기술이전·사업화 정책 수단의 요인별 분석 및 상대적 중요도에 관한 연구

Abstract

The national R&D budget for next year was set aside for the first time in excess of 30 trillion won (30.6574 trillion won). The national R&D budget, which was 3.5 trillion won in 2000, exceeded 20 trillion won in 2019, and entered the era of 30 trillion won in just four years. This can be said to reflect the need for securing scientific and technological competitiveness and sustainable growth amid the rapid evolution of science and technology and the speed of R&D and the emergence of new technologies one after another. In the meantime, it has created meaningful results through continuous expansion of national R&D investment and promotion of various policies. As a result, external indicators such as total R&D expenditure, ratio of R&D expenditure to GDP, total number of researchers, and scientific infrastructure ranking have entered the world level. On the other hand, the indicator of the success rate of technology transfer and commercialization, which links national R&D performance to private market performance, is relatively low. In this regard, the government is implementing technology transfer and commercialization promotion plans every three years in order to strengthen the technological competitiveness of the industry and create results in the marketthrough the utilization and diffusion of the results of national R&D projects. The 1st technology transfer and commercialization promotion plan was implemented in 2001, and the 7th technology transfer and commercialization promotion plan is currently being implemented. A key feature of the technology transfer and commercialization policy over the past 20 years is the fact that more than 90% of the results of national R&D projects transferred to the private sector are transferred to SMEs with weak internal resources. Accordingly, this study aimed to seek effective policy measures to improve the utilization and diffusion of national R&D project outcomes centering on technology users (SMEs) and to link government R&D investment to market performance. To this end, technology transfer and commercialization policy measures are analyzed by factor and classified into technology suppliers(public research institutes), technology consumers(small and medium-sized enterprises), technology intermediaries(technology transaction institutions), and technology facilitators (systems and infrastructure) factors, and similar and overlapping characteristics were categorized by policy means. Through this, by examining the development process of policy instrument factors, the technology transfer and commercialization promotion plan was divided into three phases (time to establish foundation for technology transfer system, time to expand technology supply capacity, time to activate technology demand and market). In addition, the cause of poor performance in the qualitative aspect was diagnosed as follows based on policy measures. First, the frequency of implementation of policy measures corresponding to the technology consumer factor is low in the process of technology transfer and commercialization policy promotion. Second, until the 5th technology transfer and commer cialization promotion plan, the policy direction is focused on technology brokers and technology suppliers. Third, policies based on actual technology consumers(Small and Medium Enterprises) began in earnest after the 6th technology transfer and commercialization promotion plan, and policies corresponding to technology consumer factors are continuously increasing. In addition, for technology transfer and commercialization policy measures, AHP analysis was conducted targeting those in charge of technology transfer and commercialization of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, and the relative importance was analyzed to present priorities for future policy promotion. In the case of the technology transfer and commercialization policy means factor, which is the upper class, the technology consumer factor was 0.506, the technology supplier factor was 0.238, the technology facil itator factor was 0.140, and the technology broker factor was 0.116. the importance of the technology consumer factor was evaluated overwhelm ingly high. And in terms of overall importance, the policy means to expand funding for commercialization(commercialization), which belongs to the technology consumer factor, was evaluated as the most important policy instrument at 0.257, and the policy instrument to strengthen open innovation support was 0.128, the policy instrument to promote start-up revitalization based on excellent technology was 0.121, and the linkage with commer cialization R&D expansion policy means 0.115, follow-up R&D support and performance management reinforcement policy means 0.083, and so on, were analyzed in order of importance. The implications of this study can be summarized as follows. The fact that the importance of the technology consumer factor was highly evaluated suggests the necessity and importance of a policy shift from the existing technology supplier or technology intermediary perspective to technology consumer and market-centered policy in order to create practical market performance through technology transfer and commercialization. Therefore, it is suggesting a direction for future technology transfer and commercialization policies. In addition, the fact that policies for technology consumer factors are steadily increasing means that the window of opportunity for SMEs to create technological innovation and market performance is widening through the commercialization of technology transferred from public research institutes.