The Effects of Innovative Capabilities and Technological Entrepreneurship of Korean Small and Medium-sized Enterprises on Performance of Technology Management Heon Deok Yoon and Ribin Seo*
The effective managerial system of technological innovation is a critical issue to promote sustainable growth of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This study is to confirm the core factors of innovative capabilities and technological entrepreneurship affecting performances of technology and business management of technological innovation-type firms (INNO-BIZ) in Korea. The management of technology requires them to consider the complex natures of technological innovations influenced by multidimensional factors. Through empirical analysis, the research results imply technology-intensive firms should periodically evaluate the performance of technology management which are the output of technological innovations as well as the re-investment for ultimate business success. In addition, improving and developing innovative capabilities and technological entrepreneurship is required in order to continuously and consistently invest resources and supports. These are the crucial methods for securing technological competitiveness of SMEs with less resources and narrow innovation scale.
1. Introduction Technological innovation-type firms are faced with the new business environment characterized by hyper-competition, which forces them to secure a technological competitiveness through continuous innovation processes in order to survive and succeed. These
circumstances
underscore the adaptation
of systematic and
comprehensive
management of technology because technological innovation, which influences the value and performance of technology-intensive SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises), lead them to reinforce their competitiveness. The management of technology requires accurately understanding and analyzing resources a firm have and need, so that it improves the suitability of its strategies for * Heon Deok Yoon is Professor at Department of Small Business and Entrepreneurship of Soongsil University. Ribin Seo is Researcher at Institute of Entrepreneurship Management of Soongsil University. Address correspondence to: Heon Deok Yoon, #402 Venture and Small Business Incubation Center, Soongsil University, Sangdo-Dong, 1-1 Dongjack-Gu, Soeul, Republic of Korea. E-mail:
[email protected],
[email protected]. - 1 -
technological innovation with the dramatically changing environments. Systematically integrating the internal resources and capabilities with the strategies to implement technological innovations is the major concern of management of technology. The importance
of
innovative
capability,
therefore,
is
increasingly
emphasized
from
resource-based view. A number of previous researches have addressed practical issues associating with resources and capabilities for generating innovative initiatives. Upon closer examination, however, they cannot clearly establish the relation between capabilities and performance because there is the generally accepted problem of time gap. This problem is getting more serious in technology-intensive firms due to the nature of technological innovations with intangible resources and capabilities. To make matters worse, the natures of technological innovations makes managers and researchers difficult to identify whether innovative capabilities actually affect performances. Failing to precisely justify the relationship, it discourages SMEs to invest continuously for developing technological innovations because its visible and short-term outcome cannot be observed easily. Most of researches apply financial performances, which are not directly relevant to technological innovations, as the indicators of outcomes of technology-intensive firms. Therefore, the critical aspect of this study is, however, that the innovative initiatives related to developing technologies, must be evaluated with different set of criteria and metrics, because the short-term financial performances do not reflect the natures of innovation initiatives. Rather than using the performance of business management, precisely and periodically assessing the performance of technology management allows a firm to focus on initiatives for technological innovations which are the primary source of
its
competitive
advantage.
That
is
because
the
performance
of
technology
management, resulting immediately from resources and capabilities, will appropriately indicate the properties of technology-intensive firms. When it comes to entrepreneurship, previous researches described that it can be a sort of innovative resource for SME to overcome its lack of resources and narrow innovation scale. That is, entrepreneurship is likely to play a certain role to facilitate innovative initiatives. Technological entrepreneurship which is the expanded concept of traditional entrepreneurship deals with the disposition of innovation-oriented leaders of technology-intensive firms. Although it has been studies mainly to promote it in high-end industries, the empirical researches regarding technological entrepreneurship fell short of practical and academic demands.
- 2 -
This
study
is
to
propose
the
efficient
business
system
for
technological
innovation-type SMEs so that they invest resources on the initiatives of technological innovations continuously and consistently. To meet the research purpose, it will analyze how they can create the managerial performances on the basis of their innovative capabilities and technological entrepreneurship. The criterions measuring the performances are categorized into two separating indexes, the performance of technology management and of business management. It is expected that this phased research model can reduce or solve the problem of time gap. In addition, this study will analyze the mediating effect of the technological entrepreneurship to identify its role in the firms.
2. Literature Review and Research Hypothesis 2.1 Performancesof Technological and Business Management In the point of view of the management of technology, the value of technological innovations,
which
is
a
primary
source
of
reinforcing
competitiveness
of
technology-intensive firms, can be realized when it is connected with the needs of markets and customers. To find out the value, therefore, a firm should scrutinize the commerciality and marketability of technological innovations. White and Bruton (2007) emphasize that evaluating the performance of technology management is different form doing the outcomes of business management by arguing that the outputs resulting from technological innovations should be managed to be reinvested for developing later new initiatives. That is, the criteria measuring the performance of technology management which requires different managerial competencies have to be different from a set of business assessments. The reason why it is hard to define its indicators is because of the complex nature of technological innovations which are influenced by multi-dimensional factors (Jain, 1997). So most of previous researches apply generally the performances of business management to outcomes of innovative initiatives, such as the innovative product rate and patent rate, which have an immanent trouble not to exactly reflect the properties of technological innovation.1) To exactly evaluate the intangible and invisible assets 1) For example, the innovative product rate cannot reflect the newness of innovation. The patent rate also cannot indicate precisely the value of technological innovation when its astonishing velocity forces the application of patents to be useless or when a firm are reluctant to register its technologies owing to protecting them from imitations. - 3 -
consisting of technological innovation, the performances of technology management should be measured by using quantitative and qualitative evaluations together, because innovation leaders usually notice various its signals and subjectively evaluate it before financial performances are realized. OECD's Oslo Manual (2005), regarding the economic effects of technology-intensive SMEs, recommends evaluating the complex and multidimensional activities of technological innovations rather than simply measuring the number of innovations. In accordance with the perspective of innovation process, input-output-outcome, preceding outputs of technological innovations can become the re-investments for implementing innovative efforts and generating business performances, because it produces operating capital resources enough to develop and commercialize new technologies (Kropp and Zolin, 2005). It is expected that the relation can be identified clearly by setting the input as the innovative capability, the output as the performance of technological management and the outcome as the performance of business management. The criterions to measure the performance of technology management are developed from the technological value evaluating method. To analyze intangible technologies, it considers synthetically the subjective value of three different dimensions which are technological superiority, market growth potential, and business profitability (Smith and Russell, 1994). H1. Performance of technology management will effect on performance of business management.
