Açıklık Üzerindeki Engeller: Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgesi Firmaları Örneği

Öz

Açık inovasyon, işbirlikleri ve bilgi ve entelektüel varlık paylaşımı yoluyla inovasyon süreçlerinden daha iyi çıktılar elde edilmesini sağlamaktadır. Tedarikçilerin, müşteri ya da kullanıcıların, ortakların ve hatta rakiplerin inovatif süreçlere dâhil edilmesi, dahili kaynaklar üzerindeki kısıtların üstesinden gelmeye yardımcı olmaktadır. Açık inovasyon yaklaşımı, özellikle teknoloji geliştirme bölgelerinin (TDZ) ekosistemlerinde faaliyet göstermekte olan bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri firmaları için, ölçek kısıtları ve deneyim eksiklikleri dolayısıyla daha kritik bir hal almaktadır. Teknoloji geliştirme bölgelerindeki bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri işletmelerinin açık inovasyon uygulamaları üzerindeki engelleri anlamak, karar vericilere politika tasarımı ve bu engellerin üstesinden gelmek ve dolayısıyla rekabet avantajı sağlamak yoluyla inovasyon süreçlerini güçlendirme hususunda yardımcı olabilmektedir. Çeşitli araştırmacılar, TDZ firmalarının yenilikçilik ve iş performanslarının yanı sıra çeşitli bağlamlarda açık inovasyon uygulamaları sırasında karşılaştıkları engelleri incelemiştir. Fakat özellikle teknoloji geliştirme bölgelerindeki bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri firmalarının açık inovasyon motivasyon faktörleri ve engellerini incelemek gerekmektedir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki teknoloji geliştirme bölgelerinde bulunan 102 bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri firmasına uygulanan anketler ve derinlemesine mülakatlar üzerinden açık inovasyona ilişkin engelleri araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Faktör analizi uygulanarak, açıklık üzerindeki temel engeller belirlenmiş ve bu engellerin şirketlerin özellikleri ile ilişkileri araştırılmıştır. Bulgular, en sık görülen engellerin finansal ve idari sorunlara ilişkin olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Açık İnovasyon,Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri,Engeller,Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgeleri,Teknoparklar

Barriers to Openness: The Case of Technology Development Zone Companies

Öz

Open Innovation promises higher outcomes from innovation processes through collaboration and sharing knowledge and the intellectual assets. Inclusion of suppliers, customers or users, partners, and even competitors in innovative processes can help to overcome constraints on internal resources. For ICT companies that operate in eco-systems of technology development zones (TDZ), open innovation approach becomes more critical mostly due to the scale and experience constraints. To understand the barriers of open innovation for ICT firms in TDZs can significantly help strategy and decision makers in designing policies and actions to empower innovation processes in order to overcome these barriers and hence to utilize open innovation for higher competitiveness. Various researchers examined the challenges of open innovation in various contexts, as well as the innovativeness and business performances of TDZ companies. However, there is still a room for research on exploring the dimensions of motives and barriers of open innovation practices of these companies. This study aims to explore the barriers for open innovation in ICT TDZ companies through surveys and in-depth interviews that are carried out in 102 ICT firms in TDZs in Turkey. By applying factor analysis, the main barriers to openness are identified and relationships of these barriers with the company’s characteristics explored. Findings reveal that the most frequently perceived constraints are financial and administrative problems.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Open Innovation,ICT Companies,Barriers,Technology Development Zone,Science Park

Kaynakça

1. Allen, T.J. & Cohen, S.I., (1969), Information Flow in Research and Development Laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 12–19.
2. Ashrafi, R. & Murtaza, M. (2008). Use and impact of ICT on SMEs in Oman. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 11(3), 125-138.
3. Brunswicker, S. & Ehrenmann, F. (2013). Managing Open Innovation in SMEs: A Good Practice Example of a German Software Firm. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 4(1), 33 – 41.
4. Buyukozturk, S. (2002). Faktör Analizi: Temel Kavramlar ve Ölçek Geliştirmede Kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32, 470-483.
5. Carter, C.F. & Williams, B.R., (1959), The Characteristics of Technically Progressive Firms. Journal of Industrial Economics, 7(2), 87–104.
6. Chandler, A.D., Jr. (1990). Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Chesbrough, H.W., (2003a), Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
8. Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J.,(eds.) (2006),Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford University Press.

