İnovasyon Ustalığının Belirleyicileri Üzerine Görgül Bir Araştırma

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 44 Sayı: 1, 83 - 101, 23.03.2026

Oğuz Demirel

https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.1650202

https://izlik.org/JA27BX26TT

Öz

Hızla değişen çevre koşulları işletmeleri geçmişe kıyasla daha fazla inovasyon yapmaya teşvik etmektedir. İşletmeler hem keşifsel hem de yararlanıcı inovasyon süreçlerini başarılı bir biçimde yürütmek, eşdeyişle inovasyon ustalığı sergilemek zorundadır. O halde işletmelerin inovasyon ustalığının belirleyicilerini araştırmak önem taşımaktadır. Bu araştırma, işletmelerde inovasyon ustalığının belirleyicilerini ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamaktadır. Nicel araştırma deseninin tercih edildiği çalışmanın verileri Ankara’da faaliyet gösteren küçük ve orta büyüklükteki işletmelerden çevrimiçi anket yoluyla elde edilmiştir. 200 anketten oluşan veri setinin analiz edilmesi sürecinde yapısal eşitlik modellemesi kullanılmıştır. Hipotez sınaması bulguları işletmelerde öğrenme yeneteğinin inovasyon ustalığını olumlu etkilediğini, teknoloji fırsatçılığının da bu etkide kısmî aracılık rolü oynadığını ortaya koymuştur. Çalışma bulgularına göre işletmeler hem keşifsel hem de yararlanıcı inovasyonda başarılı olabilmek için örgütsel öğrenmeyi destekleyecek politikalar geliştirmeli, teknolojiyi fark etme ve uygulama becerisini geliştirecek alt yapı ve insan kaynağı yatırımını yapmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İnovasyon Ustalığı , Öğrenme Yeteneği , Teknoloji Fırsatçılığı

An Empirical Study on the Determinants of Innovation Ambidexterity

https://izlik.org/JA27BX26TT

Öz

Rapidly changing environmental conditions encourage firms to innovate more than before. Firms have to succeed in both explorative and exploitative innovation activities, in other words, exhibit innovation ambidexterity. Thus, it is important to investigate the determinants of innovation ambidexterity. This research aims to reveal the antecedents of innovation ambidexterity in firms. The data of the study, in which quantitative research design was preferred, was obtained via online survey from small and medium-sized enterprises operating in Ankara. 200 questionaires were gathered and analyzed via structural equation modeling. The findings of the hypothesis testing demonstrated that learning capability positively influences innovation ambidexterity (both explorative and exploitative innovation) and technological opportunism has partial mediating role on this relationship. According to the findings, to be successful in explorative and exploitative innovation, firms should develop policies which encourage organizational learning and invest in human resource and infrastructure to develop technology sensing and response capabilities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Innovation Ambidexterity , Learning Capability , Technological Opportunism

