Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship (벤처창업연구)

The Korean Society of Business Venturing (한국벤처창업학회)
권호 표지

An Exploratory Study on the Success Factors of Silicon Valley Platform Business Ecosystem: Focusing on IPA Analysis and Qualitative Analysis

실리콘밸리 플랫폼 기업생태계의 성공요인에 관한 탐색적 연구: IPA 분석과 질적 분석을 중심으로

  • Yeonsung, Jung (Business Administration, Dankook University) ;
  • Seong Ho, Lee (Department of Convergence Business Administration, Hanbat National University)
  • 정연승 (단국대학교 경영학부) ;
  • 이성호 (한밭대학교 융합경영학과)
  • Received : 2023.01.06
  • Accepted : 2023.02.21
  • Published : 2023.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recently, the platform industry is rapidly growing in the global market, and competition is intensifying at the same time. Therefore, in order for domestic platform companies to have global competitiveness in the platform market, it is necessary to study the platform business ecosystem and success factors. However, most of the recent platform-related studies have been theoretical studies on the characteristics of platform business status analysis, platform economy, and indirect network externalities of platforms. Therefore, this study comprehensively analyzed the success factors of Silicon Valley's business ecosystem proposed in previous studies, and at the same time analyzed the success factors extracted from stakeholders in the actual Silicon Valley platform business ecosystem. And based on these factors, an IPA analysis was conducted as a way to propose a success plan to stakeholders in the platform business ecosystem. As a result of the analysis, among the success factors collected through previous studies, manpower, capital, and challenge culture were identified as factors that are relatively well maintained in both importance and satisfaction in Silicon Valley. In the end, it can be seen that the creation of an environment and culture in which Silicon Valley can use it to challenge itself based on excellent human resources and abundant capital contributes the most to the success of Silicon Valley's platform business. On the other hand, although it is of high importance to Silicon Valley's platform corporate ecosystem, the factors that show relatively low satisfaction among stakeholders are 'learning and benchmarking among active companies' and 'strong ties and cooperation between members', and it is analyzed that interest and effort are needed to strengthen these factors in the future. Finally, the systems and policies necessary for market autonomous competition, 'business support service industry', 'name value', and 'spin-off start-up' were important factors in literature research, but the importance and satisfaction of these factors were lowered due to changes in the times and environment. This study has academic implications in that it comprehensively analyzes the success factors of Silicon Valley's business ecosystem proposed in previous studies, and at the same time analyzes the success factors extracted from stakeholders in the actual Silicon Valley platform business ecosystem. In addition, there is another academic implications that importance and satisfaction were simultaneously examined through IPA analysis based on these various extracted factors. As for academic implications, it is meaningful in that it contributed to the formation of the domestic platform ecosystem by providing the government and companies with concrete information on the success factors of the platform business ecosystem and the theoretical grounds for the growth of domestic platform businesses.