2.2 Innovative Capabilities In accordance with the resource-based view, innovative capabilities are the primary and imperative, firm-specific resources to secure a sustainable competitive advantages of technology-intensive firms. They are perceived as aggregations of tangible and intangible resources, interconnected to implement innovative initiatives throughout the value delivery system in a firm (Wenerfelt, 1984; Grant, 1991; Peteraf, 1993). Christensen (1995) depicts that the competitiveness of innovative firms can be consolidated by possessing unique resources with non-imitability, non-replaceability and distinctive value for the success of innovations. Burgelman et al. (2009) describe innovative capabilities are not only the results of innovative initiatives but the resources for sustainable growth. Recent researches effort to define and systemize the constitution of innovative capabilities
from
overall
perspectives
including
- 4 -
technological
innovation
and
its
commercialization. The researches performed by Yam et al. (2004), Guan et al. (2006) and Wang et al. (2008) are appraised to categorize innovative capabilities by reflecting the nature of technological innovations in accordance with value chain model. Performing the empirical analysis on the performances of innovations of Chinese firms Yam et al. (2004) suggested the seven dimensions of innovative capabilities including R&D, resource allocating, manufacturing, marketing, strategic planning, learning and organizational capability.2) The result shows that the most important factor in affecting the performances is the resource allocating ability, and then the R&D ability.3) The relation between the innovative capability and the performance of business management has been dealt with an important research area in a number of previous researches (Lee and Chung, 2010). The success of technology-intensive firms depends on competencies to manage effectively the organizational process of creating, applying and utilizing internal and external resources rather than using possessed resources. A technology-intensive firms will decide how to initiate technological innovations after evaluating the level of innovation capabilities of organizational members, and then planning its strategies to improve the suitability between the goal of innovations and capabilities. Therefore, evaluating the level of innovative capabilities should be implemented at the initiative stage for technological innovations. H2. Innovative capabilities will effect on performance of technological management. H3. Innovative capabilities will effect on performance of business management. H4. Innovative capabilities will effect on technological entrepreneurship. 2.3 Technological Entrepreneurship To continuously generate the value from technological innovations, innovation leaders should explore changes of market and technology, take actions against the changes and lead a organization to the vision of innovations. Since Schumpeter (1934) argued that entrepreneurs should promote innovations to lead creative destructions through new combinations of resources, entrepreneurship has been recognized as a new innovative 2) Similarly, investigating the significance of relation between competitiveness and innovative capabilities, Guan et al. (2006) categorized the innovative competencies into R&D, manufacturing, marketing, resource developing, organizational and strategic ability. Wang et al. (2008) also classified them into five parts as R&D, innovative decision-making, marketing, manufacturing, funding ability. These categories of innovative capabilities are based on quantitative and qualitative standards, and widely includes direct and indirect organizational activities for technological innovation. 3) It presumed that the attributes of public enterprises of the research samples made firms to pursue their growth through efficiently allocating resources rather than building up the integrated innovative capabilities. - 5 -
resource for SMEs to seize and realize opportunities of innovations and differentiate from competitors by creating and developing resources (Kropp and Zloin, 2005). Technological entrepreneurship, which is advanced from the concept of traditional entrepreneurship in order to focus on innovative initiatives of technology-intensive firms, plays the important role to expedite the national economic growth by driving technological innovations. Shane and Venkataraman (2003) defines it as the process in which an entrepreneur integrates resources into technological systems strategically so that an innovative firm pursues opportunities for commercializing technologies. Dorf and Byers (2005) depicts that technological entrepreneurship is the business leadership style to find out opportunities of technological businesses with high growth potential and high risk, and to manage and develop them by using human and capital resources through principled decision-making processes. It is important that technological entrepreneurship creates new combinations of resources to generate technological innovations and integrates technological domains into commercial domains in profitable ways (Burgelman et al., 2009). The integration of inventions and discoveries without commercial value leads to the development of technology, and then, after combining it with other technologies to build new products and processes, it can realize valuable technological innovations through the integration of two domains. Jang (2006) asserts that it makes a firm innovate for developing new technologies and converting them into commercializations, proactive to pursue first-mover advantages for securing economic benefits, and take risks occurred in developing new market and technology in order to creating higher profitability. That is, technological entrepreneurship
consists
of
innovativeness,
progressiveness
and
risk-taking
as
a
momentum to implement technological innovations. when Innovation leaders as the important decision-makers on the technology-intensive firms deals with unsolved technical problems in innovative ways and take risks to benefit from being a first-mover, innovative capabilities of organizational members are the crucial factors to implementing technological innovations. The insufficient level of innovative capabilities will make innovation leaders effort to acquire resources from external environments. H5. Technological entrepreneurship will effect on performance of technology management. H6. Technological entrepreneurship will effect on performance of business management. H7. Technological entrepreneurship will effect on innovative capabilities.
- 6 -
In
the process
of
technological
innovations,
technological
entrepreneurship
of
innovation leaders affects throughout organizations by exploring of profitability of technological markets, establishing the mission of innovations, suggesting creative ideas, participating problem-solving processes (Kim and Ha, 2004). Also, when coping with dramatic changes of environments for survival, members of SMEs tend to be dependent on their key decision-maker (Kim, 2003). So the innovation team members are usually rely on their innovation leader who is the helmsman of innovations. Therefore technological entrepreneurship will play a role of mediator to allow technology-intensive firms to utilize their innovative capabilities for business success. Through technological entrepreneurship as a vehicle for serving unmet needs of markets, firms will be able to incubate the potential of technological competitiveness. This study sets
the
following
hypothesis
regarding
the
mediating
effects
of
technological
entrepreneurship in the path from innovative capabilities to managerial performances. H8. Technological entrepreneurship will have mediating effect between the innovative capability and performance of technology management. H9. Technological entrepreneurship will have mediating effect between the innovative capability and performance of business management.
3. Research Design 3.1 Research Model The purpose of this study is to identify the role of innovative capabilities of Korean technological innovation-type SMEs on the performance of technology and business management in order to make them focus on technological innovations. And confirming the dominant factors contributes to solve the problem of time gap which disrupts the firms from investing in innovative initiatives. In addition, identifying the role of technological entrepreneurship is significant to check the trajectory from innovative capabilities
to
managerial
performances.
