Journal of Digital Convergence (디지털융복합연구)

The Society of Digital Policy and Management (한국디지털정책학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Determinant Process of Dominant Design of Smartphone Operating Systems

스마트폰 운영체제의 지배적 디자인 결정과정에 관한 연구

  • Received : 2013.10.29
  • Accepted : 2014.01.20
  • Published : 2014.01.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to present the major factors which determine dominant design of Smartphone OS and to verify a logical causal relationship with them and user satisfaction. To achieve this goal, OS compatibility, OS enhancement, Installed base, and network effect were presented as determinants of Smartphone OS which serves as the basis for determining dominant design and their logical causal relationship with user satisfaction was empirically analyzed. The results of the research showed that OS compatibility and OS enhancements had a positive effect on the expansion of user base. Of the two factors, OS enhancement showed that it does not only expand the user base but also acts as the cause for the fortification of the network effect. Furthermore, it was shown that OS enhancement had a direct positive effect on user satisfaction. The findings of this research are significant in its academic contribution as well as its potential for practical application by presenting the logical causal relationship in the process of determining OS dominant design an area which was previously untouched by empirical testing.

본 연구의 목적은 스마트폰 운영체제의 지배적 디자인을 결정하는 주요 요인이 무엇인지 제시하고 제시된 요인들과 사용만족 간의 논리적 인과관계를 검증하는데 있다. 이를 위해 지배적 디자인을 결정하는 스마트폰 운영체제의 주요 결정요인을 OS호환성, OS향상성, 사용자기반, 그리고 네트워크 효과 등으로 제시했다. 그리고 사용만족과의 논리적 인과관계를 실증분석했다. 연구결과, 스마트폰 운영체제의 OS호환성과 OS향상성은 사용기반 확대에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 특히 OS향상성은 사용기반을 확대 시킬 뿐만 아니라 네트워크 효과를 강화시키는 원인으로 나타났다. 그리고 직접적으로 사용만족에도 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 연구결과는 그동안 실증연구가 이루어지지 않았던 운영체제의 지배적 디자인 결정과정에 대해 논리적 인과관계를 제시하여 학문적으로 뿐만 아니라 실무적으로도 크게 기여했다고 판단된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Baohong Sun, Jinhong Xie, and H. H. Cao, Product strategy for innovators in markets with network effects, Marketing Science, Vol. 232, No. 2, pp. 243-254, 2004.
  2. Bonjun Koo, and Keecheon Kim, OS-Plaform structure proposal by development of mobile operating system and platform, The Korean Institute of Information Scientists and Engineers, Conference, 2003.
  3. C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 39-50, 1981. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  4. C. M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma. When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 1997.
  5. F. F. Suarez, Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework, Research Policy, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 271-286, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.001
  6. G. Dosi, Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change, Research Policy, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 147-162, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6
  7. H. Nair, P. Chintagunta, and J. P. Dube, Empirical analysis of indirect network effects in the market for personal digital assistants, Quantitative Marketing and Economics, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 23-58, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QMEC.0000017034.98302.44
  8. J. C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York. 1978.
  9. Jeong-Yoo Kim, Product compatibility as a signal of quality in a market with network externalities, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol.20, No. 7, pp. 949-964, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(01)00058-3
  10. J. Farrell and G. Saloner, Installed base and compatibility: predation, product preannouncements and innovation, American Economic Review, Vol. 76, No. 5, pp. 940-955, 1986.
  11. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed, Lawrence Erlbaum, NJ, 1988.
  12. J. P. Murmann and K. Frenken, Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change, Research Policy, Vol. 35, No. 7, pp. 925-952, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.011
  13. M. A. Schilling, Winning the standards race: building installed base and the availability of complementary goods, European Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 265-274, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00005-5
  14. M. Cusumano, Cloud computing and SaaS as new computing platforms, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 27-29, 2010.
  15. M. Kahan and M. Klausner, Standardization and innovation in corporate contracting, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 83, No. 4, pp. 713-770, 1997. https://doi.org/10.2307/1073747
  16. M. K. Malhotra and V. Grover, An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs to theory, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 407-425, 1988.
  17. M. L. Katz and C. Shapiro, Systems competition and network effects, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 93-115, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.2.93
  18. M. L. Katz and C. Shapiro, Network externalities, competition, and compatibility, American Economic Review, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp. 424-440, 1985.
  19. M. Tenenhaus, V. E. Vinzi, Y-M. Chatelin, and C. Lauro, PLS path modeling, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 159-205, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.005
  20. Myungseong Yim and Sanghyun Lee, A study on effect of determinants of the dominant design on intention to continuous use of Smartphone, The Journal of Digital Policy & Management, Vol. 10, No. 10, pp. 247-259, 2012.
  21. P. Anderson and M. L. Tushman, Technology discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 604-633, 1990. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393511
  22. Qi Wang, Yubo Chen, and Jinhong Xie, Survival in markets with network effect: product compatibility and order-of-entry effects, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74, July 2010, pp. 1-14. 2010.
  23. R. M. Henderson and K. B. Clark, Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 9-30, 1990. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393549
  24. R. P. Bagozzi and Y. Yi, On the evaluation of structural equation models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 74-94, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
  25. S. Gallagher, The complementary role of dominant designs and industry standards, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 371-379, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2007.893991
  26. W. J. Abernathy, The Productivity Dilemma: Roadblock to Innovation in the Automobile Industry, Baltimore, MDL: The Johns Hopkins University, 1978.
  27. W. J. Abernathy and J. M. Utterback, Patterns of industrial innovation, Technology Review, June-July, pp. 40-47, 1978.
  28. Yikuan Lee and G. C. O'Connor, New product launch strategy for network effects products, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 241-255, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303031003003

Cited by

  1. Information exchange architecture based on software defined networking for cooperative intelligent transportation systems vol.18, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-015-0442-z