The Effects of Cooperation Between Internal and External stakeholders in R&D Projects on Perceived Success

Öz

Successfully transforming R&D investments into added value is important for increasing the competitiveness of a developing country with limited resources. However, due to the high uncertainty and complexity involved in R&D, even defining success can be controversial. The motivation of this study is to clarify what success in R&D means and then to examine the effect of R&D collaborations, because R&D often involves complex and highly uncertain tasks that require different expertise in order to work together. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 13 R&D experts in order to explore the perceptions and experiences of senior managers and project teams with regard to success and collaborations. Some of the findings obtained from the qualitative analysis are as follows: Besides the concrete outputs determined by the project objectives and factors such as creating knowledge and a culture of cooperation, an R&D project is perceived as successful if it triggers new projects in the future; also, deviations from the budget or timeframe are usually expected. Collaborations are beneficial for projects carried out with a minimum number of partners whose duties are clearly defined and who have complementary competencies. The complexity increases when extra partners are involved in a project and when large differences occur at the level of the parties’ commitment or goals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• R&D
• Collaborations
• R&D Success
• R&D Outputs
• Perceived Success

Ar-Ge Projelerinde Kurum İçi ve Dışı Paydaşlar Arasındaki İş Birliğinin Başarı Algısı Üzerine Etkileri

Öz

Ar-Ge yatırımlarının katma değere dönüşmesi; sınırlı kaynaklara sahip, gelişmekte olan bir ülkenin rekabet gücünü artırmak için önemlidir. Bu ise, başarılı Ar-Ge projeleri yoluyla gerçekleşmektedir. Fakat Ar-Ge projelerinin içerdiği yüksek belirsizlik ve karmaşıklık nedeniyle, çoğu zaman Ar-Ge başarısının ne olduğu dahi tartışmalı olabilmektedir. Bu çalışmada, Ar-Ge projelerinin başarısı netleştirildikten sonra, bunda iş birliklerinin etkisinin incelenmesi motivasyonuyla hareket edilmiştir. Çünkü bu projelerde, genellikle zorluk derecesi yüksek ve farklı uzmanlıkların bir araya gelerek birlikte çalışmasını gerektiren görevler bulunduğundan, iş birliklerinin başarıyı etkilemesi beklenebilir. Yoğunlukla TÜBİTAK projelerinde görev almış ve Ar-Ge’de 15 yılın üzerinde tecrübesi olan 13 kişi ile yapılan yarı-yapılandırılmış yüz yüze görüşmelerle, üst yönetici ve proje ekiplerinin “Ar-Ge projesi başarısı” ve “Ar-Ge iş birlikleri” konularındaki algılarını ve deneyimlerini keşfetmek amaçlanmıştır. Nitel analiz sonucunda elde edilen bazı bulgular şu doğrultuda olmuştur: Ar-Ge projelerinin başarısında, proje hedefleriyle belirlenen somut çıktıların yanı sıra; insan kaynağı yetiştirme, bilgi birikimi ve iş birliği kültürü oluşturma gibi unsurlar, yeni projelerin tetiklenmesini kolaylaştırmakta ve proje, geleceğe katkısıyla başarılı olarak algılanmaktadır. Bütçe veya süreden sapma ise, Ar-Ge projelerinde beklenen durumlardır. Ar-Ge’de iş birlikleri, yetkinliklerin birbirini tamamlamasının kaçınılmaz olduğu durumlarda, görevleri net olarak belirlenen minimum sayıda ortak ile yürütülen projelerde fayda sağlamaktadır. Projede fazladan ortakların bulunması, tarafların taahhüt seviyesinde ya da hedeflerinde büyük farklılıklar olması veya yetkinliklerinin çakışması durumunda Ar-Ge iş birliklerinin karmaşıklık seviyesi artmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ar-Ge
• İş birlikleri
• Ar-Ge Başarısı
• Ar-Ge Çıktıları
• Başarı Algısı

Kaynakça

1. Aschhoff, B., &Schmidt.T. (2008). Empirical evidence on the success of R&D cooperation: Happy together? Review of Industrial Organization,33, 41-62. google scholar
2. Baaken, T., Kesting, T., & Gerstlberger, W. (2017). A benefit segmentation approach for innovation-oriented university-business collaboration. International Journal of Technology Management, 76(1/2), 58. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2018.10009594 google scholar
3. Balachandra R., & Friar J.H. (1997). Factors for Success in R&D Projects and New Product Innovation: A Contextual Framework”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44, 276-287. google scholar
4. Bayona, C., Garüa-Marco, T., & Huerta, E. (2001). Firms’ motivations for cooperative R&D: An empirical analysis of Spanish firms. ResearchPolicy, 30(8), 1289-1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0048-7333(00)00151-7 google scholar
5. Belassi, W., & Tukel, O. I. (1996). A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects. International Journal ofProject Management, 14(3), 141-151. google scholar
6. Belderbos, R., Carree M., & Lokshin.B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33, 1477-92. google scholar
7. Beverland, M., & Lindgreen, A. (2010). Industrial Marketing Management What makes a good case study ? A positivist review of qualitative case research published in Industrial Marketing Management , 1971 - 2006. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 56-63. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.09.005 google scholar
8. Bond-Barnard, T. J., Fletcher, L., & Steyn, H. (2018). Linking trust and collaboration in project teams to project management success. International Journal ofManaging Projects in Business, 11(2), 432-457. google scholar

