KOBİ Ağları ve Yenilikçiligi Arasindaki Iliskide Kurumsal Güvenin Rolü: Çok Düzeyli Bir Analiz

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1, 15 - 27, 31.07.2025

Ufuk Gür , Burak Özdoğan

https://doi.org/10.56203/iyd.1603572

Öz

KOBİ'lerin yenilikçiliği ile akademik araştırmacı-mucit işbirliği mekanizmaları arasındaki ilişki henüz tam olarak keşfedilmemiştir. Bu çalışma, KOBİ araştırmacı ağları (KOBİ yönetici-sahip ve araştırmacı ilişkisi düzeyinde ortaya çıkan) ile KOBİ yenilikçiliği arasındaki bu ilişkiyi, iç içe geçmiş veriler üzerinde çok düzeyli hiyerarşik analiz yoluyla inceleyerek literatüre katkıda bulunmaktadır. Orijinalliği, kurumsal düzeydeki (kurumlara güven) ve örgütsel düzeydeki (KOBİ ağı ve KOBİ yenilikçiliği) verileri aynı modelde uygulamakta yatmaktadır, böylece yenilikçi ekonomilerde kurumların rolü üzerine daha fazla tartisma mumkun olacaktir. Calismada, 20 ülkedeki 20.512 KOBİ'nin verilerini kullanilmistir. Sonuçlar, araştırmacı ağlarının tek başına yenilikçiliği teşvik etmediğini ancak daha yüksek kurumsal güven bağlamlarında etkinliklerinin önemli ölçüde arttığını ortaya koymaktadir. Bu bulgular, güveni kritik bir bağlamsal faktör olarak entegre ederek açık inovasyon teorisine katkıda bulunmaktadır. Çalışma, bağımsız ve kontrol değişkenlerinin sabit etkileri ve daha yüksek düzeyde etkileşimli ülke değişkenlerinin rastgele etkisi ile Hiyerarşik Doğrusal Çok Düzeyli Modellemeyi benimsemiştir. Bu bulgular, KOBİ'lerde açık inovasyonun dinamikleri ve etkili işbirliğini kolaylaştırmada kurumsal güvenin rolü hakkında yeni bilgiler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

yenilik yonetimi , KOBI yenilikciligi , acik yenilik , kurumlara guven

The Role of Institutional Trust in the Relationship Between SME Networks and Innovativeness: A Multi-Level Analysis

Öz

The relationship between the innovativeness of SMEs and their academic researcher-inventor collaboration mechanisms have not yet been fully discovered. This study contributes to the literature by studying this relationship between SME researcher networks (manifesting on SME manager-owner and researcher relationship level) and SME innovativeness through multi-level hierarchical analysis on nested data. Its originality lies in applying institutional level (trust in institutions) and organizational level (SME network and SME innovativeness) data in the same model, so that we can elaborate more on the role of institutions in innovative economies. We used the data from 20,512 SMEs across 20 countries. Results reveal that while researcher networks alone may not drive innovativeness, their effectiveness is significantly enhanced in higher institutional trust contexts. These findings contribute to open innovation theory by integrating trust as a critical contextual factor. We used the survey data from the World Values Survey for institutional trust scores in countries and annual Global Entrepreneurship Monitor survey conducted in 20 countries (where the survey item for researcher/inventor networks was used) between 2009 and 2013 with 20,512 valid SMEs (both traditional and technology SMEs) answers. The study adopted Hierarchical Linear Multi-Level Modelling with the fixed effects of independent and control variables and the random effect of higher-level interaction country variables. These findings provide new insights into the dynamics of open innovation in SMEs and the role of institutional trust in facilitating effective collaboration.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Innovation management , open innovation , institutional trust , SME innovativeness , researcher networks