If
technological
entrepreneurship
is
the
driving-force of technological innovations, the policies of governmental agencies aimed at supporting and stimulating innovative efforts of SMEs should be discussed in the way to accelerate the technological entrepreneurship. The innovative capabilities consist of seven sub-variables including primary and
- 7 -
secondary functions of technology-intensive firms in the perspective of value chain model. And the relation of th performances resulting from innovative capabilities and technological entrepreneurship are designed to reflect the nature of technological innovations by separating them into two categories: the performances of technological management and business management. The co-relation between innovative capabilities and technological entrepreneurship is set in accordance with previous researches. Lastly, the research model set the mediating effect of technological entrepreneurship in the path from innovative capabilities and performances to confirm it role. [Figure 3-1] depicts the research model based on the conceptual structure.
[Figure 3-1] Research Model
3.2 Operational Definition and Measurement of Variables [Figure 3-2] presents the operational definitions of variables applied in this study, and all questions were measured by Likert scale. The innovative capabilities is defined as 'the comprehensive capabilities to implement the technological innovation process of developing, introducing and adapting new knowledge for producing products and services with commercial value'. They are consisted of seven sub-variables which each capability has five measurements, including R&D, manufacturing, marketing, strategic planning, learning, organizational, and resource allocating capability.
- 8 -
[Figure 3-2] Operational Definition and Measurement of Variables Item
Innovative Capabilities (INC)
Variable
Operational Definition
Measurements
R&D Capability (RDC)
Innovative capability to apply and develop new scientific and technological knowledge and information through systemizing them as organizational activities
Manufacturing Capability (MFC)
Innovative capability to convert developed technologies into products and services with customer value through operations of manufacturing processes
Marketing Capability (MKC) Strategic Planning Capability (SPC)
Innovative capability to commercialize and plan distribution channels and merchandising systems by understanding precisely customer value and needs
Excellence of R&D capability, Securement of R&D experts, Possession of Core technologies, Compatibility between R&D and technological market trends, Accumulation of R&D knowledge and experiences Excellence of manufacturing capability, Superiority of product quality management, Efficient layout of manufacturing facilities, Technical realization of manufacturing systems, Appropriate management of manufacturing processes Excellence of marketing capability, Understand and application of customer needs, Establishment of marketing strategies, Operation of marketing channels, Understand of product life cycle
Learning Capability (LNC) Organizational Capability (OMC) Resource Allocating Capability (RAC) Innovativeness (INN)
Technological Entrepreneurship (TEE)
Progressiveness (PRO) Risk-taking (RIT)
Performance of Technology Management (PTM)
Technological Superiority (TES) Market Growth Potential (MGP) Business Profitability (BSP)
Performance of Business Management (PBM)
Innovative capability to plan strategies for technological innovations systematically based on accurate information in order to secure technological competitiveness as organizational goal. Innovative capability to efficiently accumulate and share information and knowledge about market and technology through organizations Innovative capability to operate managerial systems of organizations to create performances by implementing technological innovation processes Innovative capability to allocate resources in right positions by securing necessary resources to meet goals of technological innovations Willingness of innovation leaders to adopt new technological innovations through creative ways to experiment new products, services and processes Inclination of innovation leaders to secure advantages of first-movers with proaction in advance of competitors by initiating actions and predicting opportunities of future Inclination of innovation leaders to put resources into and initiate technological innovations through quick decision-makings despite of their high uncertainties Technological competitiveness achieved by complexly utilizing technological constituents and platforms resulting from technological innovations
Excellence of strategic planning capability, Organizational Sharing of strategies, Consideration of industrial and market changes, Reflection of technological innovations and customer value to strategies Excellence of learning capability, Operation of knowledge-sharing meetings, Expand of information about performances, Application of external learning networks, Utilization of analysis reports about market and technological trends Excellence of organizational capability, Development of innovative culture, Operation of proper compensation and reward systems, Suitability of organizational structure for innovations, Reasonable Management of innovation projects Excellence of resource allocating capability, Securement of enough resources. Efficient allocation of resources, Establishment of resource-funding plans, Smoothness of resource allocation Pursuit and discovery of opportunities for technological innovations, Innovative efforts to solve technological problems, Encouragement of creative new ideas.
Question 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
Willness to preoccupy technologies and to change environments of market and competition, Efforts actively to secure competitiveness
3
Taking risks of short-term potential loss, Preferring risks to generate performances, Pursuit of growth rather than stability
3
Compatibility to technological trends, Degree of technological competitiveness, Application of existing technological platforms for developing new technologies
3
Growth potential of technological market and customer needs associated with products and services resulting from technological innovations.
Market and industrial ripple effects of products and services, growth potential of targeted market-size, possibility to expend customer demands of products and services
3
Profitable degree to generate financial earnings and stabilities by using products and services applying technological innovations
Business and commercial potential to launch products and services, competitiveness of end products, Degree of products to reflect customer value, Degree of products to greate profits
4
Business and commercial outcomes realized by connecting innovative capabilities of members and performance of technology management with business managing activities
the degree of growing sales, launching new business, improving product quality, upgrading manufacture process
4
- 9 -
The operational definition of technological entrepreneurship is 'the will and behavior to create new value by using the innovative capabilities and technological systems of organization to discovery the opportunities of technological innovation in spite of high uncertainty
and
risks
of
future'.
Technological
entrepreneurship
constitutes
three
sub-variables, innovativeness, progressiveness and risk-taking. The definition of performance of technology management is 'the outputs generated by technological
innovation-related
activities
connecting
multi-dimensionally
innovative
capabilities of organization to achieve specified goals of technological innovations'. Its variables are measured in three dimensions by developing from the technological value evaluating method. They include technological superiority, market growth potential, business profitability. The performance of business management is defined as 'the outcomes realized by connecting innovative capabilities and performance of technology management with business administrative activities to achieve the vision of organization.' It is measured in the degree of growing sales, launching new business, improving product quality, upgrading manufacture process.
