In this dissertation, I aim to examine the technology innovation process model and find out the moderating effect of government support. The technology innovation process model employed in this dissertation consists of causal relationships among CEO support, innovation infrastructure (i.e., business culture, external networks), innovation capability (i.e., strategic planning capability, research and development capability, technology commercializing capability), and business performances (i.e., technology performance, market performance).
In order to measure the concepts in the technology innovation process model, I developed measurement items and conducted survey of manufacturing companies in central areas, South Korea. 242 valid surveys were returned. Using the survey data, I tested reliability and validity of survey items, empirically examined the technology innovation process model with a path analysis, and analyzed the moderating effect of government support. Findings of this dissertation study are following.
First, I found that CEO support had significant positive effects on the components of innovation infrastructure. To be specific, CEO supports had significant positive effects on both business culture and external network. Second, I found that innovation infrastructure had significant positive effects on the components of innovation capability. Business culture and external networks respectively had significant positive effects on strategic planning capacity, R&D capacity, and technology commercializing capacity. Third, I found that innovation capability had significant positive effects on business performances. To be specific, strategic planning capacity, R&D capacity, and technology commercializing capacity respectively had significant positive effects on technology performance. In addition, technology performance had the significant positive effect on market performance. Fourth, I found that three types of government support moderates parts of paths in the technology innovation process model. To be specific, technology development support moderates the causal relations between business culture and technology commercializing capacity, external network and technology commercializing capacity, R&D capacity and technology performance, and technology commercializing capacity and technology performance. Also, human development support moderates the causal relations between business culture and strategic planning capacity, external network and strategic planning capacity, R&D capacity and technology performance. Last but not least, technology commercializing support moderates the causal relations between CEO support and external network, business culture and R&D capacity, external network and strategic planning capacity, and technology commercializing capacity and technology performance.
Overall, above findings suggest that the group with government support showed higher levels and small variances of innovation capacity and business performances, compared to the group without government support. To be specific, businesses in the group with government support including technology development support and human development support exhibited higher levels of strategic planning capacity, R&D capacity, technology commercializing capacity, technology performance, and market performance. However, specifically for the technology commercializing support, no significant difference was observed between the group with government support and the group without government support, in terms of technology performance and market performance, although the group with technology commercializing support showed better strategic planning capacity, R&D capacity, and technology commercializing capacity.