AÇIK İNOVASYON STRATEJİSİNİN KOBİ’LERİN İNOVASYON VE İHRACAT PERFORMANSINA ETKİLERİ: İNOVASYON İKLİMİNİN DÜZENLEYİCİ ROLÜ

Year 2023, Volume: 24 Issue: 2, 193 - 219, 10.07.2023

Ozan Kalaycıoğlu

https://doi.org/10.31671/doujournal.1238320

Cited By: 1

Abstract

KOBİ’ler gerek istihdama katkıları gerekse hızlı hareket edebilme potansiyelleri ile ülke ekonomilerine ciddi katkılarda bulunurlar. Ancak, aynı zamanda birtakım yetersizlikleri de bünyelerinde barındırırlar. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışmada literatürde son dönemlerde öne çıkan açık inovasyon stratejilerinin, KOBİ’lerin ürün inovasyonu performansı ile ihracat performansı üzerindeki etkileri araştırılmaktadır. Ayrıca, inovasyon ikliminin bu ilişkiler üzerindeki moderatör etkileri incelenmektedir. Bu kapsamda, 299 ihracatçı KOBİ üzerinde anket yöntemi ile yapılan araştırmada, içten-dışa ve dıştan-içe açık inovasyon stratejilerinin ürün inovasyonu performansıyla pozitif ilişkili olduğu, ürün inovasyonu performansının ise ihracat performansıyla pozitif ilişkili olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, araştırma sonucunda ürün inovasyonu performansının aracı değişken etkisi ile inovasyon ikliminin moderatör etkisi tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Açık İnovasyon, İnovasyon İklimi, İnovasyon Performansı, İhracat Performansı

EFFECTS OF OPEN INNOVATION STRATEGY ON INNOVATION AND EXPORT PERFORMANCE OF SMEs: MODERATING ROLE OF INNOVATION CLIMATE

Abstract

SMEs make serious contributions to the national economy with their positive effect on employment and their potential to act quickly. However, they have some deficiencies, too. In the present study, we investigated the effects of open innovation strategies, which have recently come to the attention in the literature, on the product innovation performance and export performance of SMEs. In addition, the moderator effects of the innovation climate on these relations are examined. In so doing, in a survey conducted on 299 exporting SMEs, it was determined that inside-out and outside-in open innovation strategies are positively related to product innovation performance, while product innovation performance is positively related to export performance. In addition, the mediating variable effect of product innovation performance and the moderator effect of innovation climate were determined.

