2025년 한국기업혁신조사 : 서비스업 부문

oOr4KulmlRgxFyHB6H+Bmg==

연구성과

연구보고서

2025년 한국기업혁신조사 : 서비스업 부문 Report on the Korean Innovation Survey (KIS) 2025 : Service Sector

2025년 한국기업혁신조사 : 서비스업 부문원문 다운로드 2025년 한국기업혁신조사 : 서비스업 부문원문보기

보고서명
2025년 한국기업혁신조사 : 서비스업 부문
보고서명(영문)
Report on the Korean Innovation Survey (KIS) 2025 : Service Sector

책임자 황석원
소속기관과학기술정책연구원
공동책임자 이정우
내부연구참여자김선우,강희종,정재경
외부연구참여자김민재,이지희
발행기관 과학기술정책연구원
ISBN979-11-24145-20-3
출판년도2025
페이지470
보고서유형 기본연구보고서
연구유형 기초
표준분류 과학기술 > 과학기술일반
자료유형연구보고서
공공누리유형 4유형 (출처표시+상업적이용금지+변경금지)
주제어혁신,CIS,KIS,오슬로매뉴얼,연구개발

조회수

조회수 반영까지 최대 10분 정도 소요될 수 있습니다.

35
다운로드

다운로드 수 반영까지 최대 10분 정도 소요될 수 있습니다.

0

■연구 목적
- 국내에서 서비스업을 영위하는 기업을 대상으로, 최근 3년(2022~2024년) 동안의 혁신 성과와 혁신활동 현황 및 이에 수반되는 기업 특성을 파악하여, 관련 연구 및 정책 수립에 필요한 기초자료를 수집·제공
- 국제사회의 혁신조사(Community Innovation Survey, CIS) 가이드라인과 OECD 「오슬로 매뉴얼(Oslo Manual)」 제4차 개정판을 참조·반영하여, 조사표를 설계하고 조사 기준을 준수함으로써, OECD 주요국과 국제 비교가 가능한 고품질의 통계자료를 생산

■주요 내용
□ 혁신율
○ 서비스업혁신율: 23.8%
- 혁신을 수행한 서비스업체의 비율은 23.8% (KIS 2023(17.7%) 대비 +6.1%p)
- 종사자 수 규모별로 30~49인은 21.3%로 500인 이상의 58.8%와 큰 차이를 보였음
○ 상품혁신율: 17.5%
- 지난 3년간(2022~2024년) 상품혁신을 수행한 서비스업체의 비율은 17.5% (KIS 2023: 8.0%)
- 종사자 수 규모별로 30~49인은 14.9%로 500인 이상의 51.8%와 큰 차이를 보였음
○ BP혁신율: 18.6%
- 지난 3년간(2022~2024년) BP혁신을 수행한 서비스업체의 비율은 18.6% (KIS2023(15.6%) 대비 +3%p)
- 종사자 수 규모별로 30~49인은 14.6%, 500인 이상은 49.5%였음

■정책 대안
○ COVID-19 판데믹과 미-중 기술 패권 갈등이 한국 기업의 혁신 활동에 미친 충격에 대해 국가 차원의 광범위한 조사가 필요.
- 과학기술정책연구원만의 소규모 표본 조사가 아니라 인공지능 시대에 부합하는 규모의 전수 조사를 통해 한국 기업의 혁신 활동을 보다 면밀하게 추적할 필요

Report on the Korean Innovation Survey (KIS) 2025: Service Sector

ㆍProject Leader: Seogwon Hwang ･ Jungwoo Lee
ㆍParticipants: Sunwoo Kim ･ Heejong Kang ･ Jaekyung Jeong ･ Minjae Kim ･ Jeehee Lee

This report provides an executive summary of the findings from the Korean Innovation Survey (KIS) 2025, focusing on the Service Sector. The survey assessed the innovation performance, activities, and structural characteristics of the Korean service enterprises over the period 2022–2024. The data reveals a significant acceleration in innovation rates following the recent economic stabilization period, coupled with persistent structural challenges related to scale dependence, human capital shortages, and access to specialized innovation financing.

