BÜYÜMEDEN OLGUNLUĞA: TEKNOPARK PERFORMANSINI YENİDEN ÇERÇEVELEMEK

Öz

Bu çalışma, teknoparkların değerlendirilmesinde büyüme odaklı göstergelerin baskınlığını sorgulamakta ve niceliksel genişlemenin ekosistem kalitesini her zaman yansıtmadığını ileri sürmektedir. Bu doğrultuda, politika güdümlü teknoparklarda görünür büyüme ile ekosistemin gerçek gelişimi arasındaki uyumu incelemek için olgunluk odaklı bir değerlendirme çerçevesi geliştirilmiştir. Çalışma, boylamsal tek vaka tasarımına dayanarak gelişmekte olan bir ekonomide faaliyet gösteren olgun bir teknoparkı 2020–2024 dönemi boyunca analiz etmektedir. Analitik yaklaşım, uzman görüşlerine dayalı önceliklendirmeyi çok ölçütlü bir değerlendirme yöntemiyle birleştirmekte ve her yılı ayrı bir alternatif olarak ele almaktadır. Bulguların sağlamlığı, duyarlılık testleri ve simülasyon analizleriyle desteklenmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, belirgin bir “büyüme tuzağına” işaret etmektedir: ölçek göstergeleri düzenli biçimde artarken, ekosistem kalitesindeki gelişim daha yavaş ve düzensiz bir seyir izlemektedir. Uzman değerlendirmeleri de bu durumu desteklemekte; inovasyon derinliği, ticarileştirme kapasitesi, yönetişim kalitesi ve ekosistem sürekliliği gibi boyutlar ön plana çıkarken, firma sayısı ve finansal büyüklük daha ikincil bir rol oynamaktadır. Bu çerçevede çalışma, teknopark performansını yalnızca büyüklük üzerinden değil, olgunluk öncelikleriyle uyum düzeyi üzerinden ele almayı önererek hem kavramsal hem de uygulamaya yönelik katkılar sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teknopark Performansı
• Sürdürülebilir Girişimcilik
• AHP
• TOPSIS
• İnovasyon Politikası

FROM GROWTH TO MATURITY: REFRAMING TECHNOLOGY PARK PERFORMANCE

Öz

This study questions the dominance of growth-oriented indicators in the evaluation of technology parks and argues that quantitative expansion does not invariably reflect ecosystem quality. To this end, it develops a maturity-focused evaluation framework for examining the alignment between visible growth and the actual development of the ecosystem in policy-driven technology parks. Drawing on a longitudinal single-case design, the study analyzes a mature technology park operating in an emerging economy across the 2020–2024 period. The analytical approach combines expert-based prioritization with a multi-criteria evaluation method, treating each year as a separate alternative. The robustness of the findings is supported by sensitivity testing and simulation analyses. The results point to a clear "growth trap": while scale indicators rise steadily, improvements in ecosystem quality follow a slower and more uneven trajectory. Expert assessments reinforce this picture, foregrounding dimensions such as innovation depth, commercialization capacity, governance quality, and ecosystem continuity, while assigning a more secondary role to firm count and financial size. Within this framing, the study proposes that technology park performance be assessed not by size alone but by the degree of alignment with maturity priorities, offering both conceptual and practical contributions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Technology Park Performance
• Sustainable Entrepreneurship
• AHP
• TOPSIS
• Innovation Policy

Kaynakça

1. Albahari, A., Barge-Gil, A., Pérez-Canto, S., & Landoni, P. (2023). The effect of science and technology parks on tenant firms: a literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48(4), 1489-1531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09949-7
2. Arslan, N., & Belgin, Ö. (2021). Efficiency analysis of science and technology parks using data envelopment analysis: Evidence from Turkey. Politeknik Dergisi, 24(4), 1667-1674. https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.649833
3. Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: establishing the framework conditions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), 1030-1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9473-8
4. Audretsch, D. B., Belitski, M., Eichler, G. M., & Schwarz, E. (2024). Entrepreneurial ecosystems, institutional quality, and the unexpected role of the sustainability orientation of entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 62(2), 503-522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00763-5
5. Autio, E., Komlósi, É., Szerb, L., Galambosné Tiszberger, M., Park, D., & Jinjarak, Y. (2025). Digital entrepreneurship landscapes in developing Asia. European Journal of Innovation Management, 28(7), 2845-2872. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2024-0121
6. Belfanti, F., Riva, M., & Alberti, F. G. (2025). The Next Catch: spotting surging entrepreneurial ecosystems. European Planning Studies, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2025.2597248
7. Brown, R., & Mawson, S. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and public policy in action. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 12(3), 347-368. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsz011
8. Buratti, M., & Menter, M. (2025). The resilience of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Review of Managerial Science, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-025-00934-6