Keywords

Open Innovation, Innovation Climate, Innovation Performance, Export Performance

References

• Akın, M. (2020). Açık inovasyonun kurgulanması ve Türkiye’deki kısıtlı gelişmeler. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 15(1).
• Ayar, B., & Erdil, T. S. (2018). İnovasyon ve ar-ge faaliyetlerinin ihracat performansına etkisi: Türk işletmeleri üzerine algısal bir araştırma. Journal of Marmara University Social Sciences Institute/Öneri, 13(49), 45-68.
• Ayaz, K., & Aktaş, H. (2020). Açık inovasyonun inovasyon performansına etkisi: Yıldız Teknopark’taki bilişim işletmelerinde bir araştırma. 28. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi. Ankara.
• Bagherzadeh, M., Markovic, S., Cheng, J. & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2020). How does outside-in open innovation influence innovation performance? Analyzing the mediating roles of knowledge sharing and innovation strategy. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 67(3), 740-753.
• Bagozzi R.P. & Yi Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74 - 94.
• Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
• Bianchi, M., S. C. Orto, F. Frattini, P. Vercesi (2010). Enabling open ınnovation in small- and medium-sized enterprises: How to find alternative applications for your technologies. R and D Management, 40(4), 414–430.
• Bibi, S., Khan, A., Qian, H., Garavelli, A. C., Natalicchio, A., & Capolupo, P. (2020). Innovative climate, a determinant of competitiveness and business performance in Chinese law firms: the role of firm size and age. Sustainability, 12(12), 4948.
• Boschma, R. A. and Ter Wal, A. L. (2007). Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district: the case of a footwear district in the South of Italy. Industry and Innovation, 14(2), 177-199.
• Bozkurt, M. B., & Korkmaz, O. (2021). Liderlik tarzları ile yenilikçilik iklimi, yenilikçilik iklimi ile yenilikçi iş yapma davranışı arasındaki ilişkilerin analizi. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 11(1), 123-146.
• Brouthers L.E. & Nakos G., (2005). The role of systematic ınternational market selection on small firms export performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(4), 363-381.
• Brunswicker, S. (2016). Managing open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In Open tourism (pp. 171-187). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
• Burmaoğlu, S., & Şeşen, H. (2011). Türk firmalarının organizasyonel inovasyon yeteneğini etkileyen faktörler üzerine bir araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 66(04), 1-20.
• Chetty, S. K., & Wilson, H. I. (2003). Collaborating with competitors to acquire resources. International Business Review, 12(1), 61-81.
• Cheng, C. C., & Huizingh, E. K. (2014). When is open innovation beneficial? The role of strategic orientation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(6), 1235-1253.
• Cheng, C.C.J. & Shiu, E.C. (2015). The inconvenient truth of the relationship between open innovation activities and innovation performance. Management Decision, 53(3), 625-647.
• Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harward: Harvard Business Press.
• Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V. & Frattini, F. (2010). Unravelling the process from closed to Open Innovation: evidence from mature, asset‐intensive industries. R&D Management, 40(3), 222-245.
• Chin, WW. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), in Modern methods for business research (295-336, pp.), London: Erlbaum.
• Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2016). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), in Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (187–203, pp.). American Psychological Association.
• Clausen, T. H., & Pohjola, M. (2009). International competitiveness: Internal capabilities and open innovation as sources of export performance. Micro-Dyn Working Paper, 5(09).
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
• Contractor F.J., Hsu C.C., Kundu S.K., (2005). Explaining export performance: A comparative study of ınternational new ventures in Indian and Taiwanese Software Industry. MIR: Management International Review, 45(3), 83-110.
• Curado, C., & Bontis, N. (2006). The knowledge-based view of the firm and its theoretical precursor. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 3(4), 367-381.
• Çalıpınar, H. & Baç, U. (2007). KOBİ’lerde inovasyon yapmayı etkileyen faktörler ve bir alan araştırması. Ege Akademik Bakış, 7(2), 445–458.
• Çetin, K., & Gedik, H. (2017). İnovasyon ve ihracat performansı ilişkisi: Karaman örneği. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 22, UPK Ahmet Hamdi İSLAMOĞLU Özel Sayısı, 109-126. Çütçü, İ. & Çelik, M. (2016). İnovasyonun tekstil ihracatına etkisi: Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi uygulaması. Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(5), 15-42.
• DeCarolis, D. M., & Deeds, D. L. (1999). The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 20(10), 953-968.
• Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679.
• Eiteneyer, N., Bendig, D., & Brettel, M. (2019). Social capital and the digital crowd: Involving backers to promote new product innovativeness. Research Policy, 48(8), 103744.
• Erdil, T. S., Aydoğan, S., Bahadır, A., Güvendik, Ö., Diler, S., & Gusinac, K. (2018). İnovasyon performansının rekabet gücü, firma performansı ve ihracat performansı üzerindeki etkisi: birleşme ve satın alma işlemleri üzerine bir araştırma. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 40(2), 137-166.
• Ezanoğlu, Z. ve Dağlı, İ. (2020). İnovasyonda açıklık paradigmasına geçiş: türkiye’den açık inovasyon örnekleri. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(3), 793-802.