1. Overview and Survey Methodology
1) Purpose and Scope of the Korean Innovation Survey (KIS) 2025

The primary objective of the KIS 2025 was the comprehensive assessment and documentation of innovation performance and activities within the Korean service economy during the three years spanning 2022 to 2024. By collecting data on business characteristics, innovation performance, associated activities, and collaboration networks, the survey aims to furnish the fundamental statistical evidence required for the formation of effective innovation policies and for academic research across South Korea.
Maintaining high data quality and international comparability is central to the KIS framework. Accordingly, the KIS 2025 survey design, questionnaire development, implementation standards, and final data production strictly adhered to the methodological guidelines outlined in the OECD Oslo Manual (4th edition) and the framework established by the European Union's Community Innovation Survey (CIS). This strict adherence allows for direct comparison of Korea's service innovation metrics with those of major OECD member countries.
Historically, the KIS, designated as a nationally approved statistical survey since 2003 (Approval No. 395001), has evolved to adopt a biennial rotation cycle since 2020, focusing alternately on the manufacturing and service sectors. KIS 2025 represents the 20th iteration of this critical national survey, dedicated specifically to analyzing the service industry.
2) Survey Design and Reliability

The target population for the KIS 2025 consisted of enterprise units operating in the domestic service sector, defined as having 10 or more regular employees and conducting normal business activities throughout the 2022–2024 period. This population encompassed 70,541 enterprises, corresponding to KSIC 10th edition middle classifications 45 through 96 (excluding public administration/defense (84) and associations/organizations (94)). The sampling frame utilized the 2023 Statistical Business Register (SBR) provided by Statistics Korea.
The survey employed a truncated stratified sampling methodology to ensure representative coverage and statistical robustness. Enterprises with 500 or more regular employees were placed in a mandatory census stratum (full survey), while those with fewer than 500 employees were assigned to the sample stratum. To optimize statistical precision and minimize sample variability across strata, the Neyman Allocation Method was utilized, factoring in the variance of the number of regular employees in each stratification cell.
The target sample size for the KIS 2025 was set at 4,000 enterprises. Following data collection and rigorous quality control measures, the final response rate among eligible enterprises was determined to be 65.2%. The statistical reliability of the results is confirmed by a sampling error of ± 1.5\%p at a 95% confidence level for the final 4,000 validated samples.1 Furthermore, key variables such as the overall innovation rate generally demonstrated a Relative Standard Error (RSE) below the 30% threshold, verifying the high credibility of the parameter estimates.

2. General Enterprise Profile and Structural Characteristics
The demographic and structural characteristics of the surveyed service enterprises, analyzed as of the end of December 2024, underscore the sector’s reliance on small, independent entities with limited internal R&D institutionalization.

1) Enterprise Demographics and Market Structure

The total surveyed population included 70,541 service sector enterprises. The structure remains skewed towards smaller firms, with enterprises having 10 to 29 employees representing the largest segment at 73.2%. Legally, 64.0% are classified as small enterprises, 31.9% as medium enterprises, 3.1% as middle-standing enterprises, and 1.0% as large enterprises.1 The vast majority of firms (96.6%) operate as independent enterprises, confirming the decentralized and competitive nature of the service market in Korea.
In terms of market engagement, sales activity is overwhelmingly concentrated domestically. 88.9% of enterprises reported selling goods or services within a specific domestic region, and 51.7% served the entire domestic market (multiple responses permitted). International market presence is marginal, with the Asia region accounting for only 2.4% of sales engagement, and North America and Europe each at 0.5%. Customer reliance centers heavily on the private sector: domestic private enterprises represent the primary customer base for 54.6% of firms, followed by individual consumers at 40.4%. The domestic government and public sector account for a modest 3.5% of primary sales channels.
Financial scale data indicates that 41.4% of enterprises reported annual sales between 1 billion KRW and 5 billion KRW as of December 2024, the largest single sales bracket. Enterprises with sales exceeding 100 billion KRW account for a small but influential 3.0% of the population.

