테크노파크 기업지원성과 관리를 위한 평가지표 개발 및 성과영향요인 분석

Abstract

외 관련 연구를 검토, 전문가들과의 브레인스토밍을 통해 도출한 뒤 지표들 간 중요도 분석을 실시하였다. 분석방법은 지표들 간의 상관성을 고려할 수 있는 ANP방법을 이용하였다. 둘째, 테크노파크의 기업지원 서비스가 지원기업의 성과와 만족에 미치는 영향요인을 PLS구조방정식을 활용하여 분석하였다. 본 연구의 분석결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 테크노파크의 기업지원성과 평가지표 개발 결과 총 16개의 지표가 도출되었으며, 지표 간 중요도 분석결과 사업화지원, 매출액, 사업예산, 기술교육, 금융지원, 임대가능면적, 연구인력수, 정보제공, 마케팅 지원, 장비수준, 기술지원, 시제품, 연계제공, 제품화, 상품장비 활용빈도, 시험생산 실적 순으로 중요도가 높은 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 테크노파크에서 제공하고 있는 기업지원서비스가 서비스 이용 기업의 만족도와 충성도에 미치는 영향에 대해 분석해본 결과, 연구개발 지원과 네트워크 지원은 테크노파크 기업지원 서비스 종합만족도에 영향을 미치는 서비스항목으로 도출되었다. 셋째, 테크노파크의 기업지원서비스가 지원기업의 성과(매출액, 종사자수)와 혁신성(기술개발건수, 수출액, 특허등록수 등)에 미치는 영향을 분석한 결과, 테크노파크의 장비지원 서비스는 기업의 성장성에는 영향을 미치지만 혁신성에는 영향을 미치지 못하고, 반대로 마케팅 지원서비스와 네트워킹 지원서비스는 이용기업의 성장성에는 영향을 미치지만 혁신성에는 영향을 미치지 못하는 것으로 분석되었다. 또한 기업이 대기업인 경우, 설립된 지 오래된 기업일수록 성장성에는 영향을 미치지만 혁신성과에는 별다른 영향관계가 없는 것으로 분석되었다. 마지막으로 테크노파크의 전략산업과 기업의 전략산업이 동일할 경우 성장성과 혁신성과가 보다 높게 나타나는 것으로 분석되었다. 그러나 동일한 분석을 본 연구에서 분류한 4가지 유형(산업단지 인접형, 업종별 특화형, 수도권형, 기타 지방형)별로 실시해본 결과, 각 유형별로 기업의 성장성과 혁신성에 영향을 미치는 지원서비스가 상호간에 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 이상 분석결과에 따른 시사점은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 테크노파크가 제공하는 기업지원 서비스들의 경우 영향력 차이는 존재하지만 기본적으로 기업의 성장성과 혁신성에 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 기업지원 성과관리 측면에서 기업의 성장을 우선 목표로 하는 테크노파크의 경우 본 연구에서 제시한 지표체계를 그대로 적용하여 활용하면 될 것이며, 이는 가장 기본적인 평가지표 체계가 될 수 있다. 반면 혁신성 향상을 목표로 하고 싶은 테크노파크의 경우 기술교육, 금융지원, 연구인력수, 시제품, 기술지원, 시험생산실적, 제품화, 정보제공, 사업화지원 등의 지표를 보다 중요하게 평가하면 되고, 입주기업의 만족도 향상을 목표로 하기 위해서는 금융지원, 연구인력수, 시제품, 임대가능 면적, 연계 제공 항목의 평가비중을 높여서 적용하는 것으로 활용이 가능하다. 셋째, 장비지원 서비스, 인력지원 서비스, 기술지원 서비스, 지식서비스 지원, 마케팅지원 서비스의 경우 기업의 만족도를 높여줄 수 있도록 서비스를 제공한다면, 정량적인 성장성과 혁신성의 향상도 가져올 수 있는 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 테크노파크가 기업지원을 위해 투자를 보다 늘릴 필요가 있는 서비스항목이라고 할 수 있다. 반면 연구개발지원 서비스(연구개발 투자‧ 지원, 기술사업화 지원 등)의 경우는 만족도도 높고 기업의 성장성과 혁신성에도 영향을 미치는 서비스항목으로 도출되었다. 이는 앞으로도 지속적으로 서비스가 유지‧ 관리해야할 서비스항목이라 할 수 있다. 넷째, 기업에게 제공하는 서비스의 종류 외에 서비스의 질(내용)과 처리과정도 서비스 이용기업의 종합적인 만족도에 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 다섯째, 테크노파크는 기업의 성장성과 혁신성을 높이기 위해서는 테크노파크별 전략산업과 동일하거나 유사한 업종의 기업을 유치 및 지원하는 것이 필요하다. 여섯째, 테크노파크의 기업지원시스템 및 성과관리는 유형별로 구분되어 관리되어질 필요가 있다.|The following thesis focuses on the efficient operation and maintenance of Technoparks’ corporate support system. Therefore, in order to carry out this work, the performance evaluating indicators were determined. Then, the influence reflecting the supported corporations’ performance and satisfaction were analyzed. Two methods were used for this study. First, the corporations supporting performance evaluating indicators were determined. In order to do this, national standardized indicators and related studies were investigated and brainstorming with Technopark specialists. Then the analytic network process (ANP) was used to analyze the importance of indicators. Second, the Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM) was used for the analysis of supported corporations’ performance and satisfaction. The result of this study is as in the following. First, the results of development of the performance evaluating indicators. A total of 16 indicators were determined and the indicators’ importance is listed in the following order from highest to lowest: the commercialization support, amount of sales, budget, training skills, support of loans, amount of rental space, number of researchers, supporting information, marketing support, level of equipments, support of technological skills, prototypes, network support, product quality, frequency of equipment usage and product testing achievements. Second, the result of supported corporations’ performance and satisfaction analysis showed that research development support and network support were influential factors for the total satisfaction of supported corporations. Third, the result shows that the supported corporations’ performance (amount of sales, labor) and innovation (the number of technological developments, export sales, patent applications) are