A Pilot Study on the Perception of Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Abstract

Problem Statement: The concepts of innovation and entrepreneurship must be understood and adopted to ensure such transformation in the university after “Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index” publication. The basic problem of this research is an analysis of how entrepreneurs define the concepts of innovation and entrepreneurship. Purpose of Study: This research is focused on how innovation and entrepreneurship concepts are defined by company and project owners making innovation, the types of innovation they work on, the challenges they encounter during the process, and the coping strategies they use Method: This study used a qualitative research pattern and phenomenological research. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews conducted with the owners of five companies who voluntarily participated in the study. The frequency and categorical analysis of content analysis techniques were used in the analysis of the data. Attempts were made to provide reliability by coding the coincidentally selected ones of the voice-recorded interviews via two independent coders. Jury assessment was made for general and specific sub-areas created for categorical analysis within validity. Findings and Results: Six general areas and 39 specific sub-areas were created within the scope of categorical analysis. Among the most remarkable findings, it was clear that innovative entrepreneurs expressed opinions mostly within the general scope of “innovation process”. Within the “definition of innovation”, it can be seen that they most often refer to providing “added value” with the product. Within the “product features”, they most often refer to the “inclusion of innovation.” It was mentioned that “learning experiences” have positive effects on the innovation process. Conclusions and Recommendations: It may be suggested that researchers can study the competitiveness and innovation ability of entrepreneurs. It was observed that the participant companies did not have their own innovation models and strategies. It is necessary to develop a countryspecific innovation model and strategies based on it in order to develop innovation. Keywords: innovation description, innovation process, challenges in innovation process.

Kaynakça

1. Abdurazzakov, O. (2015). Role of technology transfer mechanisms in stimulating
2. innovation. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Oeconomia, 14 (4), 5-12.
3. Alkibay, S., Orhaner, E., Korkmaz, S., & Ermec Sertoglu, A. (2012). Universite sanayi
4. isbirligi cercevesinde teknoparklar, yonetimsel sorunlari ve cozum onerileri.
5. [Technoparks within the framework of university-industry cooperation,
6. managerial problems and suggested solutions]. Ataturk Universitesi Iktisadi ve
7. Idari Bilimler Dergisi, 26 (2), 65-90.
8. Altunoglu, A. E., & Bulgurcu-Gurel, E. B. (2015). Effects of leader-member exchange

