TEKNOPARKLARIN AR-GE ve YENİLİK FİKİRLERİNE KATKILARI

Öz

TEKNOPARKLARIN AR-GE ve YENİLİK FİKİRLERİNE KATKILARI 

Özet

Bilgi toplumuna dönüşüm ve beraberinde gelen esnek ve yenilikçi üretim süreçleri Ar-Ge ve yenilik fikirlerini üretimin en önemli girdilerinden birisi haline getirmiştir. Bu süreçte teknoparklar Ar-Ge ve yenilik faaliyetlerinin başarılı şekilde hayata geçirildiği kümeler olarak görülmektedir. Bu anlamda, teknoparklardan beklenen katkıların başında, yenilik fikirlerini tetikleyen mekanizmaları ve platformaları içermeleri ve bunları etkin şekilde işletmeleri gelmektedir. Türkiye’de teknoparkların Ar-Ge ve yenilik fikirlerine olan katkısı üzerine bugüne kadar spesifik bir çalışma gerçekleştirilmemiştir. Bu çalışmada teknoparkların Ar-Ge ve yenilik fikirlerinin oluşmasına sağladığı katkı ölçülmektedir. Çalışmada teknoparklardan anket ile toplanan veriler kullanılmış, katkılara ilişkin betimsel istatistiklerin sunulmasının yanı sıra etkilerin girişimci karakteristiklerine göre değişkenliği, endojen açıklayıcı değişkene duyarlı bir yaklaşımla sıralı probit regresyonu yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın en önemli sonucu teknoparkların Ar-Ge ve yenilik fikirlerine ortalamada kayda değer katkılar sağlamış olduğudur. Diğer önemli bulgu ise teknoparklardan tüm alanlarda kadın girişimcilerin erkek girişimcilere göre daha fazla katkı sağlamış olması ve teknoparkın gelişmişlik düzeyi arttıkça olumlu etkilerin yükselmesidir. Diğer taraftan, girişimin başarı düzeyi ile Ar-Ge ve yenilik fikirleri açısından sağlanan faydanın genel olarak ilişkisiz çıkması da ilginç ve düşündürücü bir bulgu olmuştur. Bu çalışma sonucunda aynı zamanda, öncelikle kadın girişimciler ve başarılı girişimciler olmak üzere, girişimcilik ekosistemin diğer temsilcilerin de dahil edileceği nitel bir araştırma yapılması ihtiyacı ortaya çıkmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Ar-Ge, yenilik, fikir, girişimcilik, kadın girişimciliği.

                                                                           CONTRIBUTION OF TECHNOPARKS TO R&D AND INNOVATION IDEAS

Abstract

Transformation to knowledge society and accompanying flexible and innovative production processes made R&D and innovation ideas one of most crucial inputs of production. On this backround, technoparks are regarded as the clusters in which R&D and innovation activities are successfully carried out. Hence, principal benefit expected from a technopark is to incorporate platforms that trigger innovative ideas and to operate them in the most effective manner. There has been no existing specific study regarding the contribution of technoparks on the prolifation of new R&D and innovation ideas. This study aims to evaluate the contribution of technoparks to the formation of new R&D and innovation ideas. Data collected through survey within technoparks was employed in the study. In addition to the detailed demonstration of descriptive statistics of contribution of technoparks, the differentiation of contribution with respect to entrepreneur characteristics is analyzed with a methodology designed to be sensitive to an endogeneous regressor and employing ordered probit regression for estimation. Main finding of the study indicates that on average technoparks have contributed significantly to the formation of R&D and innovation ideas. Other important finding is that female entrepreneurs have benefited significantly more than male entrepreneurs in nearly all of the different mechanisms considered in the study. Positive benefits also increase when the development level of the technopark improves. On the other hand, the success level of the entreprise and the perception of technopark benefits reflected by its entrepreneur in terms of new R&D and innovation ideas are found to be not associated in general, which is again deemed interesting and thougth-provoking. This study at the same time surfaced the requirement for a qualitative study in this framework that focuses on women entrepreneurs and successful entrepreneurs as well as incorporating other stakeholders of entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Keywords: R&D, innovation, idea, technopark, entrepreneurship, women entrepreneurship

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ar-Ge,yenilik,fikir,girişimcilik

