This paper suggests a new paradigm of science and technology (S&T) policy for the purpose of the new national development that pursues not the scale expansion of a industrial production but the qualitative enhancement of industrial and S&T comparativeness. The new S&T policy paradigm includes new policy directions such as the density increasement of high quality- brain power and the energy supply for crossing the threshold from imitative R&D to creative R&D. Also, this paper argues that it is necessary not only to acquire the support of the local S&T community and policy-makers on the new S&T policy paradigm, but also to develop and implement policy measures in details on the basis of the new paradigm suggested by the paper.

The importance of selecting the strategic research field is increasingly emphasized by research manager and technology policy-maker in perspective of the strategic allocation of R&D resources, employing the R&D personnel, and formulating technology policy. Among various methods for selecting the strategic research field, it is, however, very difficult to find the method that involves the path-dependant trend, and interdisciplinary nature of technology development. This study suggests modified technology cluster analysis (TCA) as a method for selecting strategic research field in order to include the recent technology trend in quantitative approach. TCA is the method that groups the near technologies of which the innovation pattern is similar. TCA model can be a very necessary method for multidisciplinary government research institutes (GRIs) which conduct multi research field with forward oriented positioning. It is more difficult for them to select the strategic research field mainly due to their diversity and intangibility of research scope. In this study, we applied this method to Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) which represents the most adequate research institute in terms of research diversity and forwardness. As a result of the application, we found that seven main technology groups come from TCA analysis, coincide with the technology topics of KIST's recent R&D planning. Even though this method designed for multidisciplinary research institutes, but it also can be used for establishing the research strategy of other (private or public) Research Institute which have the similar mission and scope of research.

This paper presents research linking national culture and innovation. The research identifies how key features of Korean culture, collectivism and hierarchical authoritarianism, affect technological innovation. This perspective casts new light on cultural research that, while generally confirming national culture-innovation ties at the organization level, has had less success accounting for culture barriers to innovation in collectivist nations, especially at the interorganizational level. The data for this study was obtained from interviews and written sources. The paper introduces the concept of the social shaping of technology, with which the influence of culture on technological innovation is analyzed, and highlights the development of EDI systems in the collectivist Korean society. It draws attention to the interorganizational basis of collectivism and authoritarianism in the technology innovation process. Finally, Korean innovation systems are questioned, and some negative effects of the collectivist Korean culture at the interorganizational level are discussed.

This paper inquires into the causal relationship between R&D investment and GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in Korea. We apply the method of unit-root test, co-integration test, and Hsiao version of the Granger causality test to find the evidence of bi-directional causality between R&D and GDP. However, it is interesting to observe no significant directional effect between government funded R&D and GDP while private sector funded R&D turns out to affect GDP significantly. Utilizing the previous study results on bi-directional relationship between government and private sector funded R&D, we draw the following conclusion: In order to increase GDP, government funded R&D needs to induce private sector to fund more R&D in an effective manner. In this way, government is expected to indirectly participate in the development for better economy in Korea.

With the limited resources the proper distribution of the national R&D investment is very crucial to improving the national competence. This crucial decision should be based on the priorities which are driven with the consideration about the relative importance among the scientific technology fields. Such priorities can be useful in planning the national R&D investment and in determining the direction of the national R&D investment policy. In this paper, we used the AHP in order to drive systematically and scientifically the priorities of the major science and technology areas in the national R&D investment, and also analyzed the evaluation differences among the expert groups.

This study develops a Korean R&D Scoreboard which has originated from the R&D Scoreboard in United Kingdom. The Scoreboard contains details of the R&D investment, sales, growth, profits and employee numbers for Korean companies which are extracted from company annual reports and key ratios calculated, with some movements over time. Companies are classified by the Korea Standard Industrial Classification. The Scoreboard contains 190 companies which consist of 100 largest companies and 30 middle-or small-sized firms listed in Korea Stock Exchange (KSE), and 30 ventures and 30 other firms listed in KOSDAQ. The overall company R&D intensity (R&D as a percentage of sales) is 2.1% compared to the international average of 4.2%. Korea has an unusually large R&D percentage of sales in IT hardware (4.9%) and telecommunication (3.7%). R&D intensity is positively correlated with company performance measures such as profitability, sales growth, productivity and market value. For largest companies listed in KSE and ventures listed in KOSDAQ, the ratio of operating profit to sales is greater for high R&D intensity companies. Sales growth is in proportion to R&D intensity for all companies. Plots of value added per employee or sales per employee vs R&D per employee rise together for the sectors studied, especially for the chemical sectors and automobile sectors, demonstrating a correlation with productivity. The average market value of high R&D companies in the KSE has risen more than 1.6 times that of the KOSPI 200 index. Given the correlation between R&D intensity and company performance and given that R&D is a smaller percentage of surplus (profits plus R&D) than international level (both overall and in several sectors), the challenges facing Korean companies are to maintain the leading position in IT hardware and telecommunication, and to increase the intensity of R&D in many medium-intensive R&D sectors where Korea has an average intensity well below international or US levels.

