Kümelenme ve Rekabet Analizi İçin Bir Uygulama

Year 2013, Issue: 30, 2 - 18, 01.08.2013

Mustafa Atilla Arıcıoğlu Şükran Gökçe Muhittin Koraş

Abstract

1980’li yıllardan itibaren rekabet ve kümelenme konusunda küresel ölçekte yaşanan gelişmeler, 2000li yıllar ile birlikte ülkemizde de karşılık aramaya başlamıştır. Gerek rekabet gerekse kümelenmenin varlığıüzerine yapılan tartışmalarda, rekabetin ölçümlenmesi ve kümelenme ile ilgili bulguların analiz edilmesi, uygulama sürecinde de bir gereklilik olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Konya Döküm Kümesinin rekabet analizi yapılmış, sektördeki firmaların kümelenme eğilimleri ölçülmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu amaçla 175 firma ile anket yapılmış, ayrıca firmalar ile workshop kullanılarak SWOT analizi yapılmış, nihayetinde döküm sektörünün değer zinciri belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar döküm kümesinin yol haritasıiçin küme yöneticilerine sunulmuştur

Keywords

Rekabet, GZTF, Kümelenme, Konya, Döküm

An Application to Clustering and Competitive Analysis

Abstract

In today’s world, globalization reshapes the social, economic and political spheres. In a changing world while economic beliefs and paradigms are changing, the pattern of competition is transforming in business scale as well. Thus, traditional cost based competition patterns replace with quality and innovation based patterns. Until 1990’s cost based theories such as comparative advantage have dominated the competition theory in both international context and inter-firm level. However since 1990’s quality and innovation oriented theories has complemented the cost oriented models. Porter 1990 emphasizes that geographical proximity is a key factor in gaininig competitive advantage through cost advantages. Geographic proximity includes several advantages for firms and industries. Firstly, geographical proximity provides a face to face interaction among firms and between firms and organizations. Second it facilities the creation of social capital, common language and common culture. Thirdly, flow of information and exchange of tacit knowledge becomes easier by means of geographic proximity. In addition, diffusion of knowledge spillovers and academic research is easier when firms are close to academic organizations. Thus inter-firm or inter-organization cooperation is important besides the competition between them. In the proposed new competitive models, cooperation is seen more productive than rivalry. Cluster theory is coined to explain advantages of geographical proximity in case of collaboration and sufficient factor endowment. Beyond possessing physical resources and assets, firms should manage the cooperative process in order to survive and operate in business sphere . In other words, firms must learn cooperating while they are competing against each other. This kind of cooperation is a strategic factor because it enables benefit from main business activities, product lines and technological diversity Garcia, Cristina vd., 2000;1-10. . A vast of studies carried on competition literature has attempted to explain pattern of competition in micro, mezzo or macro levels. Despite various applying methods and tools, there have been no consensuses on the concept of competition . Clustering has been commonly accepted as a method, a tool and approach to competition since the beginning of 1990s. Although there are many definitions of clusters, most comprehensive one is Porter’s definition. Porter 2000 defines clusters:”Clusters are geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers, firms in related industries, and associated institutions e.g., universities, standards Agencies, trade associations in a particular field that compete but also cooperate. “ Porter, 2000:15 .First point in this definition is geographic concentration of companies and their relations with each other and non-firm institutions. Firms have connections either horizontal supplier and provider or vertical related industries and associated institutions. Second emphasis is the cooperation of competing firms. Thirdly, companies in a particular field specific market or industry should concentrate. Studies on clustering mostly focus on qualified workforce, information providers, physical infrastructures and sustainability. They concluded that these components would attract international companies to the region and provide region a competitive advantage. Avnimelech, vd. 2007;779-802, Haan, 2008;79-97, Parto,2008, Brenner vd.; 2006;13151328., Lazonick,2008,. Narula,vd.,2005 .In the clustering literature, Porter’s works shed light to other studies which emphasized on aspects above. It has been known that the coined approach was widely attracted attention in international context. This study aims to analyze Konya Foundry Cluster in the context of competition and measure the firms' clustering tendency. For this purpose a survey conducted with 175 firms as well as SWOT analysis has been carried out. Finally the value chain of Foundry sector has been determined and results have been presented to cluster managers as a roadmap. Based on the cluster analysis findings and cluster activities to date the cluster Working Group agreed on the cluster mission of: “Planning the future of foundry to become the headquarters.”