2) R&D Investment and Human Resources

The analysis of human capital reveals that innovation activities in the service sector rely substantially less on formally dedicated R&D personnel compared to the manufacturing sector. The average ratio of dedicated R&D staff to total regular employees across all service firms was only 1.7% in 2024. This low average is driven by the finding that 89.6% of firms reported having no dedicated R&D personnel whatsoever. Among the small minority of firms employing dedicated R&D staff, the most common category was the "5% or less" ratio, reported by 3.7% of all firms.
The low level of institutionalized R&D is further evidenced by the finding that only 5.6% of enterprises possess a formal affiliated research institute, and a mere 2.0% hold official venture company certification. While the R&D activity rate (19.7%) is significantly higher than the rate of formal R&D certification (5.6%), this disparity suggests that most R&D activities in the service sector are either integrated into non-R&D operations, project-based, or comprise non-R&D innovation acquisition, rather than formal, sustained institutional research.
Compared to the KIS 2023 survey, the proportion of firms engaging in low-density R&D (5% or less R&D staff) increased by 2.1 percentage points (from 1.6% to 3.7% in KIS 2025). Conversely, most higher R&D concentration ranges showed overall decreases. This pattern indicates a marginal broadening of R&D engagement across a greater number of smaller firms, possibly influenced by tax or policy incentives, even as the density of R&D personnel within established research teams may be slightly decreasing.

3. Strategic Orientation and Knowledge Management
1) Introducing General Business Strategies

Service enterprises demonstrate a high degree of strategic planning, with 90.0% reporting the use of general business strategies during 2022–2024. The nature of these strategies emphasizes incremental improvement and customer retention over disruptive market action. The most widely introduced strategies include: improving existing products or services (87.7%); enhancing product quality, framed as "quality competitiveness" (84.7%); and focusing on satisfying the existing customer base (80.0%).
When enterprises evaluated the economic impact of these strategies (rated as "High" or "Very High" importance), the strategy of enhancing product quality (Quality Competitiveness) was deemed most critical overall (18.7% of firms). This strategic importance was most pronounced among larger enterprises, specifically those with 100–299 employees (26.7%) and large enterprises (28.5%). The overwhelming focus on enhancing existing products and satisfying current customers, rather than launching entirely new product lines (70.7%) or engaging in price competition (67.7%), confirms a market preference for stability and incremental growth in the Korean service sector.

2) Knowledge Protection and IP Activities

Firms in the service sector exhibit a limited reliance on formal mechanisms for protecting their competitive knowledge. Only 19.0% of all surveyed enterprises reported undertaking product protection activities in the 2022–2024 period. The most frequently utilized protection method was the application of trade secrets, cited by 11.5% of firms, followed by formal patent application (6.0%) and trademark registration (2.5%). This preference for informal protection mechanisms suggests that firms often view service innovations as difficult to formally codify or that the legal process is perceived as overly burdensome relative to the competitive advantage gained.
Furthermore, engagement in formal intellectual property (IP) trading—including the licensing in/out, sale, or purchase of IP rights (patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.)—was found to be minimal, involving only 0.8% of all enterprises. This low engagement in the IP market reinforces the conclusion that the service sector primarily values tacit knowledge and proprietary business processes, protecting them internally through trade secrets rather than facilitating external knowledge flow through formal IP transactions.

3) Acquisition of Capital Goods and Software

The acquisition of external capital goods is a key component of service innovation, often enabling the introduction of new business processes. A substantial majority of firms (90.8%) acquired machinery, equipment, computer hardware, or software during the survey period. The most common purchases were computer hardware (50.8%), followed by machinery/equipment (41.2%), and computer software (31.4%).
The extent to which these acquisitions drive transformative change is differentiated by examining the novelty of the purchased goods. Only 7.2% of firms reported purchasing items considered "new or radically improved" (innovative) that the firm had never used before. In contrast, a much larger proportion, 25.8% of firms, purchased capital goods that were either identical, similar, or only minimally improved compared to their previous usage (routine/similar acquisition). The wide gap between the overall high acquisition rate (90.8%) and the low rate of innovative acquisition (7.2%) suggests that capital expenditure is predominantly focused on supporting existing operational capabilities and replacing obsolete assets, rather than structurally upgrading the technological base of the enterprise.
4. Business Innovation Performance (2022–2024)
The KIS 2025 recorded a marked expansion of innovation activity in the service sector during the 2022–2024 period, signaling a robust recovery and accelerated adaptation following preceding years of economic volatility.

1) Innovation Rates and Sectoral Acceleration

The overall Service Sector Innovation Rate—the proportion of firms that successfully introduced either a Product Innovation (PI) or a Business Process Innovation (BPI)—reached 23.8%. This represents a significant increase of $6.1%p compared to the 17.7% rate observed in KIS 2023.
The acceleration in innovation was particularly pronounced in Product Innovation (PI). The Product Innovation Rate jumped to 17.5%, an increase of 9.5%p over the KIS 2023 rate of 8.0%. The Business Process Innovation (BPI) Rate also increased, reaching 18.6%, up 3.0%p from the 15.6% recorded in the prior survey. The sharp rise in the PI rate indicates a decisive market pivot toward novel service offerings and improved goods during the post-pandemic recovery.

