A Comparative Analysis of the Role of University-Industry Collaboration in Improving Innovation Performance of Businesses

Öz

Purpose: The main purpose of this study is to determine the main factors that affect the success of University-Industry Collaborations and to compare their effects in order to increase the innovation performance of the businesses. Methodology: In order to examine the effects of University-Industry Collaboration on the innovation performance of the businesses, in-depth interview technique, one of the qualitative research methods, was used in the research. Findings: With the University-Industry Collaboration, the project density of the businesses, the number of new products and the areas in which they gain expertise are increasing and this can increase the innovation performance of the businesses. Achieving this success is related to the approach of senior management to collaborations in businesses. Practical Implications: It has been observed that a participative senior management approach is effective in the success of collaboration projects. For this reason, it is necessary to evaluate the top management approach as a preliminary criterion for the success of the collaborations. In addition, it is recommended that more research is carried out on the changing management concept and organizational culture of the businesses with the cooperation process. Originality: Comparing the companies that have successfully cooperated with the companies that have not achieved enough success enabled the factors that affect the success of the collaboration to be evaluated from a different perspective.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• University-Industry Collaboration
• Innovation
• Innovation Performance

İşletmelerin Yenilik Performansının Arttırılmasında Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliğinin Rolünün Karşılaştırmalı Olarak İncelenmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, işletmelerin yenilik performansının arttırılabilmesi için Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliklerinin başarısında etkili olan temel faktörlerin belirlenmesi ve etkilerinin karşılaştırılmasıdır. Yöntem: Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliği’nin işletmelerin yenilik performansına etkilerini derinlemesine inceleyebilmek amacıyla araştırmada, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden derinlemesine görüşme tekniği kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliği ile işletmelerin proje yoğunluğu, yeni ürün sayısı ve uzmanlık kazandığı alanlar artmakta ve bu durum işletmenin yenilik performansını arttırabilmektedir. Bu başarının sağlanabilmesi ise, işletmelerde üst yönetimin işbirliklerine yaklaşımı ile bağlantılıdır. Sonuç ve Öneriler: İşbirliği projelerinin başarısında katılımcı bir üst yönetim anlayışının etkili olduğu görülmüştür. Bu nedenle, işbirliklerinin başarısı için üst yönetim anlayışını öncül bir başarı kriteri olarak değerlendirmek gerekmektedir. Ayrıca, işbirliği süreci ile işletmelerin değişen üst yönetim anlayışı ve örgüt kültürü üzerine daha fazla araştırmanın yapılması önerilmektedir. Özgün Değer: İşbirliğini başarılı bir şekilde yürütülen işletmeler ile yeterince başarı elde edememiş işletmelerin karşılaştırılması, işbirliğinin başarısında etkili olan faktörlerin farklı bir bakış açısı ile değerlendirilmesine imkan tanımıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : Üniversite-Sanayi İşbirliği
• Yenilik
• Yenilik Performansı

Kaynakça

1. Adams, R., Bessant, J. ve Phelps, R. (2006). “Innovation Management Measurement: A Review”, International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 21-47.
2. Azman, N., Sirat, M., Pang, V. A., Lai, Y. M., Govindasamy, A. R. ve Din, W. A. (2019). “Promoting University-Industry Collaboration in Malaysia: Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Expectations and Impediments”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(1), 86-103.
3. Bakoğlu, R. (2001). “Örgütsel Performans Kavramı ve Gelişimi”, Öneri Dergisi, 4(15), 39-45.
4. Banbury, C. M. ve Mitchell W. (1995). “The Effects of Introducing Important Incremental Innovation on Market Share and Business Survival”, Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 161-182.
5. Barnes, T., Pashby, I. ve Gibbons, A. (2002). “Effective University - Industry Interaction: A Multi-case Evaluation of Collaborative R&D Projects”, European Management Journal, 20(3), 272-285.
6. Bas, C. L., Mothe C. ve Nguyen-Thi, T. U. (2015). “The Differentiated Impacts of Organizational Innovation Practices on Technological Innovation Persistence”, European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(1), 110-127.
7. Brettel, M. ve Cleven, N. J. (2011). “Innovation Culture, Collaboration with External Partners and NPD Performance”, Innovation Culture and NPD Performance, 20(4), 253- 272.
8. Bruneel, J., D’Este, P. ve Salter, A. (2010). “Investigating the Factors that Diminish the Barriers to University-Industry Collaboration”, Research Policy, 39(7), 858-868.

9. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting From Technology, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
10. Cyert, R. M. ve Goodman, P. S. (1997). “Creating Effective University-Industry Alliances: An Organizational Learning Perspective”, Organizational Dynamics, 25(4), 45-57. Cornell University, INSEAD ve WIPO (2018). “The Global Innovation Index”, https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/Home (Erişim Tarihi: 02.01.2019).
11. D’Este, P. ve Perkmann, M. (2011). “Why Do Academics Engage With Industry?. The Entrepreneurial University and Individual Motivations”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316-339.
12. Damanpour, F. ve Schneider, M. (2006). “Phases of The Adoption of Innovation in Organizations: Effects of Environment, Organization and Top Managers”, British Journal of Management, 17(3), 215-236.
13. Darlington, Y. ve Scott, D. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice: Stories from the Field, Singapore: South Wind Productions.
14. Den Hartog, D. N. ve Verburg, R. M. (1997). “Charisma and Rhetoric: Communicative Techniques of International Business Leaders”, Leadership Quarterly, 8(4), 355-391.
15. Doloreux, D., Chamberlin, T. ve Amor, S. B. (2013). “Modes of Innovation in The Canadian Wine Industry”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, 25(1), 6-26.
16. Dooley, L. ve Kirk, D. (2007). “University-Industry Collaboration Grafting the Entrepreneurial Paradigm onto Academic Structures”, European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(3), 316-332.
17. Drucker, P. (1993). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
18. Ettlie, J. E. ve Reza, E. M. (1992). “Organizational Integration and Process Innovation”, The Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 795-827.
19. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). “Incubation of Incubators: ınnovation as A Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Networks”, Science and Public Policy, 29(2), 115-128.
20. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). “Innovation in Innovation: the Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations”, Social Science Information, 42(3), 293-337.
21. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. ve Terra, B. R. C. (2000). “The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm”, Research Policy, 29(2), 313-330.
22. Faems, D., Looy, B. V. ve Debackere, K. (2005). “Interorganizational Collaboration and Innovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3), 238-250.
23. Fuentes-Fuentes, M. M., Albacete-Sáez, C. A. ve Lloréns-Montes F. J. (2004). “The Impact of Enviromental Characteristics on TQM Principles and Organizational Performance”, Internatioanl Journal of Management Science, 32(6), 425-442.
24. Gao, X., Song, W., Peng, X. ve Song, X. (2014). “Technology Transferring Performance of Chinese Universities: Insights from Patent Licensing Data”, Advances in Applied Sociology, 4(12), 289-300.
25. Genis-Gruber A. ve Öğüt, H. (2014). “Environmental Factors Affecting Innovation Strategies of Companies: Customers and Suppliers Effect”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150(15), 718-725.
26. Gloet, M. ve Terziovski, M. (2004). “Exploring The Relationship Between Knowledge Management Practices and Innovation Performance”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 15(5), 402-409.
27. Gupta, A. K., Tesluk, P. E. ve Taylor, M. S. (2007). “Innovation at and Across Multiple Levels of Analysis”, Organization Science, 18(6), 885-897.
28. Hagedoorn, J. (2002). “Inter-Firm R&D Partnership: An Overview of Major Trends and Patterns Since 1960”, Research Policy, 31(4), 371-385.
29. Harrell, M. C. ve Bradley, M. A. (2009). Data Collection Methods: Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups, California: The RAND Corporation.
30. Hataneka, S. (2004). “Internationalism in Higher Education: A Review”, History of Education Quarterly, 19, 1-32.
31. Howell, J. M. ve 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.
32. Howell, J. M. ve Higgins, C. A. (1990). “Champions of Technological Innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 317-341.
33. Ivascu, L., Cirjaliu, B. ve Draghici, A. (2016). “Business Model for the University-Industry Collaboration in Open Innovation”, Procedia Economics and Finance, 39, 674-678.
34. Jauhari, V. (2013). “Fostering Effective University-Industry Partnerships: Concluding Remarks”, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 5(3), 301-306.
35. Kennerley, M. ve 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.
36. King G. S. ve Cameron, C. R. (2013). “An Enhanced Model for University-Industry Collaboration for Innovation in Trinidad and Tobago”, The West Indian Journal of Engineering, 36(1), 86-94.
37. Kupfer, D. ve Avellar, A. P. (2011). Innovation and cooperation: Evidence from the Brazilian Innovation Survey, In Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Santiago: United Nations Press.
38. Lobiondo-Wood, G. ve Haber, J. (1990). Nursing Research: Methods, Critical Appraisal and Utilisation, St Louis: Mosby.