• Fornell C, Larcker DF. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 18(1), 39- 50.
• Freixanet, J., Braojos, J., Rialp-Criado, A., & Rialp-Criado, J. (2021). Does international entrepreneurial orientation foster innovation performance? The mediating role of social media and open innovation. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 22(1), 33-44.
• Gassmann, O. and Enkel, E. (2005). Open ınnovation forschung – forschungsfragen und erste erkenntnisse. M. Weissenberger-Eib (Ed.), In Gestaltung von Innovations systemen (3-21, pp.). Kassel: Cactus Group Verlag
• Gassmann, O., & Keupp, M. M. (2007). The competitive advantage of early and rapidly internationalising SMEs in the biotechnology industry: A knowledge-based view. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 350-366.
• Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.
• Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109-122.
• Gratton, L., & Ghoshal, S. (2003). Managing personal human capital: New ethos for the ‘volunteer’employee. European Management Journal, 21(1), 1-10.
• Greco, M., Grimaldi, M., & Cricelli, L. (2016). An analysis of the open innovation effect on firm performance. European Management Journal, 34(5), 501-516.
• Güler, E. Ö., & Kanber, S. (2011). İnovasyon aktivitelerinin inovasyon performansı üzerine etkileri: imalat sanayii uygulaması. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20(1), 61-76.
• Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS ‐ SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.
• Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook (p. 197). Springer Nature.
• Hair Jr, JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS - SEM) (2nd ed.). Los Angeles (USA): Sage Publications.
• Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication monographs, 85(1), 4-40.
• Henkel, J. (2006). Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux. Research Policy,. 35(7), 953–969.
• Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 43(1), 115-135.
• Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen, D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about pls: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann. Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114526928.
• Hung, K. P., & Chou, C. (2013). The impact of open innovation on firm performance: The moderating effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence. Technovation, 33(10-11), 368-380.
• Inauen, M. and Schenker‐Wicki, A. (2011). The impact of outside‐in open innovation on innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(4), 496-520.
• İmamoğlu, S. Z., Türkcan, H., & Kılıç, A. H. (2021). Açık İnovasyon ve Firma Performansı İlişkisi: Açık İnovasyonun Belirleyicileri Olarak Rekabetçi Kültür ve Bilgi Paylaşımı. Abant Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(3), 733-751.
• Jia, J.; Liu, H.; Chin, T.; Hu, D. (2018) The continuous mediating effects of GHRM on employees’ green passion via transformational leadership and green creativity. Sustainability, 10, 3237.
• Kalaycıoğlu, O. (2017). Rekabetçi bir yaklaşımla ihracat performansını etkileyen faktörlerin belirlenmesi: Türk imalâtçı-ihracatçı firmaları üzerine uygulamalı bir araştırma. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Gebze.
• Kaleka, A. (2002). Resources and capabilities driving competitive advantage in export markets: guidelines for industrial exporters. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(3), 273-283.
• Kaya, V. & Uğurlu, S. (2013). Ar-Ge harcamaları ile ihracat arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye örneği, 1990-2011. EKEV Akademi Dergisi, 17(57), 269-282.
• Kılıç, F., & Türkmen, M. A. (2019). Kavram ve farkındalık bağlamında açık inovasyon üzerine bir uygulama. Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 274-292.
• Kılıç, S., & Yörükoğlu, Ö. (2020). Pazar ve inovasyon yönelimliliğin ihracat işletmelerinin inovasyon ve ihracat performansına etkileri. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(1), 45-81.
• Kim, N. K., & Ahn, J. M. (2020). What facilitates external knowledge utilisation in SMEs? – An optimal configuration between openness intensity and organisational moderators. Industry and Innovation, 27(3), 210-234.
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. M. Williams (Ed.). In Handbook of methodological innovation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Kmieciak, R., Michna, A. and Meczynska, A. (2012). Inovativeness, empowerment and IT capability: evidence from SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 112(5), 707-728.
• Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 124-141.
• Knudsen, M. P. (2007). The relative importance of interfirm relationships and knowledge transfer for new product development success. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 24(2), 117-138.
• Knudsen, M. P., & Mortensen, T. B. (2011). Some immediate–but negative–effects of openness on product development performance. Technovation. 31(1), 54-64.
• Kongmanila, X., & Takahashi, Y. (2009). Innovation, export performance and profitability of Lao garment exporters. International Journal of Economics and Management. 3(2), 225-236.
• Konukbay, A. (2016). Ankara’da savunma teknolojilerinde faaliyet gösteren KOBİ’lerin açık yenilik yaklaşımlarının değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(1), 53-75.
• Korkmaz, I. H., Taşkesen, A. C., & Cetinkaya, C. (2018). İnovasyon yönetimi süreçlerini etkileyen faktörlerin kahramanmaraş’ta faaliyet gösteren kobi'ler üzerinden incelenmesi. R&S-Research Studies Anatolia Journal, 1(2), 113-125.
• Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors: An empirical investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 79-102. Lages, L. F., Silva, G., & Styles, C. (2009). Relationship capabilities, quality, and innovation as determinants of export performance. Journal of International Marketing, 17(4), 47-70.
