TECHNOPOLES AND IT COMPANIES: A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH THROUGH MISSION AND VISION STATEMENTS

Öz

The aim of this study is to investigate the extent to which information technology companies operating in technopoles adopt the principles that are expected of technopoles. In this context, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify the basic criteria that technopoles and the companies operating within them should adopt. In this context, the mission and vision statements of the companies in the technopoles operating in Turkey, whose web pages can be accessed, and if not, their “about” sections were accessed. This study, which is based on qualitative research methodology, analyzed the data through content analysis using MAXQDA 22 software package. The results of the study indicate that information technology companies operating in technopoles don’t sufficiently embrace the strategic values associated with technopoles. It is expected that the study will contribute to the literature with its multidisciplinary evaluations and analysis methods and be a source of inspiration for related studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Technopoles
• informatics
• strategic alliance

TEKNOKENTLER VE BT İŞLETMELERİ: MİSYON VE VİZYON BİLDİRİLERİ ÜZERİNDEN NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, teknokentler bünyesinde faaliyet göstermekte olan bilgi teknolojileri işletmelerinin, teknokentlerin benimsemeleri gereken ilkeleri ne ölçüde kabul ettiklerini araştırmaktır. Bu bağlamda, öncelikle, kapsamlı bir literatür taraması yapılmış ve teknokentlerin ve buralardaki işletmelerin benimsemeleri gereken temel kriterler ortaya konmuştur. Bu çerçevede, Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren teknokentlerdeki, web sayfasına erişilebilen işletmelerin misyon ve vizyon bildirimlerine, eğer yoksa “hakkında” bölümlerine ulaşılmıştır. Nitel araştırma metodolojisi temelinde kurgulanan bu çalışmada içerik analizi ile veriler analiz edilmiş ve MAXQDA 22 paket programından yararlanılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda, teknokentlerde faaliyet gösteren bilgi teknolojileri işletmelerinin, teknokentlerin stratejik değerlerini yeterli düzeyde benimsemedikleri görülmüştür. Çalışmanın, çok disiplinli değerlendirmelerle ve uyguladığı analiz yöntemleri ile literatüre katkı sunması ve ilgili çalışmalar için ilham kaynağı olması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teknokentler
• bilişim
• stratejik uyum

Kaynakça

1. Adams, S. B., Chambers, D. & Schultz, M. (2018), A moving target: The geographic evolution of Silicon Valley, 1953–1990. Business History, 60(8), 859-883.
2. Albahri, A., Klofsten, M. & Rubio‐Romero, J. C. (2019). Science and technology parks: A study of value creation for park tenants. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44, 1256–1272.
3. Alexander, B. & Kent, A. (2021). Tracking technology diffusion in-store: A fashion retail perspective. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 49(10), 1369-1390.
4. Alousque, I. N. (2019). Persuasive strategies in mission statements. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 80, 37-50.
5. Ansio, H., Käpykangas, S. & Houni, P. (2020). Community and collaboration in a shared multi-space office. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 10(3), 63-83.
6. Argote, L. & Hora, M. (2017). Organizational learning and management of technology. Production and Operations Management. 26(4), 579–590.
7. Aslay, F., Özen, Ü. & Çam, H. (2021). Yönetim bilişim sistemleri eğitiminin kazandırdığı yeteneklerin teknoparkların insan kaynağı gereksinimlerini karşılamadaki etkisi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 35(3), 927-942.
8. Audretsch, D. B. (2021). Have we oversold the silicon valley model of entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, 56, 849–856.

9. Aziz, F. N. & Sutriadi, R. (2017). A note in identifying competing actors of technopolis: A case study of gedebage technopolis' core area formation. 15 Ocak 2020 tarihinde https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8288872 adresinden erişildi.
10. Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Alegre, I. & Guerrero, A. (2020). Mission statements and performance: an exploratory study of science parks. Long Range Planning, 53, 1-11.
11. Bititci, U., Turner, T., Mackay, D., Kearney, D., Parung, J. & Walters, D. (2007). Managing synergy in collaborative enterprises. Production Planning and Control, 18(6), 454-465.
12. Blanche, C. & Dupuis, J. P. (2019). From the Hague to Paris to Montre ́al: knowledge transfer and cultural synergy in a multicultural organization. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 19(1), 27–46.