2) Scale Dependence of Innovation

Innovation performance remains highly stratified by enterprise size, a consistent finding in innovation surveys. Large enterprises (500 or more employees) achieved an overall Innovation Rate of 58.8%, demonstrating robust and sustained innovation activity. In stark contrast, small enterprises (10–29 employees) reported an innovation rate of 22.0%. This divergence underscores that while small firms represent the largest population segment, they face significantly higher hurdles in translating innovation intent into successful market outcomes.

3) Innovation by Industry

Innovation intensity varies substantially across service sub-sectors. The highest overall innovation rates were observed in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector (41.3%), the Transportation and Warehousing sector (40.3%), and the Finance and Insurance sector (35.6%).
Analyzing the specific innovation types by industry reveals distinct sectoral drivers:
Product Innovation (PI) Leaders: Transportation/Warehousing (36.8%), Information/Communication (30.9%), and Finance/Insurance (25.8%).1 The high PI rate in Transportation/Warehousing suggests significant efforts in developing new logistics and delivery services.
Business Process Innovation (BPI) Leaders: Information/Communication (37.7%), Finance/Insurance (25.9%), and Repair/Other services (23.2%). The high BPI engagement in Transportation/Warehousing (35.8% BPI rate for the type of launching new or significantly improved services, a key BPI element) and ICT reflects a strong focus on optimizing internal operations and modernizing customer interaction processes, often through digital introduction.

4) Innovation Novelty and Market Impact

The novelty of innovation introduced by firms remains skewed toward imitation (New-to-Firm) rather than market pioneering (New-to-Market). In terms of product outcomes, 1.0% of firms launched new or radically improved products/goods, while 16.7% launched new or radically improved services.
Self-development continues to be the dominant path for innovation, with 60.6% of Product Innovations and 59.9% of Business Process Innovations developed solely within the firm. Collaborative development remains marginalized, accounting for only 3.9% and 3.8%, respectively.
The analysis of sales contribution highlights the limited economic impact of genuine market-first disruption. The average sales contribution of products resulting from New-to-Market (NTM) innovation, measured against total sales in 2024, was only 0.2%. Crucially, 99.4% of firms reported generating zero sales from NTM products. In stark contrast, New-to-Firm (NTF) innovation, representing the successful introduction of existing market solutions, contributed an average of 17.2% to sales. This stark differential demonstrates that while service firms are successfully innovating by introducing existing solutions (NTF), the creation of novel, pioneering products that drive new market formation (NTM) is exceptionally rare and challenging.

5. Innovation Activities, Financing, Cooperation, and Barriers
1) Status of Innovation Activities and Cost

During the 2022–2024 period, 24.3% of enterprises successfully completed their innovation activities (resulting in a successful PI or BPI introduction). 3.8% reported that their innovation activities were still ongoing, while 2.1% abandoned the activity altogether. The completion rate exhibited a strong scale effect, with large enterprises achieving a 62.8% completion rate, significantly outpacing medium enterprises (23.1%).
Regarding R&D execution, 19.7% of firms undertook R&D internally (독자수행 R&D). Contractual cooperation for R&D was practiced by only 1.6% of firms, and a similar proportion (1.6%) outsourced their R&D activities entirely. The overall reliance on internal R&D, rather than external collaboration or specialized outsourcing, is characteristic of the service sector's proprietary focus.
The average expenditure allocated to innovation activities in 2024 across the service sector was approximately 458 million KRW. This average, however, masks vast disparities by firm size: small enterprises averaged only 130 million KRW, whereas large enterprises dedicated an average of 7.1 billion KRW to innovation.

2) Financing Innovation Activities

The methods utilized by service firms to finance their innovation activities highlight a significant market reliance on internal capacity. 32.0% of firms attempted to secure financing using their own internal funds. External financing attempts were dominated by seeking investment or loans from commercial banks (17.0%). Attempts to obtain specific policy funds were less frequent, with central government support sought by 3.4% of firms and local government funds by 2.8%.
In terms of success, internal funding showed the highest rate of full success (33.7%). Central government funding followed closely (31.9%). Critically, commercial bank loans and investments exhibited a very low full success rate of only 5.9%. This low success rate, viewed alongside the high proportion of firms citing "lack of funds" as a barrier, strongly suggests a structural deficiency in the ability of traditional financial institutions to effectively assess and manage the risk associated with intangible service innovation assets. This difficulty forces firms to rely on inherently limited internal capital, constraining the scale and ambition of their innovation projects.