Kaynakça

• Abu El‐Ella, N., Bessant, J., & Pinkwart, A. (2016). Revisiting the honorable merchant: The reshaped role of trust in open innovation, Thunderbird International Business Review, 58(3), 261–275.
• Angino, S., Ferrara, F. M., & Secola, S. (2022). The cultural origins of institutional trust: The case of the European Central Bank, European Union Politics, 23(2), 212–235.
• Audretsch, D. B., Seitz, N., & Rouch, K. M. (2018). Tolerance and innovation: the role of institutional and social trust, Eurasian Business Review, 8(1), 71–92.
• Barrett, G., Dooley, L., & Bogue, J. (2021a). Open innovation within high-tech SMEs: A study of the entrepreneurial founder’s influence on open innovation practices, Technovation, 103, 102232.
• Barrett, G., Dooley, L., & Bogue, J. (2021b). Open innovation within high-tech SMEs: A study of the entrepreneurial founder’s influence on open innovation practices, Technovation, 103, 102232.
• Bereczki, I. (2019a). An open innovation ecosystem from a startup’s perspective, International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(08), 1940001.
• Bereczki, I. (2019b). An Open Innovation Ecosystem from a startup’s perspective, International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(08), 1940001.
• Berraies, S., Achour, M., & Chaher, M. (2015). Focusing the mediating role of knowledge management practices: how does institutional and interpersonal trust support exploitative and exploratory innovation?, Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 31(4), 1479–1492.
• Bogers, M., Zobel, A.-K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L., Frederiksen, L., Gawer, A., Gruber, M., & Haefliger, S. (2017). The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis, Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 8–40.
• Brockman, P., Khurana, I. K., & Zhong, R. I. (2018). Societal trust and open innovation, Research Policy, 47(10), 2048–2065.
• Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation, Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.
• Bruneel, J., d’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration, Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868.
• Brunswicker, S., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2015). Open innovation in small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs): External knowledge sourcing strategies and internal organizational facilitators, Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 1241–1263.
• Carrasco-Carvajal, O., & García-Pérez-De-Lema, D. (2021). Innovation capability and open innovation and its impact on performance in smes: An empirical study in chile, International Journal of Innovation Management, 25(04), 2150039.
• Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology, Harvard Business Press.
• Deschamps, I., Macedo, M. G., & Eve-Levesque, C. (2013). University-SME collaboration and open innovation: Intellectual-property management tools and the roles of intermediaries, Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(3).
• Farrukh, C., Athanassopoulou, N., & Ilevbare, I. (2019). How inbound open innovation helps SMEs learn and improve: knowledge transfer from university to industry through direct coaching.
• Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation, R&d Management, 40(3), 213–221.
• Gentile-Lüdecke, S., Torres de Oliveira, R., & Paul, J. (2020). Does organizational structure facilitate inbound and outbound open innovation in SMEs?, Small Business Economics, 55(4), 1091–1112.
• Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2013). Formal and informal knowledge and technology transfer from academia to industry: Complementarity effects and innovation performance, Industry and Innovation, 20(8), 683–700.
• Gunasekaran, A., Putnik, G. D., Peças, P., & Henriques, E. (2006). Best practices of collaboration between university and industrial SMEs, Benchmarking: An International Journal.
• Hain, D., Johan, S., & Wang, D. (2016). Determinants of cross-border venture capital investments in emerging and developed economies: The effects of relational and institutional trust, Journal of Business Ethics, 138(4), 743–764.
• Hasche, N., Linton, G., & Öberg, C. (2017). Trust in open innovation–the case of a med-tech start-up, European Journal of Innovation Management.
• Hervas-Oliver, J.-L., Sempere-Ripoll, F., & Boronat-Moll, C. (2021). Technological innovation typologies and open innovation in SMEs: Beyond internal and external sources of knowledge, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120338.
• Hyslop, K. (2015). Open innovation in SMEs and the role of the external network: A systematic literature review.
• Jack, S., Rose, M., Darabi, F., & Clark, M. (2012). Developing business school/SMEs collaboration: the role of trust, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research.
• Jensen, K. W., & Schøtt, T. (2014). Firms’ innovation embedded in their networks of collaboration: China compared to the world, Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, 12(3), 273–292.
• Knechel, W. R., & Mintchik, N. (2022). Do Personal Beliefs and Values Affect an Individual’s “Fraud Tolerance”? Evidence from the World Values Survey, Journal of Business Ethics, 177(2), 463–489.