13. Boz Yılmazer, E. & Tunalıoğlu, R. (2022). Teknokentler ve agroparklar (Türkiye). Aydın Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(2), 133-150.
14. Compagnucci, L., Lepore D. & Spigarelli, F. (2021). Exploring the foreign exposure of Chinese science parks in a triple helix model. Forum for Social Economics, 50(3), 330-354.
15. Contreras-Pacheco, O. E., Parra, A. P. & Pinzon, M. V. (2022), Mission, vision, and value appropriation: A correlational analysis. Journal of Management, 38(74), 1-16.
16. Correia, A. M. M., da Veida, C. P., Senff, C. O. & Duclos, L. C. (2021). Analysis of the maturity level of business processes for science and technology parks. SAGE Open, 1–15.
17. Correia, A. M. M. & da Veiga, C. P.(2019). Management model by processes for science parks. Cogent Business & Management, 6, 1-13
18. Corrocher, N., Lamperti, F. & Mavilia, R. (2019). Do science parks sustain or trigger innovation? Empirical evidence from Italy. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 147, 140-151.
19. Cortes, J. D., Rivera, L. & Carbonelld, K. B. (2022). Mission statements in universities: Readability and performance. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 28, 1-9.
20. Creswell, J. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New York: Pearson.
21. Czaplewski, M. & Klóska, R. (2020). Regional policy as a factor in shaping regional development in Poland. South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 15(1), 93-104.
22. Davidescu, A. A., Apostu, S. A., Pantilie, A. M. & Amzuica, B. F. (2020). Romania’s South-Muntenia Region, towards sustainable regional development. Implications for regional development strategies. Sustainability, 12(14), 1-46.
23. Dobrinic, D. & Fabac, R. (2021). Familiarity with mission and vision: Impact on organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Business Systems Research, 12(1), 124-143.
24. Dou, Y., Xue, X., Zhao, Z. & Luo, X. (2019). Factors influence China’s off-site construction technology innovation diffusion. Sustainability, 11(7), 1-23.
25. Dube, S., Dube, M. & Turan, A. (2015). Information technology in Turkey: Creating high-skill jobs along with more unemployed highly-educated workers? Telecommunications Policy, 39, 811–829.
26. Durmaz, C. F. & Polat, U. (2020). Technology diffusion: Any further evidence for computer industry? Journal of Knowledge Economy, 11, 356–372.
27. Etzkowitz, H. (2019). Is Silicon Valley a global model or unique anomaly? Industry and Higher Education, 33(2), 83–95.
28. Fitzsimmons, A. B. & Qin. Y. S., Heffron, E. R. (2022). Purpose vs mission vs vision: Persuasive appeals and components in corporate statements. Journal of Communication Management, 26(2), 207-219.
29. Giannakos, M. N. & Mikalef, P., Pappas, I. O. (2019). Technology-enhanced organizational learning: a systematic literature review. 15 Haziran 2021 tarihinde https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-29374-1_46 adresinden erişildi.
30. Gökçe, O. (1995). İçerik çözümlemesi, Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Yayınları.
31. Hansen, T. (2022). The foundational economy and regional development. Regional Studies, 56(6), 1033-1042.
32. Henriques, I. C., Sobreiro, V. A. & Kimura, H. (2018). Science and technology park: Future challenges. Technology in Society, 53, 144-160.
33. Hernandez, E. & Shaver, J. M. (2019). Network synergy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 171–202.
34. Hindasah, L. & Nuryakin, N. (2020). The relationship between organizational capability, organizational learning and financial performance. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(8), 625–633.
35. Huang, J., Shuai, Y., Liu, Q., Zhou, H. & He, Z. (2018). Synergy degree evaluation based on synergetics for sustainable logistics enterprises. Sustainability, 10(7), 1-18.
36. Ivanova, I., Strand, Ø. & Leydesdorff, L. (2019). What is the effect of synergy provided by international collaborations on regional economies? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 10, 18–34.
37. Kanze, D., Conley, M. A. & Higgins, E. T. (2021). The motivation of mission statements: How regulatory mode influences workplace discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 166, 84–103.
38. Klóska, R., Ociepa-Kicinska, E., Czyzycki, R. & Szklarz, P. (2020). Regional development in poland in taxonomic terms. Sustainability, 12(11), 1-11.