The purpose of this study is to conceptualize PUST (Public understanding or science and technology) with a new theoretical perspective and to measure the Korean PUST through a national survey. Then, it suggests policy implications of improving the Korean public understanding of science and technology. Our new theoretical perspective is focused on an information receiver's one rather than an information provider's one. Thus, we concepualized PUST as a process of engagement: how a citizen becomes to be engaged to science or technology. It does not stress how hard s/he is pushed to learn science or technology. A national survey was done by a face-to-face interview method. About 1,200 adults were sampled from 18 or more years old population by a stratified area sampling method which had been used as a common and reliable one in South Korea. Each half of the total sample were for science or technology. The survey was conducted in September, 2001. We found that many Korean adults had positive but disproportionate impressions of science or technology that were related mostly to utilities for life such as computer, internet, car, refrigerator, television, etc. Most of them failed to continue to be engaged to sciences and technologies after first exposure to them through compulsory education. They were not able to relate sciences or technologies to solving individual or social salient problems. This study shows that PUST would be improved by our engagement to sciences or technologies through their relationship with social problems or issues.

This study examines the impact of the Internet on the organizational innovation. With the introduction of digital technology, the entire organizational process and structure is now being restructured. The purpose of this study is to develop a framework to help classify the organizational innovations and understand organizational innovation processes. This study suggests that the wide diffusion of digital technology has affected the modularization of the organizational routines and processes. The modularization of knowledge and organization give rise to a new organizational architecture, a modular architecture. In the Fordist regime, the characteristics of organizations were depicted as vertically integrated and tightly coupled system. The organizational processes and routines were tightly linked and integrated. However, the diffusion of Internet, which has a tendency to disassemble this tightly coupled system, has resulted in the emergence of loosely coupled and vertically disintegrated system. Eventually the modular architectures are emerging as a new organizational paradigm in the post-Fordist regime. In this study, the modes of organizational innovation is classified as follows. If the organizational innovation enhances both existing organizational components and tile tightly coupled architecture, it is incremental innovation (Mode 1): if it destroys both existing components and the tightly coupled architecture, it is radical innovation (Mode 4): however if only the tightly coupled architecture is transformed into the modular architecture and the codification of organizational component is enhanced, the innovation is architectural (Mode 3). The last one is component innovation (Mode 2), in which existing organizational components are destroyed but tightly coupled architecture is enhanced. It is argued that the organizational innovation process follows Mode I$\longrightarrow$ Mode II $\longrightarrow$ Mode III $\longrightarrow$ Mode IV in order.

Technological capabilities of POSCO (Pohang Iron & Steel Co.) have been developed through acquisition, catch-up, and generation stage. In 1970s standardized operation technologies were acquired based on Japan's technological cooperation. The prime route of technological acquisition was overseas training and operation technologies were articulated by mock and real operation. In 1980s POSCO focused to catch-up advanced technologies through in-house R&D activities. Technological informations were broadly accumulated, task force teams were constructed for important technological tasks, and the scope of technological innovation covered nearly all fields. In 1990s POSCO launched long-term projects based on the large-scale investment and challenged the new fronts of steel technologies. Frontier technologies such as smelting reduction and thin slab casting were early commercialized and new technological concepts were emerged. In conclusion, this article suggests some implications on the development of technological capabilities in Korea.

Researchers, institutes, and government involved in research & development (R&D) are faced with the problem of performing R&D project evaluations. As a real-word case of evaluation, we elicited and reproduced the evaluation process of the national nuclear R&D projects, using a specific case study of Korea. In the methodology, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is employed to evaluate and rank the selected nuclear R&D projects which have a wide range of evaluation objectives and characteristics. As a result, we obtained relative ranking for research projects and importance of evaluation criteria. The method and implications can be easily understood and applied by practitioners since it follows naturally the standard practice of evaluating and relative comparisons of performance using evaluation procedures. By applying particular R&D project output to the procedures, project evaluators can compare and prioritize evaluation objectives.