Session 1. Overview of the Field

1. <2014 Spring Seminar on Technological Innovation> Session 1. Overview of the Field 2014. 3. 11 발표자 : 김현식, 이연화, 안경선

2. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Summary & Discussion (1) Nelson, R & Winter, S.(1977), In search of useful theory of innovation, Research Policy(5), 36-76 (2) Pavitt, K.(1984), Sectoral Patterns of technical change : Toward a taxonomy and a theory, Research Policy, 13(6), 343-373 (3) Kuhn, T. S.(1970), The Structure of scientific revolutions(2d ed.). Chicago : University of Chicago Press, [Chapter2 and 7] (4) Van de Ven, A. H.(1986), Central Problems in the management of innovation, Management Science, 32(5), 590-607 3. Implication & Concluding Discussion

3. Introduction

4. 1. Introduction ◀ Peter Drucker "Innovation is the fuel of corporate longevity. It endows resources with a new capacity to create wealth." • ▲ Joseph A. Schumpeter - Creative destruction • [...] The fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes • from the new consumers’ goods, the new methods of production or transportation, • the new markets, the new forms of industrial organizationthat capitalist enterprise creates. • [...] incessantlyrevolutionizes the economic structure from within,incessantly • destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. • This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. • It is what capitalism consists in and what every capitalist concern has got to live in.

5. 1. Introduction Key concepts • Theory of Innovation • Uncertainty of Innovation • Technological regime • Technical change / Taxonomy • Technology push vs. Demand pull • Product vs. Process Innovation • Diversification • Normal science / Paradigm shift / Science Revolution • Technology trajectory • 4 Factor & 4 central problem in the management of innovation

6. <session 1 : overview of the field> Nelson, R & Winter, S.(1977) In search of useful theory of innovation, Research Policy(5), 36-76 발표자 : 안경선

7. 2-1. Summary : Introduction Purpose of the PAPER • The theory integrates existing knowledge, and • enables predictions to go beyond the particulars of what has been observed. • The theory must be wide enough to encompass and link the • relevant variables and their effects, and strong enough to give guidance • as to what would happen if some of these variables changed. Two premises of the current dialogue innovation • The technological advance has been a powerful instrument of • human progress in the past. • We have the knowledge to guide that instrument toward high priority • objectives in the future.

8. 2-1. Summary : THESTATE OF CURRENT UNDERSTANDING The economists' model of differential productivity growth • Kendrick’s study • - concerned with explaining cross sectoral differences in growth of total factor • productivity, rather than output per worker. • Mansfield’s study (dealt only with manufacturing) • - was focused in the relationship between growth of total factor productivity • and R & D spending • Leonard’s study (dealt only with manufacturing) • - separation of R&D spending financed by the industry itself, • and R&Dspending done in an industry but financed by government. • Brown and Conrad’s study (dealt only with manufacturing) • - include in their regressions a measure of R&Ddone by other industries • and embodied in the intermediate goods purchased by the industry • Terleckyj’s study • - considers nonmanufacturing industries as well as manufacturing industries. • - distinguishes between research and development embodied in • capital equipment, and in intermediate inputs

9. 2-1. Summary : THESTATE OF CURRENT UNDERSTANDING Building blocks for a broader theoretical structure • Two of these facts indicate that it is not promising to use the theoretical • structure behind the productivity growth studies as a starting point. • ① innovation involves uncertainty in an essential way. • ② the institutional structure for innovation often is quite complex • within an economic sector, and varies significantly between economic sectors.

10. 2-1. Summary : THE GENERATION OF INNOVATION The profit maximization hypothesis and its limitations • The key concept is that of an innovation possibility set associated with • a given level of expenditure, or with different elements associated with costs • of different amounts. Firms are assumed to choose the profit maximizing • element. • In many cases, the organizations doing R&D are not motivated by • profits at all, but are governmental, or private not-for-profit institutions. R&D strategies and probabilistic outcomes • An R&D project can be viewed as interacting heuristic search processes. • Since project selection implies project heuristics, an R&D strategy can be • viewed as defining a probability distribution of number and kinds of • innovations, given certain variables that influence project selection and • project outcome. • R&D strategies can be dichotomized into these two. The first strategy • has been named ‘demand-pull’; the second ‘capabilities-push’.