influenced by corporation support service of Technoparks. The Technoparks’ equipment support service influences the corporations’ performance. On the other hand, does not play a role in the corporations’ innovation. However, marketing supporting service and networking supporting service reflects a positive performance of corporations. Yet, they do not have any affect on innovation. Also, if bigger the scale of the corporation and longer the establishment of corporation, then it becomes a plus for the performance. On the other hand, the aforementioned scale and length of establishment are not related in any way to innovation. Lastly, if the Technoparks’ and supported corporations’ strategic industry and are the same, then the corporations’ performance and innovation becomes higher. However, these previous analyses taken as four types of Technoparks show a different result. In this result, the service, that reflects the performance and innovation in the four various types of Technoparks, differed from one another. The perspectives taken for this study are the following. First, even though there exist a variation in the Technoparks that offer corporate service, the corporations’ performance and innovation reflect Secondly, in the view of the corporations’ performance, in the case that the Technopark gives priority to performance, then in this given study, the evaluation system can be used directly. On the other hand, in the case that the Technoparks give priority to innovation, then the following factors can seen as important: training skills, support of loans, number of researchers, prototypes, support of technological skills, product testing achievements, product quality, supporting information commercialization support. Next, in the case where Techoparks give priority to the corporations’ satisfaction, the following can be seen as important factors: support of loans, number of researchers, prototypes, amount of rental space and network service. Thirdly, if the satisfaction for support service, labor support service, technical skill service, knowledge support service and marketing support service are increased, then the corporations’ performance and innovation increases as well. Therefore, the investment needs to be increased in the mentioned service fields. However, in the case of research development service (research development’s investment and support, commercialization support), the satisfaction level is higher and influences the corporations’ performance and innovation. Therefore, the stated services need to be maintained on a stable level. Fourthly, the corporations’ total satisfaction not only reflects the types of service, but on quality of service and processing speed of service as well. Fifthly, in order to increase the corporations’ performance and innovation, the Technoparks’ need to attract the corporations. These corporations must be in sync or be similar to the Technoparks’ strategic industry. Sixthly, the Technoparks’ corporation support system and performance maintenance need to be taken care of according to each type.; The following thesis focuses on the efficient operation and maintenance of Technoparks’ corporate support system. Therefore, in order to carry out this work, the performance evaluating indicators were determined. Then, the influence reflecting the supported corporations’ performance and satisfaction were analyzed. Two methods were used for this study. First, the corporations supporting performance evaluating indicators were determined. In order to do this, national standardized indicators and related studies were investigated and brainstorming with Technopark specialists. Then the analytic network process (ANP) was used to analyze the importance of indicators. Second, the Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM) was used for the analysis of supported corporations’ performance and satisfaction. The result of this study is as in the following. First, the results of development of the performance evaluating indicators. A total of 16 indicators were determined and the indicators’ importance