• Lee, J. N. (2001). The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information & Management, 38(5), 323-335.
• Lichtenthaler, U. (2008). Open innovation in practice: an analysis of strategic approaches to technology transactions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 148-157.
• Majocchi, A., Bacchiocchi, E., & Mayrhofer, U. (2005). Firm size, business experience and export intensity in SMEs: A longitudinal approach to complex relationships. International Business Review, 14(6), 719-738.
• Martinez-Conesa, I., Soto-Acosta, P. and Carayannis, E.G. (2017). On the path towards open innovation: assessing the role of knowledge management capability and environmental dynamism in SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(3), 553-570.
• Mathisen, G. E., Einarsen, S., Jørstad, K., & Brønnick, K. S. (2004). Climate for work group creativity and innovation: Norwegian validation of the team climate inventory (TCI). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45(5), 383-392.
• Moilanen, M., Østbye, S., & Woll, K. (2014). Non-R&D SMEs: External knowledge, absorptive capacity and product innovation. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 447-462.
• Moretti, F., & Biancardi, D. (2020). Inbound open innovation and firm performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(1), 1-19.
• Mostaghel, R., Oghazi, P., Patel, P. C., Parida, V., & Hultman, M. (2019). Marketing and supply chain coordination and intelligence quality: A product innovation performance perspective. Journal of Business Research, 101, 597-606.
• Mount, M., & Martinez, M. G. (2014). Social media: A tool for open innovation. California Management Review, 56(4), 124-143.
• Mutlu H.M. ve Nakipoğlu A. (2011). Uluslararası pazarlama stratejilerinin ihracat performansı üzerine etkisi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(38), 245-261.
• Nitzl, C., & Chin, W. W. (2017). The case of partial least squares (PLS) path modeling in managerial accounting research. Journal of Management Control, 28(2), 137-156.
• Nitzl, C., Roldán J.L. & Cepeda Carrión G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 119(9), 1849-1864.
• Nybakk, E., Crespell, P. & Hansen, E. (2011). Climate for innovation and innovation strategy as drivers for success in the wood industry: Moderation effects of firm size, industry sector, and country of operation. Silva Fennica, 45(3), 415–430.
• Oke, A., Prajogo, D., & Jayaram, J. (2013). Strengthening the innovation chain: The role of internal innovation climate and strategic relationships with supply chain partners. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49, 43–58.
• Ovuakporie, O. D., Pillai, K. G., Wang, C., & Wei, Y. (2021). Differential moderating effects of strategic and operational reconfiguration on the relationship between open innovation practices and innovation performance. Research Policy. 50(1), 104146.
• Özçelik, E., & Taymaz, E. (2004). Does innovativeness matter for international competitiveness in developing countries? The case of Turkish manufacturing industries. Research Policy, 33(3), 409-424.
• Özer, M. & Çiftçi, N. (2009). Ar-Ge harcamaları ve ihracat ilişkisi: OECD ülkeleri panel veri analizi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23, 39 – 49.
• Parida, V., Westerberg, M., & Frishammar, J. (2012). Inbound open innovation activities in high‐tech SMEs: the impact on innovation performance. Journal of Small Business Management. 50(2), 283-309.
• Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2006). From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development. Information Systems Research. 17(3), 198-227.
• Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource‐based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179-191.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
• Popa, S., Soto-Acosta, P., & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2017). Antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of innovation climate and open innovation: An empirical study in SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 134-142.
• Rangus, K., & Slavec, A. (2017). The interplay of decentralization, employee involvement and absorptive capacity on firms' innovation and business performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 195-203.
• Ren, F., & Zhang, J. (2015). Job stressors, organizational innovation climate, and employees’ innovative behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 27(1), 16-23.
• Roper, S., & Love, J. H. (2002). Innovation and export performance: evidence from the UK and German manufacturing plants. Research Policy, 31(7), 1087-1102.
• Sağlam, M. (2019). Firma ve yönetici özelliklerine göre ihracat performans düzeylerinin incelenmesi: İstanbul ili ihracatçı firmalar üzerine bir araştırma. Yıldız Social Science Review, 5(1), 85-102.
• Salge, T. O., Farchi, T., Barrett, M. I., & Dopson, S. (2013). When does search openness really matter? A contingency study of health‐care innovation projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(4), 659-676.
• Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Pick, M, Liengaard, B. D., Radomir, L. & Ringle C. M. (2022). Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychology & Marketing, 39(5), 1035 – 1064.
• Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Hair, J. F. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, A.E. Vomberg (Eds), in Handbook of Market Research. Springer. Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-2.
• Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.
• Selçuk, H., & Akgün, A. E. (2022). Yapıcı ve yıkıcı liderlik özelliklerinin örgüt iklimi ve çalışan performansına etkisi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 61-91.