11. 2-1. Summary : THE GENERATION OF INNOVATION R&D strategies and probabilistic outcomes • If strategies can be so dichotomized, demand-pull is by far the more common of the two. • Further, when applied, demand-pull is more likely to result in a commercially • successful project than a strategy of capabilities-push. • However, capabilities-push selected projects, when they do pay off, pay off • handsomely. Natural trajectories • Marginal changes in external conditions influence at most the ranking in • terms of profitability of the set of profitable projects associated with • pushing technology in a particular direction. • Relating to technicians’ beliefs about what is feasible or • at least worth attempting • 특정 계층 내에서 기술혁신의 방향은 특정 방향성을 가지게 되어있다는 것

12. 2-1. Summary : THE SELECTION ENVIRONMENT Elements of the selection model • The selection environment influences the path of productivity growth • generated by any given innovation, and also it feeds back the influence • strongly of the kinds of R & D that firms and industry will find profitable • to undertake. • Two roughly distinct kinds of mechanisms for the spread of a • profitable innovation. • ① greater use of an innovation by the firm that first introduces it • ② imitation • general model of the selection environment can be built from specification of • these three elements: the definition of ‘worth’ or profit that is operative for • the firms in the sector, the, manner in which consumer and regulatory • preferences and rules influence what is profitable, and the investment and • imitation processes that are involved.

13. 2-1. Summary : THE SELECTION ENVIRONMENT The market as a selection environment • Successful innovation leads to both higher profit for the innovator and • to profitable investment opportunities. • Imitation by a competitor of a process innovation is likely to occur relatively • rapidly, and to be encouraged by a marketing supplier, rather than being • retarded by a patent. • Both expansion of the innovator, and imitation by competitors are essential • to the viability of Schumpeterian process. Nonmarket selection environment • the motivations of the firms in a nonmarket sector cannot simply be • presumed to be monetary profit.

14. 2-1. Summary : THOUGHTS ON THE EFFECTS OF INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE Two critical requirements for a theory • Be treated as inherently stochastic • be capable of encompassing considerable institutional complexity and variety. Twomajortheoreticalproposals • modeling innovation generation as the conditional probabilistic outcome of • various R & D strategies, and modeling the fate of an innovation in terms of • the workings of a selection environment

15. 2-1. Discussion 대다수의 사람들은 원하는 것을 보여주기 전까지 자신이 무엇을 원하는지 모른다 Steve seemed to say that Apple’s innovation strategy based on capabilities-push rather than demand-pull. Do you agree with him?

16. 2-1. Discussion Nelson & Winter said that imitation by a competitor of a process innovation is likely to occur relatively rapidly, and to be encouraged by a marketing supplier, rather than being retarded by a patent. What do you think the difference between imitation and innovative imitation?

17. <session 1 : overview of the field> Pavitt, K.(1984), SectoralPatterns of technical change : Toward a taxonomy and a theory, Research Policy, 13(6), 343-373 발표자 : 김현식

18. 2-2. Summary Overview • Purpose • to explain similarities and differences amongst sectors in the sources, nature and impact of innovations • Economic development and social change’s essential factors : production, adoption and spread of technical innovations • Technical innovation is a distinguishing feature of the products and industries where high wage countries compete successfully on world markets • Data base • Volume-2,000 significant innovations and of innovating firms in Britain • Period : 1945~1979 (collected by Townsend et al.) • Sample of innovations : 3, 4 digit product groups • Experts in different sectors • Approach and structure • A series of statistical tests • Econometric analysis

