Açıklık Üzerindeki Engeller: Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgesi Firmaları Örneği

Year 2018, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 29 - 50, 05.04.2018

Kübra Şimşek , Nihan Yıldırım

https://doi.org/10.23834/isrjournal.392830

Abstract

Açık inovasyon, işbirlikleri ve bilgi ve entelektüel
varlık paylaşımı yoluyla inovasyon süreçlerinden daha iyi çıktılar elde
edilmesini sağlamaktadır. Tedarikçilerin, müşteri ya da kullanıcıların,
ortakların ve hatta rakiplerin inovatif süreçlere dâhil edilmesi, dahili
kaynaklar üzerindeki kısıtların üstesinden gelmeye yardımcı olmaktadır. Açık
inovasyon yaklaşımı, özellikle teknoloji geliştirme bölgelerinin (TDZ)
ekosistemlerinde faaliyet göstermekte olan bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri
firmaları için, ölçek kısıtları ve deneyim eksiklikleri dolayısıyla daha kritik
bir hal almaktadır. Teknoloji geliştirme bölgelerindeki bilgi ve iletişim
teknolojileri işletmelerinin açık inovasyon uygulamaları üzerindeki engelleri
anlamak, karar vericilere politika tasarımı ve bu engellerin üstesinden gelmek
ve dolayısıyla rekabet avantajı sağlamak yoluyla inovasyon süreçlerini
güçlendirme hususunda yardımcı olabilmektedir. Çeşitli araştırmacılar, TDZ
firmalarının yenilikçilik ve iş performanslarının yanı sıra çeşitli bağlamlarda
açık inovasyon uygulamaları sırasında karşılaştıkları engelleri incelemiştir.
Fakat özellikle teknoloji geliştirme bölgelerindeki bilgi ve iletişim
teknolojileri firmalarının açık inovasyon motivasyon faktörleri ve engellerini
incelemek gerekmektedir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki teknoloji geliştirme
bölgelerinde bulunan 102 bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri firmasına uygulanan
anketler ve derinlemesine mülakatlar üzerinden açık inovasyona ilişkin
engelleri araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Faktör analizi uygulanarak, açıklık
üzerindeki temel engeller belirlenmiş ve bu engellerin şirketlerin özellikleri
ile ilişkileri araştırılmıştır. Bulgular, en sık görülen engellerin finansal ve
idari sorunlara ilişkin olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

Açık İnovasyon, Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri, Engeller, Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgeleri, Teknoparklar

Barriers to Openness: The Case of Technology Development Zone Companies

Abstract

Open Innovation promises higher outcomes
from innovation processes through collaboration and sharing knowledge and the
intellectual assets. Inclusion of suppliers, customers or users, partners, and
even competitors in innovative processes can help to overcome constraints on
internal resources. For ICT companies that operate in eco-systems of technology
development zones (TDZ), open innovation approach becomes more critical mostly
due to the scale and experience constraints. To understand the barriers of open
innovation for ICT firms in TDZs can significantly help strategy and decision
makers in designing policies and actions to empower innovation processes in
order to overcome these barriers and hence to utilize open innovation for
higher competitiveness. Various researchers examined the challenges of open
innovation in various contexts, as well as the innovativeness and business
performances of TDZ companies. However, there is still a room for research on
exploring the dimensions of motives and barriers of open innovation practices
of these companies. This study aims to explore the barriers for open innovation
in ICT TDZ companies through surveys and in-depth interviews that are carried
out in 102 ICT firms in TDZs in Turkey. By applying factor analysis, the main
barriers to openness are identified and relationships of these barriers with
the company’s characteristics explored. Findings reveal that the most
frequently perceived constraints are financial and administrative problems.

Keywords

Open Innovation, ICT Companies, Barriers, Technology Development Zone, Science Park