39. Kocabaş C. & Alpaydın Y. (2018). Üniversite-sanayi işbirliği bağlamında teknoloji geliştirme bölgelerinin misyon ve vizyonlarının incelenmesi. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi/Journal of Higher Education and Science, 8(2), 368-377.
40. Kurbatova, S. M., Aisner, L. Y. & Naumkina, V. V. (2020). Eco-city and technopolis: Pros & Cons. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 962, 1-7.
41. Lau, K. W., Lee, P. Y. & Chung, Y. Y. (2019). A collective organizational learning model for organizational development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(1), 107-123.
42. Le Duc, N. & Lindeque, J. (2018). Proximity and multinational enterprise co-location in clusters: A multiple case study of Dutch science parks. Industry and Innovation, 25(3), 282-307.
43. Lekic, N., Caric, M., Solesa, D., Tankosic, J. V., Rajakovic-Mijailovic, J., Bogetic, S. & Vucicevic, M. (2022). Employees’ perceptions on the relationship of intellectual capital and business performance of ICT companies. Sustainability, 14(1), 1-20.
44. Leydesdorff, L. & Ivanova, I. (2020). The measurement of “interdisciplinarity” and “synergy” in scientific and extra-scientific collaborations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72, 387–402.
45. Liu, Q., Lu, R. & Yang, C. (2020). International joint ventures and technology diffusion: Evidence from China. The World Economy, 43, 146–169.
46. Lovrić, I., Bartulović, D. & Steiner, S. (2020). The influence of dry port establishment on regional development through regional development index. Transactions on Maritime Science, 02, 293-315.
47. Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
48. Milgrom, P. R. & John F. R. (1992). Economics, organization and management. London: Prentice-Hall.
49. Minhas, J. & Sindakis, S. (2021). Implications of social cohesion in entrepreneurial collaboration: A conceptual model and research propositions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12, 2016–2031.
50. Ng, W. K. B., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Cloodt, M. & Arentze, T. (2019). Towards a segmentation of science parks: A typology study on science parks in Europe. Research Policy, 48, 719–732.
51. Ng, W. K. B., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Cloodt, M. & Arentze, T. (2021). Perceptual measures of science parks: Tenant firms’ associations between science park attributes and benefits. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 163, 1-15.
52. Nicoletti, G., von Rueden, C. & Andrews, D. (2020). Digital technology diffusion: A matter of capabilities, incentives or both? European Economic Review, 128, 1-37.
53. Oh, D. (1995). High-technology and regional development policy: An evaluation of Korea’s technopolis programme. Habitat International, 19(3), 253-267.
54. Olusola, S. A., Oluseye, O. O., Saviour, U. M., Iember, K. J. & Ayomiposi, D. O. (2022). A content analysis of the vision and mission statements of top ten leading universities in Africa. Cogent Education, 9(1), 1-15.
55. Örnek, A. S. & Danyal, Y. (2015). Increased importance of entrepreneurship from entrepreneurship to techno-entrepreneurship (startup): Provided supports and conveniences to techno-entrepreneurs in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1146-1155.
56. Özdemir, Y. (2018). Teknoparklar üzerine bir değerlendirme: ODTÜ Teknokent firmalarının etkinlik analizi. AJIT-e: Online Academic Journal of Information Technology, 9(35), 133-158.
57. Öztepe, T., Köse, R. E. & Çebi, F. (2022). Current status analysis on early stage support of technology based initiatives. 20 Ağustos 2023 tarihinde https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9802040 adresinden erişildi.
58. Panwar, S., Kapur, P. K. & Singh, O. (2020). Modeling technology diffusion: A study based on market coverage and advertising efforts. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 11, 154-162.
59. Pascual-Fernández, J. J., Modino, R., Chuenpagdee, R. & Jentoft, S. (2018). Synergy as strategy: Learning from la Restinga, Canary Islands. Maritime Studies, 17, 85–99.
60. Pique, J. M., Berbebal-Mirabent, J. & Etzkowitz, H. (2020). The role of universities in shaping the evolution of Silicon Valley’s ecosystem of innovation. Triple Helix, 7, 277–321.
61. Pique, J. M., Berbegal-Mirabent, J. & Etzkowitz, H. (2018). Triple helix and the evolution of ecosystems of innovation: the case of Silicon Valley. Triple Helix, 5(11), 1-21.
62. Rahma, H., Fauzi, A., Juanda, B. & Widjojanto, B. (2019). Development of a composite measure of regional sustainable development in Indonesia. Sustainability, 11(20), 1-16.
