THE EFFECTS OF COMPETITION INTENSITY AND TECHNOLOGICAL COLLABORATION IN IMPLEMENTATION OF INNOVATION STRATEGY

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 136 - 163, 31.12.2023

Derya Yücel , Rahmi Yücel

https://doi.org/10.52736/ubeyad.1383542

Öz

The last half century has been a period in which businesses compete with each other through innovations and inventions. Businesses that make more inventions and innovations can get ahead of their competitors, and those that can't either lag behind in the competition or disappear. In this respect, innovation strategy, which has an important place among competitive strategies, has an important place in the success of businesses. For this reason, understanding the success factors in the implementation of the innovation strategy is gaining more and more importance every day. In this study, designed from this point of view, it is aimed to examine the effects of technological collaboration, which is a source of innovation, and the intensity of competition in the implementation of innovation strategies of enterprises. In the study, the findings obtained from the analysis of the least square structural equation analysis of the data collected with the help of questionnaires from 268 managers working in production enterprises in the provinces of Istanbul, Ankara, Bursa and Kocaeli are included. According to the findings, the intensity of competition is an important determinant that increases the implementation of innovation strategies. In addition, the increasing intensity of competition leads companies to technological collaboration and increases the level of collaboration. It has been observed that the level of implementation of innovation strategies of companies with an increased level of technological collaboration has also increased. In the study, it was also observed that technological collaboration has a positive moderator effect on the relationship between the intensity of competition and the level of innovation strategy implementation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Competition Intensity, Innovation Strategy, Technological Collaboration, Competition Strategy, Strategic Management.

YENİLİK STRATEJİSİNİN UYGULANMASINDA REKABET YOĞUNLUĞU VE TEKNOLOJİK İŞBİRLİĞİNİN ETKİLERİ

Öz

Son yarım asır işletmelerin birbirleri ile yenilik ve buluşlar üzerinden rekabet ettiği bir dönem olmuştur. Daha fazla buluş ve yenilik yapan işletmeler rakiplerinin önüne geçmiş, yapamayanlar ya rekabette çok geride kalmış ya da yok olmuştur. Bu açıdan rekabet stratejileri arasında önemli bir yer bulan yenilik stratejisi işletmelerin başarısında önemli bir yere sahiptir. Bu nedenle yenilik stratejisinin uygulanmasında başarı faktörlerinin anlaşılması her geçen gün daha da önem kazanmaktadır. Bu noktadan hareketle tasarlanan çalışmada işletmelerin yenilik stratejilerini uygulamalarında yenilik kaynağı olan teknolojik iş birliğinin ve rekabet yoğunluğunun etkilerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada İstanbul, Ankara, Bursa ve Kocaeli illerindeki üretim işletmelerinde görev alan 268 yöneticiden anket yardımı ile toplanan verilerin kısmı en küçük kareli yapısal eşitlik analizi ile incelenmesinden elde edilen bulgulara yer verilmektedir. Yapılan analizlerden elde edilen bulgulara göre rekabet yoğunluğu yenilik stratejilerinin uygulanmasını artıran önemli bir belirleyicidir. Ayrıca artan rekabet yoğunluğu firmaları teknolojik iş birliğine yöneltmekte ve iş birliği düzeyini artırmaktadır. Teknolojik iş birliği düzeyi artan firmaların yenilik stratejilerini uygulama düzeyinin de arttığı gözlenmiştir. Çalışmada ayrıca teknolojik iş birliğinin rekabet yoğunluğu ile yenilik stratejisi uygulama düzeyi arasındaki ilişkide pozitif düzenleyici bir etkisinin de olduğu gözlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Rekabet Yoğunluğu, Yenilik Stratejisi, Teknolojik İş Birliği, Rekabet Stratejisi, Stratejik Yönetim.