19. 2-2. Summary Analysis of the data • Information in the data bank • Source of the main knowledge inputs into the innovation were identified by asking the sectoral experts • Information on the sectors of production of innovations come from the sectoral experts (process innovation, product innovation) • Information on the size and principal sector of activity of innovation firms • Information on the principal activity of innovation firms (diversification) • Innovation in the data base • The sector of production of the innovation • The sector of use of the innovation • The sector of the innovating firm’s principal activity. • ▶ In the sectoral patterns of technological diversification • to compare sectors in terms of • The sectoralsource of technology used in a sector • The institutional source and nature of the technology produced in a sector • The characteristics of innovating firms

20. 2-2. Summary Sectoral technological trajectories • Three characteristics : Sources of technology, Users’ needs, Mean of appropriating benefits

21. 2-2. Summary A taxonomy and a theory of sectoral patterns of technical change Relatively small proportion of innovative activity devoted to product innovations (Percentage of Product innovation) High degree of dependence on external sources for process technology Relatively small average size of innovating firm Technological diversification mainly vertically into production technology with very little movement into other product markets Relatively big contribution to innovations in the sector by firms with their principal activities

22. 2-2. Summary Pavitt taxonomy • Four category of firms Supplier dominated firms are typically small and found in manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors. Most technology comes from suppliers of equipment and material. Scale intensive firms are found in bulk materials and assembly. Their internal sources of technology are production engineering and R&D departments. External sources of technology include mainly interactive learning with specialised suppliers, but also inputs from science-based firms are of some importance. Specialised suppliers are small firms, which are producers of production equipment and control instrumentation. Their main internal sources are primarily design and development. External sources are users (science based and scale-intensive firms). Science based firms are found in the chemical and electronic sectors. Their main internal sources of technology are internal R&D and production engineering. Important external sources of technology include universities, but also specialisedsuppliers.

23. 2-2. Summary Technological Linkage • The main technological linkages amongst different categories of firm Supplier Dominated Firms Science-based Firms Scale-intensive Firms Specialised Equipment Suppliers

24. 2-2. Summary Analytical implication • Science and technology push vs. demand pull - The close relationship between investment in user sectors and innovative activities in upstream capital goods(Schmooker, Scherer) - Investment activities in supplier dominated and production intensive firms are likely to stimulated innovative activities in both the productions engineering departments of user firms, and the upstream firms supplying capital goods. - Not expect Science-based firms a similarly neat and lagged correspondence between the volume of investment in user sectors and of innovative activities. - Scherer found that in materials sectors, in contrasts to capital goods, the statistical relationship between the volume of innovative activities and of investment in user sectors is much weaker

25. 2-2. Summary Analytical implication • Product vs. process innovation - The relative importance of product innovation in a sector to be positively associated with its R&D and patent intensity - Negatively associated with proxy measures of the scale and complexity of its process technology (its capital/labour ratio, average size of production plant, or sales concentration ratios). - Appendix Table11 : E1, E2, E3

26. 2-2. Summary Analytical implication • The locus of process innovation - Supplier-dominated firms will be small in size and innovations to come by definition from suppliers - In sectors with production intensive firms and plan to be large in size, and a high proportion of process technology to be generated in-house - Appendix Table11 : E4

27. 2-2. Summary Analytical implication • Diversification - The relative importance of upstream(i.e. vertical) technological diversificationsinto sectors supplying equipment is likely to be negativelyassociated with R&D intensity - Positivelyassociated with the scale and complexity of production technology - understand the links at the level of the firm between firm strategy and R&D strategy - Appendix Table11 : E5

28. 2-2. Summary Future perspectives • Needs to be tested on the basis of complete sectoral coverage of • the characteristics of innovations in Britain. • Needs to be modified and extended • Have a variety of uses for policy makers and analysts • Turn out to have more powerful uses • Contain one obvious and important warning for both practitioners of • policies for technical change, and academic social scientists concerned • with is conceptualisation.