3) Innovation Cooperation and Information Sourcing

Formal collaborative R&D activity (beyond simple contracts) remains low, with only 5.9% of firms reporting engagement in R&D cooperation and 3.8% cooperating on non-R&D innovation activities. When firms were asked to rate the usefulness of various collaboration partners, external private enterprises (35.2%) were rated as the most useful for innovation, followed by the firm’s internal resources (26.5%). Public research institutes were perceived as the least useful partner, rated highly by only 2.4% of firms.
For acquiring the necessary information to carry out innovation, internal enterprises sources were the most frequently utilized overall (60.9%), followed by external private enterprises (35.0%). However, when evaluating the perceived importance of these sources, external private enterprises were rated as highly utilized (High or Very High importance) by 34.4% of firms, exceeding the high importance rating given to internal resources (25.5%). This confirms that while firms access a vast amount of internal information, market-based intelligence and knowledge gained from external business partners are often the most decisive inputs for successful innovation in the service sector.
4) Innovation Hindering Factors

Financial constraints and internal competency gaps represent the most critical and widespread impediments to innovation across the service sector.
The most cited obstacle overall was the Lack of Internal Funds (76.6% of firms affected), with nearly one-third of firms (29.3%) rating this as a high or very high hindrance. This finding confirms the difficulty firms face in securing appropriate external financing for service innovation, leaving them exposed to internal capital limitations.
In terms of business capability, the Lack of Highly Skilled Personnel was the primary constraint, affecting 66.3% of firms. On the market demand side, Market Demand Uncertainty was cited as a major inhibitor by 62.6% of enterprises.
A size-based analysis of high-hindrance factors reveals distinct policy requirements. Small enterprises were most severely constrained by the Lack of Internal Funds (35.0% high hindrance). In contrast, large enterprises cited Excessive Innovation Costs (22.0%) and Lack of Skilled Personnel (18.9%) as their top high-hindrance factors. This differentiation underscores that policy interventions must address financial liquidity for small firms and human capital development/retention for larger firms.

6. Policy Environment: Government Support and Regulatory Impact
1) Government Support Systems

Service sector firms reported relatively high utilization rates for general government support systems, with all major types showing usage by over 10% of enterprises during 2022–2024. The most frequently utilized support types were: Tax support (18.9%), Human Resources support (17.8%), and Funding support (17.3%).
When evaluating the importance of these systems (rated as "High" or "Very High" by users), Funding support (14.5%) and Tax support (13.2%) were considered the most vital for innovation activities. The perceived importance of these systems varied significantly by firm size: for instance, large enterprises (500+ employees) rated the importance of funding support exceptionally high (72.8%). The high utilization and importance of tax and funding measures suggest that policy-driven financial incentives are highly valued. However, the disproportionately high importance assigned by larger firms may indicate that the current policy structure unintentionally favors the scale and administrative capacity of larger entities.

2) Impact of Regulations on Innovation

The analysis of regulatory impact reveals that regulations are generally perceived to be more inhibitory than promotional for service sector innovation. Firms assessed the directional impact and intensity of various regulatory types.
The regulatory categories cited most frequently as major inhibitors were:
- Startup conditions related regulations (53.8% inhibitor).
- Price restrictions (50.3% inhibitor).
- Labor standards and regulations (50.3% inhibitor).

The widespread perception that regulations concerning labor and market entry hinder innovation points to systemic rigidities that likely complicate internal organizational changes (BPI) and inhibit the formation of new innovative ventures.
Conversely, regulations cited as the strongest promoters of innovation were:
- Antitrust regulation on monopolies and competition restriction (15.6% promoter).
- Ocupational safety and health regulations (15.4% promoter).
- Consumer safety and sanitation regulations (15.4% promoter).

The positive influence of safety, health, and fair competition regulations suggests that mandates aimed at public goods often compel firms to innovate toward compliance and resource-efficient processes, thereby indirectly fostering innovation. The positive perception of antitrust regulation (15.6%) may reflect the sector's desire for a level playing field, where market fairness encourages competition and innovation.

