چالش‌های پروژه‌های بین‌المللی تحقیق‌وتوسعه مشترک برای توسعه محصول جدید: آموخته‌های پروژه موتور ملی EF7

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیأت‌علمی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران

2 استاد، مدرس دانشگاه تهران

3 عضو هیأت‌علمی مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور، تهران

10.22034/jstp.2018.10.1.539436

چکیده

با وجود منافع زیاد پروژههای تحقیقوتوسعه مشترک گزارشهای زیادی از ناکامی و شکست آنها به ویژه در زمینه توسعه محصولات جدید وجود دارد با این حال تحقیقات اندکی به صورت جامع به چالشهای پیشروی این پروژهها توجه کردهاند و این تحقیقات همچنین کمتر به بررسی این موضوع از منظر یک شرکت فعال در یک کشور در حال توسعه که با مشکلات مختلفی همچون زیرساختها شبکهها و زنجیره تمین همکار ضعیفتری روبرو است پرداختهاند سال اصلی این مقاله در خصوص چالشهای کلیدی پروژههای تحقیقوتوسعه مشترکی است که با هدف توسعه یک محصول جدید شکل گرفتهاند برای پاسخگویی به سال از مطالعه موردی پروژه طراحی و تولید موتور ملی با مشارکت مرکز تحقیقات موتور ایرانخودرو و شرکت آلمان به روش کیفی استفاده شد چارچوب مفهومی مطالعه شامل چهار بخش توانمندیهای دانش و ظرفیت جذب رهبری و مدیریت پروژه تحقیقاتی مشترک ویژگیهای همکار و همچنین نقش نهادهای دولتی و میانجی بوده که بر اساس این چارچوب مورد مطالعه و چالشهای پیشآمده تحلیل و آموختههای مربوطه استخراج شد مهمترین یافتههای این پژوهش تکید بر لزوم تناسب میان سطح طراحی محصول و توانمندی دانشی سازمان بینش بالای علمی و عملی مدیر پروژه ضرورت همتکاملی در طراحی محصول و فرآیند و همچنین نقشآفرینی و تسهیلگری دولت در راستای موفقیت پروژههای تحقیقوتوسعه مشترک است

کلیدواژه‌ها

dor 20.1001.1.20080840.1397.11.1.7.3

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Challenges of International Joint R&D Projects for NPD: The Lessons Learned from EF7 Engine Project

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Naghizadeh 1
  • Manouchehr Manteghi 2
  • Reza Naghizadeh 3
1 Assistant Professor, Faculty Member of Allameh Tabataba’I University, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor, Lecturer of Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Faculty Member of National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Despite the valuable achievements of joint RD projects most of them could not meet their goals in developing new products However there are a few comprehensive researches about the challenges of the Joint RD projects especially in developing countries which have different problems such as lack of welldesigned infrastructure the weakness of networks and lack of comprehensive supply chainThe main purpose of the research is the investigation of the challenges in joint RD projects which focus on developing new productsThe single case study is the research methodology in this research The case of the research is the Joint RD project for designing and producing the national Iranian automobile engine between the Iran Khodro Powertrain Company and FEV from GermanyFirstly a theoretical framework for investigating the selected case was developed Based on literature review and Explanatory interviews The four dimensions of the preliminary framework were Knowledge capability and absorptive capacity leadership and management of Joint project the skills of project management the role of governmental system and intermediariesThe main achievements of the research are a the importance of the organizational knowledge capability and the level of complexity of the product design b the role of the scientific and operational insight of the project manager c the importance of coevolution in the product design and process and the facilitating role of the governmental system in the Joint RD projects

