The Role of University-Industry Collaboration in Increasing of Innovation Performance of Businesses

Öz

Businesses perceive increasing R&D-based cooperation with universities as a tool for developing more innovation through information exchange. With this study, which aims to examine in which areas the industry is developing, in which context performance indicators this improvement takes place, and then to reveal the missing or wrong points in the cooperation processes, a situation determination is made and suggestions for improving the current situation are presented. In accordance with this purpose, in-depth interviews were held with the managers of 21 businesses located in İzmir and Manisa provinces and having R&D or Design Centers. As a result of the findings obtained, a positive relationship was found between University-Industry Collaboration and the innovation performance of businesses. It was seen that, with the increase in the number of new products, the number of R&D projects, the number of patents and utility models, the number of new ideas, the number of scientific publications and efficiency criteria, the innovation performance of the businesses increased. Businesses that were attended to research; with the projects they carried out within the scope of University-Industry Collaboration, also achieved significant benefits in the areas of market performance, production performance, financial performance, and employee performance, which directly affect their overall performance. The high level of satisfaction of the businesses for University-Industry Collaboration has brought together an increase of cooperation projects.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• University-Industry Collaboration
• Innovation
• Innovation Performance

İşletmelerin Yenilik Performansının Arttırılmasında Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliğinin Rolü

Öz

İşletmeler, üniversitelerle Ar-Ge tabanlı işbirliklerini artırmayı bilgi alışverişi yoluyla daha fazla yenilik geliştirmede bir araç olarak algılamaktadır. Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliği ile sanayinin hangi alanlarda gelişim gösterdiğinin ve bu gelişimin hangi yenilik performansı göstergeleri bağlamında gerçekleştiğinin incelenmesi ve devamında işbirliği süreçlerindeki eksik veya hatalı noktaların ortaya konulmasını amaçlayan bu çalışma ile hem bir durum tespiti yapılmakta hem de mevcut durumun iyileştirilmesine yönelik öneriler sunulmaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, İzmir ve Manisa illerinde yer alan ve Ar-Ge veya Tasarım Merkezine sahip 21 işletme yöneticisiyle derinlemesine görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular neticesinde Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliği ile işletmelerin yenilik performansı arasında olumlu bir ilişki olduğu görülmüştür. Yeni ürün sayısı, Ar-Ge proje sayısı, patent ve faydalı model sayısı, yeni fikir sayısı, bilimsel yayın sayısı ve verimlilik kriterlerindeki artış ile birlikte işletmelerin yenilik performanslarında artış yaşandığı görülmüştür. Araştırmaya dahil olan işletmeler; üniversite-sanayi işbirliği kapsamında yürüttükleri projeler ile genel performanslarını doğrudan etkileyecek şekilde pazar performansı, üretim performansı, finansal performans ve çalışan performansı konularında da önemli faydalar elde etmişlerdir. İşletmelerin Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliğine yönelik tatmin seviyesinin yüksek olması işbirliği projelerinin de artmasını beraberinde getirmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliği
• Yenilik
• Yenilik Performansı

Kaynakça

1. Adams, R., Bessant, J. and Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 21-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00119
2. Akman, G., Özkan, C. ve Eriş, H. (2008). Strateji odaklılık ve firma stratejilerinin firma performansına etkisinin analizi. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(13), 93-115. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/@FenDergi
3. Arnold, H. J. and Feldman, D. C. (1986). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw Hill.
4. Barnes, T., Pashby, I. and Gibbon, A. (2002). Effective university-industry interaction: A multi-case evaluation of collaborative R&D projects. European Management Journal, 20(3), 272-285. doi: 10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00044-0
5. Bayraktaroğlu, S. (2008). İnsan kaynakları yönetimi. Sakarya: Sakarya Yayıncılık.
6. Bozan, M. (2012). Lisansüstü eğitimde nitelik arayışları. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2), 177-187. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sobiadsbd
7. Busom, I. and Ribas, A. F. (2008). The impact of firm participation in R&D programmes on R&D partnerships. Research Policy, 37(2), 240-257. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.11.002
8. Butcher, J. and Jeffrey, P. (2005). The use of bibliometric indicators to explore industry-academia collaboration trends over time in the field of membrane use of water treatment. Technovation, 25(11), 1273-1280. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2004.06.003