7. Special Topics: Environment and Digital Transformation (DX)
1) Environment and Business Innovation (2022–2024)

The influence of climate change and environmental policy is increasingly structuring corporate decisions. The most widely reported factor affecting service enterprise activity was "Government policies or measures related to climate change," cited by 28.4% of firms (average importance score of 2.2). This was followed by the impact of extreme weather events (20.0%) and increasing customer demand for products that aid in climate change mitigation or adaptation (19.3%).
Introduction rates for Innovation with Environmental Benefits (IWEB) remain moderate: 13.8% of enterprises introduced IWEB for their own operational benefits, and 9.9% introduced IWEB aimed at end-users. For self-benefit, the top IWEB types were "changing or substituting environmentally friendly alternatives" (5.4%) and "reducing material/water usage" (4.8%).
Crucially, the decision to introduce environmental innovation is highly correlated with corporate image and external policy drivers. The top influencing factor was determined to be Improving the firm's reputation (62.9% of firms influenced, with the highest importance score of 3.0). Other highly influential policy drivers included existing environmental regulations (46.6%) and government subsidies or financial incentives for environmental innovation (41.0%). The high importance assigned to reputation and compliance relative to direct operational costs suggests that environmental innovation in the service sector is often a strategic, non-cost-driven response to rising corporate social responsibility (CSR) and ESG pressures.

2) Digital Transformation (DX) and Business Innovation (2022–2024)

Digital Transformation (DX) is recognized as a key enabler of service innovation, yet its introduction remains segmented. As of the end of 2023, the DX introduction rate among service enterprises was 23.2%. Significantly, 76.7% of non-introduction enterprises reported plans to introduce DX in the future, indicating strong latent demand and recognition of its strategic importance. The ICT sector showed the highest introduction rate (48.5%).
Specific digital technologies show varying levels of market penetration:

- Top Technologies: Big Data (15.5% introduction), Artificial Intelligence (AI) (8.6% introduction), and Internet of Things (IoT) (7.1% introduction).
- Low Penetration: Robotics (0.5%), Extended Reality (0.4%), and Blockchain (0.4%).

The primary objective for introducing these technologies is to facilitate service innovation (used for this purpose by 70-80% of firms for most technologies). The most frequently cited positive effects following DX introduction were sales expansion (41.8%), followed by non-labor cost reduction (35.0%) and labor cost reduction (33.6%).
The reasons for DX non-introduction reveal structural barriers beyond mere cost. The dominant reason cited was that DX was "not necessary due to business characteristics" (50.8%). Secondary barriers included uncertainty regarding implementation effectiveness (23.9%) and the burden of implementation costs (lack of investment funds, 20.5%).
Finally, the organizational readiness for DX is limited. The overall DX response level averaged only 2.2 points (on a 5-point scale). A critical impediment is the human resource shortage: 79.1% of service firms lack dedicated DX personnel or organizations, with only 3.2% possessing an internal, dedicated DX team. The high rate of perceived unnecessary introduction and the severe lack of dedicated internal resources suggest that many service firms struggle with DX conceptualization and integration, requiring substantial policy focus on awareness, capability building, and diffusion to bridge the knowledge and resource gap.

국문 요약 i

영문 요약 I

제1장 조사 개요 1
제1절 조사 목적 및 필요성 1
제2절 조사 연혁 및 개괄 2
제3절 조사 설계 및 샘플링 3
1. 모집단 정의 3
2. 조사모집단 층화, 표본크기, 표본배분 방법 5
제4절 진행 경과 및 조사관리 12
1. 조사 진행 경과 12
2. 조사 품질관리 13
제5절 조사 진행 결과 및 모수추정 14
1. 진행 결과 14
2. 모수 추정 18
제6절 주요 용어 해설 24
제7절 조사 내용 및 구성 26
제8절 주요변수 표준오차 및 상대표준오차 28
1. 연구개발(R&D) 활동 비율 29
2. 혁신율 30
제9절 자료 활용 시 유의사항 31
제10절 조사 결과 활용 33