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Joint Research and Development
  • EF7 engine
  • Co-evolution
[1] Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Nterorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 371-385.
[2] Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (2002). Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: The role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 747-767.
[3] Reuer, J. J., & Zollo, M. (2005). Termination outcomes of research alliances. Research Policy, 34(1), 101-115.
[4] Radosevic, S. (1999). International technology transfer and catch-up in economic development. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp 1-13.
[5] Arranz, N., & de Arroyabe, J. F. (2006). Joint R&D projects: Experiences in the context of European technology policy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(7), 860-885.
[6] Robertson, T. S., & Gatignon, H. (1998). Technology development mode: a transaction cost conceptualization. Strategic Management Journal, 515-531.
[7] Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas,  N. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29(4-5), 567-586.
[8] Faccin, K., Balestrin, A., & Bortolaso, I. (2016). The joint R&D project: The case of the first Brazilian microcontroller chip. Revista de Administração (São Paulo), 51(1), 87-102.
[9] Jones, C., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2008). Temporary Inter-organizational Projects. In The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations.
[10] Saenz, J., & Perez-Bouvier, A. (2014). Interaction with external agents, innovation networks, and innovation capability: the case of Uruguayan software firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18, 447-468.
[11] Spanos, Y. E., Vonortas, N. S., & Voudouris, I. (2015). Antecedents of innovation impacts in publicly funded collaborative R&D projects. Technovation, 36, 53-64.
[12] Becker, W., & Dietz, J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms - Evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy, 33(2), 209-223.
[13] Pisano, G. P. (1990). The R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 153-176.
[14] Lööf, H., & Broström, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 73-90.
[15] Aschhoff, B., & Schmidt, T. (2008). Empirical evidence on the success of R&D cooperation—happy together? Review of Industrial Organization, 33(1), 41-62.
[16] Lhuillery, S., & Pfister, E. (2009). R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from French CIS data. Research Policy, 38(1), 45-57.
[17] Frankort, H. T. (2016). When does knowledge acquisition in R&D alliances increase new product development? The moderating roles of technological relatedness and product-market competition. Research Policy, 45(1), 291-302.
[18] Hagedoorn, J. (2012). Wang N. Is there complementarity or substitutability between internal and external R&D strategies? Research Policy, 41(6), 1072-1083.
[19] Gkypali, A., Filiou, D., & Tsekouras, K. (2017). R&D collaborations: Is diversity enhancing innovation performance? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 143-152.
[20] Naghizadeh, M., Tabatabaeian. S. H., Manteghi, M., Hanafizadeh. P., & Naghizadeh, R. (2012). A Model of Absorptive Capacity Improvement by Focusing on Organizational Strategic Orientation and Managerial Perception of Environmental Dynamicity in the Firms of Avionic Sector. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 4(4), 25-36. {In Persian}.
[21] Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 23(4), 660-679.
[22] Hertzfeld, H. R., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2006). Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships. Research Policy, 35(6), 825-838.
[23] Park, S. H., & Ungson, G. R. (2001). Interfirm rivalry and managerial complexity: A conceptual framework of alliance failure. Organization science, 12(1), 37-53.
[24] Ruuska, I., & Teigland, R. (2009). Ensuring project success through collective competence and creative conflict in public-private partnerships - A case study of Bygga Villa, a Swedish triple helix e-government initiative. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 323-334.
[25] König, B., Diehl, K., Tscherning. K., & Helming, K. (2013). A framework for structuring interdisciplinary research management. Research Policy, 42(1), 261-272.
[26] Adler, N., Elmquist, M., & Norrgren, F. (2009). The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context. Research Policy, 38(7), 1136-1149.
[27] Procca, A. E. (2008). Development of a project management model for a government research and development organization. Project Management Journa, 39(4), 33-57.
[28] vom Brocke, J., & Lippe, S. (2015). Managing collaborative research projects: A synthesis of project management literature and directives for future research. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1022-1039.
[29] Bstieler, L., & Hemmert, M. (2015). The effectiveness of relational and contractual governance in new product development collaborations: Evidence from Korea. Technovation, 45-46, 29-39.
[30] Naghizadeh, M., Manteghi, M., Ranga, M., & Naghizadeh, R. (2017). Managing integration in complex product systems: The experience of the IR-150 aircraft design program. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 122, 253-261.
[31] Barkema, H. G., Shenkar, O., Vermeulen, F., & Bell, J. H. (1997). Working abroad, working with others: How firms learn to operate international joint ventures. Academy of Management journal, 40(2), 426-442.
[32] Busom, I., & Fernández-Ribas, A. (2008). The impact of firm participation in R&D programmes on R&D partnerships. Research policy, 37(2), 240-257.
[33] Johnson, W. H. (2008). Roles, resources and benefits of intermediate organizations supporting triple helix collaborative R&D: The case of Precarn. Technovation, 28(8), 495-505.
[34] Norouzi, E., Tabatabaeian, S. H., & Ghazinouri, S. S. (2016). Assessing The Effect Of Intermediary Institutions In Addressing The Weaknesses Of The Nis Functions Of Iran. Journal of Science and Technology Policy. 8(1), 15-26. {In Persian}.
[35] Dosi, G., & Nelson. R. R. (2013). The evolution of technologies: an assessment of the state-of-the-art. Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 3-46.
[36] Teece, D. J. (2006). Reflections on "Profiting from Innovation". Research Policy, 35(8 SPEC. ISS.), 1131-1146.
[37] Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research, Design and Methods. Vol. 26. SAGE Publications. pp 93-96.
[38] Weick,  K. E. (2007). The generative properties of richness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 14-19.
[39] Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. In Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Sage publications.
[40] Ja’fari, H. A., Taslimi, M., Faghihi, A., & Sheikhzade, M. (2011). Thematic Analysis and Thematic Networks: A Simple and Efficient Method for Exploring Patterns Embedded in Qualitative Data Municipalities. Strategic Management thought, 5(2), 151-198.
[41] Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1-34.