3.3 Data Samples The collection of data for this study was implemented for the company members of the Korean Association of Technological Innovation-type SMEs, which were located in Gyeonggi and Seoul, Korea. They had the INNO-BIZ (Innovative Business) certificate authorized by the Korean Small and Medium Business Administration. To secure the research reliability and validity in advance, the industries of firms were limited by referring to KSIC-9 (Ninth Edition of Korean Standard Industry Classification). In addition, the survey replier was restricted to the positions including a CEO (Chief Executive Officer) or technological innovation leader to evaluate entire initiatives and performances of technological innovations inclusively and continuously. The questionnaire was distributed to 2,150 companies, the population of research, through Fax and e-Mail and induced to respond to the online survey system at the same time. The collecting period was during about 25 days in October 2010. To avoid overlapped responses, the Internet Protocol address of repliers was automatically stored in a web-server. During the period, totally 399 surveys were received and showed 18.5 percent of respond rate. Among those, excluding 39 surveys which their industrial
- 10 -
classification was inappropriate to the research purpose, 360 surveys were selected as empirical data for analyzing. [Figure 3-3] depicts the industrial categories and the firm numbers of population and sample of this study.
[Figure 3-3] Research Sample Industry
Total
Population
1)
(%)
Machine and Metal
2084
587
(28.2)
Biotechnology
213
85
Fiber and Textile
146
Electricity and Electronics
2)
Sample 76
(12.9)
(39.9)
12
(14.1)
51
(34.9)
15
(29.4)
1577
814
(51.6)
138
(17.0)
Information Technology
568
344
(60.6)
79
(23.0)
Chemistry
570
179
(31.4)
23
(12.8)
Environment
224
90
(40.2)
17
(18.9)
Sum
5382
2150
(39.9)
360
(16.7)
3)
1) Population mean the number of firms located in Seoul and Gyeonggi province. 2) ( ) = Population / Total × 100 3) ( ) = Sample / Population × 100
The general characteristics of samples are presented in [Figure 3-4]. Especially, 70 percent of samples belong to the introduction and grow stage in terms of business life cycle, and approximate 80 percent have fewer than 50 employees. Therefore, the results of empirical analysis will reflect common, immanent natures of small-sized firms.
[Figure 3-4] General Characteristics of Samples (N=360) Item
Stage of Business Life Cycle
Total Number of employees (Firm Size)
Age of Innovation Leader
Subcategory
Frequency
Proportion (%)
introduction
27
7.5
Item
Educational Level of Innovation Leader
Subcategory
Frequency
Proportion (%)
high school
35
9.7
bachelor's
218
60.6
master's
70
19.4
doctor's
34
9.4
growth
225
62.5
maturity
99
27.5
decline
9
2.5
below 10
50
13.9
others
3
8.0
11 50
237
65.8
engineering
237
65.8
55
15.3
18
5.0
business administration
49
13.6
3
0.8
social/human science
30
8.3
18
5.0
57
15.8
natural science
21
5.8
109
30.3
173
48.1
others male female
23 342 18
6.1 95.0 5.0
∼ 51∼100 101∼300 30∼34 35∼39 40∼44 45∼49 above 50
Major of Innovation Leader
Gender of Innovation Leader
- 11 -
4. Empirical Analysis 4.1 Validity, Reliability and Correlation Analysis Before the empirical analysis, this study has assured the reliability of variables through Cronbach's α associated with the internal consistency of variables, and the validity has been proved by the factor analysis by SPSS 17.0 program. First of all, as shown in [Figure 4-1], Innovative capabilities are loaded appropriately like previously intended as result of the factor analysis. The technological entrepreneurship and the performance of technology management are properly divided into three factors each. The value of Cronbach's α of all variables is ranging from .707 to .893. After all, because it seems that there are no problems on the validity and reliability of variables, this study put all questions into the empirical analysis.
[Figure 4-1] The Result of Validity and Reliability Analysis Variable
INC
TEE
PTM
Factor
Max. of factor loading
Min. of factor loading
Eigen value
Total Variance Explained (%)
Cronbach's α
RDC
.780
.708
3.651
10.739
.863
MFC
.818
.646
3.682
10.830
.876
MKC
.761
.483
3.551
10.122
.871
SPC
.754
.566
3.686
10.841
.872
LNC
.737
.434
2.153
6.332
.814
OMC
.778
.640
3.972
11.684
.893
RAC
.646
.495
2.230
7.147
.819
INN
.816
.714
2.264
25.155
.862
PRO
.841
.765
2.452
27.241
.883
RIT
.879
.762
2.463
27.372
.865
TES
.798
.691
2.417
24.175
.784
MGP
.846
.798
2.501
25.009
.886
BSP
.788
.533
2.348
23.481
.824
.798
.662
2.157
53.933
.707
PBM
The result of correlation analysis of each variable is presented in [Figure 4-2]. As result of Pearson’s correlation coefficient to the average value of each variable, all sub-variables of innovative capabilities, technological entrepreneurship, the performances of technology and business management has significantly relative relations (p<0.01). The correlation coefficients show ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 positively. Especially, innovative capabilities
and
technological
entrepreneurship
have
highly
correlations
with
the
performance of technology management rather than business management, highly
- 12 -
correlated with technology management. It can be understood indirectly whether the survey data supports the hypotheses of this study through looking at this result.