. In turn the cluster Working Group identified to the cluster strategy that would progress achievement of the vision as” Innovation and R & Dfocused on producing a cluster of institutionalization process to be successful and environmentally sensitive projects. ” – or ensuring a transition from traditional to modern auto-parts suppliers. The cluster Working Group identified some six Key Success Factors that were required for the cluster vision and strategy to succeed: Konya foundry cluster development: the foundry cluster is in a developing stage, there is the need to build on the existing cluster structures to ensure that it can undertake the transformation from a developing cluster to a mature cluster; Environmental Management Systems: a format that requires all businesses to comply. First, to ISO 14001, you need to acquire other quality assurance systems and recycling properties. Encouraging innovation & R and D take up: ensuring cluster partner take up of product or process innovation, and the integration of technology transfer , together with the necessary innovative approach to the cluster’s business model; as with innovation take up, the acquisition of the ability to undertake R and D is considered to be necessary for the cluster to become and remain competitive, whilst staying ahead in the market to supply the all OEMs; Attaining quality assurance standards: ensuring that cluster partners are able to acquire quality automotive quality assurance standards such as ISO 14001; Ensuring cost effectiveness: driven by the OEMs demand that auto-parts suppliers provide “costing models” for the foundry parts, sub assemblies or services provided to them; Supply chain productivity: ensuring that the Konya foundry sub industry clusteris in a position to successfully bargain or negotiate with the all OEMs. These six Key Success Factors form the basis of the Konya Foundry five Cluster Actions – those of encouraging innovation take up and encouraging R and D take up are combined.The Diamond Analysis is a framework that seeks to understand the economic, political and business environment, in which a cluster operates and how this environment impacts on that cluster’s competitiveness; this is analysed through four determinants: factor conditions, local demand conditions, context for firm strategy and rivalry, together with related and supporting institutions. It is also influential in its work and representational activities; it is however currently weak on resources gathered – an impressive achievement for an organisation less than one year old. The following two points should be noted: firstly, limited interaction between actors in innovation systems: at present in Konya there is limited interaction between cluster partners on matters of innovation, in part because the Konya cluster is in the developing stage, in part because there is not a recognised innovations actor promoting such interaction. The lack of interaction on innovation, together with technology transfer and R and D, is recognised as a potential weakness of the cluster and is addressed in the Konya Foundry cluster’s second Cluster Action – Innovation and R and D Take Up. And, cluster identity and awareness, there is the necessity for the Konya Foundry industry cluster to develop a positive image or identity, as the Factor Conditions illustrate this not so much for the cluster itself, where the Konya Foundry industry clusterenjoys general acceptance and a recognised identity amongst the Foundry sector. Finaly,also use the cluster structure and cluster actions to improve the dynamics of cluster companies / partners, especially attracting technical and management staff part of the company institutionalisation process and ensuring that cluster partners were able to achieve the necessary transition from the after market to supplying OEMs through the attainment of the necessary quality systems, especially ISO14001, and to develop the collective or individual capacity to undertake R and D actions and institute innovation processes