29. 2-2. Discussion Adoption in recent technology trend • Archbugi, D.(2001), Pavitt’s Taxonomy sixteen years on : A Review Article [FIGURE] Phases of Capitalist Development and Pavitt’s Categories of Firms • Is it possible to adopt in recent technology trend?

30. 2-2. Discussion Applying the Pavitt taxonomy • Laursen, K. & Meliciani V. (1999), • The Importance of Technology • based Inter-sectoral Linkages for • Market Share Dynamics • [Category of Firm] • Supplier dominated(SDOM) • Scale intensive(SCAI) • Specialised suppliers(SPEC) • Science based(SCIB)

31. 2-2. Discussion Applying the Pavitt taxonomy • IPC(International Patent Classification) & KSIC(Korean Standard Industrial Classification) • [Category of Firm] • Supplier dominated(SDOM) • Scale intensive(SCAI) • Specialised suppliers(SPEC) • Science based(SCIB) source : 특허분류와 한국표준산업분류 연계표 작성에 관한 연구(발췌)

32. 2-2. Discussion Applying the Pavitt taxonomy • GICS(GlobalIndustry Classification Standard) [Category of Firm] Supplier dominated(SDOM), Scale intensive(SCAI), Specialised suppliers(SPEC), Science based(SCIB) source : 한국증권선물거래소(www.krx.co.kr)

33. 2-2. Discussion Source of Innovation(Technology push vs. Demand pull) • Giada Di Stefano, G. D et al.(2012),Technology push and demand pull perspectives • in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions, • Research Policy, 41, 1283-1295 • - a detailed review of academic articles dealing with the sources of innovation • Factor 1(Technology and Competences for Innovation) • Factor 2(New Product Development and Market Learning) • Factor 3(Demand and User Innovation) • Factor 4(systems of innovation & the system perspective centered on customers). • Factor 5(Technology Diffusion and Adoption) • What is your perspectives • in your interesting • fields/sectors?

34. <session 1 : overview of the field> Kuhn, T. S.(1970), The Structure of scientific revolutions(2d ed.). Chicago : University of Chicago Press, [Chapter2 and 7] 발표자 : 이연화

35. 2-3. Summary : Chapter2. The route of normal science Normal science • 정상과학: 과거의 하나 이상의 과학적 성취에 확고히 기반을 둔 연구 활동 • 성취: 몇몇 특정 과학자 사회가 일정 기간 동안 과학의 한 걸음 나아간 활동을 • 위한 기초를 제공하는 것으로 인정하는 것 • - 교재 : 자연학, 알마게스트, 프린키피아, 광학, 전기학, 화학, 지질학 등 • 역할: 이런 책들과 다수의 여타 저작이 일정 시기 동안은 연구 분야에서의 합당한 • 문제들과 방법들을 연구자의 다음 세대에게 묵시적으로 정의해주는 역할

36. 2-3. Summary : Chapter2. The route of normal science Paradigm • 개념 : 과학적 인식-이론-관습-사고-관념-가치관 등이 결합된 총체적인 틀 • 또는 개념의 집합체 • 패러다임의 획득과 그것이 허용하는 보다 심원한 연구 형태의 획득은 어느 주어진 과학 영역의 발전에서 성숙의 징조 • 두 가지 특징을 가진 Achievement • 과학 활동의 경쟁 방식을 바꿀 수 있는 획기적인 것 • 모든 유형의 문제들에 대해서 새로운 해석이 가능하도록 열려 있는 것

37. 2-3. Summary : Chapter2. The route of normal science Paradigm • 의의 • - 과학 활동을 수행하기 위한 과학자의 사전 준비의 역할 • - 공유된 paradigm안에서의 동일한 규칙과 표준 제시 • - 물리학에서의 paradigm의 전환은”과학혁명” 하나의 패러다임으로부터 다른 • 패러다임으로의 연속적인 이행은 성숙된 과학에서의 통상적인 발달 양상 • 예 • - 프톨레마이오스의 천문학 • - 아리스토텔레스의 역학 • - 입자광학