최근 글로벌 시장에서 플랫폼 산업이 급격히 성장함과 동시에 경쟁이 심화되고 있으며, 향후 다양한 산업분야와 접목하여 플랫폼 산업의 영역과 범위는 더욱 확대될 전망이다. 따라서 플랫폼 시장에서 국내 플랫폼 기업들이 글로벌 경쟁력을 갖추기 위해서는 플랫폼 비즈니스 생태계 및 성공요인에 대한 연구가 필요하다. 그러나 최근 플랫폼 관련 연구는 플랫폼 비즈니스 현황분석, 플랫폼 경제, 플랫폼의 간접 네트워크 외부성 등의 특성에 관한 이론적 연구가 대부분을 차지했다. 따라서 본 연구는 기존 선행연구들에서 제안되고 있는 실리콘밸리 기업생태계의 성공요인들을 통합적으로 분석하고, 동시에 실제 실리콘밸리 플랫폼 기업생태계의 이해관계자들을 대상으로 추출된 성공요인들을 분석하였다. 그리고 이러한 요인들을 기반으로 플랫폼 기업생태계 이해관계자들에게 성공방안을 제안하기 위한 방안으로 IPA분석과 심층인터뷰(in-depth interview)를 진행하였다. 분석 결과, 선행연구들을 통해 수집한 성공요인들 중 비교적 현재 실리콘밸리에서 중요도와 만족도가 모두 잘 유지되고 있는 요인은 인력, 자본, 도전문화가 확인되었다. 결국 현재의 실리콘밸리가 우수한 인적자원과 풍부한 자본을 바탕으로 이를 활용해 마음껏 도전해볼 수 있는 환경과 문화가 조성된 것이 실리콘밸리의 플랫폼 비즈니스의 성공에 가장 크게 기여하고 있다는 것을 알 수 있다. 한편, 실리콘밸리의 플랫폼 기업생태계에 있어서 중요도는 높지만, 현재 이해관계자들의 만족도가 상대적으로 낮게 나타나는 요인으로는 '활발한 기업 간의 학습과 벤치마킹', '구성원 간의 강한 유대감과 협력관계'임을 확인되었고, 향후 해당 요인들을 강화하기 위한 관심과 노력이 필요한 것으로 분석되었다. 마지막으로 최소한의 관리만이 필요한 요인들은 시장의 자율경쟁에 필요한 제도 및 정책들과 '기업지원 서비스 산업', '네임밸류', '분사창업' 등이었으며, 이러한 요인들은 문헌조사에서는 중요하게 지적되었지만, 시대와 환경의 변화로 인해 그 중요도와 만족도에 있어서 우선순위가 낮아졌다는 연구결과가 도출되었다. 본 연구는 기존 선행연구들에서 제안되고 있는 실리콘밸리 기업생태계의 성공요인들을 통합적으로 분석하고, 동시에 실제 실리콘밸리 플랫폼 기업생태계의 이해관계자들을 대상으로 추출된 성공요인들을 분석하였다는데 이론적 의의를 찾을 수 있다. 또한, 추출된 다양한 요인들을 기반으로 IPA 분석을 통해 중요도 및 만족도를 동시에 살펴보았다는 점에서 또 다른 학문적 의의가 있다 하겠다. 실무적인 시사점으로는 정부 및 기업에게 국내 플랫폼 기업의 성장을 위한 이론적 근거와 플랫폼 기업 생태계의 성공요인에 대한 구체적인 정보를 제공함으로써 국내 플랫폼 생태계 형성에 기여하였다는 점에서 의의를 가진다.

Keywords

References

  1. Armstrong, M.(2006). Competition in Two-sided Markets. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 668-691. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2006.tb00037.x
  2. Bigliardi, B., Ferraro, G., Filippelli, S., & Galati, F.(2021). The past, present and future of open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(4), 1130-1161. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-10-2019-0296
  3. Buh, G. H.(2017). Eight scientists and engineers, and the birth of Silicon Valley. Science and Technology Policy, 27(9), 44-51.
  4. BUREAU, O. L. S.(2021). The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, U.S.: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
  5. Camagni, R.(1991). Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives. London: Belhaven-Pinter.
  6. Capital, R.(2021). Renaissance Capital's 2021 US IPO Annual Review. Greenwich: Renaissance Capital.
  7. Castilla, E. J.(2003). Networks of Venture Capital Firms in Silicon Valley. International Journal of Technology Management, 25(1-2), 113-135. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2003.003093
  8. CBRE.(2021). 2021 Scoring Tech Talent. CBRE RESEARH, 1-70.
  9. Chang, C. H., Lee, K. H., & Noh, K. S.(2016). A study on the Comparative Analysis of Competitiveness of Platform Business Success Factors. Digital Convergence Research, 14(3), 243-250. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2016.14.3.243
  10. Chesbrough, H. W.(2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
  11. Courtney, M., & Kusnet, D.(2019). Will Google Strike Bring Big Change to Silicon Valley?. International Labor Brief, 17(3), 111-121.