Keywords

Competition, SWOT, Clustering, Konya, Foundry

References

• Arıcıoğlu, M.A, Koraş, M , 2011, Konya Döküm Sektör Raporu, Konya, KSO Yayınları.
• Avnımelech, G.. & Schwartz, D. & Bar-El, R., (2007). “Entrepreneurial High-tech Cluster Development: Israel’s Experience with Venture Capital and Technological Incubators,” European Planning Studies, 1469-5944, Volume 15, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 1181 – 1198.
• Brenner, T. & Gıldner, A. ;(2006). The Long-term Implications of Local Industrial Clusters, Papers on Economics and Evolution 2006-08”, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Evolutionary Economics Group, European Planning Studies, Vol. 14, No. 9, October 2006, 1315-1328
• Cho, D-S., Moon H-C, From Adam Smith to Michael Porter: Evolution of Competitiveness Theory, (Asia-Pacific Business Series Volume 2),Singapur, 2002.
• Çivi, E.(2001). “.Rekabet Gücü: Literatür Araştırması”, Yönetim ve Ekonomi, Yıl 2001, C 8, Sayı 2, s.21-38.
• Garcıa, Cristina Q. ve Velasco, Carlos A. B; (2002). “Co-opetition and Performance: Evidence from European Biotechnology Industry”, The European Academy of Management, 2nd. Annual Conference on Innovative Research in Management May 9-11, Track: Coopetition Strategy: Towards A New Kind of Interfirm Dynamics, Stockholm, Sweden.1-10.
• Haan, U. De. ; (2008). “A Hotbed For Entrepreneurshıp and Innovatıon Looking for success factors in Israel’s High-Tech ClustersLooking for success factors in Israel’s high-Tech Clusters”, Springer, 79-97, http://library.wur.nl/frontis/research_triangles/04_de_haan.pdf
• Malmberg, A. , Maskell P.,(2002), Theelusiveconcept of localizationeconomies: towards a knowledge- basedtheory of spatialclustering.” Environment and Planning A, 34, 429–449.
• Peeters L., Tırı M., (2001). Identification of Techno-economicClusters Using Input-Output Data: Application toFlandersandSwitzerland, InnovativeClusters: Drivers of NationalInnovationSytems, OECD
• Porter, M.E., 2004, BuildingtheMicroeconomicFoundations of Prosperity: Findingsfromthe Business Competitiveness Index, Global Competitiveness Report 2003-2004, World Economic Forum,39-56.
• Porter, Michael E. ; (2000).”Location, Competition and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy”, Economic Development Quarterley, 14 (1), 15-34
• Porter, M.E., (1998), “Cluster andthe New Economics of Competition”, Harvard Business Review,November-December,, 77-90.
• Porter, Michael .E., . The Competitive Advantages of Nations, The Macmillian Press Ltd., London and Basingstoke.1990
• Porter, M.E., (1990b), “New Global StrategiesforCompetitive Advantage”, Planning Review,May/June, 4-14.
• Lazonıck, William; (2008) Entrepreneurial Ventures and the Developmental State Lessons from the Advanced Economies, Discussion Paper No. 2008/01, http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/discussion-papers/2008/en_GB/dp2008- 01/_files/78805634425684379/default/dp2008-01.pdf
• Narula, Rajnees ve Marın, Anabel; (2005). Exploring the relationship between direct and indirect spillovers from FDI in Argentina, Research Memoranda , Maastricht : MERIT, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology, http://ideas.repec.org/p/dgr/umamer/2005024.html
• Öz, Özlem, The Competitive Advantage of Nations: The Case of Turkey: Assessing Porter's Framework for National Advantage , Ashgate,1999.
• Parto, Saeed; (2008).”Innovation and Economic Activity: An Institutional Analysis of the Role of Clusters in Industrializing Economies, Journal of Economic Issues, Available at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-36151980_ITM.
• Raco, M. (1999), “Competition, Collaboration and the New Industrial Districts: Examining the Institutional Turn in Local Economic Development”, Urban Studies, 36 (5-6): 951-968.
• TÜDOKSAD (2012), Türkiye Döküm Derneği Raporu, 2012 Yılına Girerken Mevcut Durum, , İstanbul, Mart.
• http://www.ekonomi.gov.tr/(Erişim tarihi, 10 Mart 2013).
• http://www.sanayi.gov.tr/ServiceDetails.aspx?dataID=185&catID=322&lng=tr)(Erişim tarihi, 10 Mart 2013).