طراحی مدل مفهومی اکوسیستم نوآوری در شرکت¬های کوچک و متوسط با استفاده از ISM-SEM
محورهای موضوعی : تخصصی
عادل ساجدی
1
,
هوشنگ تقی زاده
2
,
غفار تاري
3
,
مجتبي رمضاني
4
1 - دانشجوی دکتری گروه مدیریت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تبریز، تبریز، ایران
2 - استاد گروه مديريت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تبریز، تبریز، ایران
3 - استادیار گروه مديريت و اقتصاد ، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامي واحد مرند، مرند، ایران
4 - استادیار گروه مديريت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامي، واحد بناب، بناب، ایران
کلید واژه: اکوسیستم نوآوری, مدلسازی ساختاری- تفسیری(ISM), مدلسازی مسیری- ساختاری(SEM),
چکیده مقاله :
بررسی ادبیات پژوهش نشان می دهد که نمی توان ساختار مشابهی برای مدل های ارائه شده در زمینه اکوسیستم نوآوری در پژوهش های انجام شده مشاهده نمود؛ بنابراین نیاز است تا به جهت افزایش نوآوری در شرکت ها، بر اساس ویژگی ها و محدودیت های بومی، مدل مناسب اکوسیستم نوآوری طراحی گردد. برهمین اساس هدف این پژوهش طراحی مدل مفهومی اکوسیستم نوآوری در شرکت های کوچک و متوسط با استفاده از ISM-SEM بوده است. روش انجام کار توصیفی- علی بوده است. جامعه آماری این پژوهش شامل دو بخش خبرگان و مدیران شرکت های کوچک و متوسط در استان آذربایجان شرقی بوده است. در این پژوهش 11 نفر از خبرگان در بخش اول مشارکت داشته و 335 نفر از مدیرن شرکت های کوچک و متوسط در بخش دوم پژوهش به پرسشنامه ها پاسخ داده اند. برای گردآوری داده ها از دو پرسشنامه استفاده شده که پس از تعیین روایی و پایایی در بین اعضای نمونه آماری توزیع شده است. برای تجزیه و تحلیل داده ها تحلیل داده ها از مدلسازی ساختاری تفسیری(ISM) و مدلسازی مسیری ساختاری(SEM) بهره گرفته شده است. یافته های بخش مدلسازی ساختاری- تفسیری نشان می دهد که ابعاد اکوسیستم نوآوری در صنایع کوچک و متوسط در پنج سطح قرار می گیرد که هر سطح دارای روابط مستقیم و غیر مستقیم با سطوح دیگر می باشد. همچنین آزمون مدل تدوین شده در بین شرکت ها نشان دهنده روایی و پایایی مناسب مدل تدوین شده و تأیید روابط مستقیم و غیر مستقیم ابعاد اکوسیستم نوآوری در شرکت های کوچک و متوسط بوده است.
A review of the research literature shows that a similar structure can not be observed for the models presented in the field of innovation ecosystem in the conducted researches; Therefore, in order to increase innovation in companies, an appropriate model of innovation ecosystem should be designed based on local characteristics and constraints. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to design a conceptual model of innovation ecosystem in small and medium enterprises using ISM-SEM. The method of work was descriptive-causal. The statistical population of this study included two sections of experts and managers of small and medium companies in East Azerbaijan province. In this research, 11 experts participated in the first part and 335 managers of small and medium companies in the second part of the research answered the questionnaires. Two questionnaires were used to collect data, which were distributed among the members of the statistical sample after determining their validity and reliability. For data analysis, interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and structural path modeling (SEM) have been used. The findings of the structural-interpretive modeling section show that the dimensions of the innovation ecosystem in small and medium industries are in five levels, each of which has direct and indirect relations with other levels. Also, the test of the developed model among companies has shown the appropriate validity and reliability of the developed model and the confirmation of direct and indirect relationships between the dimensions of the innovation ecosystem in small and medium enterprises.
1. Adner, R. and Kapoor, R., 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic management journal, 31(3), pp.306-333.
