پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,232 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,790 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 115,264,044 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 90,005,991 |
طراحی مدلی از بازیگران اکوسیستم نوآوری جهت ورود شرکتهای دانشبنیان به بازارهای بین‌المللی | ||
| فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی توسعه کارآفرینی | ||
| دوره 16، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 60، شهریور 1402، صفحه 65-76 اصل مقاله (1.25 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقالات پژوهشی آمیخته | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jed.2023.351382.654096 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| هادی قزوینی1؛ مرتضی ملکی مین باش رزگاه* 1؛ داود فیض1؛ مهدی دهقانی سلطانی2 | ||
| 1گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده اقتصاد، مدیریت و علوم اداری، دانشگاه دانشگاه سمنان. ایران. | ||
| 2گروه مدیریت، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه ولیعصر (عج) رفسنجان، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف: اکوسیستم نوآوری مفهومی سیال و چند بعدی است و شناخت آن نیازمند رویکردی جامع و کلنگر است. این تحقیق در ابتدا به دنبال شناسایی بازیگرانی در اکوسیستم نوآوری است که باعث ورود شرکتهای دانش بنیان به بازارهای بین المللی میشوند و سپس مدلی از این بازیگران ارائه میشود. روش: روش تحقیق در این مقاله توصیفی- پیمایشی با روش اکتشافی- کاربردی است. از نظر نوع دادهها، روش ترکیبی (کیفی- کمی) و روش جمعآوری دادهها ثانویه و میدانی (مصاحبه-پرسشنامه) است. جامعه آماری در مرحله کیفی شامل خبرگان و کارآفرینان شرکتهای دانشبنیان دارای سابقه اجرایی و پژوهشی و در مرحله کمی شامل کارافرینان و مدیران شرکتهای دانش بنیان در استان سمنان، دارای حداقل 10 سال سابقه کار اجرایی بودند. یافتهها: با توجه به کیفیت کدهای اولیه و سازماندهی آن در قالب مفاهیم و مقوله‌ها، اکوسیستم نوآوری شامل شرایط تأمین مالی، شرایط سیاسی، قوانین و مقررات، سازوکارهای ارتباطی و بازیگران تأثیرگذار در پنج دسته است. در مجموع 87 کد اولیه شمارش شده، سپس در قالب 5 دسته مضامین سطح دوم دستهبندی شدند که شرایط سیاسی و قوانین و مقررات بیشترین تأثیر را داشتند و تأمین مالی و مکانیسم‌های ارتباطی، نیز از تأثیرپذیرترین بازیگران اکوسیستم بودند. نتیجه گیری: نتایج نشان داد شتابدهندهها، تامین مالی از بانکها (وامها)، سرمایهگذاران یا فرشتگان و حمایت خانواده به عنوان منبع تامین مالی هستند. لذا برخی از مهمترین سیاستها و برنامههای دولت برای توسعه کارآفرینی، ایجاد ثبات سیاسی، امکان ورود به بازارهای هدف و دسترسی به درگاههای پرداخت برای شرکتهای دانش بنیان است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| اکوسیستم نوآوری؛ بازارهای بین‌المللی؛ شرکتهای دانشبنیان؛ کارآفرینی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Designing a Model of Innovation Ecosystem Actors for the Entry of Knowledge-based Companies into International Markets | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Hadi Ghazvini1؛ Morteza Maleki Minbashrazgah1؛ Davood feiz1؛ Mehdi Dehghani Soltani2 | ||
| 1Department of Business Management, Faculty of Economics, Management and Administrative Sciences, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran. | ||
| 2Department of Management, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economic, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Kerman, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Objective: Knowledge-based companies are not able to develop innovation alone due to their complex and non-linear nature of the innovation process. They are highly dependent on external actors to improve their innovation capabilities, and thus they create innovation ecosystems that expand their boundaries. The innovation ecosystem is a fluid and multidimensional concept, and its recognition requires a comprehensive and holistic approach. This research initially seeks to identify actors in the innovation ecosystem that cause knowledge-based companies to enter international markets, and then presents a model of these actors. Method: The research method in this article is descriptive-survey, using exploratory-applied method; in terms of the type of data, it is a mixed method (qualitative-quantitative) and in terms of data collection method, it is of secondary and field data collection method (interview-questionnaire). The statistical population in the qualitative stage includes experts and entrepreneurs in knowledge-based companies who had relevant executive and research experience, and in the quantitative stage, it includes entrepreneurs and managers of knowledge-based companies in Semnan province, with at least 10 years of work experience. Findings: According to the quality of the primary codes and its organization in the form of concepts and categories, the innovation ecosystem includes financing conditions, political conditions, laws