38. 2-3. Summary : Chapter7.Crisis and Emergence of Scientific Theories Paradigm 변화 • “과학혁명은… 하나의 Paradigm이 이와 양립 불가능한 다른 새로운 • Paradigm에 의해 전체적 또는 부분적으로 대체되는 비축적적인 변화의 • 에피소드를 가리킨다” • 이러한 과정을 Normal science의 성과누적을 통해 기존 패러다임이 깨어지면서 경쟁적인 새로운 패러다임이 나타나는 것으로 설명 • - 기존의 표준 이념이나 방법에 대한 포기 • - 이전 paradigm의 구성 요소를 다른 것으로 대치 • 현상에 대한 관심 • - 이론 변화의 선수 조건 • - 새로운 이론이 출현하게 되면, 대규모의 패러다임의 파괴와 normal science 및 • 기술상의 주요 변동이 발생하게 되어 불안정한 이론 선행 시기가 나타나게 됨 • - 새로운 이론은 정상적 문제 풀이 활동에서의 현저한 실패 이후 출현, 결국 이상 • 현상이나 위기는 “paradigm”이 바뀌어야 할 때라는 것을 가리키는 지표

39. 2-3. Summary : Chapter7.Crisis and Emergence of Scientific Theories Paradigm 변화의 예 • 코페르니쿠스 • 1) 기술상의 퍼즐 출이 활동의 붕괴 • 2) 달력 개혁에 대한 사회적 압력, • 3) 유의미한 역사적 요소 • 라부아지에의 산소 이론의 탄생에 선행했던 위기 • 1) 기체화학의 융성과 질량 관계에 대한 의문:18세기 화학자들은 공기가 화학 • 반응에서의 활성 성분임에 틀림없다는 것을 차츰 깨닫게 되었음 • 2) 1756년에 이르러 조지프 블랙이 고정된 공기(이산화탄소)는 언제나 보통 • 공기와는 구별된다는 것을 보여주었을 때, 두 가지 기체 시료는 오직 • 그 불순물에서만 차이가 나는 것으로 간주되었음 • 상대성 이론의탄생으로의 길을 열어주었던 물리학에서의 19세기 말의 • 위기에 대한 것 • - 그들은 절대 위치와 절대 운동은 뉴턴의 체계에서는 전혀 아무런 구실을 • 하지 못한다는 것을 증명할 수 있었다. 19세기 말 수십 년 도안 물리학의 • 실제에 전혀 새로운 관계를 맺게 될 때 비로소 부활되었던 것임

40. 2-3. Discussion 정상과학(normalscience)와 패러다임(paradigm)의개념에 어떤 구별이 있는지? • 정상과학은 과거의 하나 이상의 과학적 성취에 확고히 기반을 둔 연구 활동을 • 뜻하고 정상과학의 성취는 과학 활동의 경재 방식으로부터 끈질긴 옹호자들의 • 무리를떼어 낼 만큼 전대미문이고 동시에 모든 유형의 무제들을 연구자들의 • 재편된 그룹이 해결하도록 남겨 놓을 만큼 상당히 융통성이 있었다. • 이 두 가지 특성을 띠는 성취를 패러다임이라고 부른다…. 패러다임을 설명 할 때 모두 과학자들의 연구과정의 흐름을 논리적으로 표현했다고 하는데 그렇다면 패러다임은 과학분야에서만 나타나는 현상인가?

41. 2-3. Discussion 패러다임은 시대를 지배하는 총체적 틀인데 정상연구가 진행되다 보면 기존 패러다임의 오류를 수정하고자 새로운 패러다임이 나타나는데 어느 범위까지 인정 받아야 패러다임이라 할 수 있는가? 새로운 이론은 정상적 문제 풀이 활동에서의 현저한 실패를 본 후에야 비로소 출현했다. 이는 우리가 논문 연구를 할 때 선행 연구들에만 의거하지 말고 그것의 부족한 점을 찾고 그것을 바탕으로 해야 새로운 무엇인가가 나올 수 있다고 한다. 이러한 관점에 동의하는가? Paradigm shift와 Technological Innovation사이의 유사성과 차별성을 어떻게 설명할 수 있을까?