is listed in the following order from highest to lowest: the commercialization support, amount of sales, budget, training skills, support of loans, amount of rental space, number of researchers, supporting information, marketing support, level of equipments, support of technological skills, prototypes, network support, product quality, frequency of equipment usage and product testing achievements. Second, the result of supported corporations’ performance and satisfaction analysis showed that research development support and network support were influential factors for the total satisfaction of supported corporations. Third, the result shows that the supported corporations’ performance (amount of sales, labor) and innovation (the number of technological developments, export sales, patent applications) are influenced by corporation support service of Technoparks. The Technoparks’ equipment support service influences the corporations’ performance. On the other hand, does not play a role in the corporations’ innovation. However, marketing supporting service and networking supporting service reflects a positive performance of corporations. Yet, they do not have any affect on innovation. Also, if bigger the scale of the corporation and longer the establishment of corporation, then it becomes a plus for the performance. On the other hand, the aforementioned scale and length of establishment are not related in any way to innovation. Lastly, if the Technoparks’ and supported corporations’ strategic industry and are the same, then the corporations’ performance and innovation becomes higher. However, these previous analyses taken as four types of Technoparks show a different result. In this result, the service, that reflects the performance and innovation in the four various types of Technoparks, differed from one another. The perspectives taken for this study are the following. First, even though there exist a variation in the Technoparks that offer corporate service, the corporations’ performance and innovation reflect Secondly, in the view of the corporations’ performance, in the case that the Technopark gives priority to performance, then in this given study, the evaluation system can be used directly. On the other hand, in the case that the Technoparks give priority to innovation, then the following factors can seen as important: training skills, support of loans, number of researchers, prototypes, support of technological skills, product testing achievements, product quality, supporting information commercialization support. Next, in the case where Techoparks give priority to the corporations’ satisfaction, the following can be seen as important factors: support of loans, number of researchers, prototypes, amount of rental space and network service. Thirdly, if the satisfaction for support service, labor support service, technical skill service, knowledge support service and marketing support service are increased, then the corporations’ performance and innovation increases as well. Therefore, the investment needs to be increased in the mentioned service fields. However, in the case of research development service (research development’s investment and support, commercialization support), the satisfaction level is higher and influences the corporations’ performance and innovation. Therefore, the stated services need to be maintained on a stable level. Fourthly, the corporations’ total satisfaction not only reflects the types of service, but on quality of service and processing speed of service as well. Fifthly, in order to increase the corporations’ performance and innovation, the Technoparks’ need to attract the corporations. These corporations must be in sync or be similar to the Technoparks’ strategic industry. Sixthly, the Technoparks’ corporation support system and performance maintenance need to be taken care of according to each type.; 본 연구는 테크노파크 기업지원시스템의 효율적인 관리 및 운영방안을 위해 테크노파크의 기업지원성과를 평가할 수 있는 중요 지표를 개발하고, 테크노파크가 제공하고 있는 기업지원시스템이 기업의 성과와 만족도에 어떠한 영향을 주는지 분석하였다. 연구방법으로는 첫째, 테크노파크의 기업지원성과 평가지표를 개발하였다. 현행평가지표 체계 및 국내&#8231