39. Long, T. ve Johnson, M. (2000). “Rigour, Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research”, Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing, 4(1), 30-37.
40. Love, P. E. D. ve Smith, J. (2016). “Error Management: Implications for Construction”, Construction Innovation, 16(4), 418-424.
41. Lööf, H. ve Broström, A. (2008). “Does Knowledge Diffusion Between University and Industry Increase Innovativeness?”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 73-90.
42. Lefebvre, V. M., De Steur, H. ve Gellynck, X. (2015). “External Sources for Innovation in Food SMEs”, British Food Journal, 117(1), 412-430.
43. Mazur, K. ve Inków, M. (2017). “Methodological Aspects of Innovation Performance Measurement in the IT Sector”, Management, 21(2), 14-27.
44. Meredith, S. ve Burkle, M. (2008). “Building Bridges Between University and Industry: Theory and Practice”, Education + Training, 50(3), 199-215.
45. Mothe, C. ve Thi, T. U. N. (2010). “The Link Between Non‐technological Innovations and Technological Innovation”, European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(3), 313- 332.
46. Nijssen, E. J., Hillebrand, B., Vermeulen, P. A. M. ve Kemp, R. G. M. (2006). “Exploring Product and Service Innovation Similarities and Differences”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(3), 241-251.
47. Padmore, T., Schuetze, H. ve Gibson, H. (1998). “Modeling Systems of Innovation: An Enterprise-Centered View”, Research Policy, 26(6), 605-624.
48. Perkmann, M. ve Walsh, K. (2007). “University-Industry Relationships and Open Innovation: Towards A Research Agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-280.
49. Polit, D. F. ve Hungler, B. P. (1989). Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal, and Utilization, Philadelphia: Lippincott.
50. 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.
51. Rolfe, G. (2006). “Validity, Trustworthiness and Rigour: Quality and the Idea of Qualitative Research”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 304-310.
52. Rothwell, R. (1994). “Towards the Fifth‐Generation Innovation Process”, International Marketing Review, 11(1), 7-31.
53. Sandelowski, M. (1993). “Rigor or Rigor Mortis: the Problem of rigor in qualitative Research Revisited”, Advances in Nursing Science, 16(2), 1-8.
54. Sastry, M. A. (1999). “Managing Strategic Innovation and Change”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 420-422.
55. Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischerc, M. M. ve Fröhlich, J. (2002). “Knowledge Interactions Between Universities and Industry in Austria: Sectoral Patterns and Determinants”, Research Policy, 31(3), 303-328.
56. Schin, J. ve McClomb, G. E. (1998). “Top Executive Leadership and Organizational Innovation: An Investigation of Nonprofit Human Service Organizations”, SocialWork Administration, 22(3), 1-21.
57. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58. Sellenthin, M. O. (2011). “Factors that Impact on University-Industry Collaboration: Empirical Evidence from Sweden and Germany”, Brussels Economic Review, 54(1), 81- 100.
59. Strecker, N. (2009). Innovation Strategy and Firm Performance: An Empirical Study of Publicly Listed Firms, Wiesbaden: Gabler Edition Wissenschaft.
60. Thompson, V. A. (1965). “Bureaucracy and Innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(1), 1-20.
61. Tidd, J. ve Bessant, J. (2005). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
62. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) (2017). “Bilim, Teknoloji ve Bilgi Toplumu: Araştırma Geliştirme Faaliyetleri İstatistikleri”, http://www.tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=temelist (Erişildi: 10.07.2018).
63. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2018). “R&D Spending by Country”, http://uis.unesco.org/apps/visualisations/research-and-development-spending/ (Erişildi: 02.01.2019).
64. Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). “Central Problems in the Management of Innovation”, Management Science, 32(5), 509-607.
65. West, M. A., Borrill, C. S., Dawson, J. F., Brodbeck, F., Shapiro, D. A. ve Haward, B. (2003). “Leadership Clarity and Team Innovation in Health Care”, Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 393-410.
66. Wong, A., Tjosvold, D. ve Liu, C. (2008). “Innovation by Teams in Shanghai, China: Cooperative Goals for Group Confidence and Persistence”, British Journal of Management, 20(2), 238-251.
67. Xu, H. (2010). “A Regional University-Industry Cooperation Research Based on Patent Data Analysis”, Asian Social Science, 6(11), 88-94.
68. Yıldırım A. ve Şimşek, H. (2000). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
69. Zahra, S. A. ve Covin, J. G. (1994). “The Financial Implications of Fit Between Competitive Strategy and Innovation Types and Sources”, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 5(2), 183-211.
70. Zizlavsky, O. (2016). “Innovation Performance Measurement: Research into Czech Business Practice”, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 29(1), 816-838.