and regulations, communication mechanisms and influential actors in five categories. The results in the qualitative part indicate that a total of 87 initial codes were counted, then they were categorized in the form of 5 categories of second-level organizing themes, where political conditions and laws and regulations are the most influential, and financing and communication mechanisms are the most impressionable actors in the ecosystem. Conclusion: Based on the results of this research, the innovation ecosystem includes five categories of financing conditions, political conditions, laws and regulations, communication mechanisms and influential actors. To be strongly present in the economy, knowledge-based companies are required to optimize their organization and strengthen their competitive base, which in this research are accelerators, financing from banks (loans), investors or angels, and family support as sources of financing. In political conditions, some researchers point to the role of the government in facilitating entrepreneurial activities and creating new companies in international markets. Some of the most important government policies and programs for the development of entrepreneurship include creating political stability, allowing entry into target markets and access to payment gateways for knowledge-based companies. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Innovation Ecosystem", International Markets", ", Knowledge-based Companies" | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Jaakkola, E., Harrison, D., & Mäkitalo-Keinonen, T. (2017). How to manage innovation processes in extensive networks: A longitudinal study. Industrial marketing management, 67, 88-105. Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Ritala, P. (2017). Network management in the era of ecosystems: Systematic review and management framework. Industrial marketing management, 67, 23-36. Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of management, 43(1), 39-58. Appio, F. P., Lima, M., & Paroutis, S. (2019). Understanding Smart Cities: Innovation ecosystems, technological advancements, and societal challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 1-14. Baker, J. J., & Nenonen, S. (2020). Collaborating to shape markets: Emergent collective market work. Industrial marketing management, 85, 240-253. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods: Oxford university press. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology: Harvard Business Press. Colombelli, A., & Quatraro, F. (2019). Green start-ups and local knowledge spillovers from clean and dirty technologies. Small Business Economics, 52, 773-792. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research designs: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Callifornia: Sage. Danaei Fard, H., Alvani, S. M., & Azar, A. (2017). Quantitative research methodology in management: a comprehensive approach. Tehran: Saffar Publications, [In Persian]. Fukugawa, N. (2018). Is the impact of incubator’s ability on incubation performance contingent on technologies and life cycle stages of startups?: evidence from Japan. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(2), 457-478. Furr, N., & Shipilov, A. (2018). Building the right ecosystem for innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(4), 59-64. Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 90, 102098, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102098. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Nätti, S. (2018). Orchestrator types, roles and capabilities–A framework for innovation networks. Industrial marketing management, 74, 65-78. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Keystones and dominators: Framing operating and technology strategy in a business ecosystem. Harvard Business School, Boston, 3, 1-82. Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of management, 29(6), 963-989. Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255-2276. Kalinauskaite, I., Brankaert, R., Lu, Y., Bekker, T., Brombacher, A., & Vos, S. (2021). Facing societal challenges in living labs: Towards a conceptual framework to facilitate transdisciplinary collaborations. Sustainability, 13(2), 614, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020614. Khanahmadloo, R., Moazzez, H., Mohammadi, M., Yazdani, H., & Zarei Matin, H. (2020). Meta-Synthesis of Factors Affecting the Formation and Development of the University-Based Innovation Ecosystem. Innovation Management in Defensive Organizations, 3(3), 97-130. doi:10.22034/qjimdo.2020.219552.1271, [In Persian]. Kodama, M. (2018). Collaborative dynamic capabilities: The dynamic capabilities view. Collaborative Dynamic Capabilities for Service Innovation: Creating a New Healthcare Ecosystem,دوره و شماره اضافه شود 1-45. Lin, C.