2. Adner, R., 2006. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard business review, 84(4), p.98.
3. Autio, E. and Thomas, L., 2014. Innovation ecosystems (pp. 204-288). The Oxford handbook of innovation management.
4. Baiyere, A., 2018. Fostering innovation ecosystems-Note on the 2017 ISPIM innovation forum. Technovation, 69(C), pp.1-1.
5. Bomtempo, J.V., Alves, F.C. and de Almeida Oroski, F., 2017. Developing new platform chemicals: what is required for a new bio-based molecule to become a platform chemical in the bioeconomy?. Faraday discussions, 202, pp.213-225.
6. Breschi, S. and Malerba, F., 1997. Sectoral innovation systems: technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries. Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, 1, pp.130-156.
7. Brusoni, S. and Prencipe, A., 2013. The organization of innovation in ecosystems: Problem framing, problem solving, and patterns of coupling. In Collaboration and competition in business ecosystems. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
8. Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F., 2009. 'Mode 3'and'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International journal of technology management, 46(3-4), pp.201-234.
9. Castleberry, A. and Nolen, A., 2018. Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds?. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10(6), pp.807-815.
10. Dattée, B., Alexy, O. and Autio, E., 2018. Maneuvering in poor visibility: How firms play the ecosystem game when uncertainty is high. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), pp.466-498.
11. de Vasconcelos Gomes, L.A., Facin, A.L.F., Salerno, M.S. and Ikenami, R.K., 2018. Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, pp.30-48.
12. Dedehayir, O., Mäkinen, S.J. and Ortt, J.R., 2018. Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: A literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, pp.18-29.
13. Ding, L. and Wu, J., 2018. Innovation ecosystem of CNG vehicles: A case study of its cultivation and characteristics in Sichuan, China. Sustainability, 10(1), p.39.
14. Dubina, I.N., Campbell, D.F., Carayannis, E.G., Chub, A.A., Grigoroudis, E. and Kozhevina, O.V., 2017. The balanced development of the spatial innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem based on principles of the systems compromise: a conceptual framework. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 8(2), pp.438-455.
15. Gastaldi, L., Appio, F.P., Martini, A. and Corso, M., 2015. Academics as orchestrators of continuous innovation ecosystems: towards a fourth generation of CI initiatives. International Journal of Technology Management, 68(1-2), pp.1-20.
16. Gobble, M.M., 2014. Charting the innovation ecosystem. Research-Technology Management, 57(4), pp.55-59.
17. Godin, B., 2015. Innovation contested: The idea of innovation over the centuries. Routledge.
18. Granstrand, O. and Holgersson, M., 2020. Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 90, p.102098.
19. Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Fayolle, A., Klofsten, M. and Mian, S., 2016. Entrepreneurial universities: emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics, 47(3), pp.551-563.
20. Hughes, M., Ireland, R.D. and Morgan, R.E., 2007. Stimulating dynamic value: Social capital and business incubation as a pathway to competitive success. Long Range Planning, 40(2), pp.154-177.
21. Jackson, D.J., 2011. What is an innovation ecosystem. National Science Foundation, 1(2), pp.1-13.
22. Khorsheed, M.S., 2017. Learning from global pacesetters to build the country innovation ecosystem. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 8(1), pp.177-196.
23. Khurana, M.K., Mishra, P.K., Jain, R. and Singh, A.R., 2010. Modeling of information sharing enablers for building trust in Indian manufacturing industry: an integrated ISM and fuzzy MICMAC approach. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 2(6), pp.1651-1669.
24. Kinker, P., Swarnakar, V., Singh, A.R. and Jain, R., 2020. Identifying and evaluating service quality barriers for polytechnic education: An ISM-MICMAC approach. Materials Today: Proceedings.
25. Kukk, P., Moors, E.H.M. and Hekkert, M.P., 2015. The complexities in system building strategies—The case of personalized cancer medicines in England. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 98, pp.47-59.