42. <session 1 : overview of the field> Van de Ven, a. H.(1986), Central Problems in the management of innovation, Management Science, 32(5), 590-607 발표자 : 이연화

43. 2-4. Summary : Introduction 1980’s • In the wake of a decline in American productivity and obsolescence of its • infrastructure • The need for understanding and managing innovation • Stimulating innovation in popular books, Ouchi(1981),Pascale and Athos(1981) • 30chief executive officers public and private firms • 1. How can a large organization develop an maintain a culture of • innovation and entrepreneurship • 2.What are the critical factors in successfully launching new organizations? • 3.How can a manager achieve balance?

44. 2-4. Summary : Introduction Innovation is to understand the factors that facilitate and inhibit, the factors include ideas, people, transactions and context over time.

45. 2-4. Summary : Factors(1) New ideas-Human problem of managing attention • Innovation Ideas • - is a new idea, which may be a recombination of old ideas, a scheme that • challenges the present order, a formula, or a unique approach which is perceived • as new by the individuals involved(Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbwk1973) • - technical innovations(new technologies, products, services) • - administrative innovations(new procedures, policies, organizational forms) • “innovations” or ”mistakes” • - (1)How and why certain innovative ideas gain good currency? • - (2)How and why people pay attention to only certain new ideas and ignore?

46. 2-4. Summary : Factors(2) People-Process problem in managing new ideas into good currency • The management of ideas • - People become attached to ideas • over time through a social-political • process of pushing and riding their • ideas into good currency. • Limitations to inertia and premature abandonment of some ideas • There tends to be a short-term problem orientation in individuals and organizations, and a façade of demonstrating progress. • Inventory of ideas is seldom adequate for the situation • Even more basic problem is the management of attention

47. 2-4. Summary : Factors(2) People-Process problem in managing new ideas into good currency • The management of attention • - A more realistic view of innovation should begin with an appreciation of the • physiological limitations of human beings to pay attention to nonroutine issues, • and their corresponding inertial forces in organizational life. • Physiological limitations of human beings • Group and organizational limitations • Way to management attention • → direct personal confrontations with problem • → triggering the action thresholds of organizational participants • → channeling the action toward constructive ends

48. 2-4. Summary : Factors(3) Transactions-Structural problem of managing part whole relationships • Proliferation of ideas, people, and transactions over time is a pervasive but little • understood characteristic of innovation process, and with it come complexity • and interdependence-and the basic structural problem of managing • part-whole relations • An Innovation is a collective achievement. • The transactions are deals or exchanges • which tie people together within an • institutional framework. • The organizational design for a process for • integrating all the essential functions, • organizational units, and resources. Fig 2. Linear sequential coupling compared with simultaneous Coupling of knowledge(Galbraith, 1982)

49. 2-4. Summary : Factors(3) Transactions-Structural problem of managing part whole relationships • Four inter-related design holographic organizations, principles have been • suggested by Morgan(1983) • Self-organizing : To solve its problems within an overall mission and set of • constraints prescribed for the unit by the lager organization. • 2) Redundant functions : People develop an understanding of the essential • considerations and constraints of all aspects of the innovation in addition to • chose immediately needed to perform their individual assignments. • 3) Requisite variety • Making environmental scanning a responsibility of all unit members. • 4) Temporal linkage • Integrating parts of time(past, present, and future events) into an overall • chronology of the innovation process

50. 2-4. Summary : Factors(4) Institutional context-Leadership and innovation context Figure 3. Institutional and technical processes(Lodahl and Mitchell, 1980)