9. Cadorin, E., Klofsten, M., & Löfsten, H. (2021). Science Parks, talent attraction and stakeholder involvement: an international study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09753-w
10. Campanella, F., Della Peruta, M. R., Bresciani, S., & Dezi, L. (2017). Quadruple Helix and firms' performance: an empirical verification in Europe. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(2), 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9500-9
11. Cao, Z., & Shi, X. (2021). A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies. Small Business Economics, 57(1), 75-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00326-y
12. Coad, A., Domnick, C., Santoleri, P., & Srhoj, S. (2025). Does Africa need entrepreneurial ecosystems thinking? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-025-10213-x
13. Cobben, D., Ooms, W., Roijakkers, N., & Radziwon, A. (2022). Ecosystem types: A systematic review on boundaries and goals. Journal of Business Research, 142, 138-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.046
14. Cosenz, F., Noto, G., & Cavallo, A. (2023). Understanding the microfoundations of entrepreneurial ecosystems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 7298-7310. 10.1109/TEM.2023.3275097
15. da Silva, D. J. C., de Oliveira Gibbon, A. R., Teixeira, C. S., Huerta, J. M. P., da Veiga, C. P., & Lopes, L. F. D. (2023). Defining indicators for performance evaluation in science and technology parks. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 51(3), 77-92. 10.1109/EMR.2023.3279933
16. Dedehayir, O., Mäkinen, S. J., & Ortt, J. R. (2018). Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: A literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.028
17. Eckardt, F. (2017). The multidimensional role of science parks in attracting international knowledge migrants. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 4(1), 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2017.1383181
18. Eveleens, C. P., van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Niesten, E. M. (2017). How network-based incubation helps start-up performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(3), 676-713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9510-7
19. Fatemi, M., Khazdoozi, L., Afshari-Mofrad, M., Safavi, G., & Ghazinoory, S. (2025). Drivers of maturity in Iranian technology parks. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-07-2025-0222
20. Flego, C., & Tei, A. (2025). Innovation Hub Drivers and Activities: A Desktop Assessment for Sustainability. Sustainability, 17(17), 7963. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177963
21. Frimanslund, T., Kwiatkowski, G., & Oklevik, O. (2023). The role of finance in the literature of entrepreneurial ecosystems. European Planning Studies, 31(2), 372-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2055962
22. Germain, E., Klofsten, M., Löfsten, H., & Mian, S. (2023). Science parks as key players in entrepreneurial ecosystems. R&D Management, 53(4), 603-619. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12536
23. Germain-Alamartine, E., & Moghadam-Saman, S. (2020). Aligning doctoral education with local industrial employers' needs. European Planning Studies, 28(2), 234-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1637401
24. Grabher, G. (1991). Rebuilding Cathedrals in the desert: new patterns of cooperation between large and small firms in the coal, iron, and steel complex of the German Ruhr area. Regions reconsidered. Economic networks, innovation, and local development in industrialized countries., 59-78.
25. Hähnlein, J., Baum, M., & Durst, C. (2025). Giving something back: how reciprocal motivation drives entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-025-01110-6
26. Hess, S., Wahl, A., & Johnson, A. R. (2025). Measuring entrepreneurial ecosystems across levels: a district approach. Small Business Economics, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-025-01041-2
27. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3
28. Jütting, M. (2020). Exploring mission-oriented innovation ecosystems for sustainability. Sustainability, 12(16), 6677. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166677
29. Khurana, I., & Dutta, D. K. (2024). From place to space: The emergence and evolution of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems in smart cities. Small Business Economics, 62(2), 541-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00765-3
30. Klofsten, M., Löfsten, H., & Albahari, A. (2025). A typology approach to understanding the diversity of Science Parks. Technovation, 145, 103267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2025.103267
31. Leendertse, J., Schrijvers, M., & Stam, E. (2022). Measure twice, cut once: Entrepreneurial ecosystem metrics. Research Policy, 51(9), 104336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-025-01040-3
32. Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Nor, K., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., & Valipour, A. (2015). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 28(1), 516-571. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139
33. Mian, S., Lamine, W., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Technology Business Incubation: An overview of the state of knowledge. Technovation, 50, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.00