  12. Cusumano, M. A., & Gawer, A.(2002). The elements of Platform Leadership. MIT Sloan management review, 43(3), 51-58.
  13. Cusumano, M.(2010). Technology Strategy and Management the Evolution of Platform Thinking. Communications of the ACM, 53(1), 32-34. https://doi.org/10.1145/1629175.1629189
  14. De Reuver, M., Sorensen, C., & Basole, R. C.(2018). The digital Platform: a Research Agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 124-135. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3
  15. Dietl, H. M.(1998). Capital Markets and Corporate Governance in Japan, Germany, and the United States-Organizational Response to Market Inefficiencies. Japan: Routledge.
  16. Edelman, B.(2014). Mastering the Intermediaries. Harvard business review, 92(6), 86-92.
  17. Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W.(2006). Strategies for Two-sided Markets. Harvard business review, 84(10), 1-11.
  18. Engel, J. S.(2015). Global Clusters of Innovation: Lessons from Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 57(2), 36-65. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2015.57.2.36
  19. Evans, D. S.(2003). The antitrust Economics of Multi-sided Platform Markets. Yale J. on Reg., 20, 325-381.
  20. Facin, A. L. F., de Vasconcelos Gomes, L. A., de Mesquita Spinola, M., & Salerno, M. S.(2016). The evolution of the Platform Concept: A systematic Review. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 63(4), 475-488. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2016.2593604
  21. Finkle, T. A.(2012). Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Silicon Valley: The case of Google. Inc, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 863-887. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00434.x
  22. Genome, S.(2017). Global Startup Ecosystem Report: Startup Genome. Retrieved March, 2, 2017
  23. Hagiu, A., & Altman, E. J.(2017). Finding the Platform in your Product. Harvard Business Review, 95(4), 94-100.
  24. Hammitt, W. E., Bixler, R. D., & Noe, F. P.(1996). Going beyond Importance-Performance Analysis to Analyze the Observance-Influence of Park Impacts. Journal of park and Recreation Administration, 14(1), 45-62.
  25. Han, J. H., & Cho, O. J.(2015). Platform Business Eco-Model Evolution: Case Study on KakaoTalk in Korea, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology. Market, and Complexity, 1(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-015-0002-z
  26. Han, J. Y., Choi, E. M., & Ji, K. Y.(2015). An Analysis of the Importance-Satisfaction of Convergent Medical Tourism Service Quality. Journal of Digital Convergence, 13(7), 403-412. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2015.13.7.403
  27. Hansen, E., & Bush, R. J.(1999). Understanding Customer Quality Requirements: Model and Application. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(2), 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(98)00007-8
  28. Henton, D., & Held, K.(2013). The dynamics of Silicon Valley: Creative Destruction and the Evolution of the Innovation Habitat. Social Science Information, 52(4), 539-557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018413497542
  29. Heo, I. H.(2011). The Political Economy of Industry Clusters: A Comparative Study on South Korea and the U.S.. Proceedings of the 21st Century Political Science Association, 27(1), 49-77.
  30. Hommel, K., & Bican, P. M.(2020). Digital Entrepreneurship in Finance: Fintechs and Funding Decision Criteria. Sustainability, 12(19), 8035.
  31. Hossain, T., Minor, D., & Morgan, J.(2011). Competing Matchmakers: An experimental Analysis. Management Science, 57(11), 1913-1925. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1407
  32. Insights, C. B.(2021). Tech Market Intel Technical Report, New York, NY: CB Insights.
  33. Jang, P. S., Jang, H., An, H. J., Lee, S. M., Lee, J. H., Lee, J. C., Park, S. W., Ko, Y. H., Song, C. H., & Kim, D. Y.(2017), A study on the Attributes of Creative Innovation Organizations. Policy Studies, 1-388.
  34. Jeon, S. W., Yoon, S. Y., & Kim, H. J.(2013). Korean Entrepreneurship Equation from the Silicon Valley Solution. LG Business Insight, 8, 2-27.
  35. Jeong, Y. J., & Choi, Y. K.(2014). Development Direction of Pangyo Techno Valley Through the Analysis of Success Factors of Silicon Valley. In Proceedings of KIIT Conference, 513-518.