26. Lee, M., Lee, M. and Kim, J., 2017. A dynamic approach to the start-up business ecosystem: a cross-comparison of korea, china, and japan. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 22(2).
27. Lundvall, B.Å., 2016. National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. The Learning Economy and the Economics of Hope, 85.
28. Mason, C. and Brown, R., 2014. Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship. Final report to OECD, Paris, 30(1), pp.77-102.
29. Moore, J.F., 1993. Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard business review, 71(3), pp.75-86.
30. Nambisan, S. and Baron, R.A., 2013. Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: Entrepreneurs’ self–regulatory processes and their implications for new venture success. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 37(5), pp.1071-1097.
31. Oh, D.S., Phillips, F., Park, S. and Lee, E., 2016. Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination. Technovation, 54, pp.1-6.
32. Pellikka, J. and Ali-Vehmas, T., 2016. Managing innovation ecosystems to create and capture value in ICT industries. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(10).
33. Ranga, M., Mroczkowski, T. and Araiso, T., 2017. University–industry cooperation and the transition to innovation ecosystems in Japan. Industry and Higher Education, 31(6), pp.373-387.
34. Ritala, P. and Almpanopoulou, A., 2017. In defense of ‘eco’in innovation ecosystem. Technovation, 60, pp.39-42.
35. Robaczewska, J., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Lorenz, A., 2019. Applying open innovation strategies in the context of a regional innovation ecosystem: The case of Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Global Transitions, 1, pp.120-131.
36. Rubens, N., Still, K., Huhtamäki, J. and Russell, M.G., 2011. A Network Analysis of Investment Firms as Resource Routers in Chinese Innovation Ecosystem. JSW, 6(9), pp.1737-1745.
37. Sant, T.D., de Souza Bermejo, P.H., Moreira, M.F. and de Souza, W.V.B., 2020. The structure of an innovation ecosystem: foundations for future research. Management Decision.
38. Scozzi, B., Bellantuono, N. and Pontrandolfo, P., 2017. Managing open innovation in urban labs. Group Decision and Negotiation, 26(5), pp.857-874.
39. Shaw, D.R. and Allen, T., 2018. Studying innovation ecosystems using ecology theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, pp.88-102.
40. Slimane, K.B. and Lamine, W., 2017. A transaction-based approach to social innovation. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 18(4), pp.231-242.
41. Still, K., Huhtamäki, J., Russell, M.G. and Rubens, N., 2014. Insights for orchestrating innovation ecosystems: the case of EIT ICT Labs and data-driven network visualisations. International Journal of Technology Management 23, 66(2-3), pp.243-265.
42. Su, Y.S., Zheng, Z.X. and Chen, J., 2018. A multi-platform collaboration innovation ecosystem: the case of China. Management Decision.
43. Swarnakar, V., Vaidya, S., Tiwari, A.K. and Singh, A.R., 2019, July. Assessing critical failure factors for implementing Lean Six Sigma framework in Indian manufacturing organizations. In 3rd IEOM European Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (pp. 2161-2172).
44. Tamayo-Orbegozo, U., Vicente-Molina, M.A. and Villarreal-Larrinaga, O., 2017. Eco-innovation strategic model. A multiple-case study from a highly eco-innovative European region. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, pp.1347-1367.
45. Teece, D.J., 2009. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management: Organizing for innovation and growth. Oxford University Press on Demand.
46. Tsujimoto, M., Kajikawa, Y., Tomita, J. and Matsumoto, Y., 2018. A review of the ecosystem concept—Towards coherent ecosystem design. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, pp.49-58.
47. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H. and Bondas, T., 2013. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & health sciences, 15(3), pp.398-405.
48. Walrave, B., Talmar, M., Podoynitsyna, K.S., Romme, A.G.L. and Verbong, G.P., 2018. A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, pp.103-113.
49. Witte, P., Slack, B., Keesman, M., Jugie, J.H. and Wiegmans, B., 2018. Facilitating start-ups in port-city innovation ecosystems: A case study of Montreal and Rotterdam. Journal of Transport Geography, 71, pp.224-234.