[Figure 4-2] Result of Correlation Analysis 1)
2)
R D C
M F C
M K C
S P C
L N C
Item
A.M
RDC
3.5694
.61825
1
MFC
3.3711
.63091
.345
1
MKC
3.2406
.67376
.312*
.546*
1
SPC
3.4856
.61550
.463*
.460*
.689*
1
LNC
3.4944
.60376
.384*
.428*
.550*
.670*
OMC
3.2917
.66235
.395
S.D
*
*
*
*
.472
*
*
.585
*
*
.642
*
O M C
R A C
I N N
P R O
R I T
T E S
M G R
B S P
1 *
1
*
.693
RAC
3.3472
.60747
.557
.636
.576
.568
.528
.560*
1
INN
3.9593
.68059
.443*
.303*
.358*
.515*
.544*
.564*
.477*
1
PRO
3.9620
.72543
.396*
.357*
.421*
.528*
.526*
.565*
.468*
.751*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1 *
RIT
3.7380
.72761
.339
.259
.276
.359
.324
.397
.356
.577
.578
1
TES
3.8370
.56951
.516*
.354*
.350*
.464*
.452*
.388*
.401*
.508*
.495*
.366*
1
MGP
3.5694
.68462
.388*
.306*
.312*
.390*
.372*
.310*
.342*
.345*
.339*
.273*
.621*
1
BSP
3.7854
.58082
.460*
.358*
.383*
.522*
.499*
.441*
.487*
.473*
.469*
.306*
.664*
.622*
PBM
3.8590
.59310
.341
*
*
.243
*
.258
*
.349
P B M
*
.325
*
.262
*
.310
*
.304
*
.303
*
.212
*
.487
*
.493
1 *
.439
1
* Correlation coefficient is significant under .001 level. 1) A.M = Arithmetic Mean 2) S.D = Standard Deviation
4.2 Verification of Hypotheses (1) Effect of Performance of Technology Management on Performance of Business Management Verifying H1, assuming that the performance of technology management affects the performance of business management, provide the critical foundation of logic structure of this study. If there are no relation between their variables, it will cause seriously logical problems to identify the core factors of innovative capabilities and technological entrepreneurship associated with following hypotheses. The result of verifying H1 is presented in [Figure 4-3]. The technological superiority (β=.487, p=.000), market growth potential (β=.493, p=.000), and business profitability (β=.439, p=.000) which are the sub-variables of the performance of technology management influence strongly and positively on the dependent variable, the performance of business management. Also, the performance of - 13 -
technology management(β=.540, p=.000), which is the arithmetical mean of three sub-variables, has positive effect on the dependent.4) That is, all the three variables are the dominant factors for the ultimate business success of technological innovation-type SMEs, and there are no problems in the logic structure of this study.
[Figure 4-3] Result of Regression Analysis of H1 PBM
Dependent
2
1)
β
t-value
p-value
Adj-R
.540
12.150
.000
.292
147.611
***
TES
.487
10.552
.000
.237
111.347
***
MGP
.493
10.728
.000
.243
115.097***
BSP
.439
9.233
.000
.192
85.246
Independent
PTM
2)
F-value
***
1) * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 2) Performance of technology management is the arithmetical mean of technological superiority, market growth potential and business profitability
(2) Effect of Innovative Capabilities on Managerial Performances and Technological Entrepreneurship To confirm what innovative capabilities are dominant factors of the performances of technology management and business management, this study adopted the multiple regression model by setting innovative capabilities as independent variables and the performances as dependent variables. The results are shown in [Figure 4-4]. Because the results of verifying H2 and H3 have above 0.1 of tolerance limit and their Durbin-Watson values are nearly 2, so there are no problems in multicollinearity. The performance of technology management is affected positively by R&D capability (β=.308, p=.000), learning capability (β=.149, p=.045) and strategic planning capability (β=.195, p=.004). Equally, the performance of business management is affected positively by R&D capability (β=.200, p=.001), learning capability (β=.149, p=.045) and strategic planning capability (β=.158, p=.049). In other words, this results imply that the higher R&D, learning and strategic planning capability is, the higher the managerial performances are. It means that, to generate performances of technological innovation-type SMEs, firms should forecast strategically the changing trends of market and technology to achieve the goals of technological innovations, focus on R&D activities for technological competitiveness by 4) Unlike the simple regression model, there is no effect of business profitability on performance of business management as a result of multiple regression model to set technological superiority, market growth potential and business profitability together as independent variables. However, it is worth not to be ignored because it can be reinterpreted to the technology portfolio model suggested by Bugelman et al. (2009), which business profitability is decided by the technology and marketability. - 14 -
corresponding with the trends, and then embody internal and external knowledge and know-how through establishing rigorous learning systems.
[Figure 4-4] Result of Regression Analysis of H2 and H3 PTM
Dependent
t-value
p-value
T.L
RDC
.308
5.999
.000
MFC
.098
1.753
MKC
-.006
SPC
2)
β
t-value
p-value
T.L
.641
.200
3.307
.001
.641
.080
.543
.046
.696
.487
.543
-.102
.919
.426
-.008
-.109
.913
.426
.195
2.860
.004
.364
.158
1.975
.049
.364
LNC
.217
3.453
.001
.427
.149
2.012
.045
.427
OMC
-.021
-.332
.740
.425
-.061
-.821
.412
.425
RAC
.024
.375
.708
.400
.040
.521
.603
.400
2
Adj-R
F-value
.396
1)
.161 ***
Durbin-Watson *
PBM
β
Independent
INC
3)
**
***
34.583
10.843
1.978
2.141
***
1) p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001 2) T.L = Tolerance Limit 3) Performance of technology management is the arithmetical mean of technological superiority, market growth potential and business profitability.
On the other hand, there are no significant effects of manufacturing, marketing, organizational and resource allocating capability on the dependent variables. With reference to the result of correlation analysis indicating that these innovative capabilities have the high level of correlation coefficient above 0.5 each other, they are considered one factor as managerial capabilities to support technological innovations. It seems that a firm, which initiates technological innovations, is likely to be dominated by R&D, learning and strategic planning capabilities which are considered technological capabilities rather than managerial capabilities because latter ones are needed in operating general organizations, not especially in developing technologies. In accordance with reviewing the characteristics of samples, it is said that this result reflects the introduction and growth stage in which about 70 percent of sample firms are. So it is considered that the capabilities influencing directly on technological innovations, such as R&D, learning, strategic planning capabilities, are more crucial to achieve technological achievement in the stages, while the importance of managerial capabilities is generally reduced. [Figure 4-5] depicts the result to verify H4 assuming that innovative capabilities effect on technological entrepreneurship. The sub-variables of innovative capabilities, R&D capability (β=.161, p=.001), strategy planning capability (β=.166, p=.013), learning
- 15 -
capability (β=.129, p=.036), organizational capability (β=.303, p=.000), and resource allocating capability (β=.132, p=.038) have positive effects on the dependent variable. This result implies that technological entrepreneurship of innovation leaders will be elevated as the level of innovative capabilities fostered by members become higher.
[Figure 4-5] Result of Regression Analysis of H4 TEE
Dependent
β
Independent
INC
3)
t-value
p-value
T.L
2)
RDC
.161
3.219
.001
.641
MFC
-.021
-.395
.693
.543
MKC
-.073
-1.193
.234
.426
SPC
.166
2.503
.013
.364
LNC
.129
2.101
.036
.427
OMC
.303
4.933
.000
.425
RAC
.132
2.082
.038
.400
2
Adj-R
F-value
.424
1)
***
38.804
Durbin-Watson *
1.962 **
***
1) p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001 2) T.L = Tolerance Limit 3) Technological entrepreneurship is the arithmetical mean of innovativeness, progressiveness and risk-taking.