9. and perceived organizational support on organizational innovation: The case
10. of Denizli Technopark. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 175-181.
11. Amara, N., Landry, R., Becheikh, N., & Ouimet, N. (2008). Learning and novelty of
12. innovation in established manufacturing SMEs. Technovation, 28 (7), 450-463.
13. Aslan, G. (2010). Ogretim uyelerinin girisimci universite ve universite sanayi isbirligi
14. kavramlarina iliskin gorusleri [Faculty members’ views on the concepts of
15. entrepreneurial university and university-industry cooperation]. Egitim Bilim
16. Toplum Dergisi, 8 (30), 7-22.
17. Balasescu, M. (2015). Evaluation of the impact of innovation processes and activities
18. on Romanian retailers and consumers through marketing methods and
19. techniques. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov - Series V: Economic
20. Sciences, 8 (2), 19-26.
21. Bennedsen, M., & Foss, N. (2015) Family assets and liabilities in
22. the innovation process. California Management Review, 58 (1), 65-81.
23. Bessant, J., & Tidd, J. (2015). Innovation and entrepreneurship. 2nd edition. West Sussex,
24. UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
25. Brettel, M., & Cleven. N. J. (2011). Innovation culture, collaboration with external
26. partners and NPD performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20 (4),
27. -272.
28. Cai, Y., & Lui, C. (2014). The roles of universities in fostering knowledge-intensive
29. cluster in Chinese regional innovation systems. Science and Public Policy
30. Advance Access, 10, 1-15.
31. Cansiz, E. (2007). Universite ogrencilerinin girisimcilik ozelliklerinin belirlenmesi
32. [Determination of entrepreneurial characteristics of university students].
33. Unpublished master dissertation, Suleyman Demirel Universitesi.
34. Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation. Long Range Planning, 43, 354-363.
35. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
36. approaches. 4th Edition. California: Sage Publication.
37. Dahlqvist, J., & Wiklund, J. (2012). Measuring the market newness of new ventures.
38. Journal of Business Venturing, 27 (2), 185-196.
39. Elci, S., Karatayli, I., & Karaata, S. (2008, December 12). Bolgesel inovasyon merkezleri:
40. Turkiye icin bir model onerisi [Regional innovation centers: A model suggestion
41. for Turkey]. Istanbul: Tusiad Press, Retrieved July 20, 2015, from
42. http://www.t-bim.org/files/T-B%C4%B0M%20rapor.pdf.
43. Erdogan, I. (2012). Egitimde degisim yonetimi [Change management in education]. 3rd
44. edition. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
45. Ferrary, M., & Granovetter, M. (2009). The role of venture capital firms in Silicon
46. Valley's complex innovation network. Economy and Society, 38 (2), 326-359.
47. Gumus, S., & Gumus, H. G. (2015). Marketing of innovation in business. Procedia
48. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 261-268.
49. Godin, B. (2015). The linear model of innovation the historical construction of an
50. analytical framework. Routledge. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31 (6),
51. -667.
52. Ha-Young, K., & Chang Mu, J. (2010). Does a technology incubator work in the
53. regional economy? Evidence from South Korea. Journal of Urban Planning &
54. Development, 136 (3), 273-284.
55. Heath, T. B., Chatterjee, S., Basuroy, S., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Kocher, B. (2015).
56. Innovation sequences over iterated offerings: A Relative innovation, comfort,
57. and stimulation framework of consumer responses. Journal of Marketing. 79
58. (6), 71-93.
59. Hjalager, A. M. (2010). Process in tourism management a review of innovation
60. research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31, 1-12.
61. Hobday, M. (2005). Firm-level innovation models: Perspectives on research in
62. developed and developing countries. Technology Analysis & Strategic
63. Management, 17 (2), 121 –146.
64. Kaynak, S., & Demir, A. (2015). Imalat Sektorunde inovasyon uygulamalari: TRA1
65. Duzey 2 bolgesinde bir arastirma. Ataturk Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu
66. Dergisi, 19 (3), 273-292.
67. Koch, M., & Moslein, K. M. (2006). Community mirrors for supporting corporate
68. innovation and motivation. Goteborg, Sweden: European Conference on
69. Information Systems.
70. Oslo Manual-OECD. (2005, November 10). The measurement of scientific and
71. technological activities. Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting
72. technological innovation data, Paris. Retrieved July 2, 2015, from
73. http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/2367580.pdf
74. Oneren, M. (2012). Ic Anadolu bolgesindeki genc nufusun girisimcilik egilimleri
75. uzerine bir arastirma [A research on entrepreneurial tendencies of young
76. population in Central Anatolia Region]. Girisimcilik ve Kalkinma Dergisi, 7 (2),
77. -28.
78. Ozer, Y. E. (2011). Girisimci universite modeli ve Turkiye [Entrepreneur university
79. model and Turkey]. Uludag Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi
80. Dergisi, 30 (2), 85-100.
81. Ozer, M., & Wen, Z. (2015). The effects of geographic and network ties on
82. exploitative and exploratory product innovation. Strategic Management Journal,
83. (7), 1105-1114.
84. Pahnke, C., McDonald, E., Rory, M., Wang, D., & Benjamin, H. (2015). Exposed:
85. Venture capital, competitor ties, and entrepreneurial innovation. Academy of
86. Management Journal, 58 (5), 1334-1360.
87. Punch, K. (2014). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches.
88. rd edition. Los Angeles: Sage.
89. Rostami, N. A. (2015). Examining the relationship between marketing capability
90. and innovation. International Journal of Management, Accounting & Economics, 2
91. (1), 64-72
92. Singh, R., Mathiassen, L., & Mishra, A. (2015). Organizational path constitution in
93. technological innovation: Evidence from rural telehealth. MIS Quarterly, 39(3),
94. -666.
95. Shuai, W., Jin, F., Dingtao, Z., & Shanyong, W. (2016). Regional innovation
96. environment and innovation efficiency: The Chinese case. Technology Analysis
97. & Strategic Management, 28(4), 396-410.
98. Tarkun-Tavsancil, E., & Aslan, A. E. (2001). Icerik analizi ve uygulama ornekleri
99. [Content analysis and examples of practices]. Istanbul: Epsilon.
100. Tatikonda, M. V., & Rosenthal, S. R. (2000). Technology novelty, project complexity,
101. and product development project execution success: A deeper look at task
102. uncertainty in product innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
103. Management, 47 (1), 74-87.
104. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range
105. Planning, 43, 172 -194.
106. Tonelli, A. O., Zambalde, A. L., de Brito, M. J., & de Souza Bermejo, P. H. (2016). The
107. theory of practice and the development of ambidexterity in software
108. innovation process. Brazilian Business Review (English Edition), 13 (3), 26-47.
109. Uluyol, O. P. (2013). Ogrencilerin girisimcilik egilimlerinin belirlenmesi
110. [Determination of entrepreneurial tendencies of students]. Adiyaman
111. Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 6 (15), 349-372.
112. Yilmaz, B. S., & Gunel, O. D. (2011). University education and entrepreneurship: A
113. research on the factors driving the individuals to entrepreneurship. Akademik
114. Bakis Dergisi, 26, 1-20