Evaluation of science and technology parks of selected countries with partner selection approach
Subject Areas : General
mohammadreza rostamkhani
1
,
Parastoo Mohammadi
2
1 - Master of Financial Engineering, Faculty of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Assistant Professor, Faculty of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: TOPSIS, DEMATELT, Analytical Hierarchy Process, Science and technology park, Partner selection approach ,
Abstract :
Which of the existing science and technology parks in the world are the most suitable options for creating international interaction? This article tries to find the answer to this question for one of the university parks in Iran using the partner selection approach. In order to limit the scope of the evaluation of the existing parks in the world, first, 20 countries that have made up 90% of Iran's foreign trade volume in the past 5 years have been identified, then based on the needs assessment of the firms located in the studied science and technology park that have the capacity and the willingness of international cooperation, the countries under review were ranked from six aspects like as: economic, political, cultural, security, technological and geographical criteria and in 13 sub-criteria using the combined method of The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and TOPSIS . Seven countries with a significant score among 20 countries were selected as samples to evaluate their science and technology parks. 19 well-known parks in these 7 countries were scored and ranked using 12 criteria, from the perspective of people involved in park affairs, and with the combined method of AHP and TOPSIS. As a result of this ranking, the following parks were identified as a higher priority for cooperation: Dubai Silicon Oasis Park, Tsinghua University Science Park in China, Teknopark İstanbul, Sharjah Research, Technology and Innovation Park, Dubai Science Park, Knowledge Oasis Muscat (Madaen).
1. Argyris C., Schön, D. A., 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. No. 77/78. 345-348.
2. Basole Rahul C., 2016. Topological analysis and visualization of interfirm collaboration networks in the electronics industry. Decision Support Systems, Vol. 83, pp.22-31.
3. Barnes David, Wua Chong. 2011. literature review of decision-making models and approaches for partner selection in agile supply chains. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management. Vol. 17, Issue 4, 256–274.
4. Buono A., 1997. Enhancing strategic partnerships, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 10, pp.251–266.
5. Che Z.H., 2010. A two-phase hybrid approach to supplier selection through cluster analysis with multiple dimensions. International Journal of Innovative Computing Information and Control Vol. 6(9), 4093–4111.
6. Cravens K., Piercy N. and Cravens D. 2000. Assessing the performance of strategic alliances: matching metrics to strategies, European Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.529–541.
7. Dacin M. T., Hitt M. A., Levitas E. 1997. Selecting partners for successful international alliances: Examination of U.S. and Korean Firms. Journal of World Business, Vol. 32(1), 3-16.
8. Dacin M.T., Oliver C. and Roy J. 2007 The legitimacy of strategic alliances: an institutional perspective, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp.169–187.
9. Das, T. K., He, I. Y., 2006. Entrepreneurial firms in search of established partners: Review and recommendations. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 12(3), 114-143.
10. Das T. K., Kumar R., 2011. Regulatory focus and opportunism in the alliance development processs. Journal of Management, Vol. 37(3), 682-708.
11. DeBoer L., Labro E., Morlacchi P., 2001. A review of methods supporting supplier selection. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. Vol. 7, 75–89.
12. DeJong Gjalt, 2013. Innovation and new partner selection: theory and exploratory evidence from the ICT sector in the Netherlands. In book: Managing Knowledge in Strategic Alliances pp.207-231.
13. DeJong, Nooteboom. 2000. The causal structure of long-term supply relationships. An empirical test of a generalized transaction cost theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Vol. 73. 1-33.
14. Duysters Geert, DeMan Ard-Pieter. 2011 ‘The partner selection process: steps, effectiveness, governance’, Int. J. Strategic Business Alliances, Vol. 2, Nos. 1/2, pp.7–25.
15. UN. ESCWA. 2018. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia : report of the 30th session, United Nations.
16. Eslami Nosratabadi Hamid, Pourdarab Sanaz, Abbasian Mohammad. 2011. Evaluation Of Science And Technology Parks By Using Fuzzy Expert System, Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science. Vol .2 No.4. 594-606.
17. Wei Fenfen, Feng Nanping, Yang Shanlin, Zhao Qinna. 2020. A conceptual framework of two-stage partner selection in platformbased innovation ecosystems for servitization. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol. 262, 1-16.
18. Guan JianCheng, Zuo KaiRui, Chen KaiHua, KaiHua, Yam Richard C.M. 2016. Does country-level R&D efficiency benefit from the collaborationnetwork structure?. Research Policy, Vol. 45, Issue 4, Pages 770-784.
19. Gulati Ranjay, Nohria Nitin, Zaheer Akbar. 2000. Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21(3), 203-215.
20. Henriques Iago Cotrim, Sobreiro Vinicius Amorim, Kimura Herbert. 2018. Science and technology park: Future challenges. Technology in Society. Vol. 53. 144-160.
21. Herzog Philipp. 2011. Open and Closed Innovation: Different Cultures for Different Strategies. Edition 2 illustrated, Springer Science & Business Media, 265 pages.
22. Hsu Chao-Che, Liou James J.H., Chuang Yen-Ching. 2013. Integrating DANP and modified grey relation theory for the selection of an outsourcing provider. Expert systems with applications, Vol. 40(6), 2297-2304.
