연구동향 분석
박사

제품진화 논리에 관한 연구 : 생산자, 소비자의 루틴 간의 상호관계를 중심으로

김성진 2015년

논문상세정보
인용/피인용
' 제품진화 논리에 관한 연구 : 생산자, 소비자의 루틴 간의 상호관계를 중심으로' 의 주제별 논문영향력
논문영향력 선정 방법
논문영향력 요약
주제
  • 공진화
  • 생산자와 소비자 루틴
  • 제품진화
  • 행위자 기반 모형
동일주제 총논문수 논문피인용 총횟수 주제별 논문영향력의 평균
106 0

0.0%

' 제품진화 논리에 관한 연구 : 생산자, 소비자의 루틴 간의 상호관계를 중심으로' 의 참고문헌

  • 특허 데이터를 활용한 정보통신 산업혁신체제의 역동성 분석
    김진용 정재용 기술혁신연구, 11(2), 283-314 [2003]
  • 테크놀로지의 종말 : 인간은 똑똑한 기계를 원하지 않는다
    Horx, M. 배명자 파주: 21세기북스(2008;2009) [2008]
  • 진화경제학의 시각으로 바라 본 인공물 진화의 논리 인공물의 진화
    김성진 윤정섭 이정동 정의영 서울: 서울대학교 출판부 [2015]
  • 제품의 진화
    이홍구 디자인학연구, 14(4), 137-146 [2001]
  • 제품 진화 예측 모형을 이용한 사례연구
    김성진 한국과학기술기획 평가원 [2014]
  • 정보기술과 타 산업 간 상호작용 및 산업구조 변화
    손상영 정보통 신정책연구원 [2005]
  • 시스템다이내믹스의 발전과 방법론적 위상
    문태훈 한국시스 템다이내믹스 연구, 3(1), 61-77 [2002]
  • 복잡성이론과 조직연구: 생물학적 관점의 재조명. In 신동엽 (Ed.), 21세기 매니지먼트 이론의 뉴패러다임 (pp. 942~989)
    정명호 고양: 위즈 덤하우스 [2008]
  • 보편적 다윈주의와 진화적 기업이론
    조필규 한국경제학보, 17(1), 131-161 [2010]
  • 객체지향 프로그래밍 언어의 특성과 그의 비교
    하수철 정보처리학 회 논문지, 2(2), 85-97 [1995]
  • Yasin, M. M. (2002). The theory and practice of benchmarking: then and now. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 9(3), 217-243.
  • Xiang, X., Kennedy, R., Madey, G., & Cabaniss, S. (2005). Verification and validation of agent-based scientific simulation models. Paper presented at the Agent-Directed Simulation Conference.
  • Winter, S. G., Kaniovski, Y. M., & Dosi, G. (2000). Modeling industrial dynamics with innovative entrants. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 11(3), 255-293.
  • Winter, S. G. (1984). Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 5(3), 287-320.
  • Wang, M.-Y. (2012). Exploring potential R&D collaborators with complementary technologies: The case of biosensors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(5), 862-874.
  • Vromen, J. (2004). Conjectural revisionary economic ontology: Outline of an ambitious research agenda for evolutionary economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 11(2), 213-247.
  • Veryzer, R. W. (1998). Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(4), 304-321.
  • Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D. (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science. 46(2): 186–204.
  • Utterback, J. M., & Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6), 639-656.
  • Utterback, J. M. (1996). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Press.
  • Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuitiesand organizational environments. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 31(3), 439-465.
  • Tripsas, M. (2008). Customer preference discontinuities: A trigger for radical technological change. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(2‐3), 79-97.
  • Tirole, J. (1988). The theory of industrial organization. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press.
  • Tesfatsion, L. (2002). Agent-based computational economics: Growing economies from the bottom up. Artificial Life, 8(1), 55-82.
  • Tesfatsion, L. (2001). Introduction to the special issue on agent-based computational economics. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25(3), 281-293.
  • Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537-556.
  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
  • Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144-176.
  • Tatikonda, M. V., & Rosenthal, S. R. (2000). Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development project execution success: a deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 47(1), 74-87.
  • Stiglitz, J. E. (1989). Imperfect information in the product market (Vol. 1). New York: Elsevier Science Pub. Co.
  • Sorescu, A. B., Chandy, R. K., & Prabhu, J. C. (2003). Sources and financial consequences of radical innovation: Insights from pharmaceuticals. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 82-102.
  • Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. The review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312-320.
  • Simon, H. A. (1997). Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason (Vol. 3). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press.
  • Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man; social and rational. Oxford, England: Wiley.
  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). Theory Economic Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  • Scherer, F. (1980). Industrial market structure and economic performance. Chicago: Rand Manally.
