BİLGİ İŞLEME YETENEKLERİNİN İNOVASYON PERFORMANSINA ETKİSİ: AR-GE MERKEZLERİ ÜZERİNE AMPİRİK BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 4, 291 - 299, 31.12.2021

Esin Sayin Yesıldal Rifat Kamasak

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2021.1473

Abstract

Amaç- Bu araştırmanın amacı Ar-Ge merkezleri özelinde işletmelerin bilgi işleme yetenekleri ile inovasyon performansı arasındaki ilişkinin
ampirik olarak incelenmesidir. Araştırma bulgularının işletmelerde inovasyon performansının arttırılmasına yönelik pratik öneriler sunması
yanında literatüre de katkı sağlaması beklenmektedir.
Metodoloji- Türkiye’de Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı tarafından onaylanmış 145 Ar-Ge merkezi yöneticisi tarafından yanıtlanan anket yöntemi
ile veri toplanmıştır. Veri seti önce açıklayıcı faktör analizine tabi tutulmuş ve bağımsız değişken bilgi işleme yetenekleri, bilgiyi absorbe
edebilme ve bilgiyi uygulayabilme olarak adlandırılan iki faktör altında toplanmıştır. Bu iki faktör modele dahil edilirken, değişkenler arasındaki
ilişkinin değerlendirilmesi için regresyon analizleri kullanılmıştır.
Bulgular- Bilgi işleme yeteneklerinin inovasyon performansının öncülleri arasında yer aldığı iddia edilmektedir. Bu doğrultuda işletmelerin
bilgi işleme yetenekleri ile inovasyon performansı arasında anlamlı ve pozitif ilişkilerin varlığı tespit edilmiştir. Kısacası, bilgi işleme
yeteneklerini daha fazla geliştiren işletmelerin daha yüksek inovasyon performansı yarattığı ortaya çıkmıştır.
Sonuç- İnovasyon performansının arttırılabilmesi için Ar-Ge merkezlerinin insan kaynakları politikaları, bilgi odaklı yönetici-lider tarzları,
organizasyonel yapılarda esneklik, takım çalışması ve sürekli öğrenme gibi araç ve mekanizmalarla desteklenmesi önerilmektedir. Ayrıca,
işletmelerin yaratıcı ve yenilikçi performanslarını üst düzeye çıkarabilmelerinin, kolay ve verimli bilgi edinme, aktarma ve uygulamayı
kolaylaştıran sağlam bilgi sistemlerine bağlı olduğu ifade edilmektedir.

Keywords

Bilgi işleme yetenekleri, dinamik yetenekler, inovasyon performansı, Ar-Ge merkezleri, regresyon analizi

THE IMPACT OF KNOWLEDGE PROCESS CAPABILITIES ON INNOVATION PERFORMANCE: AN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON R&D CENTERS

Abstract

Purpose- The purpose of this research is to investigate the impact of knowledge process capabilities on firms’ innovation performance
through an empirical study that was carried out on a sample of firms’ R&D centers. It is expected that the findings will offer practical
implications to firms as well providing valuable insights to the academic literature.
Methodology- The data which were collected by a survey from officially approved 145 R&D centers of firms which operate across various
industries in Turkey, were analyzed. The explaratory factor analysis yielded two factors that were knowledge absorption and knowledge
implementation. The two factors were entered to the model and the impact of knowledge process capabilities on innovation performance
was investigated by multiple regression analysis.
Findings- Knowledge process capabilities are highly associated with innovation performance and knowledge processing is suggested as a
predictor of innovation. In line, the results revealed a significant and positive relationship between knowledge process capabilities and firms’
innovation performance. Namely, firms which developed better capabilities in processing knowledge could innovate better.
Conclusion- In order to increase innovativeness and and innovation-related performance of firms, several tools and mechanisms such as HR
policies, leadership styles, flexibility in organizational architecturing, teamwork and continuous learning and training activities were
suggested. Moreover, some improvements on the knowledge-related capabilities such as knowledge creation, sharing and implementation
were advised.

Keywords

Knowledge process capabilities, dynamic capabilities, innovation performance, R&D centers, regression analysis