23. Huang X.G., Wong Y.S., Wang J.G., 2004. A two-stage manufacturing partner selection framework for virtual enterprises. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing. Vol. 17(4), 294–304.
24. Iago Cotrim Henriques, Vinicius Amorim Sobreiro, Herbert Kimura. 2018 Science and technology park: Future challenges. Technology in Society. Vol. 53, Pages 144-160.
25. Inkpen A. C. 2008. Knowledge transfer and international joint ventures: The case of Nummi and General motors. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 29(4), 447-453.
26. Lisitsyn Nikita. 2007. Technological cooperation between Finland and Russia: Example of technology parks in St. Petersburg. Electronic Publications of Pan-European Institute. Vol. 3, 1-45.
27. Lorange P., Roos J., Bronn P.S., 1992. Building successful strategical liances .Long Range Planning Vol. 25(6), 10–18.
28. March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, Vol. 2(1), 71-87.
29. Mikhailov L., 2002. Fuzzy analytical approach to partnership selection information of virtual enterprises. Vol. 30(5), 393–401.
30. Moroz Peter, Hindle Kevin. 2012. Entrepreneurship as a Process: Toward Harmonizing Multiple Perspectives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol. 36, Issue 4, 781–818.
31. Nielsen B.B. 2003. An empirical investigation of the drivers of international strategic alliance formation, European Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.301–322.
32. Nooteboom, B. 2000. Learning and innovation in organization and economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 343 pages.
33. Oh Deog-Seong, Kang B.-J, 2011. Creative model of science park development: Case study on Daedeok innopolis, Korea. Global perspectives on technology transfer and commercialization : building innovative ecosystems. Vol. 43, pp. 162-188.
34. Ölmez Manuela, Lindemann Udo. 2014. Managing attribute complexity for user-centered decision support systems. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 28, pp. 130 – 137.
35. Phan H.Phillip, Siegel S.Donald, Wright Mike. 2005. Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20(1), 165- 182.
36. Ringlever Jeroen. 2012. Assessment of Technology Parks: a University case. An empirical study about Technology Parks in Mexico. University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands, School of Management and Governance.
37. Rocío Vásquez-Urriago Ángela, Barge-Gil Andrés, Modrego Rico Aurelia. 2016. Science and Technology Parks and cooperation for innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Research Policy. Vol. 45(1), 137–147.
38. Sampson R. 2005. Experience effects and collaborative returns in R&D alliances. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26(11), 1009-1031.
39. Sarasvathy Saras. 2001. Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. The Academy of Management Review. Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 243-263.
40. Solesvik Marina, Westhead Paul. 2010. Partner Selection for Strategic Alliances: Case Study Insights from the Maritime Industry. Industrial Management & Data Systems. Vol. 110, No.6, pp. 841-860.
41. Spekman R.E., Isabella, L.A., MacAvoy, T.C. 2000. Alliance Competence, Maximizing the Value of Your Partnerships, John Wiley & Sons, New York. 320 pages.
42. Tippins M. J., Sohin, R. S. 2003. IT competency and firm performance: Is organizational learning a missing link? Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24(8), 745-761.
43. Vucic Irena. 2010. cooperation and cluster strategies within and between technol ogyintensive Organisationd: isations: how to enhance linkages among firms in the techno-parks. For the degree of master of science in science and technology policy studies.Vol. 1002, 132-141.
۴۴. سایت پارک علم و فناوری دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، قابل دسترسی در این آدرس: https://mstpark.com
۴۵. سایت سازمان توسعه تجارت ایران، قابل دسترسی در این آدرس: https://tpo.ir
۴۶. شالبافیان؛ علی اصغر، ۱۳۹۹، شبکه مضامین مرتبط با انتخاب شریک در اتحادهای استراتژیک گردشگری پزشکی، فصلنامه علمی مطالعات مدیریت گردشگری، سال پانزدهم، شماره ۵۰، صفحات ۱۲۹-۱۵۵
۴۷. شبکه تحلیلگران تکنولوژی ایران ، 1390، گزارش تحلیلی بررسی مفهومی دیپلماسی علم و فناوري و ترسیم وضع موجود آن در جمهوري اسلامی ایران، معاونت علمی و فناوري ریاست جمهوري اسلامی ایران.
۴۸. کریمی؛ پریا، ۱۳۹۹، طراحی بسته های حمایتی شرکتهای مستقر در پارک علم و فناوری با در نظر گرفتن TRL با استفاده از روش تصمیم گیری چند معیاره، پایان نامه دوره کارشناسی ارشد مهندسی صنایع گرایش مدیریت مهندسی، دانشکده مهندسی صنایع و سیستم ها، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس
۴۹. مشهدی حاجی علی؛ فاطمه، الوانی؛ سیدمهدی، کاملی؛ سیدجواد، معمارزاده طهران؛ غلامرضا، ۱۳۹۹، طراحی الگوی شبکه همکاری دانشی اثربخش در سازمان های تحقیقاتی)مورد مطالعه: موسسه تحقیقات صنايع دفاعی ج.ا ايران(، نشریه علمی اندیشه آماد / شماره ۷۴ / سال نوزدهم ص ۸۷-۱۲۶