Kaynakça

• Aksoy, Y. (2020). Örgütsel ustalık ve inovasyon performansı ilişkisinde teknolojik dinamizmin rolü. Bilim-Teknoloji-Yenilik Ekosistemi Dergisi, 1(1), 11-22.
• Alerasoul, S. A., Afeltra, G., Hakala, H., Minelli, E., & Strozzi, F. (2022). Organisational learning, learning organisation, and learning orientation: An integrative review and framework. Human Resource Management Review, 32(3), Article 100854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100854
• Al-Omoush, K. S., Garcia-Monleon, F., & Iglesias, J. M. M. (2024). Exploring the interaction between big data analytics, frugal innovation, and competitive agility: The mediating role of organizational learning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 200, 123188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123188
• Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.
• Argyris, C. (1996). On Organizational Learning. Blackwell.
• Atçı, D., Kale, A., & Şeker, F. (2017). Otel işletmecilerinin bireysel yenilikçilik profili ve çift yönlülük ambidexterity düzeyi ilişkisi. İşletme ve İktisat Çalışmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 47-58.
• Berndt, A. C., Gomes, G., & Borini, F. M. (2024). Exploring the antecedents of frugal innovation and operational performance: the role of organizational learning capability and entrepreneurial orientation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(5), 1704-1722. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-06-2022-0320
• Bertello, A., De Bernardi, P., Santoro, G., & Quaglia, R. (2022). Unveiling the microfoundations of multiplex boundary work for collaborative innovation. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1424–1434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.039
• Bhatti, W.A., Vahlne, J.E., Glowik, M., & Larimo, J.A. (2022). The impact of industry 4.0 on the 2017 version of the Uppsala model. International Business Review, 31(4), Article 101996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2022.101996
• Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis for oral and written materials. H.C. Triandis & J.W. Berry (Eds.) Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, (Vol 2, pp.389-444). Allyn & Bacon.
• Chang, Y. Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small-to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2011.08.003
• Cho, J., Jeong, I., Kim, E., & Cho, H. E. (2024). Seizing the moment in the flux of Industry 4.0: Technological opportunism, innovativeness and new product performance in international markets. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(4), 1134-1159. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2022-0181
• Daft, R. L. & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284-295. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277657
• Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590. https://doi.org/10.5465/256406
• Do, H., Budhwar, P., Shipton, H., Nguyen, H. D., & Nguyen, B. (2022). Building organizational resilience, innovation through resource-based management initiatives, organizational learning and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Research, 141, 808-821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.090
• Fiol, C. & Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803-813. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4279103
• Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Perspectives on innovation processes. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 775-819. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2013.791066
• Hailekiros, G. S., & Renyong, H. (2016). The effect of organizational learning capability on firm performance: Mediated by technological innovation capability. European Journal of Business Management, 8(30), 87-95.
• Huang, H. C. (2011). Technological innovation capability creation potential of open innovation: A cross-level analysis in the biotechnology industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2011.537105
• Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing process and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.88
• Hwang, B. N., Lai, Y. P., & Wang, C. (2023). Open innovation and organizational ambidexterity. European Journal of Innovation Management, 26(3), 862-884. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-06-2021-0303
• Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576
• Jerez-Gomez, P., Céspedes-Lorente, J., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). Organizational learning capability: A proposal of measurement. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 715-725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.11.002
• Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W. & Helbig, J. (2013). Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative Industry 4.0. Final report of the industry 4.0 working group.
• Kahn, K. B. (2018). Understanding innovation. Business Horizons, 61(3), 453-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.011
• Kennedy, S., Whiteman, G., & van den Ende, J. (2017). Radical innovation for sustainability: The power of strategy and open innovation. Long Range Planning, 50(6), 712-725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.05.004
• Kuo, S. Y. (2024). Improving innovation performance through learning capability and adaptive capability: The moderating role of big data analytics. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 22(4), 364-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2023.2212182
• Le, T-H. & Ngoc-Khuong, M. (2025). Fostering SME‘s organizational effectiveness through strategic orientations, learning capability, and innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 63(1), 249-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2024.2312390
• Li, L., Chen, L., Yan, J., Xu, C., & Jiang, N. (2023). How does technological opportunism affect firm performance? The mediating role of resource orchestration. Journal of Business Research, 166, 114093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114093
• Lin, H. E., McDonough III, E. F., Lin, S. J., & Lin, C. Y. Y. (2013). Managing the exploitation/exploration paradox: The role of a learning capability and innovation ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2), 262-278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00998.x
• Lucia-Palacios, L., Bordonaba-Juste, V., Polo-Redondo, Y., & Grünhagen, M. (2014). Technological opportunism effects on IT adoption, intra-firm diffusion and performance: Evidence from the US and Spain. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1178-1188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.004
• Malik, G., Sharma, P., Kingshott, R., Leung, T. Y., & Abdolrazagh, D. (2024). Technological sensing and response capabilities as drivers for radical innovation in the context of apocalyptic uncertainty. R&D Management, 54(3), 525-541. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12658
• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
• McDermott, C. M., & O’Connor, G. C. (2002). Managing radical innovation: An overview of emergent strategy issues. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(6), 424-438. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1960424
• Nezam, M. H. K., Ataffar, A., Isfahani, A. N., & Shahin, A. (2016). Human capital and new product development performance efficiency - The mediating role of organizational learning capability. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 20(1), 26-46. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2016.076670
• Nugroho, Y., & Soewarno, N. (2024). Entrepreneurship orientation and management ties in the relationship between technological opportunism and innovation performance. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2413393.
• Obeso, M., Hernández-Linares, R., López-Fernández, M. C., & Serrano-Bedia, A. M. (2020). Knowledge management processes and organizational performance: the mediating role of organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(8), 1859-1880. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2019-0553
• O'Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
• Pradhan, R.K., Jena, L.K. & Singh, S.K. (2017). Examining the role of emotional intelligence between organizational learning and adaptive performance in Indian manufacturing industries. Journal of Workplace Learning, 29(3), 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-05-2016-0046
• Saleh, R. H., Durugbo, C. M., & Almahamid, S. M. (2023). What makes innovation ambidexterity manageable: a systematic review, multi-level model and future challenges. Review of Managerial Science, 17(8), 3013-3056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00659-4
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Routledge. Senge, P. (2018). Beşinci disiplin (20. Baskı). Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
• Sok, P., O’Cass, A., & Sok, K. M. (2013). Achieving superior SME performance: Overarching role of marketing, innovation, and learning capabilities. Australasian Marketing Journal, 21(3), 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2013.04.001
• Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2018). Information technology, knowledge management and environmental dynamism as drivers of innovation ambidexterity: A study in SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 824-849. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0448
• Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G.L. & Rangaswamy, A. (2002). Technological opportunism and radical technology adoption: An application to e-business. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.3.47.18508
• Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
• Urban, B., & Maphumulo, M. (2022). The moderating effects of entrepreneurial orientation on technological opportunism and innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(3), 901-921. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2020-0509