  36. Joint Venture Silicon Valley(2022). THE 2022 SILICON VALLEY INDEX, California: Joint Venture Silicon Valley.
  37. Joo, J. Y.(2021). Analysis and Implications of Data Monopoly. Data Monopoly Theory, Analyzing Its Reality, ICT Policy Seminar. Seoul: Venture Business Association, Korea Women Venture Association, Korea Internet Business Association.
  38. Jung, K. H., & Sung, C. S.(2017). A Study on the Business Model of a Platform Company using Platform Business Model Map: Case Study on Youtube, Kakao, and Edupang. Journal of the Korean Entrepreneurship Society, 12(2), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.24878/tkes.2017.12.2.057
  39. Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C.(1985). Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility. The American economic review, 75(3), 424-440.
  40. Kim, D. H.(2016). Conceptual Typology for Platform Service Ecosystems. Journal of nformation Technology Services (JITS). 15(1), 299-319.
  41. Kim, J. H., & Lee, J. M.(2017). A Study on the Recognition of Swimsuit Brand Image Using IPA Technique. Journal of Digital Convergence, 15(7), 467-477. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2017.15.7.467
  42. Kim J. W.(2018). A strategy for establishing a Busan-type innovation cluster in the case of the United States. BDI Policy Focus, 341, 1-12.
  43. Kwon O. H.(1999). A Study on Growth Factors and Competitiveness of Silicon Valley. THE KOREA LOCAL ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, 13(2), 169-199.
  44. Lee, C. M.(2000). The Silicon Valley Edge: A Habitat for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, California: Stanford Business Books.
  45. Lim, D. W.(2013). A Research Trend of the Platform Strategy in a Two-sided Market. Management Research, 28(1), 109-139.
  46. Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C.(1977). Important-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77-79. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250495
  47. Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H., Renzl, B., & Pichler, J.(2004), The asymmetric Relationship Between Attribute-Level Performance and Overall Customer Satisfaction: A reconsideration of the Importance- Performance Analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4), 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(03)00055-5
  48. Mengak, K. K., Dottavio, F. D., & O'Leary, J. T.(1985). Use of Importance-Performance Analysis to Evaluate a Visitor Center. In Southeastern Recreation Research Conference, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Cooperative Park Study Unit, Clemson University, South Carolina, USA, 111-121.
  49. Moon, H. C.(2017). The Strategy for Korea's Economic Success: Innovative Growth and Lessons from Silicon Valley. RIAS. 26(3), 1-33.
  50. Muzellec, L., Ronteau, S., & Lambkin, M.(2015). Two-sided Internet Platforms: A business Model Lifecycle Perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 45, 139-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.012
  51. Noh, K. S.(2014). what is a platform. Seoul: Communication Books.
  52. Ogink, R. H., Goossen, M. C., Romme, A. G. L., & Akkermans, H.(2022). Mechanisms in open innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature. Technovation, 102621.
  53. Oh, M. J., & Ryu, J. S.(2016). Comparison Between Traditional IPA and revised IPA: An attractiveness Evaluation of Incheon Chinatown. International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 30(7), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.21298/IJTHR.2016.07.30.7.129
  54. Park, J. S., Park, S. H., & Hong, S. S.(2020). Integrated Study on the Factors Influencing Sustainable Innovation Cluster of Pangyo Techno Valley. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship (APJBVE). 15(1), 71-94. https://doi.org/10.16972/apjbve.15.1.202002.71
  55. Park, S. H.(2021). Online platform policy discussions, discussion materials.
  56. Parker, G. G., & Van Alstyne, M. W.(2005). Two-Sided Network Effects: A theory of Information Product Design. Management science, 51(10), 1494-1504. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0400
  57. Parker, G. G., & Van Alstyne, M. W.(2014). Platform strategy, In M. Augier, D. J. Teece (Eds), The palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  58. Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Jiang, X.(2016). Platform Ecosystems: How Developers Invert the Firm. Boston University Questrom School of Business Research Paper, 41(1), 255-266. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2861574
  59. Perez, C.(2003). Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital, Estonia: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  60. Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M.(2005). Science Parks and Incubators: Observations, Synthesis and Future Research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 165-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.001
  61. Piore, M. J., & Sabel, C. F.(1986). The second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York: Basic Books.