References

• Acharya, C., Ojha, D., Gokhale, R., Patel, P.C., (2022). Managing information for innovation using knowledge integration capability: The role of boundary spanning objects. International Journal of Information Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102438.
• Adams, R., Bessant, J., Phelps, R., (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 21–47.
• Alavi, M., Leidner, D.E., (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.
• Berchicci, L., (2013). Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy, 42(1), 117–127.
• Braojos, J., Benitez, J., Llorens, J., Ruiz, L., (2020). Impact of IT integration on the firm’s knowledge absorption and desorption. Information Management, 57(7), 1–17.
• Bulutlar, F., Kamaşak, R., (2008). The relationship between organizational communication and job satisfaction: An empirical study on the blue collar workers. Dumlupınar University Journal of Social Sciences, 22(4), 129–142.
• Cebeci, C., Kamaşak, R., (2021). Sosyal zekâ ve içsel motivasyonun Ar-Ge performansına etkisi: Ar-Ge merkezleri çalışanları üzerine bir araştırma. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 47–66.
• Chen, Y., Luo, H., Chen, J., Guo, Y., (2022). Building data-driven dynamic capabilities to arrest knowledge hiding: A knowledge management perspective. Journal of Business Research, 139(C), 1138–1154.
• Donate, M.J., de Pablo, S.J.D., (2015). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge management practices and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 360–370.
• Easterby-Smith, M., Araujo, L., Burgoyne, J., (1999). Organizational learning and the learning organization: Developments in theory and practice. SAGE, London, UK.
• Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M.A., (eds.), (2003). The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management. Blackwell, Malden, MA.
• Ermine, J.-L., (2018). Knowledge management. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
• Gibson, C.B., Birkinshaw, J., (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
• Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A., Segars, A.H., (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214.
• Gonzalez, R.V.D., (2021). Innovative performance of project teams: The role of organizational structure and knowledge-based dynamic capability. Journal of Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2021-0259.
• Grant, R.M., (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387.
• Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Henttonen, K., Lehtimäki, H., (2017). Open innovation in SMEs: Collaboration modes and strategies for commercialization in technologyintensive companies in forestry industry. European Journal of Innovation Management, 20(2), 329–347.
• Jansen, J.J.P., Vera, D., Crossan, M., (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 5–18.
• Jantunen, A., (2005). Knowledge‐processing capabilities and innovative performance: An empirical study. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(3), 336–349.
• Joshi, A., Benitez, J., Huygh, T., Ruiz, L., De Haes, S., (2021). Impact of IT governance process capability on business performance: Theory and empirical evidence, Decision Support Systems, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113668.
• Kamaşak, R., (2011). Firm specific versus industry structure factors in explaining performance variation: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Management Research Review, 34(10), 1125–1146.
• Kamaşak, R., Yavuz, M., Altuntas, G., (2016a). Is the relationship between innovation performance and knowledge management contingent on environmental dynamism and learning capability? Evidence from a high turbulent market. Business Research, 9(2), 229–253.
• Kamaşak, R., Yavuz, M., Karagulle, O., Ağca, T., (2016b). Importance of strategic flexibility on the knowledge and innovation relationship: An emerging market study. International Conference on Management and Information Technology, 11 December, Istanbul, Turkey, (Elsevier Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 229C, pp. 126–132).
• Kamaşak, R., Yozgat, U., Yavuz, M., (2017a). Knowledge process capabilities and innovation: Testing the moderating effects of environmental dynamism and strategic flexibility. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15(3), 356–368.
• Kamaşak, R., Yavuz, M., Özturk, T.Y., (2017b). Reducing risk through strategic flexibility and implementation leadership in high-velocity markets. In: Hacioglu, U., Dincer, H. and Alayoglu, N. (eds.), Global Business Strategies in Crisis: Strategic Thinking and Development (pp. 273– 286). Springer, Cham, Switzerland.
• Kamaşak, R., (2008). The impact of communication climate and job satisfaction in employees’ external prestige perceptions. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 15(2), 133–144.
• Kamaşak, R., (2012). Knowledge management practice assessment and the relationship between knowledge management practices and organizational strategy development: Empirical evidence from Turkey. In: Hou, H-T. (ed.), New Research on Knowledge Management Applications and Lessons Learned (pp. 35–46). InTech Publications, Rijeka, Croatia.
• Kamaşak, R., (2013). Resource-based view (RBV) in all its aspects. Scholars’ Press Publishing, Halberg, Germany.
• Kamaşak, R., (2014). Another attempt to look inside the ‘black box’ of performance creation: A case study approach. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 4(7), 1–16.
• Kamaşak, R., (2015a). Creation of firm performance through resource orchestration: The case of Ülker. Competitiveness Review, 25(2), 179– 204.
• Kamaşak, R. (2015b). Determinants of innovation performance: A resource-based study. World Conference on Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 28–30 May, Istanbul, Turkey, (Elsevier Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 195C, pp. 1330–1337).
• Kamaşak, R., (2017). The contribution of tangible and intangible resources, and capabilities to a firm’s profitability and market performance. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 26(2), 252–275.
• Kamaşak, R., Bulutlar, F., (2010). The influence of knowledge sharing on innovation. European Business Review, 22(3), 306–317.
