Antecedents and consequences of knowledge collaboration: The example of technopark

Öz

Technopark is a R&D, innovation and entrepreneurship center where innovative ideas are transformed into products, different areas of expertise intersect, and a strong synergy is established between university and industry. Technoparks bring together initiatives that have the capacity to transform scientific research into innovative products by designing them, thus providing an ideal ecosystem for sustainable development and increasing competitiveness. In this context, the study aims to determine the antecedents and consequences of technoparks and to identify the steps to be taken to encourage knowledge collaboration activities in technoparks. For this purpose, online interviews were conducted with 30 different technopark managers operating in Turkey using the semi-structured interview method, which is one of the qualitative research methods. The interview records obtained during the interviews were analyzed using the Maxqda program. According to the results of the analyses, the antecedents and consequences of knowledge collaborations were determined. At the same time, suggestions were made regarding the steps to be taken to encourage knowledge collaborations for both companies and technoparks.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Knowledge Collaboration
• Technopark
• Technology Transfer
• Research and Development
• University-Industry Collaboration

Bilgi işbirliğinin öncülleri ve sonuçları: Teknopark örneği

Öz

Teknopark, inovatif fikirlerin ürünlere dönüştüğü, farklı uzmanlık alanlarının kesiştiği, üniversite-sanayi arasında güçlü bir sinerjinin sağlandığı ar-ge, inovasyon ve girişimcilik merkezidir. Teknoparklar bilimsel araştırmaları projelendirerek yenilikçi ürünlere dönüştürme kapasitesine sahip girişimleri bir araya getirerek, sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve rekabet gücünü artırmak için ideal bir ekosistem sunmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışma teknoparkların öncüllerinin ve sonuçlarının belirmesini, teknoparklarda bilgi işbirliği faaliyetlerinin teşvik edilmesi için atılması gereken adımların tespit edilmesini amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden olan yarı-yapılandırılmış mülakat yöntemiyle Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren 30 farklı teknopark yöneticisi ile çevrimiçi görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Mülakat görüşmeleri esnasında alınan görüşme kayıtları Maxqda programı aracılığıyla analiz edilmiştir. Yapılan analizlerin sonuçlarına göre, bilgi işbirliklerinin öncülleri ve sonuçları tespit edilmiştir. Aynı zamanda hem firmalar, hem de teknoparklar için bilgi işbirliklerini teşvik etmek adına atılması gereken adımlarla ilgili önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilgi İşbirliği
• Teknopark
• Teknoloji Transferi
• Araştırma Geliştirme
• Üniversite Sanayi İşbirliği

Kaynakça

1. Balle, A. R., Oliveira, M., & Curado, C. M. M. (2020). Knowledge sharing and absorptive capacity: Interdependency and complementarity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(8), 1943–1964. [CrossRef]
2. 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, 1138–1154. [CrossRef]
3. Christensen, P. H. (2007). Knowledge sharing: Moving away from the obsession with best practices. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(1), 36–47. [CrossRef]
4. De Bem Machado, A., Secinaro, S., Calandra, D., & Lanzalonga, F. (2022). Knowledge management and digital transformation for Industry 4.0: A structured literature review. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(2), 320–338. [CrossRef]
5. Drucker, P. F. (1993). The rise of the knowledge society. The Wilson Quarterly, 17(2), 52–72. [CrossRef] Gonzalez, R. V. D., & Martins, M. F. (2017). Knowledge management process: A theoretical-conceptual research. Gestão & Produção, 24, 248–265. [CrossRef]
6. Grafström, M., Jonsson, A., & Klintman, M. (2023). Embracing the academic–practice gap: Knowledge collaboration and the role of institutional knotting. Management Learning, 13505076231213056. [CrossRef]
7. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122. [CrossRef]
8. Groff, T. R., & Jones, T. P. (2003). Introduction to knowledge management: KM in business. Routledge. Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711–739. [CrossRef]

9. Horng, J. S., Liu, C. H., Chou, S. F., Yu, T. Y., & Hu, D. C. (2022). Role of big data capabilities in enhancing competitive advantage and performance in the hospitality sector: Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities view. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 51, 22–38. [CrossRef]
10. Islam, T., Ahmed, I., Usman, A., & Ali, M. (2021). Abusive supervision and knowledge hiding: The moderating role of future orientation and Islamic work ethics. Management Research Review, 44(12), 1565–1582.
11. Karlenzig, W., & Hawken, P. (2007). How green is your city? The SustainLane U.S. city rankings. New Society Publishers.
12. Kyoung-Joo, L., & Eun-Young, K. (2018). A leadership competency model of science and technology parks: The case of Chungbuk Techno Park in Korea. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 13(4), 105–114. [CrossRef]
13. McCabe, A., Osegowitsch, T., Parker, R., & Cox, S. (2021). Knowledge co-production in academic-practitioner research collaboration: An expanded perspective on power. Management Learning, 52(5), 604–629. [CrossRef]
14. Miller, T. R., Baird, T. D., Littlefield, C. M., Kofinas, G., Chapin III, F. S., & Redman, C. L. (2008). Epistemological pluralism: Reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 46. [CrossRef]
15. Mohanty, R. P. (2003). Towards knowledge management: A case study. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 2(3), 197–213. [CrossRef]
16. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. [CrossRef]
17. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press. [CrossRef]
18. Phillimore, J. (1999). Beyond the linear view of innovation in science park evaluation An analysis of Western Australian Technology Park. Technovation, 19(11), 673–680. [CrossRef]
19. Schultze, U., & Leidner, D. E. (2002). Studying knowledge management in information systems research: Discourses and theoretical assumptions. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 213–242. [CrossRef]
20. Sher, P. J., & Lee, V. C. (2004). Information technology as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic capabilities through knowledge management. Information & Management, 41(8), 933–945. [CrossRef] Spender, J. C., & Grant, R. M. (1996). Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 5–9. [CrossRef]
21. 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 and Social Change, 146, 267–280. [CrossRef]
22. T.C. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı - Ar-Ge Teşvikleri Genel Müdürlüğü. (2024, November 02). TGB’leri Ekim 2024 İstatistikleri. https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/istatistikler/istatistiki-bilgiler/mi0203011501 [Turkish]
23. Vásquez-Urriago, Á. R., Barge-Gil, A., & Rico, A. M. (2016). Science and technology parks and cooperation for innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Research Policy, 45(1), 137–147. [CrossRef]
24. Yeboah, A. (2023). Knowledge sharing in organization: A systematic review. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1), 2195027. [CrossRef]
25. Zou, Y., & Zhao, W. (2014). Anatomy of Tsinghua University Science Park in China: Institutional evolution and assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(5), 663–674. [CrossRef]