63. Reficco, E., Gutierrez, R., Jaen, M. H. & Auletta, N. (2018). Collaboration mechanisms for sustainable innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 203, 1170-1186.
64. Rietveld, E. (2022). The affordances of art for making technologies. Adaptive Behavior, 30(6), 489–503.
65. Robinson, J. (2013). The urban now: Theorising cities beyond the new. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(6), 659–677.
66. Rotella, C. (2018). Urban literature: A user’s guide. Journal of Urban History, 44(4), 797–805.
67. Santos, L., Nunes, D. R., Melo, A. C. S., Carneiro, M. P. & Martins, V. W. B. (2020). Logistic performance assessment systems: structuring, challenges and development opportunities. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(3), 1-15.
68. Shahbaz, M., Çetin, M., Avcı, P., Sarıgül, S. S. & Altay Topcu, B. (2023). The impact of ICT on financial sector development under structural break: An empirical analysis of the Turkish economy. 23 Aralık 2023 tarihinde https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09721509221143632 adresinden erişildi.
69. Shaik, A. S. & Dhir, S. (2020). A meta-analytical review of factors affecting the strategic thinking of an organization. Foresight, 22(2), 144-177.
70. Skiti, T. (2020). Institutional entry barriers and spatial technology diffusion: Evidence from the broadband industry. Strategic Management Journal, 41, 1336–1361.
71. Skowron-Grabowska, B. (2020). Management of science and technology parks in terms of innovative aspects. Management and Production Engineering Review, 11(4), 56-67.
72. Soomro, B. A., Mangi, S. & Shah, N. (2021). Strategic factors and significance of organizational innovation and organizational learning in organizational performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2), 481-506.
73. Stephens, B., Butler, J. S., Garg, R. & Gibson, D. V. (2019). Austin, Boston, Silicon Valley, and New York: Case studies in the location choices of entrepreneurs in maintaining the technopolis. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 146, 267–280.
74. Stokey, N. L. (2021). Technology diffusion. Review of Economic Dynamics, 42, 15-36.
75. Sundqvist, E. (2023). Demographic challenges in regional development: a study of regional political leadership in Sweden and Finland. Regional & Federal Studies, 33(3), 287-305.
76. Susi, G. (2020). Silicon valley, disruption and the end of uncertainty. Journal of Cultural Economy, 13(2), 169-184.
77. Sutopo, W., Erliza, A., Widiyanto, A., Apriandy, A. A. & Ali, A. (2018). The model of investment promotion policy scheme in science and technology park: a case study of technopolis in Indonesia. Production & Manufacturing Research, 6(1), 308-327.
78. Sutriadi, R. (2016). A communicative city as a preliminary step towards a technopolis agenda. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 227, 623–629.
79. Sutriadi, R., Ramadhan, A. & Vandanu, H. (2017). From social learning to territorial knowledge based development: issues in optimizing technopolis in Cimahi. 20 Ocak 2021 tarihinde https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8288874 adresinden erişildi.
80. Toh, S., Tehseen, S., Mahmoud, A. B., Cheok, J., Grigoriou, N. & Opute, J. (2022). Mission statement effectiveness: investigating managers’ sensemaking role. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 27(2), 329-345.
81. Trunina, A. & Ashourizadeh, S. (2021). Business model-network interactions: comparative case studies from Zhongguancun and Silicon Valley. Technology in Society, 65, 1-10.
82. Tunç, T., Nas, Ş. & Demir, E. E. (2022). Türkiye’de bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri sektörü kapsamında bir girdi-çıktı analizi. Sosyoekonomi, 30(53), 425-445.
83. Tütmez, S. (2021). Mevzuat ve kalkınma planları çerçevesinde teknokent-hukuk ilişkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(2), 154-173.
84. Wdowiarz-Bilska, M. (2018). Technopolis – beyond technology park. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 471, 1-9.
85. Yang, C. & Lee, W. (2021). Establishing science parks everywhere? Misallocation in R&D and its determinants of science parks in China. China Economic Review, 67, 1-18.
86. Zhao, W., Jianhong, L., Tongsheng, L., Wanying, R. & Yang, R. (2021). Spatial heterogeneity of agricultural science and technology parks technology diffusion: a case study of Yangling ASTP. Chinese Geographical Science, 31(4), 629-645.