تحلیل سبک های یادگیری و نوآوری در کشورهای در حال توسعه (مطالعه موردی بخش فاوا ایران)

نویسندگان

1 دانش‌آموخته کارشناسی‌ارشد مدیریت فناوری، دانشگاه تهران

2 استادیار مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور

چکیده

در پیشینه مدیریت نوآوری، دو سبک متمایز و غالب "نوآوری و یادگیری از طریق علم، فناوری و نوآوری(STI)"و "یادگیری از طریق انجام، استفاده و تعامل(DUI)" وجود دارد. یکی از تفاوت های نظام های نوآوری کشورها، تفاوت در سبک غالب نوآوری آنها است. ماهیت نوآوری و یادگیری فناورانه نیز در کشورهای توسعه یافته و در حال توسعه متفاوت است. شاخص های مورد استفاده پژوهش های گذشته در تحلیل سبک های یادگیری، بیشتر متناسب با شرایط کشورهای توسعه یافته بوده است. در این پژوهش به منظور تحلیل دقیق تر سبک یادگیری و نوآوری از 14 شاخص مناسب شرایط کشورهای در حال توسعه و روش تجزیه و تحلیل کلاس پنهان، اطلاعات مربوط به 138 شرکت حوزه فناوری اطلاعات و Latent Gold استفاده شده است. با استفاده از نرم افزار( ضعیف، 3 STI 2) یادگیری ،STI+DUI ارتباطات کشور مورد تحلیل قرار گرفت و مشخص شد که چهار سبک یادگیری و نوآوری: 1) یادگیری ترکیبی یادگیری تجربی و تعاملی و نهایتاً 4) یادگیری تعاملی ضعیف و یا فاقد یادگیری، در این شرکت ها وجود دارد. با تحلیل شاخص های عملکردی (رشد گردش مالی، داشتن نوآوری و همچنین گستردگی منطقه عرضه کالا) شرکت ها از طریق روش رگرسیون لجستیک ترتیبی، مشخص شد که سبک مناسب یادگیری، سبک بیشترین رشد گردش مالی را دارند. STI+DUI اول بوده و شرکت های با یادگیری ترکیبی

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis of Learning and Innovation Modes in Developing Countries; Case study ICT in Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mehdi Mohammadi 1
  • Naser Bagheri Moghadam 2
  • Arash Shojaei Charmineh 1
1 M.A of Technology Management, University of Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, National Research Institute for Science Policy, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

In the past, many studies have been conducted to analyze the modes of learning and innovation. In literature of innovation management there are two distinct modes of learning through science, technology and innovation (STI) and learning by doing, using and interacting (DUI). Having variations in the dominant mode of innovation, can be considered as one of the existing differences in innovation systems of countries. The essence of innovation and also the technological learning differ in developed and developing countries. In previous studies, the utilized criteria for analyzing the learning styles have been mostly suitable for and compatible with the situations in developed countries. In the current study, fourteen criteria which comply with the situations of developing countries and are relevant to two dimensions of technological learning resources and inter-organizational factors, have been utilized and applied in order to achieve a more accurate analysis of learning style and innovation. Having studied the relevant information of 138 companies active in the field of ICT, it was shown that the following four learning and innovation styles exist in these companies: 1) Companies with little or no interactional learning styles, 2) Companies with weak STI learning style & 3) Those with combined style STI+DUI. 4. And finally those with experimental and interactional style DUI. The analysis of operational criteria of these companies displayed that the best and the most suitable learning style is the third mentioned style and that the companies with the combined style STI+DUI have experienced the highest level of growth in their turnover.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Technological Learning
  • Modes of learning and innovation
  • Developing countries
  • Empirical and interactive learning
[1] Kraemer-Mbula, E., & Wamae, W. (2010). Key issues for innovation and development. Innovation and the Development Agenda, 29-38.

[2] Smith, K. (2000). Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: rethinking the role of policy. Enterprise and innovation management studies, 1(1), 73-102.

[3] Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research policy, 36(5), 680-693.

[4] Bell, M., & Figueiredo, P. N. (2012). Innovation capability building and learning mechanisms in latecomer firms: recent empirical contributions and implications for research. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d'études du développement, 33(1), 14-40.

[5] Karaoz, M., & Albeni, M. (2005). Dynamic technological learning trends in Turkish manufacturing industries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(7), 866-885.

[6] میری مقدم، مژده؛ قاضی‌نوری، سید سپهر؛ توفیقی، جعفر و الهی، شعبان. (1394). یادگیری فناورانه در صنعت نفت: مطالعه موردی فازهای توسعه‌ای میدان گازی پارس جنوبی. سیاست علم و فناوری، 7(2)، 17-34.

[7] The Least Developed Countries Report. (2007). Knowledge, Technological Learning and Innovation for Development: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

[8] عطارپور، م. (1393). یادگیری فناورانه و اهمیت آن در فرآیند انتقال فناوری. چهارمین کنفرانس بین‌المللی و هشتمین کنفرانس ملی مدیریت فناوری، جزیره کیش.

[9] Lin, B. W. (2003). Technology transfer as technological learning: a source of competitive advantage for firms with limited R&D resources. R&D Management, vol. 33, pp. 327-341.

[10] کرمی‌پور، آ.؛ ژولی، د. و بولی، و. (2015). عوامل سازمانی مؤثر بر انتخاب روش دستیابی به تکنولوژی در سازمان‌های تکنولوژی‌محور ایران. فصلنامه مدیریت توسعه فناوری، شماره 2 107-135.