  • Saviotti, P. P., & Metcalfe, J. S. (1984). A theoretical approach to the construction of technological output indicators. Research Policy, 13(3), 141-151.
  • Sahal, D. (1985). Technological guideposts and innovation avenues. Research Policy, 14(2), 61-82.
  • Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. NY: Free Press. Roy, B. (1998). Using agents to make and manage markets across a supply web. Complexity, 3(4), 31-35.
  • Rogers, E. M. (1976). New product adoption and diffusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(4), 290-301.
  • Rodr guez-Pinto, J., Carbonell, P., & Rodr guez-Escudero, A. I. (2011). Speed or quality? How the order of market entry influences the relationship between market orientation and new product performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(2), 145-154.
  • Rand, W., & Rust, R. T. (2011). Agent-based modeling in marketing: Guidelines for rigor. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(3), 181-193.
  • Penrose, E. T. (1952). Biological analogies in the theory of the firm. The American Economic Review, 804-819.
  • Peine, A. (2009). Understanding the dynamics of technological configurations: A conceptual framework and the case of Smart Homes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(3), 396-409.
  • Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and atheory. Research policy, 13(6), 343-373.
  • Ostrom, T. M. (1988). Computer simulation: The third symbol system. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24(5), 381-392.
  • Norgaard, R. B., & Kallis, G. (2011). Coevolutionary contradictions: prospects for a research programme on social and environmental change. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 93(4), 289-300.
  • Nishimura, R., Hayashi, M., Wu, G.-J., Kouchi, H., Imaizumi-Anraku, H., Murakami, Y., . . . Nagasawa, M. (2002). HAR1 mediates systemic regulation of symbiotic organ development. Nature, 420(6914), 426- 429.
  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1977). In search of a useful theory of innovation. Bonn: Birkh user Basel.
  • Myers, S., & Marquis, D. G. (1969). Successful industrial innovations: A study of factors underlying innovation in selected firms. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation
  • Murmann, P. A. (1994). Expected development time reductions in the german mechanical engineering industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(3), 236-252.
  • Mount, M. (2012). The Mechanisms that Drive Disruptive Innovation. Murmann, J. P., & Frenken, K. (2006). Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change. Research Policy, 35(7), 925-952.
  • Millson, M. R., & Wilemon, D. (2008). Impact of new product development (NPD) proficiency and NPD entry strategies on product quality and risk. R&D Management, 38(5), 491-509.
  • Miller, J. H. (1998). Active nonlinear tests (ANTs) of complex simulation models. Management Science, 44(6), 820-830.
  • Meyer, M. H., & Utterback, J. M. (1995). Product development cycle time and commercial success. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 42(4), 297-304.
  • McFadden, D. (1981). Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice. In C. Manski & D. McFadden (Eds.), Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Maynard Smith, J. (1986). The problems of biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Marengo, L., & Valente, M. (2010). Industry dynamics in complex product spaces: An evolutionary model. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 21(1), 5-16.
  • Mallard, G. (2012). Modelling cognitively bounded rationality: An evaluative taxonomy. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(4), 674-704.
  • Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L., & Peretto, P. (1997). Persistence of innovative activities, sectoral patterns of innovation and international technological specialization. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15(6), 801-826.
  • Malerba, F. (2007). Innovation and the dynamics and evolution of industries: Progress and challenges. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25(4), 675-699.
  • Malerba, F. (2006). Innovation and the evolution of industries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16(1-2), 3.
  • Makri, M., Hitt, M. A., & Lane, P. J. (2010). Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 31(6), 602- 628.
  • Macal, C. M., & North, M. J. (2010). Tutorial on agent-based modelling and simulation. Journal of Simulation, 4(3), 151-162.
  • Ma, T., & Nakamori, Y. (2007). Agent-based simulation for Kansei Engineering: Testing a fuzzy linear quantification method in an artificial world. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 16(3), 308-322.
  • Ma, T., & Nakamori, Y. (2005). Agent-based modeling on technological innovation as an evolutionary process. European Journal of Operational Research, 166(3), 741-755.
  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational Learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-340.
  • Lee, D., Rhee, Y., & Dunham, R. B. (2009). The role of organizational and individual characteristics in technology acceptance. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 25(7), 623-646.
  • Lancaster, K. (1979). Variety, equity, and efficiency: product variety in an industrial society: New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Kreps, D. M. (1990). A course in microeconomic theory. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
  • Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing management 10th ed., millennium ed (Vol. 10th ed., millennium ed). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
  • Klepper, S. (1997). Industry life cycles. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(1), 145-182.
  • Kleinschmidt, E. J., & Cooper, R. G. (1991). The impact of product innovativeness on performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8(4), 240-251.