• Kamaşak, R., Cansever, C., (2019). The predictors of sustained competitive advantage: A study of the Turkish leasing industry. 21st Budapest Internatıonal Conference on Law, Business, Gender and Interdisciplinary Studies, 22–24 July, Budapest, Hungary, (Proceedings, pp. 1–5).
• Kamaşak, R., James, S.R., Yavuz, M., (2019). The interplay of corporate social responsibility and corporate political activity in emerging markets: The role of strategic flexibility in nonmarket strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(3), 305–320.
• Kamaşak, R., Yavuz, M., (2016). The use of business processes as a source of competitive advantage: Evidence from a high velocity market. Marmara Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 28(S1), 28–33.
• Kamaşak, R., Yozgat, U., (2013). Industrial factors, unique resources and performance relationship: A study on service and manufacturing firms. Journal of Akdeniz University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 27(2), 114–136.
• Kamaşak, R., Yücelen, M., (2010). The relationship between knowledge assets and organizational strategy development. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 2(2), 65–72.
• Kang, K.H., Kang, J., (2014). Do External knowledge sourcing modes matter for service innovation? Empirical evidence from South Korean service firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(1), 176–191.
• Kogut, B., (200). The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 405– 425.
• Kraaijenbrink, J., (2012). Integrating knowledge and knowledge processes: A critical incident study of product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6), 1082–1096.
• Lee, J.-S., Park, J.-H., Bae, Z.-T., (2017). The effects of licensing-in on innovative performance in different technological regimes. Research Policy, 46(2), 485–496.
• Long, D.D., (1997). Building the knowledge-based organization: How culture drives knowledge behaviors. Ernst & Young Center for Business Innovation, Working Paper, Boston 1.
• Marsh, S.J., Stock, G.N., (2006). Creating dynamic capability: The role of intertemporal integration, knowledge retention, and interpretation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(5), 422–436.
• McDowell, W.C., Peake, W.O., Coder, L., Harris, M.L., (2018). Building small firm performance through intellectual capital development: Exploring innovation as the “black box”. Journal of Business Research, 88(C), 321–327.
• Mol, M., Birkinshaw, J.M., (2014). The role of external involvement in the creation of management innovations. Organization Studies, 35(9), 1287-1312.
• Monteiro, F., Birkinshaw, J., (2017). The external knowledge sourcing process in multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), 342–362.
• Mostafiz, M.I., Hughes, M., Sambasivan, M., (2021). Entrepreneurial orientation, competitive advantage and strategic knowledge management capability in Malaysian family firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-09-2020-0693.
• Nonaka, I., (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.
• Parrilli, M.D., Elola, A., (2012). The strength of science and technology drivers for SME innovation. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 897–907.
• Pınar, İ., Kamaşak, R., Bulutlar, F., (2010). The relationship between command and enforced choice strategy development processes and innovativeness. Öneri – Journal of Marmara University Institute of Social Sciences, 9(33), 11–16.
• Polanyi, M., (1962). Tacit knowing: Its bearing on some problems of philosophy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 34(4), 601–616.
• Polanyi, M., (1966). The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy, 41(1), 1–18.
• Polanyi, M., Prosch, H., (1975). Meaning. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
• Sanayi Bakanlığı, (2021). Ar-Ge merkezleri, https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/istatistikler/istatistiki-bilgiler/mi0203011502.
• Savino, T., Petruzzelli, M. A., Albino, V., (2017). Search and recombination process to innovate: A review of the empirical evidence and a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 54–75.
• Tanriverdi, H., (2005). Information technology relatedness, knowledge management capability, and performance of multibusiness firms. MIS Quarterly 29(2), 311–334.
• Teece, D.J., (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55–79.
• Teece, D.J., (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities, Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49.
• Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. Tulgan, B., Martin, C.A., (2001). Managing generation Y: Global citizens born in the late seventies and early eighties. HRD Press, Amherst, Mass.
• Turulja, L., Bajgoric, N., (2018). Knowledge acquisition, knowledge application, and innovation towards the ability to adapt to change. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(2), 1–15.
• Wei, Z., Yi, Y., Guo, H., (2014). Organisational learning, ambidexterity, strategic flexibility, and new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 832–847.
• Wu, I.-L., Chen, J.-L., (2014). Knowledge management driven firm performance: the roles of business process capabilities and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(6), 1141–1164.
• Yayavaram, S., Chen. W.R., (2015). Changes in firm knowledge couplings and firm innovation performance: The moderating role of technological complexity. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 377–396.
• Zahra, S.A., Neubaum, D.O., Larraneta, B., (2007). Knowledge sharing and technological capabilities: the moderating role of family involvement. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1070–1079.
• Zaim, H., (2010). Knowledge management infrastructure and knowledge management performance: A field study in Turkey. Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları Dergisi, 59(1), 51–67.
• Zander, U., Kogut, B., (1995). Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6(1), 76–92.
• Zollo, M., Winter, S.G., (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.
• Zott, C., (2003). Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm performance: Insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal, 24(2), 97–125.