THE ROLE OF TECHNOPARK AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICES IN SUSTAINABILITY OF SMEs

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyse the role of technoparks and technology transfer offices in the sustainability of SMEs and to put forward an effective road map for SMEs to advance this process efficiently. Qualitative method was preferred among the data collection methods in the research and one-to-one interview technique was applied. In this study, interviews were conducted with SMEs within Düzce Technopark and expert staff working in the management office. In this direction, supports for the sustainability of SMEs and the role of technopark-technology transfer office structuring in the sustainability of SMEs are examined. One-to-one interview technique was used in the data collection phase. The sample of the research consists of SMEs and management office experts who receive service from Düzce Technopark and Düzce Technology Transfer Office. As a result of this study, it is seen that the companies supported by Technopark and Technology Transfer Office have problems in financial sustainability and personnel employment sustainability. In addition, it is revealed that the support provided by Technopark and Technology Transfer Office should increase dissemination activities at the point of reaching SMEs. In addition, it has been revealed that companies have problems in accessing national and international funding mechanisms. The policies followed by SMEs to increase the level of sustainability have been analysed and road maps have been put forward in order to get more efficiency from this process.

Keywords

• SME
• Technology Transfer Office
• Technopark
• Sustainability

KOBİ’LERİN SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİĞİNDE TEKNOPARK VE TEKNOLOJİ TRANSFER OFİSLERİNİN ROLÜ

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı teknopark ve teknoloji transfer ofislerinin KOBİ’lerin sürdürülebilirliğindeki rolünü analiz etmek ve KOBİ’lerin bu süreci verimli bir şekilde ilerletebilmeleri için uygun bir yol haritası ortaya koymaktır. Araştırmada veri toplama yöntemlerinden nitel yöntem tercih edilmiş bire bir görüşme tekniği uygulanmıştır. Bu çalışmada Düzce Teknopark bünyesindeki KOBİ’ler ve yönetim ofisinde çalışan uzman personel ile görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu doğrultuda KOBİ’lerin sürdürülebilirliğine yönelik destekler ve teknopark-teknoloji transfer ofisi yapılanmasının KOBİ’lerin sürdürülebilirliğindeki rolü incelenmektedir. Verilerin toplanması aşamasında bire bir görüşme tekniği kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini Düzce Teknopark ve Düzce Teknoloji transfer ofisinin hizmet sağladığı KOBİ’ler ve yönetim ofisi uzmanları oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışma sonucunda teknopark ve teknoloji transfer ofisinin destek sağladığı firmaların finansal sürdürülebilirliğine ve personel istihdamı sürdürülebilirliğinde sorunlar yaşadıkları görülmektedir. Bunun yanında, Teknopark ve Teknoloji Transfer Ofisi’nin sağlamış olduğu desteklerin KOBİ’lere ulaşması noktasında yaygınlaştırma faaliyetlerini arttırmaları gerektiği ortaya çıkmaktadır. Ayrıca ulusal ve uluslararası fon mekanizmalarına erişim noktasında firmaların problemler yaşadığı ortaya çıkmıştır. KOBİ’lerin sürdürülebilirlik düzeyini arttırmak için izledikleri politikalar incelenmiş ve bu süreçten daha fazla verim alabilmeleri adına yol haritaları ortaya konulmuştur.

Keywords

• KOBİ
• Teknoloji Transfer Ofisi
• Teknopark
• Sürdürülebilirlik

References

1. Altuğ, F. (2021). Bölgesel İnovasyon Kümeleri Teknoparklarda coğrafi ve ilişkisel yakınlıkların bilgi ve inovasyon süreçlerine etkileri: Erciyes Teknopark örneği. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 30(2), 265-288. https://doi.org/10.51800/ecd.954087
2. Arkalı Olcay, G., & Bulu, M. (2016). Technoparks and technology transfer offices as drivers of an ınnovation economy: Lessons from Istanbul's innovation spaces. Journal of Urban Technology, 23(1), 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2015.1090195
3. Biçer, N., Çoban, İ., & Bakır, S. (2014). Türkçe öğrenen yabancı öğrencilerin karşılaştığı sorunlar Atatürk Üniversitesi örneği. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(29), 126-135.
4. Briefs, U., Schimweg, R., & Kubisa, E. (1999). Environmental Issues in Industry: Concepts and Case Study. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 32(2), 6496-6500. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)57109-8
5. Demirhan, D., Temel, S., & Durst, S. (2019). The Role of Public Entrepreneurship Programs in Fostering Technology-based Entrepreneurship: A Turkish Case Study. Emerald Publishing Limited, 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83867-471-720191003
6. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1-32.
7. Eloïse , G., Klofsten, M., Löfsten, H., & Mian, S. (2022). Science parks as key players in entrepreneurial ecosystems. R&D Management, 53(4), 603-619. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12536
8. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). Incubation of incubators: innovation as a triple helix of university–industry–government networks. Science and Public Policy, 29(2), 115-128. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154302781781056

9. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Res. Policy, 29(2), 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
10. Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2006). Triple Helix twins: Innovation and sustainability. Sci. Public Policy, 33(1), 77-83. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781779154
11. Fadoli, Raharja, J., Purnomo, M., & Auliana, L. (2019). Supply Chain Management Issue : Development Science Techno Park (STP) Through Small, Medium Enterprises (SMEs), Case Study of Puspiptek Serpong Indonesia. Int. J Sup. Chain. Mgt, 958-964. Gök, M. (2022). Pandemi ve ekonomik durgunluk sürecinde KOBİ’ler ve sosyoekonomik önemi. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 6(3), 3371-3393.
12. Guba, E. G. (1981). ERIC/ECTJ Annual Review Paper: Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology, 29(2), 75-91.
13. Han, J. (2017). Technology Commercialization through Sustainable Knowledge Sharing from University-Industry Collaborations, with a Focus on Patent Propensity. Sustainability(9). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101808
14. Kalenov, O., & Shavina, E. (2018). The Role of “Triple Helix” Innovative Model in Regional Sustainable Development. 3rd International Innovative Mining Symposium. E3S Web Conf. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20184104054
15. Klewitz, J., & Hansen, E. (2014). Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.017
16. Koç, K., & Mente, A. (2007). İnovasyon Kavramı ve Üniversite-Sanayi-Devlet İşbilriğinde Üçlü Sarmal Modeli. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sosyolojik Araştırmalar e-Dergisi, 7-13.
17. Lee, S., & Shvetsova, O. (2019). Optimization of the Technology Transfer Process Using Gantt Charts and Critical Path Analysis Flow Diagrams: Case Study of the Korean Automobile Industry. Processes, 12(7), 917. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7120917
18. Li, F., Zhang, S., & Jin, Y. (2018). Sustainability of University Technology Transfer:Mediating Effect of Inventor’s Technology Service. Sustainability, 6(10), 2-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062085
19. Lyken-Segosebe, D., Montshiwa, B., Kenewang, S., & Mogotsi, T. (2020). Stimulating Academic Entrepreneurship through Technology Business Incubation: Lessons for the Incoming Sponsoring University. International Journal of Higher Education(9), 1-18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n5p1
20. Paniccia, P., & Baiocco, S. (2018). Co-Evolution of the University Technology Transfer: Towards a Sustainability-Oriented Industry: Evidence from Italy. Sustainability, 12(10), 4675. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124675
21. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., . . . Hughes, A. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Res. Policy, 42(2), 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
22. Phan, P., & Siegel, D. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer. Found. Trends Entrep., 2(2), 77-144. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000006
23. Salman Yıkmış, M. (2020). Nitel araştırmalarda e-görüşme tekniği. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(1), 183-197. https://doi.org/10.26468/trakyasobed.556296
24. Sevsay, H., Mıynat, M., & Aktaş, H. (2017). Teknoloji geliştirme bölgesi yatırımları finansman modellerinin incelenmesi. Journal of Management and Economics, 24(2), 447-467. https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.318308
25. Siegel, D., Wright, M., & Veugelers, R. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640-660. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grm036
26. Smirnova, V., Latfullin, G., Baziyan, J., Sundukova, G., & Shramchenko, T. (2019). Proceedings of the International Conference on Man-Power-Law-Governance: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 220-225. https://doi.org/mplg-ia-19.2019.43
27. Smith, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). The Triple Helix in the context of global change: dynamics and challenges. Prometheus Critical Studies in Innovation, 32(4), 321-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2014.972135
28. Şimşek, H., & Yıldırım, A. (2000). Vocational Schools in Turkey: An Administrative and Organizational Analysis. Internaitonal review of Education, 46, 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004026400023
29. Tekindal, M., & Arsu, Ş. U. (2020). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemi Olarak Fenomenolojik Yaklaşımın Kapsamı ve Sürecine Yönelik Bir Derleme. Ufkun Ötesi Bilim Dergisi, 20(1), 153-172.
30. Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurialeffectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Res. Policy, 40(4), 553-564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.001
31. WCED. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: “Our Common Future”. General Assembly document A/42/427, A/42/427.
32. Weckowska, D. (2015). Learning in university technology transfer offices: Transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation, 41-42, 62-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.11.003
33. Will, B., & Bukvic, V. (2006). KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN SLOVENIA: SUPPORTING INNOVATIVE SMES THROUGH SPIN-OFFS, TECHNOLOGY PARKS, CLUSTERS AND NETWORKS+. Economic and Business Review, 8(4), 337-358.
34. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
35. Yuldinawati, L., Tricahyono, D., Anggadwita, G., & Alamanda , D. (2016). Towards a Framework for ICT-Based Entrepreneurship Development through Business Incubation Processes: Case Study of a Techno Park. Int. J. Business and Globalisation, 21(1), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2018.094094