• Seyfetti̇noğlu, Ü., & Taşdoğan, C. (2014). Açık inovasyon ve firma performansı ilişkisi: Türkiye gıda ve içecek sanayi örneği. İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 29(338), 09-38.
• Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322–2347.
• Smith, V., Erik, S.M. & Mogens, D.H. (2002). Do R&D investments affect export performance?, University of Copenhagen, Institute of Economics, Centre for Industrial Studies, Discussion Paper No. 2002-09.
• Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2017). Social web knowledge sharing and innovation performance in knowledge-intensive manufacturing SMEs. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 42(2), 425-440.
• Soybilen, B. (2013). Türkiye’de inovasyon: Nicelik var nitelik yok. Betam araştırma notu, No: 158. Erişim Adresi: https://betam.bahcesehir.edu.tr/2013/12/turkiyede-inovasyon-nicelik-var-nitelik-yok.
• Spithoven, A. (2013). Firm-level differences in R&D intensity and product innovativeness: an international comparative perspective. International Journal of Technology Management, 62, 1-34.
• Sterlacchini, A. (1999). Do innovative activities matter to small firms in non-R&D-intensive industries? An application to export performance. Research Policy, 28(8), 819-832.
• Sungur, O., Aydın, H.İ. & Eren, M.V. (2016). Türkiye’de Ar-Ge, inovasyon, ihracat ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki: Asimetrik nedensellik analizi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 21(1), 171-192.
• Tenenhaus, M, Vinzi ve Chatelin, Y.M. & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis. 48(1), 159-205.
• Tsou, H. T., & Hsu, S. H. Y. (2015). Performance effects of technology–organization–environment openness, service co-production, and digital-resource readiness: The case of the IT industry. International Journal of Information Management, 35(1), 1-14.
• Tuncel C.O. (2021). Türkiye imalat sanayi firmalarında inovasyon ve ihracat ilişkisi: mikroekonomik bir yaklaşım. Şahin Karabulut (Ed.). Ampirik yöntemlerle iktisadi, maliye finansal uygulamalar içinde (119-129, ss.). Ankara: Gazi Yayın Dağıtım.
• Un, C. A., Cuervo‐Cazurra, A., & Asakawa, K. (2010). R&D collaborations and product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 27(5), 673-689.
• Ul Hassan, M., & Iqbal, A. (2020). Open innovation and innovative performance of Pakistani SMEs: Moderated mediation of knowledge management capability and innovative climate. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 14(4), 962-990.
• Urgal, B., Quintás, M. A., & Arévalo-Tomé, R. (2013). Knowledge resources and innovation performance: the mediation of innovation capability moderated by management commitment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 25(5), 543-565.
• Van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J. P., Vanhaverbeke, W., & De Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29(6-7), 423-437.
• Verreynne, M. L., Torres de Oliveira, R., Steen, J., Indulska, M., & Ford, J. A. (2020). What motivates 'free' revealing? Measuring outbound non-pecuniary openness, innovation types and expectations of future profit growth. Scientometrics. 124, 271-301.
• Wagner, S. M., & Buko, C. (2005). An empirical investigation of knowledge‐sharing in networks. Journal of Supply Chain Management. 41(4), 17-31.
• Waheed, A., Miao, X., Waheed, S., Ahmad, N., & Majeed, A. (2019). How new HRM practices, organizational innovation, and innovative climate affect the innovation performance in the IT industry: A moderated-mediation analysis. Sustainability. 11(3), 621.
• Westhead, P., Wright, M., & Ucbasaran, D. (2001). The internationalization of new and small firms: A resource-based view. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(4), 333-358.
• Wong KKK (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS - SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1-32.
• Wynarczyk, P. (2010). Key ingredients of innovation: the case of science and technology-based SMEs in the UK. Paper presented at the Triple Helix 8th International Conference, Madrid, 19-21 October.
• Wynarczyk, P. (2013). Open innovation in SMEs: A dynamic approach to modern entrepreneurship in the twenty-first century. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20, 258-278.
• Wynarczyk, P. & Thwaites, A.T. (2000). The role of medium-sized innovative manufacturing firms in regional economic performance: Some evidence from the northeast region of England. W. During, R. Oakey, M. Kipling (Eds.), in New technology based firms at the turn of the century (76–95, pp.). Oxford: Elsever Science.
• Yeoh P.L., (2004). International learning: Antecedents and performance implications among newly internationalizing companies in an exporting context. International Marketing Review. 21(4/5), 511-535.
• Yıldırım, E. ve Kesikoğlu, F. (2012). Ar-ge harcamaları ile ihracat arasındaki nedensellik ilişkileri: Türkiye örneğinde panel nedensellik testi kanıtları. Marmara Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 32(1), 165-180.
• Yu, C., Yu, T. F., & Yu, C. C. (2013). Knowledge sharing, organizational climate, and innovative behavior: A cross-level analysis of effects. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 41(1), 143-156.
• Zhou, H., Yao, Y. and Chen, H. (2018). How does open innovation affect firms’ innovative performance: the roles of knowledge attributes and partner opportunism. Chinese Management Studies. 12(4), 720-740.
• Zhou, K.Z. and Li, C.B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal. 33(9), 1090-1102.
• Zou, S., Taylor, C. R., & Osland, G. E. (1998). The EXPERF scale: a cross-national generalized export performance measure. Journal of International Marketing, 6(3), 37-58.