제2장 조사 체계 35
제1절 2025년 조사 설계 및 개편 35
1. KIS 2025 조사표 개편 방향 및 중점 고려사항 35
제2절 2025년 조사 문항 구성 및 신구 대조 37
1. KIS 2024 대비 KIS 2025의 조사표 변경 사항 비교 37
2. CIS 2022 대비 KIS 2025 조사 문항 비교 38
제3장 일반사항 45
제1절 기업 일반사항 45
1. 기업 형태 및 유형 46
2. 매출액 47
3. 기타사항 48
제2절 연구개발 일반사항 50
1. 연구개발 전담인력 규모(2024년 기준) 50
2. KIS 2023 및 2025 업종별 기업 수 비교 51
3. KIS 2023 및 2025 연구개발 전담인력 비중 비교 51

제4장 전략과 지식흐름 52
제1절 일반적 기업전략 52
1. 기업전략 활용 현황 52
2. 기업전략 활용 유형 53
제2절 상품 보호 56
1. 상품 보호 활동 현황 56
2. 상품 보호 활동 유형 57
제3절 지식재산 활동 59
1. 지식재산권 거래 활동 현황 59
2. 지식재산권 거래 활동 유형 60
제4절 기계/장비, 컴퓨터 하드웨어/소프트웨어 구입 63
1. 기계/장비, 컴퓨터 하드웨어/소프트웨어 구입 현황 63
2. 기계/장비, 컴퓨터 하드웨어/소프트웨어 구입 종류 및 유형 64

제5장 기업혁신 67
제1절 상품혁신 및 비즈니스프로세스(BP)혁신 67
1. 상품혁신 유형 67
2. 상품혁신 수준 69
3. 상품혁신 매출기여도 70
4. BP혁신 유형 71
5. 혁신주체 73
6. 혁신율 74
7. 시계열 비교 77
제2절 혁신활동 및 정보획득 78
1. 혁신활동 추진 현황 78
2. 연구개발 유형 79
3. 정보원천 활용 기관 및 활용도 81
제3절 혁신비용 및 자금조달 83
1. 혁신활동 비용 83
2. 자금조달 유형 및 혁신활동 사용 여부 84
3. 세제혜택 유형 86
제4절 혁신협력 및 저해요인 87
1. 혁신협력 유형 87
2. 혁신파트너 및 협력현황 88
3. 혁신파트너 유용도 89
4. 혁신 저해요인 및 저해도 90

제6장 정부지원제도와 규제 93
제1절 정부지원제도 93
1. 정부지원제도 활용 현황 93
제2절 규제의 혁신 영향 98

제7장 특별주제 102
제1절 환경과 기업혁신 102
1. 기후변화 관련 요소의 영향 및 중요도 102
2. 환경편익이 있는 혁신 도입 여부 및 환경보호 기여도 106
3. 환경편익이 있는 혁신 도입 결정 영향 요인 및 중요도 111
제2절 디지털전환(DX)과 기업혁신 112
1. 디지털전환 도입 현황 112
2. 디지털전환 세부기술 도입 현황 114
3. 디지털전환 도입 목적 116
4. 디지털전환 도입 효과 117
5. 디지털전환 미도입 이유 117
6. 디지털전환 대응 수준 118
7. 디지털전환 전담 인력 및 조직 보유 현황 120

참고문헌 121
부록 1. 조사표 123
부록 2. 통계표 139

콘텐츠 큐레이션 : 동일주제 가장 많이 이용된 자료 추천

현재 페이지에서 제공되는 연구보고서에 대하여 평가해 주세요

별점5점만점에 5점 별점5점만점에 4점 별점5점만점에 3점 별점5점만점에 2점 별점5점만점에 1점

의견(0)

연구성과에 따른 의견과 무관한 글, 선정적인 글 및 비방글 등의 게시물은 관리자에 의해 언제든 삭제 조치 될 수 있으며, 주민등록번호 형식 및 연속된 숫자 13자리는 입력할 수 없습니다.

입력 가능 Byte : 4000 Byte 현재 입력 Byte : 0 Byte

자동등록방지 숫자를 순서대로 입력하세요.

NKIS 국가정책연구포털

연구성과

국책연구동향

NKIS 통계

게시판

NKIS소개

연구성과

국책연구동향

NKIS 통계

게시판

NKIS소개

연구성과

연구보고서

2025년 한국기업혁신조사 : 서비스업 부문

Report on the Korean Innovation Survey (KIS) 2025 : Service Sector

국문초록

영문초록

목차

콘텐츠 큐레이션 : 동일주제 가장 많이 이용된 자료 추천

연구보고서

정책연구자료

세미나

현재 페이지에서 제공되는 연구보고서에 대하여 평가해 주세요

의견(0)