Kaynakça

• Abebe, M. A., & Angriawan, A. (2014). Organizational and competitive influences of exploration and exploitation activities in small firms. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 339-345. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.01.015
• Agustia, D. (2020). Innovation, environmental management accounting, future performance: evidence in Indonesia. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 9(3), 1005-1015.
• Ahmetoğulları, K. & Yücel, R. (2021). Rekabet Yoğunluğu Ve Teknoloji Yönetiminin Muhasebe Bilgi Sistemi Ve Firma Performansı İlişkisine Etkileri. Pearson Journal Of Social Sciences - Humanities, 16, 15-35.
• Aktan, C.C. & Vural, Y.İ. (2004). Rekabet Gücü ve Rekabet Stratejileri. Rekabet Dizisi: 2, Aralık, Yayın no: 254, Ankara: TİSK yayınları.
• Alexiev, A. S., Volberda, H. W. & Van den Bosch, F. A. (2016). Interorganizational collaboration and firm innovativeness: Unpacking the role of the organizational environment. Journal of Business Research, 69, 974–984.
• Aliasghar, O., Rose, E. L., & Asakawa, K. (2022). Sources of knowledge and process innovation: The moderating role of perceived competitive intensity. International Business Review, 31(2), 101920. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101920
• Ang, S.H. (2008), Competitive intensity and collaboration: impact on firm growth across technological environments. Strat. Mgmt. J., 29: 1057-1075.
• Auh, S. & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: the moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 12, pp. 1652-1661.
• Ayyagari, M., Demirgüç-Kunt, A. & Maksimovic, V. (2011). Firm Innovation in Emerging Markets: The Role of Finance, Governance, and Competition. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 46 (6): 1545–1580. doi:10.1017/ S0022109011000378.
• Baines, A. & Langfield-Smith, K. (2003). Antecedents to Management Accounting Change: A Structural Equation Approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 675-698.
• Barca, M. & Esen, S. (2012). Rekabet Avantajı Sağlama ve Sürdürmede Stratejik Yaklaşımlar. Social Sciences , 7 (2) , 89-107.
• Barsh, J., Capozzi, M., Davidson, J. (2008). Leadership and innovation. McKinsey Quarterly, January, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/leadership-and-innovation.
• Chang, Y., Hughes, M., & Hotho, S. (2011). Internal and external antecedents of SMEs’ innovation ambidexterity outcomes. Management Decision, 49(10), 1658-1676. doi:10.1108/00251741111183816
• Cohen, W. M., & S. Klepper. 1996. Firm Size and the Nature of Innovation within Industries: The Case of Process and Product R&D. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78 (2): 232–243.
• Cozzarin, B. P. 2004. Innovation Quality and Manufacturing Firms’ Performance in Canada. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13 (3): 199–216.
• Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (1999). Organizational adaptation and innovation: The dynamics of adopting innovation types. In K. Brockoff, A. Chakrabarti, & J. Hauschildt (Eds.), The dynamics of innovation: Strategic and managerial implications (pp. 57-80). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
• Dodgson, M. (1994). Technological Collaboration and Innovation. In: Dodgson, M. and Rothwell, R., (eds.), The Handbook of Industrial Innovation, 1-6, Edward Elgar.
• Doğan, E. (2016). The Effect Of Innovation On Competitiveness, İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Ekonometri ve İstatistik Dergisi, Sayı:24, 60-81.
• European Commission, (1995), Green Paper on Innovation, 1-136. http://europa.eu/documents/comm/green_papers/pdf/com95_688_en.pdf.
• Evan, W. & Freeman, E. (1993). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In Beauchamp, T. & Bowie, N. Ethical theory and business, 5th edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 382-388.
• Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
• Fritsch, M. & Meschede, M. (2001). Product innovation, process innovation, and size. Review of Industrial Organization 19, 335-350.
• Gibb, J. & Haar, J.M. (2010). Risk Taking, Innovativeness and Competitive Rivalry: A Three-way Interaction towards Firm Performance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14 (5): 871–891. doi:10.1142/S136391961000291.x.
• Hallgren, M., & Olhager, J. (2009). Lean and agile manufacturing: External and internal drivers and performance outcomes. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 29, 976–999.
• Hindi, T., & Frenkel, A. (2022). The contribution of collaboration to the development of sustainable innovation in high-tech companies. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00259-8
• Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, D. B., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576
• Jaworski, B.J. & Kohli, A.K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 53-70.