9. Chesbrough, H.W. & Crowther, A.K., (2006), Beyond High Tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3), 229–236.
10. Chesbrough, H.W., (2010), Open Innovation: A Key to Achieving Socioeconomic Evolution How Smaller Companies can benefit from Open Innovation. Economy, Culture & History Japan Spotlight Bimonthly, JAPECO, Japan Economic Foundation.
11. Chesbrough, H, W. & Brunswicker, S. (2013). Managing Open Innovation in Large Firms, Survey Report, Fraunhofer Society.
12. CIS Survey, (2010). European Commission Web Site, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/community-innovation-survey - retrieved in Dec. 2015.
13. Colombo, M.G & Delmastro, M., (2002), How Effective are Technology Business Incubators: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31, 1103-1122.
14. Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A., (1990), Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
15. Cronbach, L. J., (1947). Test reliability: Its meaning and determination. Psychometrika, 12.1, 1-16.
16. Gassmann, O., Enkel, E. & Chesbrough, H.W., (2010), The Future of Open Innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 213-221.
17. Grant, R., (1991), The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114- 135.
18. Gruber, M. & Henkel, J., (2006), New ventures based on open innovation – An empirical analysis of start–up firms in embedded Linux. International Journal of Technology Management, 33, 356-357.
19. Hamdani, J. & Wirawan, C. (2012). Open Innovation Implementation to Sustain Indonesian SMEs. Procedia Economics and Finance, 4,223 – 233.
20. Herzog, P. & Leker, J., (2010), Open and Closed Innovation: Different Innovation Cultures for Different Strategies. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3-4), 322-343.
21. Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Repke, K. & Matzler, K. (2013). Open Innovation in Small and Micro Enterprises. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 11(1), 12-22.
22. Kaufmann, A. & Tödtling, F. (2002). How effective is innovation support for SMEs? An analysis of the region of Upper Austria. Technovation, 22 (3), 147-159.
23. Katz, R. & Allen, T.J., (1982), Investigating the not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome: a look at performance, tenure and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–20.
24. Krause, W., Schutte, C. & du Preez, N., (2012), Open Innovation in South African Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers & Industrial Engineering (CIE42), Cape Town, South Africa, CIE & SAIIE 2012: 201-210.
25. Laforet, S. (2008). Size, strategic, and market orientation effects on innovation. Journal of Business Research, 61(7), 753–764.
26. Lichtenthaler, U., (2008), Open innovation in practice: an analysis of strategic approaches to technology transactions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 148–157.
27. Narasimhalu, A.D. (2013). CUGAR: A model for open innovation in Science and Technology Parks, Research Collection School of Information Systems, 2(1), 10-20.
28. Narula, R., (2004), R&D collaboration by SMEs: New opportunities and limitations in the face of globalization. Technovation, 24(2), 153–161.
29. Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
30. OECD/Eurostat (2005) Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition, The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris.
31. Parida, V., Westerberg, M. & Frishammar, J. (2012). Inbound Open Innovation Activities in High-Tech SMEs: The Impact on Innovation Performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(2), 283-309.
32. Rahman, H. & Ramos, I., (2013), Challenges in Adopting Strategies in SMEs: An Exploratory Study in Portugal. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 10, 431-448.
33. Research and Investigation Report, (2009). 4691 sayılı Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgeleri Kanunu Uygulamalarının Değerlendirilmesi ile Uygulamada Ortaya Çıkan Sorunların Çözümüne İlişkin Öneri Geliştirilmesi, 2009, 1, pp. 33 https://www.tccb.gov.tr/ddk/ddk26.pdf
34. SAGM (2014). Turkish Republic Ministry of Industry and Technology, Technology Development Zones Report 2014. http://sagm.sanayi.gov.tr/userfiles/file/TGB%20g%C3%BCncel%20d%C3%B6k%C3%BCmanlar/TGB%20GENEL%2017_10_2014.pdf
35. Savitskaya, I., Salmi, P. & Torkkeli, M., (2010), Barriers to Open Innovation: Case China. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 5(4), 10-21.
36. Scozzi, B., Garavelli, C. & Crowston, K. (2005). Methods for modeling and supporting innovation processes in SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(1), 120-137.
37. Simonin, B.L., (1999), Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 595-623.
38. Simsek, K. & Yildirim, N. (2016). “Constraints to Open Innovation in Science and Technology Parks”, 12th International Strategic Management Conference, ISMC 2016, 28-30 October 2016, Antalya, Turkey, 939-950.
39. Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B. & Knockaert, M., (2010), Building absorptive capacity to organize inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 30(2), 130–141
40. Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
41. TGBD, (2015). Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgeleri Derneği – Technology Development Zones Association in Turkey, Databank. http://www.tgbd.org.tr/tr/turkiye-de-teknoparklar-18.html>, date retrieved 07.03.2015.
42. Trott, P. & Hartmann, D., (2009), Why Open Innovation is Old Wine in New Bottles. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 715-736.
43. Van de Vrande, V., deJong, J.P.J., Vanhaverbeke, W. & de Rochemont, M., (2009), Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29(6-7), 423–437.
44. WIPO (2014). Date retrieved 12.12.2014, address: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=245146
45. Yalcintas, M. (2014). Üniversite – Sanayi – Devlet İşbirliğinin Ülke Ekonomilerine Etkileri: Teknopark İstanbul Örneği, Finansal Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 5(10), 83-106.
46. Yildirim, N. & Simsek, K., (2015). Challenges in Open Innovation for ICT Companies in University Technology Development Zones, 24th International Conference on Management of Technology – IAMOT, June 8-11, 2015 Cape Town, South Africa.