9. Carayannis, E. E. G., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007855422405 google scholar
10. Cassiman, B., Di Guardo, M. C., & Valentini, G. (2009). Organising R&D Projects to Profit From Innovation: Insights From Co-opetition. Long Range Planning, 42(2), 216-233. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.01.001 google scholar
11. Chen, Y. S., Chang, K. C., & Chang, C. H. (2012). Nonlinear influence on R&D project performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(8), 1537-1547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2012.04.007 google scholar
12. Chiesa, V., Frattini, F., Lazzarotti, V., & Manzini, R. (2009). Performance measurement in R&D: Exploring the interplay between measurement objectives, dimensions of performance and contextual factors. R and D Management, 39(5), 488-519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00554.x google scholar
13. Choi, J. Y., Lee, J. H., & Sohn, S. Y. (2009). Impact analysis for national R&D funding in science and technology using quantification method II. Research Policy, 38(10), 1534- 1544. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.005 google scholar
14. Cooper R. G., & Kleinschmidt E. J. (1995). Benchmarking The Firm’s Critical Success Factors In New Product Development. Journal ofProduct Innovation Management, 12, 374- 391. google scholar
15. Das, T.K., &. Teng. B.S (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management 26, 1, 31-60. google scholar
16. Diirr, B., & Cappelli, C. (2018). A Systematic Literature Review to Understand Cross-organizational Relationship Management and Collaboration. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2018.020 google scholar
17. Dwyer L., & Mellor R. (1991). New Product Process Activities and Project Outcomes. R&D Management, 21, 31-42. google scholar
18. Etzkowitz H., & Leydesdorff L. (1995). The Triple Helix - University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge Based Economic Development. EASST Review, 14(1), 14-19. google scholar
19. Fritsch, M., & Lukas R. (2001). Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy, 30: 297-312. google scholar
20. Gaynor G.H. (1996). Monitoring Projects - It’s More Than Reading Reports. Research Technology Management, March-April, 45-47. google scholar
21. Geisler, E. (1994). Key Output Indicators in performance evaluation of Research and Development organizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 47(2), 189- 203. https://doi. org/10.1016/0040-1625(94)90028-0 google scholar
22. Ghazinejad, M., Hussein, B. A., & Zidane, Y. J. T. (2018). Impact of trust, commitment, and openness on research project performance: Case study in a research institute. Social Sciences, 7(2), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7020022 google scholar
23. Griffin A., & Page A.L. (1993). An Interim Report on Measuring Product Development Success And Failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, 291-308. google scholar
24. Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganisational modes of co- operation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 371-85. google scholar
25. Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 83-103. google scholar
26. Hauser, J.R. (1998). Research, development and engineering metrics. Management Science, 44, 1670-1689. google scholar
27. Kang, K. H., & Kang, J. (2010). Does partner type matter in R&D collaboration for product innovation? Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22(8), 945-959. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953 7325.2010.520473 google scholar
28. Kerssens-van Drongelen, I.C., &Bilderbeek, J. (1999). R&D performance measurement: more than choosing a set of metrics. R&D Management, 29(1), 35-46. google scholar
29. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673-702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705052359 google scholar
30. Lhuillery, S., & Pfister, E. (2009). R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from French CIS data. Research Policy, 38(1), 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2008.09.002 google scholar
31. Maidique M.A., & Zirger B.J. (1985). The New Product Learning Cycle. Research Policy, 14, 299-313. google scholar
32. Matsumoto, M., Yokota, S., Naito, K., & Itoh, J. (2010). Development of a model to estimate the economic impacts of R&D output of public research institutes. R and D Management, 40(1), 91-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00578. google scholar
33. OECD (2002). Frascati Kılavuzu: Araştırma ve Deneysel Geliştirme Taramaları İçin Önerilen Standart Uygulama, TÜBİTAK Yay, ISBN 975 - 403 -352-X, Ankara. google scholar
34. Okamuro H., (2007). Determinants of successful R&D cooperation in Japanese small businesses: The impact of organizational and contractual characteristics. Research Policy. 36, 1529-1544. google scholar
35. Pinto J.K., & Slevin D.P. (1987). Critical Factors in Successful Project Implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-34, 22-27, February 1987. google scholar
36. Pisano, G.P. (1990). The R&D boundaries ofthe firm:An empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 153-76 google scholar
37. Reyhanoğlu, M. (2006). Ar-Ge İşbirliklerinde Güven: Ankara’daki Teknoparklarda Faaliyet Gösteren İşletmelerde Bir Araştırma. (Doktora Tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı, Ankara. google scholar
38. Smith-Doerr, L., Manev, I. M., & Rizova, P. (2004). The meaning of success: Network position and the social construction of project outcomes in an R&D lab. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, 21 (1-2), 51-81. google scholar
39. Souder W. E., & Jenssen S.A. (1999). Management Practices Influencing New Product Success and Failure In The United States And Scandinavia: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16, 183-203. google scholar
40. Temel, S., & Glassman, B. (2013). Examining University-Industry Collaboration as a Source of Innovation in the Emerging Economy of Turkey. International Journal of Innovation Science, 5(1), 81-88. https://doi.org/10.1260/1757-2223.5.1.81 google scholar
41. Teng, B.S. (2006). Corporate entrepreneurship activities through strategic alliances: A resource-based approach toward competitive advantage. Journal of Management Studies 44, 119-42. google scholar
42. Tether, B.S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31(6), 947-67. google scholar
43. Thamhain H.J. (2003). Managing Innovative R&D Teams. R&D Management, 33(3), 297-311. google scholar
44. Vanderloop D.H. (2004). Success Factors And Patterns In Government-Supported Research And Development. (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Southern California, Faculty of Policy Planning and Development, USA. google scholar
45. Weck, M. (2006). Knowledge Creation and Exploitation in Collaborative R & D Projects : Lessons Learned on Success Factors. Knowledge and Process Management, 13(4), 252-263. https://doi. org/10.1002/kpm google scholar