[11] Araújo, B. C., & Salerno, M. S. (2015). Technological strategies and learning-by-exporting: The case of Brazilian manufacturing firms, 2006–2008. International Business Review, 24(5), 725-738.

[12] Hu, M. C., Wu, C. Y., Lee, J. H., & Lu, Y. C. (2014). The influence of knowledge source and ambidexterity in the thin film transistor and liquid crystal display industry: evidence from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Scientometrics, 99(2), 233-260.

[13] Chen, J., & Qu, W. G. (2003). A new technological learning in China. Technovation, 23(11), 861-867.

[14] Soubbotina, T., & Weiss, C. (2009). A new model of technological learning for Russia. Science & Public Policy (SPP), 36(4).

[15] Hansen, U. E., & Ockwell, D. (2014). Learning and technological capability building in emerging economies: The case of the biomass power equipment industry in Malaysia. Technovation, 34(10), 617-630.

[16] Tödtling, F., & Grillitsch, M. (2014). Types of innovation, competencies of firms, and external knowledge sourcing—Findings from selected sectors and regions of Europe. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 330-356.

[17] He, X., & Mu, Q. (2012). How Chinese firms learn technology from transnational corporations: A comparison of the telecommunication and automobile industries. Journal of Asian Economics, 23(3), 270-287.

[18] Chuang, Y. S. (2014). Learning and international knowledge transfer in latecomer firms: the case of Taiwan's flat panel display industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 61(2), 261-274.

[19] García, F., Avella, L., & Fernández, E. (2012). Learning from exporting: The moderating effect of technological capabilities. International business review, 21(6), 1099-1111.

[20] He, X., & Mu, Q. (2012). How Chinese firms learn technology from transnational corporations: A comparison of the telecommunication and automobile industries. Journal of Asian Economics, 23(3), 270-287.

[21] Pisano, G. P. (1990). The R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 153-176.

[22] Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, N., & Lundvall, B. A. (2004, May). Codification and modes of innovation. In DRUID summer conference, Elsinore (Vol. 98).

[23] Freitas, I. M. B. (2011). Technological learning environments and organizational practices—cross-sectoral evidence from Britain. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(5), 1439-1474.

[24] Jones, G. K., Lanctot, A., & Teegen, H. J. (2001). Determinants and performance impacts of external technology acquisition. Journal of Business venturing, 16(3), 255-283.

[25] Allred, B. B., & Swan, K. S. (2004). Contextual influences on international subsidiaries' product technology strategy. Journal of International Management, 10(2), 259-286.

 [26] Hoffmann, W. H., & Schaper-Rinkel, W. (2001). Acquire or ally?-A strategy framework for deciding between acquisition and cooperation. MIR: Management International Review, 131-159.

[27] Dutrénit, G. (2004). Building technological capabilities in latecomer firms: a review essay. Science, Technology and Society, 9(2), 209-241.

[28] Hernan, R., Marin, P. L., & Siotis, G. (2003). Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-examination. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 543-565.

[29] Ribeiro, C. G., & Furtado, A. T. (2014). Government procurement policy in developing countries: The case of petrobras. Science, Technology and Society, 19(2), 161-197.

[30] Figueiredo, P. N. (2010). Discontinuous innovation capability accumulation in latecomer natural resource-processing firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(7), 1090-1108.

[31] Kim, L. (1999). Building technological capability for industrialization: analytical frameworks and Korea's experience. Industrial and corporate change, 8(1), 111-136.

[32] Lundvall, B. Å. (2006). Interactive learning, social capital and economic performance, Advancing Knowledge and the Knowledge Economy organized by EC. OECD and NSF-US.

[33] Arundel, A., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B. Å., & Valeyre, A. (2007). How Europe's economies learn: a comparison of work organization and innovation mode for the EU-15. Industrial and corporate change, 16(6), 1175-1210.

[34] Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). National innovation systems—analytical concept and development tool. Industry and innovation, 14(1), 95-119.

[35] Apanasovich, N. (2016). Modes of innovation: a grounded meta-analysis. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 7(3), 720-737.

[36] Nunes, S., & Lopes, R. (2015). Firm performance, innovation modes and territorial embeddedness. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1796-1826.

[37] Othman Idrissia, M., Amaraa, N., & Landrya, R. (2012). SMEs’ degree of openness: the case of manufacturing industries. Journal of technology management & innovation, 7(1), 186-210.

[38] Isaksen, A., & Karlsen, J. (2010). Different modes of innovation and the challenge of connecting universities and industry: case studies of two regional industries in Norway. European Planning Studies, 18(12), 1993-2008.

[39] Guo, A., Chen, J., & Jin, J. (2010). An analysis of the complementary innovation mechanism between STI and DUI modes. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 7(3), 265–273.

[40] Trippl, M. (2011). Regional innovation systems and knowledge-sourcing activities in traditional industries— evidence from the Vienna food sector. Environment and Planning A, 43(7), 1599–1616.

[41] Chen, J., Chen, Y., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2011). The influence of scope, depth, and orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms. Technovation, 31, 362–373.

[42] Fitjar, R. D., & Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2013). Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway. Research Policy, 42(1), 128–138.

[43] Gonzalez-Pernia, J.L., Parrilli, M.D., & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2014). STI–DUI learning modes, firm–university collaboration and innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-18 doi 10.1007/s10961-014-9352-0.

[44] Apanasovich, N. (2014). The impact of business innovation on innovation performance: the case of Belarus, PhD dissertation, Deusto University.