Kaynakça

1. Almeida, A., C. Santos Ve M. Rui-Silva. Bridging Science to Economy: The Role of Science and Technologic Parks in Innovation Strategies in “Follower” Regions, FEP Working Papers N.302, Faculdade de Economia, Universidade Do Porto, 2008.
2. Ar, İlker, Murat, (2009) "Teknoparklarda Yerleşik Firmalar İçin Yeniliği Etkileyen Faktörlerin Belirlenmesi ve Yeniliğin Firma Performansına Etkisinin İncelenmesi", Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Artz, K.W., Norman, P.M., Hatfield, D.E. and Cardinal, L.B. (2010) A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of RveD, Patents, and Product Innovation on Firm Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 725–40.
3. Audretsch, D. B. and M. P. Feldman, (1996), R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production, American Economic Review 86(4): 253-273.
4. Audretsch, D.B., ve Keilbach, M., (2005). “The Mobility Of Economic Agents As Conduits Of Knowledge Spillovers”. The Role of Labour Mobility and Informal Networks for Knowledge Transfer, New York.
5. Baer, M. (2012) Putting Creativity to Work: The Implementation of Creative Ideas in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1102–19. Babacan, Muazzez. Dünyada ve Türkiye’de Teknoparklar, (Bilim ve Teknoloji Parkları), İzmir, Dokuz Eylül Yayınları, 1995.
6. Basile, Alessandro. (2011). “Networking System and Innovation Outputs: The Role of Science and Technology Parks”, International Journal of Business and Management, 6, 1, 3-15.
7. Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Postindustrial Society, New York: Basic Books.
8. Bercovitz, J.E.L. ve M.P. Feldman. (2007). “Fishing Upstream: Firm Innovation Strategy and University Research Alliances”. Research Policy, 36, 930-948

9. Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M. and Farr, J. (2009) A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 305–37.
10. Bogers, M., ve Lhuillery, S. (2011). A functional perspective on learning and innovation: Investigating the organization of absorptive capacity. Industry ve Innovation, 18(6).
11. Boschma, R., R. Eriksson and U. Lindgren (2009), “How Does Labour Mobility Affect The Performance of Plants? The Importance of Relatedness and Geographical Proximity”. Journal of Economic Geography, 9 (2), pp.169-190
12. Camisón, C., ve Forés, B. (2010). Knowledge absorptive capacity: New insights for its conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 707–715.
13. Cansız, M. (2016). Türkiye’de Akademik Girişimcilik, Kalkınma Bakanlığı, Ankara.
14. Cansız, M. (2014). Innovative Entrepreneurship of Turkey (Tha case of Turkish Technoparks), Ministry of Development, Ankara.
15. Castells, M. (2005). Enformasyon Çağı, Ekonomi, Toplum ve Kültür, Ağ Toplumunun Yükselişi, Çev: Ebru Kılıç. Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, İstanbul.
16. Chan, K.Y.A., L.A.G. Oerlemans ve M.W. Pretorius (2010). “Knowledge Flows and Innovative Performances of NTBFs in Gauteng, South Africa: An Attempt to Explain Mixed Findings in Science Park Research”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 66, 138-152.
17. Chung, H., W. Ritter Ve N. Sharif. (2011) “The Value of Networks in Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks: An Empirical Study on Network Linkages”, XXVIII IASP World Conference on Science and Technology Parks, , 1-19.
18. Chen, Y. S., Lin, M. J. J., ve Chang, C. H. (2009). The positive effects of relationship learning and absorptive capacity on innovation performance and competitive advantage in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(2), 152–158.
19. Cohen, W. M., ve Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity : A new perspective on learning and innovation.
20. Cooke P (2003) Regional Innovation and Learning Systems, Clusters, and Local and Global Value Chains, in J. Bröcker, D. Dohse, R. Soltwedel (eds.) Innovation Clusters and Interregional Competition, Springer.
21. Coşkun, K., Gülay. (2010) “Teknoloji Transferi”, Teknoloji Yönetimi, Bursa, Dora Yayınları.
22. Çelik, Mehmet. Şirketlerin İnovasyon Yapma Eğiliminde Üniversite Sanayi İşbirliğinin Rolü ve ODTÜ Teknopark Örneği, (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), İstanbul, Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 2011.
23. Drucker, F., P., (1991). “The New Productivity Challenge”. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 69–90.
24. Eren, Hakan. Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Sosyal Yenilikçilik Kapasitelerinin Teknolojik Yenilikçilik Eğilimlerine Etkisini Ölçmeye Yönelik Bir Model Önerisi, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Ankara, KHO Savunma Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2010.
25. Eroğlu, T.Z. (2002) Teknoloji Yönetimi, Teknoparklar ve Teknoparklarla İlgili Görüş ve Beklentiler Üzerine Bir Araştırma (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Gazi Üniversitesi.
26. Etzkowitz, Henry ve L. Leydesdorff. “The Dynamics of Innovation: from National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of University-Industry Government Relations”, Research Policy, 29, 2000, 109-123.
27. Farinelli, F. (2007) “The Awakening of the Sleeping Giant: Export Growth and Technological Catch-up of the Argentine Wine Industry.”, Int. J. of Technology and Globalisation, 2007 Vol.3, No.2/3, pp.179 - 196
28. Feldman, M.P., (1999). “The New Economics of Innovation, Spillovers and Agglomeration: A Review of Empirical Studies”. Econ. Innov. New Technol,8,5–25.
29. Freel, M. (2000). External linkages and product innovation in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship ve Regional Development: An International Journal, 12(3), 245–266.
30. García-Morales, V. J., Ruiz-Moreno, A., ve Llorens-Montes, F. J. (2007). Effects of technology absorptive capacity and technology proactivity on organizational learning, innovation and performance: An empirical examination. Technology Analysis ve Strategic Management, 19(4), 527–558.
31. Gebauer, A., Nam, C. W., ve Parsche, R. (2005). Regional Technology Policy and Factors Shaping Local Innovation Networks in. European Planinng Studies, 13(5). George, J.M. (2007) Creativity in Organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439–77.
32. George, G., Zahra, S. A., ve Wood, D. R. (2002). The effects of business–university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 577–609.
33. Griliches, Z. (1992), ‘The Search for R&D Spillovers’, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94 (Supplement): pp. 29-47
34. Hall, B., Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P., (2010). Measuring the Returns to R&D. In: Hall, B.,
35. Harvey, D. (1997). Postmodenliğin Durumu. Çev: Sungur Savran. Metis Yayınları, İstanbul.
36. Heckman, J. J. (1978) “Dummy endogenous variables in a simultaneous equation system”. Econometrica 46: 931–959.
37. Kang, K. N., ve Park, H. (2012). Influence of government RveD support and inter-firm collaborations on innovation in Korean biotechnology SMEs. Technovation, 32(1), 68-78.
38. Kodama, T. (2008). The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating university–industry linkages—An empirical study of TAMA in Japan. Research Policy, 37(8),1224–1240.
39. Kostopoulos, K., Papalexandris, A., Papachroni, M., ve Ioannou, G. (2011). Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1335–1343.