  • Kleijen, J. (1999). Validation of models: statistical techniques and data availability. Paper presented at the Simulation Conference Proceedings, 1999 Winter.
  • Kirsh, D. (2006). Explaining artifact evolution. In L. Malafouris (Ed.), The Cognitive Life of Things: Recasting the Boundaries of the Mind. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
  • Kiesling, E., G nther, M., Stummer, C., & Wakolbinger, L. M. (2012). Agent-based simulation of innovation diffusion: a review. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 20(2), 183-230.
  • Khanafiah, D., & Situngkir, H. (2006). Visualizing the Phylomemetic Tree. Journal of Social Complexity, 2(2), 20-30.
  • Kelton, W. D., & Law, A. M. (2000). Simulation modeling and analysis. Boston: McGraw Hill.
  • Kelly, K. (2010). What technology wants. London, England: Viking Penguin.
  • Kauffman, S., & Macready, W. (1995). Technological evolution and adaptive organizations: Ideas from biology may find applications in economics. Complexity, 1(2), 26-43.
  • Kauffman, S. A., & Weinberger, E. D. (1989). The NK model of rugged fitness landscapes and its application to maturation of the immune response. Journal of theoretical biology, 141(2), 211-245.
  • Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York Oxford university press.
  • Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. New York: Oxford university press.
  • Kallis, G., & Norgaard, R. B. (2010). Coevolutionary ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 69(4), 690-699.
  • Kallis, G. (2007b). Socio-environmental co-evolution: some ideas for an analytical approach. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 14(1), 4-13.
  • Kallis, G. (2007a). When is it coevolution? Ecological Economics, 62(1), 1-6.
  • Kahen, G., Lehman, M. M., Ramil, J. F., & Wernick, P. (2001). System dynamics modelling of software evolution processes for policy investigation: Approach and example. Journal of Systems and Software, 59(3), 271-281.
  • Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2006). Governing social-ecological systems Handbook of computational economics (Vol. 2, pp. 1465- 1509). Amsterdam ; Oxford: Elsevier.
  • Jablonka, E., & Ziman, J. (2000). Biological evolution: processes and phenomena. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2006b). The nature and units of social selection. Journal of evolutionary economics, 16(5), 477-489.
  • Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2006a). Dismantling Lamarckism: why descriptions of socio-economic evolution as Lamarckian are misleading. Journal of evolutionary economics, 16(4), 343-366.
  • Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2004). The firm as an interactor: firms as vehicles for habits and routines. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(3), 281-307.
  • Hodgson, G. M. (2010). Darwinian coevolution of organizations and the environment. Ecological Economics, 69(4), 700-706.
  • Hodgson, G. M. (2004). Darwinism, causality and the social sciences. Journal of Economic Methodology, 11(2), 175-194.
  • Hodgson, G. M. (2002). Darwinism in economics: from analogy to ontology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(3), 259-281.
  • Hodgson, G. M. (2001). Is social evolution Lamarckian or Darwinian (Vol. 120). Cheltenham ; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
  • Henein, C. M., & White, T. (2005). Agent-based modelling of forces in crowds. In P. Logan & K. Takadama (Eds.), Multi-agent and multiagent- based simulation (pp. 173-184). New York, NY: Springer.
  • Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9-30.
  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929-964.
  • Griffin, A. (1997). The effect of project and process characteristics on product development cycle time. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 24-35.
  • Gilbert, N., Ahrweiler, P., & Pyka, A. (2007). Learning in innovation networks: Some simulation experiments. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 378(1), 100-109.
  • Gilbert, N. (1997). A Simulation of the Structure of Academic Science. Sociological Research Online, 2(2).
  • Gilbert, N. (1995). Simulation: an emergent perspective. Paper presented at the conference on New Technologies in the Social Sciences, Bournemouth, UK.
  • Geroski, P., Machin, S., & Van Reenen, J. (1993). The profitability of innovating firms. The RAND Journal of Economics, 198-211.
  • Geroski, P. (2003). The evolution of new markets. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Futuyma, D., & Slatkin, M. (1983). Coevolution. Sinauer. Sunderland, MA. Garcia, R. (2005). Uses of Agent-Based Modeling in Innovation/New Product Development Research. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(5), 380-398.
  • Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In M. Friedman (Ed.), Essays in positive economics. Chicago ; London: University of Chicago Press.
  • Frenken, K. (2006). Innovation, evolution and complexity theory. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (1997). The economics of industrial innovation. Cambridge, Mass.: Psychology Press.
  • Foster, J. (1997). The analytical foundations of evolutionary economics: from biological analogy to economic self-organization. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 8(4), 427-451.