  62. Quan, X., & Motoyama, Y.(2010). Empirical Disaggregation of Social Networks: A study of Ethnic Professional Associations and Entrepreneurship in Silicon Valley. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 23(4), 509-526. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2010.10593498
  63. Reich, R. B.(1990). Across the United States, You can Hear Calls for us to Revitalize our National Competitiveness. But wait, Harvard Business Review, 68(1), 53-64.
  64. Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J.(2003). Platform Competition in Two-sided Markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990-1029. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322493212
  65. Rohn, D., Bican, M., Brem, A., Kraus, S., & Clauss, T.(2021). Digital Platform-Based Business Models-An Exploration of Critical Success Factors. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, (60), 1-14.
  66. Ruutu, S., Casey, T., & Kotovirta, V.(2017). Development and Competition of Digital Service Platforms: A system Dynamics Approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 117, 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.011
  67. Rysman, M.(2009). The economics of Two-Sided markets. Journal of economic perspectives, 23(3), 125-43. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.23.3.125
  68. Samjeong Insight.(2019). Platform Business Success Strategy. Seoul: Samjong KPMG Economic Research Institute.
  69. Saxenian, A.(1996). Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, with a New Preface by the Author, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  70. Scott, A. J.(1988). New Industrial Spaces. London: Pion.
  71. Scott, A. J.(1992). The Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography the Collective Order of Flexible Production Agglomerations: Lessons for Local Economic Development Policy and Strategic Choice. Economic Geography, 68(3), 219-233. https://doi.org/10.2307/144183
  72. Shapiro, C., Varian, H. R., & Carl, S.(1999). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
  73. Sim, Y. W.(2015). Smart Ecosystem, Seoul: Communication Books.
  74. Smedlund, A.(2012). Value Cocreation in Service Platform Business Models. Service Science, 4(1), 79-88. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.1110.0001
  75. Son, D. W.(2006). Maturity and Evolution of the Korean Venture Ecosystem. Policy Materials, 1-72.
  76. Statista(2020). Jahrzehnt des Wachstums fur US-Techriesen, https://de.statista.com/infografik/20417/marktkapitalisierung-von-gafam/2022.11.17.
  77. Steiber, A., & Alange, S.(2016). The Silicon Valley Model. Management for Profesionals. Cham: Springer InternationalPublishing Switzerland.
  78. Storper, M.(1992). The limits to Globalization: Technology Districts and International Trade. Economic geography, 68(1), 60-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/144041
  79. Storper, M.(1993). Regional Worlds of Production: Learning and Innovation in the Technology Districts of France, Italy and the USA. Regional studies, 27(5), 433-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409312331347675
  80. Suarez, F. F., & Kirtley, J.(2012). Dethroning an Established Platform. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 35-41.
  81. Sung, Y. J.(2015). Silicon Valley's Business Environment and Development Patterns. Policy Studies, 1-84.
  82. Tauscher, K., & Laudien, S. M.(2018). Understanding Platform Business Models: A mixed Methods Study of Marketplaces. European Management Journal, 36(3), 319-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.06.005
  83. USPTO.(2021). Fiscal Year 2021 Congressional Justification. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Report.
  84. Uysal, M., Howard, G., & Jamrozy, U.(1991). An application of Importance-Performance Analysis to a Ski Resort: A case Study in North Carolina. Visions in Leisure and Business, 10(1), 16-25.
  85. Van Alstyne, M. W., Parker, G. G., & Choudary, S. P.(2016). Pipelines, Platforms, and the New Rules of Strategy. Harvard business review, 94(4), 54-62.
  86. Yablonsky, S.(2020). A multidimensional Platform Ecosystem Framework. Kybernetes, 49(7), 2003-2035. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-07-2019-0447
  87. Zhao, Y., Von Delft, S., Morgan-Thomas, A., & Buck, T.(2020). The evolution of Platform Business Models: Exploring Competitive Battles in the World of Platforms. Long Range Planning, 53(4), 2-24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101892