(3)
Effect
of
Technological
Entrepreneurship
on
Managerial
Performances
and
Innovative Capabilities The results of identifying the hypotheses that technological entrepreneurship has positive effects on the performance of technology and business management were presented in [Figure 4-6].
[Figure 4-6] Result of Regression Analysis of H5 and H6 PTM
Dependent
t-value
p-value
T.L
INN
.285
4.048
.000
PRO
.249
3.533
RIT
.051
.892
2
Adj-R
F-value
34.583
t-value
p-value
T.L
.406
.170
2.154
.032
.406
.000
.405
.165
2.090
.037
.405
.373
.619
.019
.302
.763
.619
.098 ***
14.011***
1.978 **
2)
β
.396
1)
Durbin-Watson *
PBM
β
Independent
TEE
3)
2.191
***
1) p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001 2) T.L = Tolerance Limit 3) Performance of technology management is the arithmetical mean of technological superiority, market growth potential and business profitability.
- 16 -
The performance of technology management is affected by the innovativeness (β =.285,
p=.000)
and
progressiveness
(β=.249,
p=.000)
of
the
sub-variables
of
technological entrepreneurship. Similarly, the innovativeness (β=.170, p=.032) and progressiveness (β=.165, p=.037) positively effect on the performance of business management. These results indicate that the innovativeness and progressiveness of an innovation leader contributes to improve both the managerial performances. The willingness of innovation leaders to encourage organizational members to create ideas and seize opportunities for innovations, to initiate new approaches to technological problems, and to transform markets by preoccupy technologies faster than competitors, lead technological innovation-type SMEs to generate performances.5) [Figure 4-7] demonstrates the result of verifying H7 assuming that technological entrepreneurship effects innovation capability positively. As the result, the dependent variable, innovative capability, has been effected by innovativeness (β=.310, p=.000) and progressiveness (β=.347, p=.000) under significance level.
[Figure 4-7] Result of Regression Analysis of H7 3)
INC
Dependent
TEE
2)
β
t-value
p-value
T.L
INN
.301
4.706
.000
.406
PRO
.347
5.428
.000
.405
RIT
.054
1.035
.301
.619
Independent
2
Adj-R
F-value
.406
1)
82.682***
Durbin-Watson *
2.003 **
***
1) p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001 2) T.L = Tolerance Limit 3) Innovative capabilities is the arithmetical mean of R&D, manufacturing, marketing, strategic planning, learning, organizational and resource allocating capability.
That is, technological entrepreneurship, the driving-force of organizations to initiate technological innovations by seizing opportunities for its commercialization, is the starting-point of strategic decision-making processes on the foundation of evaluating the level of innovative capabilities. Because innovation team members generally rely on their leader,
thus
the innovation
leader
with
the
high
level
of
innovativeness
and
5) As a result of the simple regression model that set technological entrepreneurship as independent and each sub-variable of performance of technology management as dependent, technological entrepreneurship has positive effect on technological superiority, market growth potential and business profitability in order. This result clearly describes the concept of technological entrepreneurship which plays a role of interface to connect technological domains with commercial domains in profitable ways. - 17 -
progressiveness plays the crucial role of expediting their innovative capabilities by providing members with new market information and technological knowledge as a boundary spanner and leading initiatives in innovative ways to a firm a first-mover. That is, the high level of technological entrepreneurship makes team members move toward the vision of organization by focus their interest on technological innovations. Innovativeness and progressiveness have positive effects of both performances and innovative capabilities, whereas the other variable, risk-taking does not. The result indicates that technological innovation-type SEMS tend to pursue the stability to avoid threats of innovations, because the economic uncertainty throughout the world is likely to force them to avoid risks of innovations. However, to realize the rapid growth of technological and business performances should require to take risks resulting from the uncertainty of innovations. A firm, which concentrates their interest on improving incrementally technologies based on existing platforms, usually relies only on internal capabilities, not external, and efforts to avoid risks (Braganza, Awazu and Desouza, 2009). It means that the low level of risk-taking can become the barrier to hinder disruptive innovations which make a firm leapfrog competitors. (4) Mediating Effects of Technological Entrepreneurship The H8 and H9 assume that technological entrepreneurship has mediating effects in the relation between innovative capabilities and both managerial performances, and the results are presented in [Figure 4-8]. The indication of moduleⅠ is excepted because all relations between the mediator and the dependent variables are under significant level. So the mediating effects are evaluated by examining whether there is the fluctuation of β-values between module 2 and 3 under significant level. Technological entrepreneurship plays a mediator on the path from all innovative capabilities to the performance of technology and business management, excluding from the organizational capability to the performance of business management. These results indicate that the technological entrepreneurship of an innovation leaders expedites the innovative capabilities of members to implement initiatives for technological innovations to generate better performances. In other words, the low level of technological entrepreneurship will interrupt with the relationship. Therefore, evaluating and promoting technological entrepreneurship provide technology-intensive firms with the effective ways not only to unite and mix necessary resources and capabilities but also to integrate them to innovation processes.
