İnovatif Firmaların İnovasyon Yönetim Perspektiflerindeki Farklılıklar: İzmir Vaka Çalışması

Year 2017, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 151 - 173, 31.07.2017

Murat Nazlı E. Evla Kesici Gönenç Dalgıç Turhan Hande Arbak

https://doi.org/10.18354/esam.333826

Abstract

Bu
çalışmanın temel amacı, İzmir’deki inovasyon dinamiklerini anlamak için, ildeki
inovatif firmaların inovasyon yönetimi perspektifini ve gelecek algılarını
ortaya çıkartmaktır. Buna bağlı olarak, İzmir’deki 20 inovatif firma, yarı
yapılandırılmış yüz yüze görüşme tekniği kullanarak ve içerik analizi yaparak
incelenmiştir. Çalışma çıktıları temel olarak, inovasyon yönetiminin farklı
başlıkları altında çeşitli yaklaşımlar olduğunu göstermektedir. Örneğin,
firmaların % 85’inin ürün inovasyonuna, % 30’unun da hem stratejik hem de
inovasyon planına sahip olduğunu ortaya çıkartmıştır. Ayrıca, firmaların % 75’i
inovatif faaliyetler ile ilgilenen bir birimin ve aynı zamanda atanmış bir
yöneticinin olduğundan bahsetmektedir. Katılımcıların % 85’i yaratıcı düşünceyi
ve inovasyonu tetikleyecek çeşitli araçlar kullanmaktadır ki, inovatif
fikirlerin % 65’i, çalışan önerilerinden çıkmıştır. Firmaların sadece % 35’i
inovatif perspektifler yakalamak için sistematik bir yaklaşımı olduğunu ifade
etmektedir. Sonuçlar inovasyon yönetimi ve bölgenin gelecek durumu ile ilgili
çok boyutlu bir perspektifi işaret etmektedir. Firmaların algısındaki bu
farklılık, firmaların inovasyon alanındaki başarısının, standart bir prosedürü
izlemek yerine, kendilerinin özgün anlayışları doğrultusunda gerçekleştiğini
göstermektedir.

Keywords

İnovasyon, Araştırma Geliştirme, İnovasyon Yönetimi, İzmir, Vaka Çalışması

Differences in Innovation Management Perspectives of Innovative Firms: A Case Study in İzmir

Abstract

Primary purpose of the study is to find out the innovation management perspectives and future perceptions of innovative firms in İzmir, Turkey, in order to understand the current and future innovation dynamics of the province. Accordingly, 20 innovative firms in Izmir are analysed by using a face to face semi-structured interview technique and performing a content analysis. Study outcomes basically revealed a great diversion in various topics of innovation management. For instance; 85 % of firms focus on product innovation and 30 % of firms have both a strategic plan and an innovation plan. In addition, 75 % of firms mentioned that there is either a department or an appointed manager in dealing with innovation activities. 85 % of respondents use several tools to trigger creative thinking and innovation whereas 65 % of innovative ideas are generated from employees’ suggestions. Only 35 % of firms emphasized that they have a systematic approach in finding out innovative perspectives.
Results indicate a multidimensional understanding of innovation management and also in future perspective of the province. This diversion in the perception of firms, reveal that firms gain success in innovation, through a unique understanding of their own, more than implementing a standard procedure.  