  • Fleck, J. (2000). Artefact↔ activity: the coevolution of artefacts, knowledge and organization in technological innovation. New York, NY, USA Cambridge University Press.
  • Elsenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105-1121.
  • Dow, J. (1991). Search decisions with limited memory. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(1), 1-14.
  • Dosi, G. (2006). On some statistical regularities in the evolution of industries: evidence, interpretation and open questions. In F. Malerba & S. Brusoni (Eds.), Perpectives on Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal ofeconomic literature, 26(3), 1120-1171.
  • Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147-162.
  • Doran, J., Palmer, M., Gilbert, N., & Mellars, P. (1994). The EOS project: modelling Upper Palaeolithic social change. In N. Gilbert & J. Doran (Eds.), Simulating Society: The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena (pp. 195-221). London: UCL Press.
  • Dixon, J. R., & Duffey, M. R. (1990). The neglect of engineering design. California Management Review, 32(2), 9-23.
  • Determinants and policy simulation of firms cooperation in innovation
    Cesar, F. L. 서울대학교 대학원, 박사학위논문, 서울. [2009]
  • Delre, S. A., Jager, W., & Janssen, M. A. (2007). Diffusion dynamics in small-world networks with heterogeneous consumers. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 13(2), 185-202.
  • Dawid, H. (2006). Agent-based models of innovation and technological change. Handbook of Computational Economics, 2, 1235-1272.
  • Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
  • Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1987). New products: what separates winners from losers? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4(3), 169-184.
  • Cooper, R. G. (2001). Winning at new products: Accelerating the process from idea to launch. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Pub.
  • Cooper, R. G. (1994). New products: the factors that drive success. International Marketing Review, 11(1), 60-76.
  • Cooper, R. G. (1979). The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure. The Journal of Marketing, 43(3), 93-103.
  • Conner, K. R. (1988). Strategies for product cannibalism. Strategic Management Journal, 9(S1), 9-26.
  • Conlisk, J. (2003). A note on convergence of adaptive satisficing to optimal stopping. Journal of Political Economy, 111(6), 1353-1360.
  • Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197-218.
  • Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Print.
  • Christensen, C. M. &Rosenbloom, R. S. 1995. "Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network". Research Policy, 24(2): 233-257.
  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 1-17.
  • Cesar, F. L., & Hwang, J. (2007). Object-oriented Approach of Systems of Innovation. 13th International Conference on Computing in Economics & France
  • Cefis, E. (2003). Is there persistence in innovative activities? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(4), 489-515.
  • Castellacci, F. (2011). Theoretical models of heterogeneity, growth and competitiveness: insights from the mainstream and evolutionary economics paradigms (Vol. 2). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Castellacci, F. (2007). Evolutionary and new growth theories. Are they converging? Journal of Economic Surveys, 21(3), 585-627.
  • Bunn, D. W., & Oliveira, F. S. (2001). Agent-based simulation-an application to the new electricity trading arrangements of England and Wales. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, 5(5), 493- 503.
  • Borshchev, A., & Filippov, A. (2004). From system dynamics and discrete event to practical agent based modeling: reasons, techniques, tools. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 22nd international conference of the system dynamics society.
  • Basalla, G. (1988). The evolution of technology. Cambridge [England] ; New York Cambridge University Press.
  • Barlo, M., Carmona, G., & Sabourian, H. (2009). Repeated games with one-memory. Journal of Economic Theory, 144(1), 312-336.
  • Ballot, G., & Taymaz, E. (1999). Technological change, learning and macroeconomic coordination: An evolutionary model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2(2).
  • Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press.
  • Arnold, T. J., Fang, E. E., & Palmatier, R. W. (2011). The effects of customer acquisition and retention orientations on a firm’s radical and incremental innovation performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 234-251.
  • Aldrich, H. E., Hodgson, G. M., Hull, D. L., Knudsen, T., Mokyr, J., & Vanberg, V. J. (2008). In defence of generalized Darwinism. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18(5), 577-596.
  • Alchian, A. A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. The Journal of Political Economy, 58(3), 211-221.
  • Albino, V., Carbonara, N., & Giannoccaro, I. (2006). Innovation in industrial districts: An agent-based simulation model. International Journal of Production Economics, 104(1), 30-45.
  • Ahrweiler, P., Pyka, A., & Gilbert, N. (2004). Simulating knowledge dynamics in innovation networks (SKIN). Singapore: World Scientific Press.
  • Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665-694.
  • Adner, R., & Levinthal, D. (2001). Demand heterogeneity and technology evolution: implications for product and process innovation. Management Science, 47(5), 611-628.
  • Adner, R. (2002). When are technologies disruptive? a demand-based view of the emergence of competition. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 667-688.
  • Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of innovation in technology. Technology Review, 80(7), 40-47.