• Kao, C., Wu, W.Y., Hsieh, W.J., Wang, T.Y., Lin, C. & Chen, L.H. (2008). MeasuringThe National Competitiveness of Southeast Asian Countries. European Journal of OperationalResearch, 187(2): 613-628.
• Maier, D., Maier, A., Așchilean, I., Anastasiu, L., & Gavriș, O. (2020). The Relationship between Innovation and Sustainability: A Bibliometric Review of the Literature. Sustainability, 12(10), 4083, 1-20. MDPI AG.
• Marín-Idárraga, D. A. & Cuartas-Marín, J. C. (2019). Relationship Between Innovation And Performance: Impact Of Competitive Intensity And Organizational Slack. Journal Of Business Management, 59(2), 95-107.
• Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: The third link. Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 221-235. doi:10.1002/smj.4250040304
• Morgan, N.A., Kaleka, A. & Katsikeas, C.S. (2004). Antecedents of Export Venture Performance: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Assessment. Journal of Marketing, 68, 90-108.
• Nieto, M.J. ve Santamaria, L. (2006). Technological Collaboration: Bridging The Innovation Gap Between Small And Large Firms. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Business Economics Series, Working Paper, 06-66, 1-32.
• Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Nwachukwu, C., Hieu, M. V., Chládková, H. & Fadeyı, O. (2019). Strategy Implementation Drivers In Correlation With Strategic Performance. Management and Marketing Journal, University of Craiova, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 0(1), May, 19-38.
• O’cass, A. & Weerawardena, J. (2010). The effects of perceived industry competitive intensity and marketing-related capabilities: drivers of superior brand performance. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39, pp. 571-581.
• Porter, M. E. (1985). The Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. NY: Free Press, (Republished with a new introduction, 1998).
• Sanders Jones, J., & Linderman, K. (2014). Process management, innovation and efficiency performance: The moderating effect of competitive intensity. Business Process Management Journal, 20, 335–358.
• Santos, J.B. & Brito, L.A. (2012). Towards a Subjective Measurement Model for Firm Performance. Brazilian Administration Review, 9, 95-117.
• Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA.
• Shaw, R. W. (1982). Product Proliferation in Characteristics Space: The UK Fertiliser Industry. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 31 (1/2): 69–91.
• Singh K, Mitchell W. 2005. Growth dynamics: the bidirectional relationship between interfirm collaboration and business sales in entrant and incumbent alliances. Strategic Management Journal 26(6): 497–521.
• Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A. & Ireland, R.D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, pp. 273-292.
• Skiver, R. L. (2015). Global Supply Chain: A Conceptual Study of the Effect of Globalization on Product and Process Innovation. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 14 (3): 356–367. doi:10.1163/15691497-12341350.
• TOBB. (2018). TOBB Ekonomik Raporu. TOBB Yayın No: 2019/329, Ankara: Gökçe Ofset
• TÜİK. (2018). Yıllık Sanayi ve Hizmet İstatistikleri, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Y%C4%B1ll%C4%B1k-Sanayi-ve-Hizmet-%C4%B0statistikleri-2018
• Ülgen, H. & Mirze, K. (2013). İşletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
• Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590-607. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590
• Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171-180.
• Wu, J., & Pangarkar, N. (2010). The Bidirectional Relationship Between Competitive Intensity And Collaboration: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(3), 503-522.
• Yang, H. & Yang, J. (2019). The effects of transformational leadership, competitive intensity and technological innovation on performance. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31:3, 292-305.
• Yang, T., & Li, C. (2011). Competence exploration and exploitation in new product development: The moderating effects of environmental dynamism and competitiveness. Management Decision, 49(9), 1444-1470. doi:10.1108/00251741111173934
• Yun, J. J., Won, D. & Park, K. (2016). Dynamics from open innovation to evolutionary change. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 2(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-016-0033-0
• Yücel, R. & Ahmetoğulları, K. (2016). Rekabet Stratejilerinin İleri İmalat Teknolojileri ve Firma Performansı Üzerine Etkileri. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12, 113-129.
• Zahra, S.A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: a taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 319-340.
• Zahra, S.A. & Covin, J.C. (1993). Business Strategy, Technology Policy and Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 451-478.