References

• Allen, T.J. & Cohen, S.I., (1969), Information Flow in Research and Development Laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 12–19.
• Ashrafi, R. & Murtaza, M. (2008). Use and impact of ICT on SMEs in Oman. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 11(3), 125-138.
• Brunswicker, S. & Ehrenmann, F. (2013). Managing Open Innovation in SMEs: A Good Practice Example of a German Software Firm. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 4(1), 33 – 41.
• Buyukozturk, S. (2002). Faktör Analizi: Temel Kavramlar ve Ölçek Geliştirmede Kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32, 470-483.
• Carter, C.F. & Williams, B.R., (1959), The Characteristics of Technically Progressive Firms. Journal of Industrial Economics, 7(2), 87–104.
• Chandler, A.D., Jr. (1990). Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Chesbrough, H.W., (2003a), Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
• Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J.,(eds.) (2006),Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford University Press.
• Chesbrough, H.W. & Crowther, A.K., (2006), Beyond High Tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3), 229–236.
• Chesbrough, H.W., (2010), Open Innovation: A Key to Achieving Socioeconomic Evolution How Smaller Companies can benefit from Open Innovation. Economy, Culture & History Japan Spotlight Bimonthly, JAPECO, Japan Economic Foundation.
• Chesbrough, H, W. & Brunswicker, S. (2013). Managing Open Innovation in Large Firms, Survey Report, Fraunhofer Society.
• CIS Survey, (2010). European Commission Web Site, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/community-innovation-survey - retrieved in Dec. 2015.
• Colombo, M.G & Delmastro, M., (2002), How Effective are Technology Business Incubators: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31, 1103-1122.
• Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A., (1990), Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
• Cronbach, L. J., (1947). Test reliability: Its meaning and determination. Psychometrika, 12.1, 1-16.
• Gassmann, O., Enkel, E. & Chesbrough, H.W., (2010), The Future of Open Innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 213-221.
• Grant, R., (1991), The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114- 135.
• Gruber, M. & Henkel, J., (2006), New ventures based on open innovation – An empirical analysis of start–up firms in embedded Linux. International Journal of Technology Management, 33, 356-357.
• Hamdani, J. & Wirawan, C. (2012). Open Innovation Implementation to Sustain Indonesian SMEs. Procedia Economics and Finance, 4,223 – 233.
• Herzog, P. & Leker, J., (2010), Open and Closed Innovation: Different Innovation Cultures for Different Strategies. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3-4), 322-343.
• Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Repke, K. & Matzler, K. (2013). Open Innovation in Small and Micro Enterprises. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 11(1), 12-22.
• Kaufmann, A. & Tödtling, F. (2002). How effective is innovation support for SMEs? An analysis of the region of Upper Austria. Technovation, 22 (3), 147-159.
• Katz, R. & Allen, T.J., (1982), Investigating the not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome: a look at performance, tenure and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–20.
• Krause, W., Schutte, C. & du Preez, N., (2012), Open Innovation in South African Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers & Industrial Engineering (CIE42), Cape Town, South Africa, CIE & SAIIE 2012: 201-210.
• Laforet, S. (2008). Size, strategic, and market orientation effects on innovation. Journal of Business Research, 61(7), 753–764.
• Lichtenthaler, U., (2008), Open innovation in practice: an analysis of strategic approaches to technology transactions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 148–157.
• Narasimhalu, A.D. (2013). CUGAR: A model for open innovation in Science and Technology Parks, Research Collection School of Information Systems, 2(1), 10-20.
• Narula, R., (2004), R&D collaboration by SMEs: New opportunities and limitations in the face of globalization. Technovation, 24(2), 153–161.
• Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• OECD/Eurostat (2005) Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition, The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris.
• 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.
• Rahman, H. & Ramos, I., (2013), Challenges in Adopting Strategies in SMEs: An Exploratory Study in Portugal. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 10, 431-448.
• Research and Investigation Report, (2009). 4691 sayılı Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgeleri Kanunu Uygulamalarının Değerlendirilmesi ile Uygulamada Ortaya Çıkan Sorunların Çözümüne İlişkin Öneri Geliştirilmesi, 2009, 1, pp. 33 https://www.tccb.gov.tr/ddk/ddk26.pdf
• SAGM (2014). Turkish Republic Ministry of Industry and Technology, Technology Development Zones Report 2014. http://sagm.sanayi.gov.tr/userfiles/file/TGB%20g%C3%BCncel%20d%C3%B6k%C3%BCmanlar/TGB%20GENEL%2017_10_2014.pdf
• Savitskaya, I., Salmi, P. & Torkkeli, M., (2010), Barriers to Open Innovation: Case China. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 5(4), 10-21.
• Scozzi, B., Garavelli, C. & Crowston, K. (2005). Methods for modeling and supporting innovation processes in SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(1), 120-137.
• Simonin, B.L., (1999), Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 595-623.
• Simsek, K. & Yildirim, N. (2016). “Constraints to Open Innovation in Science and Technology Parks”, 12th International Strategic Management Conference, ISMC 2016, 28-30 October 2016, Antalya, Turkey, 939-950.
• Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B. & Knockaert, M., (2010), Building absorptive capacity to organize inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 30(2), 130–141
• Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
• TGBD, (2015). Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgeleri Derneği – Technology Development Zones Association in Turkey, Databank. http://www.tgbd.org.tr/tr/turkiye-de-teknoparklar-18.html>, date retrieved 07.03.2015.
• Trott, P. & Hartmann, D., (2009), Why Open Innovation is Old Wine in New Bottles. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 715-736.
• Van de Vrande, V., deJong, J.P.J., Vanhaverbeke, W. & de Rochemont, M., (2009), Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29(6-7), 423–437.
• WIPO (2014). Date retrieved 12.12.2014, address: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=245146
• Yalcintas, M. (2014). Üniversite – Sanayi – Devlet İşbirliğinin Ülke Ekonomilerine Etkileri: Teknopark İstanbul Örneği, Finansal Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 5(10), 83-106.
• Yildirim, N. & Simsek, K., (2015). Challenges in Open Innovation for ICT Companies in University Technology Development Zones, 24th International Conference on Management of Technology – IAMOT, June 8-11, 2015 Cape Town, South Africa.