-J., & Wu, W.-خط تیره حذف شودW. (2004). A Fuzzy Extension of the DEMATEL Method for Group Decision-Making, Institute Engineering and Management Ta Hwa Institute of Technology. In: Taiwan. Madanaguli, A., Kaur, P., Mazzoleni, A., & Dhir, A. (2022). The innovation ecosystem in rural tourism and hospitality–a systematic review of innovation in rural tourism. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(7), 1732-1762. Maleki, M., Zarei, A., Feiz, D., & sharafi, v. (2020). International Marketing Ecosystem. New Marketing Research Journal, 9(4), 1-14. doi:10.22108/nmrj.2019.104781.1300, [In Persian]. Mohammadi, A., Sadaghiani, M., Yadollahi, M., & Albadvi, A. (2018). Identifying the Key Actors of Innovation Ecosystem in Downstream Petrochemical Industry of Iran. Roshd -e- Fanavari, 54(14), 36-45. doi:10.7508/roshdefanavari.2018.14.005, [In Persian]. Möller, K., & Halinen, A. (2017). Managing business and innovation networks—From strategic nets to business fields and ecosystems. Industrial marketing management, 67, 5-22. Poblete, L., Kadefors, A., Rådberg, K. K., & Gluch, P. (2022). Temporality, temporariness and keystone actor capabilities in innovation ecosystems. Industrial marketing management, 102, 301-310. Rahimi, M., & Maleki Minbashrazgah, M. (2022). Developing a Model on International Marketing Ecosystem for Production and Processing of Pistachios in Iran. Journal of Entrepreneurial Strategies in Agriculture, 9(17), 35-45. doi:10.52547/jea.9.17.35, [In Persian]. Rao, S., & Perry, C. (2003). Convergent interviewing to build a theory in under‐researched areas: principles and an example investigation of Internet usage in inter‐firm relationships. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(4), 236-247. Reynolds, E. B., & Uygun, Y. (2018). Strengthening advanced manufacturing innovation ecosystems: The case of Massachusetts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 178-191. Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201-221. Safari Shali, R. (2018). The principles of writing a research plan (proposal writing) with quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Tehran: Rahbord Danesh, [In Persian]. Schepis, D., Purchase, S., & Butler, B. (2021). Facilitating open innovation processes through network orchestration mechanisms. Industrial marketing management, 93, 270-280. Sharafi, V., Maleki Minbashrazgah, M., Zarei, A., & Feiz, D. (2017). Identification and Classification of Entrepreneurial Thinking to the Issue of International Marketing Ecosystem Using Q Method. Journal of Business Management, 9(3), 551-572. doi:10.22059/jibm.2017.230360.2544, [In Persian]. Shipilov, A., & Gawer, A. (2020). Integrating research on interorganizational networks and ecosystems. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 92-121. Song, J. (2016). Innovation ecosystem: impact of interactive patterns, member location and member heterogeneity on cooperative innovation performance. Innovation, 18(1), 13-29. Teece, D. J. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial management in large organizations: Toward a theory of the (entrepreneurial) firm. European Economic Review, 86, 202-216. Tsujimoto, M., Kajikawa, Y., Tomita, J., & Matsumoto, Y. (2018). A review of the ecosystem concept—Towards coherent ecosystem design. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 49-58. Walrave, B., Talmar, M., Podoynitsyna, K. S., Romme, A. G. L., & Verbong, G. P. (2018). A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 103-113. Wang, J., Xue, Y., & Yang, J. (2020). Boundary‐spanning search and firms' green innovation: The moderating role of resource orchestration capability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 361-374. Yaghmaie, P., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2020). Identifying and describing constituents of innovation ecosystems: A systematic review of the literature. EuroMed Journal of Business, 15(3), 283-314. Yang, Z., Chen, H., Du, L., Lin, C., & Lu, W. (2021). How does alliance-based government-university-industry foster cleantech innovation in a green innovation ecosystem? Journal of Cleaner Production, 283, 124559, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124559. Yin, D., Ming, X., & Zhang, X. (2020). Sustainable and smart product innovation ecosystem: An integrative status review and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 274, 123005, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123005. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 419 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 266 |
||