34. Mimi, Z. H. O. U., Ting, Y. A. N. G., Zhiqiang, W. U., & Shiqi, Z. H. O. U. (2025). Innovation districts: A bibliometric-systematic literature review. Sustainable Futures, 10, 101290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.101290
35. MohammadEbrahimzadeh, S., Khajeheian, D., Arbatani, T. R., Labafi, S., & Sepasgozar, S. (2025). Sustainable Knowledge-Based Enterprise Products Using AI-Powered Social Media. Sustainability, 17(18), 8427. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188427
36. Naudé, W. (2025). The African entrepreneurial ecosystem index. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-025-10208-8
37. Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool. Information & Management, 42(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002
38. Pardo-del-Val, M., Cerver-Romero, E., Martinez-Perez, J. F., & Mohedano-Suanes, A. (2025). From startup to scaleup: Public policies for emerging entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 16(2), 7874-7907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02175-6
39. Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3), 267-292. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.3.267
40. Pittz, T. G. (2024). Ballasts of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Technovation, 138, 103113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2024.103113
41. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press.
42. Ramírez-Alesón, M., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2018). Unravelling the effects of Science Parks on the innovation performance of NTBFs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(2), 482-505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9559-y
43. Rizvi, S. A. A., Buciuni, G., & Ryan, P. (2025). Multinational enterprise spillover mechanisms in the genesis and evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-025-01043-0
44. Rubinstein, R. Y., & Kroese, D. P. (2016). Simulation and the Monte Carlo method. John Wiley & Sons. DOI:10.1002/9781118631980
45. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
46. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
47. Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., et al. (2008). Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. John Wiley & Sons. DOI:10.1002/9780470725184
48. Sandoval Hamón, L. A., Ruiz Peñalver, S. M., Thomas, E., & Fitjar, R. D. (2024). From high-tech clusters to open innovation ecosystems. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 49(2), 689-714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09990-6
49. Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294-308. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290731307
50. Sohail, K., Belitski, M., & Christiansen, L. C. (2023). Developing business incubation process frameworks. Journal of Business Research, 162, 113902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113902
51. Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167
52. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759-1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484
53. Stam, E., & Van de Ven, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics, 56(2), 809-832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6
54. Stam, E., Theodoraki, C., Bosma, N., Chabaud, D., & Guéneau, G. (2025). Opening entrepreneurial ecosystem black boxes. Small Business Economics, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-025-01037-y
55. Thai, Q. H., Mai, K. N., & Do, T. T. (2023). An evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystem studies. Sage Open, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231153060
56. Theodoraki, C. (2024). Building entrepreneurial ecosystems sustainably. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 20(4), 384-480. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000128
57. Ünlü, H., Temel, S., & Miller, K. (2023). Understanding the drivers of patent performance of University Science Parks in Turkey. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48(3), 842-872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09929-x
58. Vera, P. A. (2026). From world exposition to global innovation ecosystem: recycling a mega-event’s legacy at Cartuja Science and Technology Park (1993-2025). Journal of Evolutionary Studies in Business. https://doi.org/10.1344/jesb.52937
59. Volkmann, C., Fichter, K., Klofsten, M., & Audretsch, D. B. (2021). Sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: An emerging field of research. Small Business Economics, 56(3), 1047-1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00253-7
60. von Bloh, J. (2021). The road to evidence based applicable policies for regional entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 10(1), 59-77. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-08-2020-0060
61. Xie, K., Song, Y., Zhang, W., Hao, J., Liu, Z., & Chen, Y. (2018). Technological entrepreneurship in science parks: A case study of Wuhan Donghu High-Tech Zone. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 135, 156-168. 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.021
62. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: design and methods. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.
63. Zapolskytė, S., Vabuolytė, V., Burinskienė, M., & Antuchevičienė, J. (2020). Assessment of sustainable mobility by MCDM methods in the science and technology parks of Vilnius, Lithuania. Sustainability, 12(23), 9947. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239947