- 18 -
[Figure 4-8] Result of Regression Analysis of H7 and H8 Dependent variable Independent variable
Verifying phase
PTM 2)
INC RDC MFC MKC SPC LNC OMC RAC *
Module Ⅱ
3)
PBM 1)
2
R
β
t-value
.355
.385
7.905
***
.149 .157
t-value
.596
14.047
***
.391
.309
4.993
***
.268
.341
6.874
***
.117
4.594
***
.149
4.746
***
.059
2.856
***
.118
**
.066
**
.119
7.056
***
.122
4.390
***
.144
6.513
***
.106
3.805
***
.133
***
.069
Module Ⅲ
.447
8.483
***
Module Ⅱ
.518
11.450
***
7.587
***
7.969
***
5.023
***
8.214
***
4.707
***
11.610
***
6.831
***
10.979
***
6.219
*** ***
.186
.262
5.137
.293
.120
1.949
Module Ⅲ
.357
Module Ⅱ
.388
Module Ⅲ
.235
Module Ⅱ
.398
Module Ⅲ
.226
Module Ⅱ
.523
Module Ⅲ
.345
Module Ⅱ
.502
Module Ⅲ
.316
Module Ⅱ
.432
9.059
Module Ⅲ
.197
3.594***
.467
9.998
***
5.563
***
Module Ⅱ Module Ⅲ **
2
β
.279
.369 .151 .316 .159 .311 .274 .352 .252 .339
.218 .326
.251 .243 .153 .258 .157 .349 .255 .325 .221
.310 .240
5.045 2.883
R
.108
6.165
***
.096
3.592
***
.130
***
1) p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001 2) Module Ⅱ : Effect of independent variable on dependent variable through simple regression model 3) Module Ⅲ : Effect of independent and mediating variables on dependent variable through multiple regression model
(5) ANOVA of Innovative Capabilities and Performance of Technology Management To support the results of study, One-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) is additionally implemented to examine whether there are differences of innovative capabilities and performance of technology management on each stages of business life cycle of technological innovation-type SMEs, and the result is presented in [Figure 9].6) The result shows that the significant differences are on the R&D and strategic planning (p<0.05), manufacturing and resource allocating capability (p<0.1). As a result of the Scheffe test to identify the differences among the groups, the firms of growth stage have higher R&D capability than the decline stage.7) Strategic planning capability also has the similar result. In addition, the significant differences are presented on all
6) As the means of dividing the business life cycle, previous researches generally use the deduction through examining the firm-specific information such as operating years, size and growth rate, and the estimations of respondent where a firm belong to stages which researchers defined in advance. This study let innovation leaders mark the growth stages of their core businesses in accordance with their subjective judgment. 7) While the ANOVA indicates differences of variances among groups, Scheffe test, which is one of the posteriori tests of ANOVA, is to examine where the differences are caused from. - 19 -
factors of the performance of technology management. These results partially support the presumption that the capabilities related directly to technological innovations and the importance of technological performances are usually emphasized on the introduction and growth stage.
[Figure 4-9] Result of ANOVA Total (N=360)
1.Introduction (N=27)
2.Growth (N=225)
3.Maturity (N=99)
4.Decline (N=9)
F-value (p-value)
Scheffe Test
RDC
3.5694 2) (.61825)
3.5407 (.62219)
3.6089 (.63857)
3.5374 (.54334)
3.0222 (.68150)
2.805* (.040)
2 > 4
MFC
3.3711 (.63091)
3.0889 (.55839)
3.3796 (.61421)
3.4465 (.67662)
3.1778 (.54263)
2.601$ (.052)
3 > 1$
MKC
3.2406 (.67376)
3.2074 (.54485)
3.2587 (.68408)
3.2505 (.69655)
2.7778 (.32318)
1.505 (.213)
-
SPC
3.4856 (.61550)
3.6000 (.60764)
3.5218 (.58395)
3.4263 (.67045)
2.8889 (.47022)
3.782* (.011)
1 > 4$ 2 > 4* 3 > 4
LNC
3.4944 (.60376)
3.5370 (.52212)
3.4956 (.60456)
3.5051 (.61857)
3.2222 (.67828)
.663 (.575)
-
OMC
3.2917 (.66235)
3.1556 (.63083)
3.3058 (.66468)
3.3374 (.66126)
2.8444 (.58973)
1.954 (.121)
-
RAC
3.3472 (.60747)
3.2370 (.55757)
3.3653 (.62511)
3.3778 (.57986)
2.8889 (.43716)
2.175 (.091)
TES
3.8370 (.56951)
3.8025 (.56432)
3.8830 (.57185)
3.7879 (.56032)
3.3333 (.37268)
3.170 (.024)
2 > 4
MGP
3.5694 (.68462)
3.6667 (.63381)
3.6444 (.67554)
3.4310 (.67554)
2.9259 (.68268)
5.263** (.001)
1 > 4* * 2 > 4
BSP
3.7854 (.58082)
3.8148 (.52161)
3.8311 (.58232)
3.7222 (.57242)
3.2500 (.55902)
3.499* (.016)
3 > 4*
Variable
INC
PTM
$
*
1) p < 0.1, p < 0.05, 2) ( ): standard deviation
**
p < 0.01,
***
$
*
$
-
* *
p < 0.001
5. Conclusion This study is to identify core factors affecting the performance of technology and business management in technological innovation-type SMEs by setting up the innovative capabilities and technological entrepreneurship as independent variables. To meet the research purpose, the research model and hypotheses were designed through studying previous researches related to resource-based view and the management of technology. And the responses obtained from the survey of Korean INNO-BIZ certificated SMEs, which were considered technological innovation-type firms, were empirically analyzed. - 20 -
The summaries and implications of results are as followings. Firstly, by dividing the performance of technology management from the performance of business management in accordance with the innovation process, input-output-outcome, this study presents the significant relation between these two variables. It is considered that this phased research model is useful to solve the problem of time gap existing from capabilities to performances. Although most of the previous researches applied the assessment criteria, such as financial ratios or innovative product rate, to evaluate the output of technological innovations, these methods fail to reflect the nature of technological innovations which are organized into and affected by multidimensional factors. On the other hand, with the technological superiority, market growth potential and business profitability of technological innovations, this study overcomes the limitations of previous researches by applying the technological value evaluating method. The result implies that the performance of technology management, the output of technological innovations, should be the re-investment for realizing the performance of business
management, the outcome. Therefore, focusing on the performance of
technology
management
rather
than
short-term
financial
outcomes
makes
technology-intensive firms to continuously and consistently invest on technological innovations. Secondly,
R&D, learning and strategic planning capability of the innovative
capability’s sub-variables have positive effects on both the performances of technology and business management. The three factors are important to be especially managed for securing technological competitiveness. In other words, a firm is able to predict and respond the changes of technological markets promptly through dedicating to R&D activities, building up rigorous learning systems and strategies planning for technological innovations. That is, these three capabilities are considered the core factors affecting the managerial performances of technology-intensive firms. Thirdly, although there are no effects of manufacturing, marketing, organizational and resource
allocating
capability
on
the
performances
of
technology
and
business
management in the multi regression model, the importance of these factors should not be overlooked. That is because each variable had positive effects on the performances strongly as a result of the simple regression analysis which set up each capability as independent variable. If these factors with high correlation coefficient are categorized into a sort of managerial capability which supports technological innovations indirectly, this result reflects the characteristics of sample firms which 70 percent of them belong
- 21 -