9. Calantone, R. J., Chan, K. and Cui, A. S. (2006). Decomposing product innovativeness and its effects on new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(5), 408-421. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00213
10. Caloghirou, Y., Tsakanikas, A. and Vonortas N. S. (2001). University-industry cooperation in the context of the European framework programmes. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 153-161. doi: 10.1023/A:1013025615518
11. Calvert, J. and Patel, P. (2003). University–industry research collaborations in the UK: Bibliometric trends. Science and Public Policy, 30(2), 85-96. doi: 10.3152/147154303781780597
12. Carayannis, E. G. and Alexander, J. (1999). Winning by co-opeting in strategic government-university-industry R&D partnerships: The power of complex, dynamic knowledge networks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2-3), 197-210. doi: 10.1023/A:1007855422405
13. Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R. and Zuniga, M. P. (2008). In search of performance effects of (in)direct industry science links. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(4), 611-646. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtn023
14. Cefis, E. and Marsili, O. (2006). Survivor: the role of innovation in firms’ survival. Research Policy, 35(5), 626-641. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.02.006
15. Chaharbaghi, K. and Newman, V. (1996). Innovating: Towards an integrated learning model. Management Decision, 34(4), 5-13. doi: 10.1108/00251749610115107
16. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
17. Chevalier, A. (2003). Measuring over-education. Economica, 70(279), 509-531. doi: 10.1111/1468-0335.t01-1-00296
18. Cornell University, INSEAD and WIPO (2018). The global innovation index. Retrieved from: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/Home
19. Cyert, R. M. and Goodman, P. S. (1997). Creating effective university-industry alliances: An organizational learning perspective. Organizational Dynamics, 25(4), 45-57. doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(97)90036-X
20. D’Este, P. and Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry?. The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316-339. doi: 10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z
21. Den Hartog, D. N. and Verburg, R. M. (1997). Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative techniques of international business leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 8(4), 355-391. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90020-5
22. Dooley, L. and Kirk, D. (2007). University-industry collaboration grafting the entrepreneurial paradigm onto academic structures. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(3), 316-332. doi: 10.1108/14601060710776734
23. Drucker, P. (1993). Innovation and entrepreneurship: practice and principles. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
24. Dura, C. (1994). Üniversite-sanayi işbirliği üzerine bir deneme. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 49(3), 101-117. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ausbf
25. Eren, E. (2013). Stratejik yönetim ve işletme politikası. İstanbul: BETA Yayınları.
26. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293-337. doi: 10.1177/05390184030423002
27. Faems, D., Looy, B. V. and Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3), 238-250. doi: 10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00120.x
28. Feldman, M. (2015). Industry-university technology transfer: Moving the research agenda forward. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 5, 321-331. doi: 10.1016/S1475-9144(06)05016-8
29. Geroski, P. A. (1995). What do we know about entry?. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4), 421-440. doi: 10.1016/0167-7187(95)00498-X
30. Gerybadze, A. (2010). R&D, innovation and growth: Performance of theWorld’s leading technology corporations. In A. Gerybadze, U. Hommel, H. W. Reiners ve D. Thomaschewski (Eds.), Innovation and international corporate growth (pp. 11-30). New York: Springer.
31. Guan, J. C., Yam, R. C. M. and Mok, C. K. (2005). Collaboration between industry and research institutes/universities on industrial innovation in Beijing, China. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(3), 339-353. doi: 10.1080/09537320500211466
32. Gupta, A. K., Tesluk, P. E. and Taylor, M. S. (2007). Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. Organization Science, 18(6), 885-897. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0337
33. Gürüz, D. ve Yaylacı, Ö. G. (2007). İletişim gözüyle insan kaynakları yönetimi. İstanbul: MediaCat.
34. Güven, İ. ve Tunç, B. (2007). Lisansüstü öğretim öğrencilerinin akademik sorunları: Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü örneği. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 173, 157-171. Erişim adresi: http://www.dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/milliegitim
35. Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnership: As overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31(4), 477-492. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00120-2
36. Hall, C. M. and Williams, A. M. (2008). Tourism and innovation. USA: Routledge.
37. Harman, G. and Sherwell, V. (2002). Risks in university-industry research links and the implications for university management. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(1), 37-51. doi: 10.1080/13600800220130752
38. Harrell, M. C. and Bradley, M. A. (2009). Data collection methods: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. California: The RAND Corporation.
39. Hatakenaka, S. (2004). University-industry partnerships in MIT, Cambridge, and Tokyo. New York: Routledge Falmer.
40. Howell, J. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovations: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-903. doi :10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.891
41. Howell, J. M. and Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 317-341. doi: 10.2307/2393393
42. Jauhari, V. (2013). Fostering effective university-industry partnerships: Concluding remarks. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 5(3), 301-306. doi: 10.1108/WHATT-02-2013-0008
43. Jauhari, V. and Thomas, R. (2013). Developing effective university-industry partnerships: An introduction. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 5(3), 238-243. doi: 10.1108/WHATT-02-2013-0006
44. Kaymaz, K. and Eryiğit, K. Y. (2011). Determining factors hindering university-industry collaboration: An analysis from the perspective of academicians in the context of entrepreneurial science paradigm. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 4(1), 185-213. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ijsi
45. Kennerley, M. and Neely, A. (2002). A framework of the factors affecting the evalution of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(11), 1222-1245. doi: 10.1108/01443570210450293
46. Kodcharat, Y. and Chalkeaw, A. (2012). University and industrial sector collaboration of knowledge transfer: A review and synthesis of the literature. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(24), 123-130. Retrieved from http://ijbssnet.com/
47. Kupfer, D. and Avellar, A. P. (2011). Innovation and cooperation: Evidence from the Brazilian innovation survey. In Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (pp. 31-52). Santiago: United Nations Press.
48. Lamar, B. and Lee, A. (1999). A strategic investment model for phased implementation of flexible manufacturing systems. International Transactions In Operational Research, 6(3), 331-344. doi: 10.1016/S0969-6016(98)00055-0
49. Lefebvre, V. M., De Steur, H. and Gellynck, X. (2015). External sources for innovation in food SMEs. British Food Journal, 117(1), 412-430. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-09-2013-0276
50. Long, T. and Johnson, M. (2000). Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing, 4(1), 30-37. doi: 10.1054/cein.2000.0106
51. Lööf, H. and Broström, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness?. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 73-90. doi: 10.1007/s10961-006-9001-3
52. Marangoz, M. ve Biber, L. (2007). İşletmelerin pazar performansı ile insan kaynakları uygulamaları arasındaki ilişkinin araştırılmasına yönelik bir çalışma. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 8(2), 202-217. Erişim adresi: http://journal.dogus.edu.tr/index.php/duj
53. Martins, E. C. and Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64-74. doi: 10.1108/14601060310456337
54. Massa, S. and Testa, S. (2004). Innovation or imitation? Benchmarking: A knowledge‐management process to innovate services. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(6), 610-620. doi: 10.1108/14635770410566519
55. May, B. E., Lau, R. S. and Johnson S. K. (1999). A longitudinal study of quality of work life and business performance. South Dakota Business Review, 58, 1-7. Retrieved from: https://www.worldcat.org/
56. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. NJ: Von Nostrand, Princeton.
57. McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do?. American Psychologist, 40(7), 812-825. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.40.7.812
58. Meredith, S. and Burkle, M. (2008). Building bridges between university and industry: Theory and practice. Education + Training. 50(3), 199-215. doi: 10.1108/00400910810873982
59. Mothe, C. and Nguyen-Thi T. U. (2010). The link between non‐technological innovations and technological innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(3), 313-332. doi: 10.1108/14601061011060148
60. Nijssen, E. J., Hillebrand, B., Vermeulen, P. A. M. and Kemp, R. G. M. (2006). Exploring product and service innovation similarities and differences. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(3), 241-251. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.02.001
61. Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris: OECD Publications.
62. Okay, Ş. (2009). Pamukkale Üniversitesi öğretim elemanlarının üniversite-sanayi işbirliği çalışmalarına bakışları üzerine bir alan araştırması. Selçuk - Teknik Dergisi, 8(2), 94-111. Erişim adresi: http://sutod.selcuk.edu.tr/sutod
63. Özbek, M. F. ve Kosa, G. (2009). Duygusal bağlılık, örgütsel destek, üst yönetim desteği ve personel güçlendirmenin hizmet kalitesi üzerindeki etkisi: Kırgızistan’da banka işgörenler üzerinde bir uygulama. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 34, 189-212. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/erciyesiibd
64. Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K. (2007). University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-280. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00225.x
65. Poyago-Theotoky J., Beath, J. and Siegel, D. (2002). Universities and fundamental research: Reflections on the growth university - industry partnerships. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18(1), 10-21. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/18.1.10
66. Reiner, G. (2004). Customer-oriented improvement and evaluation of supply chain processes supported by simulation models. International Journal of Production Economics, 96(3), 381-395. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.07.004
67. Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 304-310. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03727.x
68. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı. (2018). Kamu-üniversite-sanayi iş birliği (KÜSİ). Ankara: Elma Teknik Basım Matbaacılık.
69. Sastry, M. A. (1999). Managing strategic innovation and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 420-422. doi: 10.2307/2667003
70. Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M. M. and Fröhlich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy, 31(3), 303-328. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00111-1
71. Schentler, P., Lindner, F. and Gleich, R. (2010). Innovation performance measurement. innovation and international corporate growth. New York: Springer.
72. Schin, J. and McClomb, G. E. (1998). Top executive leadership and organizational innovation: An investigation of nonprofit human service organizations. SocialWork Administration, 22(3), 1-21. doi: 10.1300/J147v22n03_01
73. Seppo, M. and Lilles, A. (2012). Indicators measuring university-industry cooperation. Discussions on Estonian Economic Policy, 20(1), 204-225. doi: 10.15157/tpep.v20i1.782
74. Shi, X. and Wu, Y. (2017). The effect of internal and external factors on innovative behaviour of Chinese manufacturing firms. China Economic Review, 46, 50-64. doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2016.08.010
75. Sjoer, E., Nørgaard, B. and Goossens, M. (2016). From concept to reality in implementing the knowledge triangle. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3), 353-368. doi: 10.1080/03043797.2015.1079812
76. Stephan, P. A. (2001). Educational implications of university–industry technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 199-205. doi: 10.1023/A:1011164806068
77. Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
78. Tosi, H. L. and Carroll, S. J. (1976). Management: Contingencies structure and process. Chicago: St. Clair Press.
79. Türkiye Bilimsel Ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu. (2018). 1501 - Sanayi araştırma teknoloji geliştirme ve yenilik projeleri destekleme programı uygulama esasları. Erişim adresi: https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/
80. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (2017). Bilim, teknoloji ve bilgi toplumu: Araştırma geliştirme faaliyetleri istatistikleri. Erişim adresi: http://www.tuik.gov.tr (10.07.2018).
81. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2018). R&D spending by country. Erişim adresi: http://uis.unesco.org
82. Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 509-607. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590
83. Vevuvinod, P. K. (2011). Technology, innovation and entrepreneurship, part I: My world, my nation. USA: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
84. West, M. A., Borrill, C., Dawson, J., Brodbeck, F., Shapiro, D. and Haward, B. (2003). Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care. Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 393-410. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00044-4
85. Xu, K., Huang, K. F. and Xu, E. (2014). Giving fish or teaching to fish? An empirical study of the effects of government research and development policies. R&D Management, 44(5), 484-497. doi: 10.1111/radm.12087
86. Zizlavsky, O. (2016). Innovation performance measurement: Research into Czech business practice. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 29(1), 816-838. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2016.1235983