• Konsti‐Laakso, S., Pihkala, T., & Kraus, S. (2012). Facilitating SME innovation capability through business networking, Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(1), 93–105.
• Kurdve, M., Bird, A., & Lage-Hellman, J. (2020). Establishing SME–university collaboration through innovation support programmes, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management.
• Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs—An intermediated network model, Research Policy, 39(2), 290–300.
• Migdadi, M. M. (2022). Impact of knowledge management processes on organizational performance: the mediating role of absorptive capacity, Business Process Management Journal, 28(1), 293–322.
• Molina-Morales, F. X., Martínez-Fernández, M. T., & Torlò, V. J. (2011). The dark side of trust: The benefits, costs and optimal levels of trust for innovation performance, Long Range Planning, 44(2), 118–133.
• Naruetharadhol, P., Srisathan, W. A., & Ketkaew, C. (2020). The effect of open innovation implementation on small firms’ propensity for inbound and outbound open innovation practices, In Modern Management based on Big Data I (pp. 30–40), IOS Press.
• Nestle, V., Täube, F. A., Heidenreich, S., & Bogers, M. (2019). Establishing open innovation culture in cluster initiatives: The role of trust and information asymmetry, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 563–572.
• Oguguo, P. C., Bodas Freitas, I. M., & Genet, C. (2020). Multilevel institutional analyses of firm benefits from R&D collaboration, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119841.
• Oguguo, P. C., Freitas, I. M. B., & Genet, C. (2020). Multilevel institutional analyses of firm benefits from R&D collaboration, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119841.
• 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.
• Perkmann, M., Salandra, R., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., & Hughes, A. (2021). Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011–2019, Research Policy, 50(1), 104114.
• Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., & Hughes, A. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations, Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.
• Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007a). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.
• Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007b). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.
• Pigola, A., & da Costa, P. R. (2024). Relational capabilities into small-and middle-sized firms: A mind-blowing strategic asset, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(2), 6201–6225.
• Popa, S., Soto-Acosta, P., & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2017). Antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of innovation climate and open innovation: An empirical study in SMEs, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 134–142.
• Sá, E. S., & Pinho, J. C. M. r. De. (n.d.). Effect of entrepreneurial framework conditions on R&D transfer to new and growing firms: The case of European Union innovation-driven countries, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
• Santoro, G., Ferraris, A., & Winteler, D. J. (2019). Open innovation practices and related internal dynamics: case studies of Italian ICT SMEs, EuroMed Journal of Business, 14(1), 47–61.
• Schøtt, T., & Jensen, K. W. (2016). Firms’ innovation benefiting from networking and institutional support: A global analysis of national and firm effects, Research Policy, 45(6), 1233–1246.
• Skardon, J. (2011). The role of trust in innovation networks, Procedía-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 26, 85–93.
• Spadaro, G., Gangl, K., Van Prooijen, J.-W., Van Lange, P. A. M., & Mosso, C. O. (2020). Enhancing feelings of security: How institutional trust promotes interpersonal trust, Plos One, 15(9), e0237934.
• Spithoven, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Roijakkers, N. (2013). Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises, Small Business Economics, 41, 537–562.
• Szücs, F. (2018). Research subsidies, industry–university cooperation and innovation, Research Policy, 47(7), 1256–1266.
• Taghizadeh, S. K., Nikbin, D., Alam, M. M. D., Rahman, S. A., & Nadarajah, G. (2020). Technological capabilities, open innovation and perceived operational performance in SMEs: The moderating role of environmental dynamism, Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(6), 1486–1507.
• Tchouwo, C. T., Poulin, D., & Veilleux, S. (2021). Understanding The Specific Characteristics And Determinants Of Open Innovation In Small And Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Systematic Literature Review, International Journal of Innovation Management.
• Tchuinou, C., Poulin, D., & Veilleux, S. (2020). Specific Characteristics and Determinants of Open Innovation in SMEs: A Systematic.
• Van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & De Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges, Technovation, 29(6–7), 423–437.
• Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance, Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159.