuan X.H. (2004). Measuring intellectual capital: a new model and empirical study. Journal of Intellectual capital, 5(1), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930410513003
  43. Wang, C.L. & Ahmed, P.K. (2004). The development and validation of the organisational innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis. European journal of innovation management, 7(4), 303-313. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060410565056
  44. Subramaniam, M. & Youndt, M.A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management journal, 48(3), 450-463. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17407911
  45. Leifer, R.C., McDermott, M., O'Connor, G.C., Peters, L.S., Rice, M. & Veryzer, R.W. (2000). Radical Innovation. Harvard Business School Press.
  46. Churchill. G.A. (1991). Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations. Fort Worth. TX: Dryden Press.
  47. Nunnally. J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, 2nd Edition, Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
  48. Cule, E. & De Iorio, M. (2012). A Semi-Automatic Method to Guide the Choice of Ridge Parameter in Ridge Regression. Submitted to the Annals of Applied Statistics, 1-32.
  49. Chen, M. J., Su, K. H. & Tsai, W. (2007). Competitive tension: The awareness-motivation- capability perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 101-118. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24162081
  50. Arikan, A.T. (2009). Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 658-676. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.44885776
  51. Chatterjee, S., Hadi, A.S. & Price. B. (2000). Regression analysis by example, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons.
  52. Burt, R.S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American journal of sociology, 110(2), 349-399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787
  53. Rodan, S. & Galunic, C. (2004). More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic management journal, 25(6), 541-562. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.398
  54. Moran, P. (2005). Structural vs. relational embeddedness: Social capital and managerial performance. Strategic management journal, 26(12), 1129-1151. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.486
  55. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R.I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716-749. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393655
  56. Florida, R., Cushing, R. & Gates, G. (2002). When social capital stifles innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 20-24.
  57. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative science quarterly, 45(3), 425-455. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667105
  58. Nooteboom, B. (2000). Institutions and forms of co-ordination in innovation systems. Organization studies, 21(5), 915-939. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840600215004
  59. Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 50(1), 100-130. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.100
  60. Ettlie, J.E., Bridges, W.P., & O'keefe, R.D. (1984). Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management science, 30(6), 682-695. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.6.682
  61. Yang. H.M. (2017). A study on the patent valuation for SMEs' patent management. Journal of Industrial Convergence, 15(2), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.22678/JIC.2017.15.2.017