40. Krishnan, R. T. ve Jha, S. K. (2011). Innovation Strategies in Emerging Markets: What Can We Learn from Indian Market Leaders? ASCI Journal of Management. 41(1), 21 - 45
41. Kumar, K. (2013). Sanayi Sonrası Toplumdan Post-Modern Topluma, Çağdaş Dünyanın Yeni Kuramları. Çev: Mehmet Küçük. Dost Kitapevi, Ankara.
42. Laursen, K. ve Salter, A. (2006). Open for Innovation: The Role of Openness in Explaining Innovation Performance among U.K. Manufacturing Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131-150.
43. Liao, S. H., Fei, W. C., ve Chen, C. C. (2007). Knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity, and innovation capability: An empirical study of Taiwan’s knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of Information Science, 33(3), 340–359.
44. Lindelof, P. ve H. Lofsten. (2004). “Proximity as a Resource Base for Competitive Advantage: University-Industry Links for Technology Transfer”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, , 311-326.
45. Jarvelin, A.M. ve H. Koskela. (2004). “The Role of Science Parks in Developing Company Networks”, Frontiers of e-Business Research, 2, 8, 507-519.
46. Masso, J., vd., (2010). “The İmpact Of İnter Firm And Occupational Mobility On İnnovation: Evidence From Job Search Portal Data”. In: 4th Conferenceon Micro Evidence on Innovation in Developing Economies, Tartu, Estônia.
47. Miranda, A. ve S. Rabe-Hesketh (2006) “Maximum likelihood estimation of endogenous switching and sample selection models for binary, ordinal, and count variables”, Stata Journal, 2006, vol. 6, issue 3, 285-308.
48. Mohannak, K., 2007. Innovation networks and capability building in the Australian high-technology SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(2),.
49. Montoro-Sanchez, A. vd.(2006). “RveD Cooperative Agreements Between Firms and Research Organisations: A Comparative Analysis of the Characteristics and Reasons Depending on the Nature of the Partner”, International Journal of Technology Management, 35, 1, 156–181.
50. Murovec, N., ve Prodan, I. (2009). Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation output: Cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation, 29(12), 859–872.
51. OECD, (2009), Cluster, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, OECD, Paris.
52. OECD, (2012), Entrepreneurship at a Glance, OECD, Paris.
53. Pekol, Özlen. Ulusal İnovasyon Sisteminde Teknoparkların Yeri ve Patent Sistemi Açısından Değerlendirilmesi, (Yayımlanmamış Uzmanlık Tezi), Ankara, Türk Patent Enstitüsü Patent Dairesi Başkanlığı, 2008.
54. Polat, Çağlar. (2007). Assessment of Technology Development Activities in Turkish Technoparks, (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Boğaziçi Üniversitesi,.
55. Powers D. A. (1993) “Endogenous Switching Regression Models with Limited Dependent Variables” Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 22 No 2 pp. 248-273.
56. Reyhanoğlu, Metin. Ar&Ge İşbirliklerinde Güven: Ankara’daki Teknoparklarda Faaliyet Gösteren İşletmelerde Bir Araştırma, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Ankara, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 2006.
57. Quintas, P. (1996). “Evaulating Science Park Linkages”, K. Guy (Ed.), The Science Park Evaulation Handbook, Brighton.
58. Roper, S., Du, J. ve Love, J. H. (2008). Modelling the Innovation Value Chain. Research Policy, 37, 961-977.
59. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60. Siegel, D.S., P. Westhead ve M. Wright. (2003) “Science Parks and The Performance of New Technology Based Firms: A Review of Recent UK Evidence and an Agenda for Future Research”, Small Business Economics, 20, 2, 177-184.
61. Song, J., Almeida, P., Wu, G.,. (2003) “Learning-by-Hiring: When Is Mobility More Likely to Facilitate Interfirm Knowledge Transfer?” Management Science, April, 49 (4), 351–365.
62. Storper, M. ve Venables, A.J., (2005) Buzz: Face-to-Face Contact and the Urban Economy. In Breschi S, Malerba F (eds) Clusters, Networks, and Innovation. Oxford University Pres, p.319-342
63. Tödtling, F., Lehner, P. ve Kaufmann, A. (2009). Do different types of Innovation Rely on Specific Kinds of Knowledge Interactions? Technovation, 29, 59-71. Tsai, M., ve Tsai, C. (2010). Innovation capability and performance in Taiwanese science parks : Explorıng the moderating effects of industrial clusters fabric. The International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 2(4), 80–104.
64. Tuncer, S. (2010) “Türkiye’de ve Dünyada Teknoparklar”, Lebib Yalkın Mevzuat Dergisi, 73,13.
65. Valentín, E. M. (2002). A theoretical review of co-operative relationships between firms and universities. Science and Public Policy, 29,1, pp. 37–46.
66. Vedovello, C. (2000). “Science Parks and University Industry Links: A Comparative Analysis Between a British and a Portuguese Experience”, International Journal Services Technology and Management, 1, 4.
67. Westhead, Paul ve D.J. Storey. (1994). An Assessment of Firms Located On and Off Science Parks in the United Kingdom, London, HMSO.
68. Wilde, J. (2000) “Identification of multiple equation probit models with endogenous dummy regressors”. Economics Letters 69: 309–312.
69. Xie, X. M., Zeng, S. X., ve Tam, C. M. (2010). Overcoming barriers to innovation in SMEs in China: A perspective based cooperation network. Innovation: Management, policy ve practice, 12: 298–310.
70. Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., ve Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181–194.