to the introduction and growth phase in the business life cycle. Because technological capabilities are generally more critical in these phases and managerial capabilities are less important relatively, it seems that a firm is likely to increasingly effort on developing managerial capabilities as getting into the maturity phase. Fourthly, this study has the academic importance in the respect that the role of technological entrepreneurship, which has been conceptually discussed on policy researches, is identified through empirical analysis. The result shows that innovativeness and progressiveness of technological entrepreneurship has positive effects on both the performances of technology and business management. It implies that technological entrepreneurship
help
technology-intensive
firms
with
less
resources
and
narrow
innovation scale extend the performance of technological innovations by developing and commercializing new products and services in innovative ways and seizing technological competitiveness as first-movers. Accordingly, improving the high level of innovativeness and progressiveness is the important behavior of innovation leaders. Fifthly, the relation between risk-taking of technological entrepreneurship and the managerial performances is not identified by the multi regression model. This study interprets that the result is because innovation leaders tend not to invest resources under the circumstances that the visible outcomes of technological innovations are uncertain due to the worldwide economic recession. However, when a firm takes risks generated from the process of technological innovation, it can create the unpredictably high level of profits. Also, the result of simple regression model that risk-taking has positive effect on the performances underlines the importance of risk-taking inclination. If the risk-taking of innovation leaders lasts at low level, it will works like obstacles to block the advance of radical innovations. Sixthly, there are the co-relationship between technological entrepreneurship and innovative capabilities. Technological entrepreneurship is the motivation to make organizational members improve their innovative capabilities because innovation leaders of SMEs who are usually the primary decision-makers force the members to achieve the vision of technological innovation. This influence does not take place one-sidedly, and the high level of innovative capabilities of members works as the foundation for strategic decision-makings of innovation leaders, who determine the intensity and direction
of
technological
innovations,
by
affecting
technological
entrepreneurship
positively. In conclusion, the performance of technology management is the prerequisite of the
- 22 -
ultimate success for technological innovation-type SMEs, and maximizing it is dependent on the level of innovative capabilities and technological entrepreneurship which are the firm-specific innovation resource. As a result, improving and stimulating innovative capabilities and technological entrepreneurship in an organization can be an effective way to overcome the immanent limitation of SMEs. This implies an important issue when government agencies reorganize the policies for promoting and supporting technology-intensive firms. With examining the evaluation contents of OECD’s Oslo Manual (2005), although it depicts the significant role of technology innovation-type SMEs
as
the
entrepreneurship
national is
growth
lacked.
engine,
However,
the
this
consideration study
shows
regarding the
technological
obvious
effect
of
technological entrepreneurship and underscores its importance to generate the managerial performances. So, applying specific and elaborate evaluations about it to the policy making is of help to reduce the oversupply of resources and social capital. In addition, in order to make them take effect, firms are required to build up the business system that ultimately creates the value of technological innovations. And they should regard the technological innovations as the key domain which has to be specially managed, and extend the opportunity and meaning for the success of technological innovations by invest resources and competences continuously and consistently on them.
References Antoncic B., and I. Prodan (2008). "Alliances, corporate technological entrepreneurship and firm performance: Testing a model on manufacturing firms", Technovation, 28, pp. 257-265. Braganza, A., Awazu, Y., and Desouza, K. C. (2009). "Sustaining Innovation is Challenge for Incumbents", Research-Technology Management, 52(4), 46~56. Burgelman, R. A., C. M. Christensen, and S. C. Wheelwright (2009). Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation, Fifth edition, New York: McGraw-Hill. Dorf, R. C., and T. H. Byers (2005). Technology Ventures: From Idea to Enterprise, New York: McGraw-Hill. Grant, R. (1991). "The Resource-based Theory of Competitive Advantage Implication for Strategy Formulation", California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135. Guan, J., R. Yam, C. K. Mok, and N. Ma (2006). "A Study of the Relationship between Competitiveness and Technological Innovation Capability based on DEA Models", European Journal of Operational Research, 170, 971-986. - 23 -
Kim, Young Bae, and Seong Wook Ha (2000). "Differences in KSFs, Environments, CEO Roles, and the External Linkages among Korean Ventures at Different Growth Stages", Journal of Technology Innovation, 8(1), 125-153. Kropp, F., and R. Zolin (2005). "Technological Entrepreneurship and Small Business Innovation Research Program", Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2005(7). Lee, Choon Woo (2009). "A Organizational Life Cycle Model for Small Business Resource Management with Resource-based View Criticised", Asia Pacific Journal of Small Business, 31(1), 51-71. Lee, Dong Suk, and Lak Chae Chung (2010). “A Study on the Effect of Technological Innovation Capability and Technology Commercialization Capability on Business Performance in SMEs of Korea", Asia Pacific Journal of Small Business, 32(1), 65-87. OECD (2005). The Measurement of Scientific and Technological activities: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, Oslo Manual, Final draft of the third edition. Peteraf, M. A., (1993). "The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-based View", Strategic Management Journal, 1(14), 179-181. Smith, G. V., and Russell, L. P. (1994). Valuation of Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets, John Wiley & Sons. Venkataraman, S. (2003). "Regional Transformation through Entrepreneurship". Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2004), 153-167.
Technological
Wang, C., I. Lu and C. Chen (2008). "Evaluating Firm Technological Innovation Capability under Uncertainty", Technovation, 28, 349-363. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). "A Resource-based View of the Firm", Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), pp. 171-180. White, M. A., and G. D. Bruton (2007). The Management of Technology and Innovation: A Strategic Approach, Thomson South-Western. Yam, R. C. M., J. C. Guan, K. F. Pun, and E. P. Y. Tang (2004). "An Audit of Technological Innovation Capabilities in Chinese Firms: Some Empirical Findings in Beijing", Research Policy, 33, 1123-1140. You, Yen Yoo, and Jae Whak Roh (2010). "The Analysis for the Determinant Factors on the Outcome of Technology Innovation among Small and Medium Manufacturers", The Journal of Society for e-Business Studies, 15(1), 61-87. Yu, J., Roger R. S., and Peter N. (2009). "Governing Technological Entrepreneurship in China and the West", Public Administration Review, 69(1), 95-100. Zhou, Kevin Z., Chi Kin Yim, and David K. Tse (2005). "The Effects of Strategic Orientations on Technology and Market-based Breakthrough Innovations", Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 42-60.
- 24 -