Keywords

Innovation, Research Development, Innovation Management, İzmir, Case Study

References

• Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. The American Economic Review, 86 (3), 630-640.
• Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99-120.
• Beyene, K. T., Shi, C. S., & Wu, W. W. (2016b). The Impact of Innovation Strategy on Organizational Learning and Innovation Performance: Do Firm Size and Ownership Type Make Difference? South African Journal Of Industrial Engineering, 27 (1), 125-136. doi:10.7166/27-1-1308
• Bilton, C., & Cummings, S. (2010). Creative strategy: reconnecting business and innovation, Wiley, Chichester. ISBN: 1405180196, 978-1-4051-8019-1.
• Brown, R. (2016). Mission impossible? Entrepreneurial universities and peripheral regional innovation systems. Industry and Innovation, 23 (2), 189-205.
• Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31 (6), 515-524.
• Camisón, C., & Villar-López, A. (2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 67 (1), 2891-2902.
• Candemir, A., & Zalluhoglu, A. E. (2013). Exploring the Innovativeness and Market Orientation through Mission and Vision Statements: The Case of Istanbul Stock Exchange Companies. Procedia-Social & Behavioral Sciences, 99 (Proceedings of 9th International Strategic Management Conference), 619-628. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.532.
• Carneiro, A. (2000). How does knowledge management influence innovation and competitiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4 (2), 87-98.
• Chereau, P. (2015). Strategic Management of Innovation in Manufacturing SMEs: Exploring the Predictive Validity of Strategy-Innovation Relationship. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19 (01), 1550002.
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), Special Issue: Technology, Organizations and Innovation, pp.128-152.
• Dalgıç, G., Hacıoğlu, F., Arbak, H., Taşpınar, P., Gençer, H., & Karaata, S. (2015). İnovasyon Ölçümüne İlişkin Bir Derleme: Dünyadan ve Türkiye’den Bazı Öne Çıkan Yaklaşımlar. Dr. Rasim Akpınar (Ed.), AR-GE ve İnovasyon Programlarında Değerlendirme ve Etki Analizi, pp.41-67, İzmir: Kitapana.
• Dalgıç, G., Kuckertz, A., & Bulut, Ç. (2016). Antecedents of Transnational Entrepreneurial Behavior: Evidence from Turkish-German Firms. In Pyka, A., Kuştepeli, Y., and Hartmann, D. (Eds.), International Innovation Networks and Knowledge Migration: The German–Turkish Nexus, 161-179, Routledge.
• Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 555-590.
• Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42 (5), 693-716.
• Díaz-García, C., González-Moreno, A., & Sáez-Martínez, J. F. (2015). Eco-innovation: insights from a literature review. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, (17) 1, 6-23. doi:10.1080/14479338.2015.1011060
• Drucker, P. (2010). The Five Most Important Questions Self-Assessment, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
• Drucker, P. (1998). The Discipline of Innovation, John Wiley and Sons.
• Erol, Y., & Kanbur, E. (2014). Misyon ve Vizyon İfadelerine Göre Türkiye'nin İlk 100 Büyük Şirketinin Girişimcilik Özellikleri. Business & Economics Research Journal, 5 (3), 149- 165.
• Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29 (2), 109-123.
• Fletcher, M., & Harris, S. (2012). Knowledge acquisition for the internationalization of the smaller firm: Content and sources. International Business Review, 21 (4), 631-647.
• Garriga, H., von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. (2013). How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 34 (9), 1134-1144.
• Graham, D. & Bachmann, T. T. (2004). Ideation: The Birth and Death of Ideas. John Wiley and Sons Inc. ISBN: 978-0471479444.
• Hall, R. (1993). A Framework Linking Intangible Resources And Capabilities To Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (8), 607-618.
• Haller, J. (2013). Open Evaluation: Integrating Users into the Selection of New Product Ideas, Gabler Verlag. Hernández-Espallardo, M., Sánchez-Pérez, M., & Segovia-López, C. (2011). Exploitation-and exploration-based innovations: the role of knowledge in inter-firm relationships with distributors. Technovation, 31 (5), 203-215.
• Izmir Development Agency (2013). 2014-2023 İzmir Bölge Plan. Retrieved from http://media.wix.com/ugd/d51593_286404a521f3414181652789ef309af6.pdf
• Izmir Development Agency (2014). Izmir Mevcut Durum Analiz 2013, Tukelmat A.Ş, Izmir. ISBN: 978-605-5826-12-3.
• Khorsheed, S. M., & Al-Fawzan, A. M. (2014). Fostering university–industry collaboration in Saudi Arabia through technology innovation centers. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 16 (2), 224–237.
• Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science, 3 (3), 383-397.
• Laosirihongthong, T. Prajogo, D. I., & Adebanjo, D. (2014). The relationships between firm’s strategy, resources and innovation performance: resources-based view perspective, Production Planning & Control, 25 (15), 1231-1246. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2013.819593
• Learned, E. P., Christensen, C. R., Andrews, K. R., & Guth, W. D. (1965). Business policy: Text and cases. Homewood: Irwin.
• Leiponen, A. (2005). Organization of knowledge and innovation: the case of Finnish business services. Industry and Innovation, 12 (2), 185-203.
• McDonald, R. E. (2007). An Investigation of Innovation in Nonprofit Organizations: The Role of Organizational Mission. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36 (2), 256-281.
• Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, process. Academy of Management Review, 3 (3), 546-562.
• Morgan, J. (2015). The Five Types Of Innovation For The Future Of Work. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2015/07/27/the-5-types-of-innovation-for-the-future-of-work-pt-1-employee-innovation/#310e26e14104
• MSIT - Ministry of Science, Industry & Technology (2016). Retrieved from http://btgm.sanayi.gov.tr/userfiles/file/istatistiki%20bilgiler/nisan%202016/Arge_Merkezi_portal%20Slaytlar%C4%B1%20%20nisan%202016(1).pdf
• OECD-Eurostat (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines For Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition.
• OECD (2015). The Innovation Imperative: Contributing to Productivity, Growth and Well-Being, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264239814-en
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8 (3).
• Osuna, A. M. A. (2014). Innovation and internationalization as a single strategy of the firm: A unification of theories. International Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 7(1), 73-84.
• Perry, M. (2014). Learning regions as a framework for innovation policy: A review of the issues. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 16 (3), 286-302.
• Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26 (1), 22-40.
• Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Free Press, New York. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (Vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Romijn, H., & Albaladejo, M. (2002). Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms in southeast England. Research policy, 31(7), 1053-1067.
• Sahay, Y. P., & Gupta, M. (2016). Organization design & perceptions of innovation: implications for the Indian pharmaceutical sector. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 52 (1), 157-171.
• Slavkovic, M., & Babic, V. (2013). Knowledge management, innovativeness, and organizational performance: Evidence from Serbia. Economic Annals, 58 (199), 85-107.
• Subramanian, A., & Nilakanta, S. (1996). Organizational innovativeness: Exploring the relationship between organizational determinants of innovation, types of innovations, and measures of organizational performance. Omega, 24(6), 631-647.
• Temel, S. T., Akdeniz, R. T., & Sukan, F. T. (2011). Ar-Ge ve inovasyon açısından İzmir KOBİ'lerinin durumu. Finans Politik Ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, 48 (555), 83.
• Villan, W. J., da Silva, S. B., & Camilo, S. P. O. (2016). The Scientific Production Exploring Innovation as Competitive Strategy. Business Management Dynamics, 5 (9), 33-47.
• Woiceshyn, J., & Eriksson, P. (2014). How innovation systems in Finland and Alberta work: Lessons for policy and practice. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 16 (1), 19-31.
• Yu, X., & Si, S. (2012). Innovation, internationalization and entrepreneurship: A new venture research perspective. Innovation, 14 (4), 524-539.