بررسی رابطه بین الگوی حاکمیت همکاری‌های نوآوری با کارایی همکاری

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترای دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

2 دانشیار دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

3 دانشیار مجتمع فناوری‌های نرم، دانشگاه مالک اشتر

چکیده

تحولات سریع فناوری و رقابت شدید اقتصادی باعث می­شود شرکت­ها به تنهایی منابع لازم برای پاسخ­گویی به این شرایط را نداشته و رشد و توسعه را در همکاری­ با سایر شرکت­ها و تجمیع منابع دنبال نمایند. اما آمارهای بین‌المللی نشان از شکست 80 درصدی همکاری­های نوآوری و کارایی اندک آن­ها دارد. یکی از عوامل مهم در کاهش کارایی، شیوه حاکمیت همکاری­های نوآوری است. در این پژوهش با بررسی چهار مورد مطالعه شامل طرح فیلتر نانوالیاف، داروی ضد سرطان، نمایشگاه تجهیزات ساخت داخل و طرح ملی ساخت داخل توربین گازی، به بررسی رابطه میان الگوی حاکمیت همکاری‌های نوآوری و کارایی همکاری­ها پرداخته شده‌است. براساس نتایج حاصل‌شده، بسته به موضوع و شرایط همکاری، حاکمیت همکاری در چارچوب سه نظریه «نگرش منبع‌محور»، «هزینه تبادل» و «حاکمیت شبکه­ای» قابل تعریف و تفسیر است و چنانچه نظریه مفسر صحیحی انتخاب گردد، میان الگوی حاکمیت همکاری­ و کارایی همکاری رابطه مستقیمی قابل مشاهده است. لذا در موردهای مطالعه، در مواردی که سازوکار­های حاکمیت به­طور مؤثر به­کار گرفته شده، شاهد کارایی همکاری هستیم.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Relationship between Pattern of Innovation Collaboration Governance with Its Efficiency

نویسندگان [English]

  • Saeid Hosein Rafiei 1
  • Seyyed HabibolAllah Tabatabaeian 2
  • Manouchehr Manteghi 3
1 Ph.D. Candidate at Allame University
2 Faculty Member, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran
3 Faculty Member, Malek Ashtar, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Rapid technological changes and economic competition causes companies inability to prepare resources needed to respond these conditions, and to pursue growth and development in partnership with other companies. But international statistics shows about 80% failure rate for innovation collaboration. One of the key factors in reducing efficiency is the way that collaborations are governed. In this research, by studying four cases including Nano Fiber Filter, Anticancer Drug, Equipment Exhibition Program, and National Gas Turbine, the relationship between the governance pattern of innovation collaboration and collaboration efficiency have been investigated. According to the results, based on an appropriate approach for analysis, there is a direct relationship between collaboration governance pattern and efficiency.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Innovation collaboration
  • collaboration governance
  • RBV Theory
  • Transaction Cost Theory
  • Network Governance
[1]  Kogut, B. (1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic management journal, 9(4), 319-332.

[2] Harrigan, K. R. (1985). Exit barriers and vertical integration. Academy of Management Journal, 28(3), 686-697.

[3] Kaats, E., & Opheij, W. (2013). Creating conditions for promising collaboration: alliances, networks, chains, strategic partnerships. Springer Science & Business Media.

[4] Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research policy, 29(4-5), 567-586.

[5] Chatterjee, K., & Gray, B. (1995). International joint ventures: Economic and organizational perspectives. In International Joint Ventures: Economic and Organizational Perspectives (pp. 1-4). Springer, Dordrecht.

[6] Arranz, N., & de Arroyabe, J. C. F. (2007). Administrative and Social Factors in the Governance Structure of European R&D Networks. In Economics and Management of Networks (pp. 293-311). Physica-Verlag HD.

[7] Neuwahl, F., Löschel, A., Mongelli, I., & Delgado, L. (2008). Employment impacts of EU biofuels policy: combining bottom-up technology information and sectoral market simulations in an input–output framework. Ecological Economics, 68(1-2), 447-460.

[8] Gibbs, R., & Humphries, A. (2009). Strategic alliances and marketing partnerships: gaining competitive advantage through collaboration and partnering. Kogan Page Publishers.

[9] Lasker, R. D., Weiss, E. S., & Miller, R. (2001). Partnership synergy: a practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage. The Milbank Quarterly, 79(2), 179-205.

 [10] Penrose, E., & Penrose, E. T. (2009). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford university press.

[11] Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California management review, 33(3), 114-135.

[12] Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained 99mPetitive advantage', Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.

[13] Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of management journal, 39(3), 519-543.

[14] Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 77-91.

[15] Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of management, 26(1), 31-61.

[16] Peteraf, M. A., & Barney, J. B. (2003). Unraveling the resource‐based tangle. Managerial and decision economics, 24(4), 309-323.

[17] Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Kumar, N. (2006). Make, buy, or ally: A transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Academy of management journal, 49(3), 519-543.

[18] Kim, H. J. (2016). The Comparative Effects of Transaction Cost Economics and Resource Based View: A Technological Alliance Motivational Perspective. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 6(5), 64-75.

[19] Williamson, O. E. (2002). The theory of the firm as governance structure: from choice to contract. Journal of economic perspectives, 16(3), 171-195.

[20] Robertson, T. S., & Gatignon, H. (1998). Technology development mode: a transaction cost conceptualization. Strategic Management Journal, 19(6), 515-531.

[21] Kay, J. (1995). Foundations of corporate success: how business strategies add value. Oxford Paperbacks.

[22] Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of marketing, 51(2), 11-27.

[23] Savioz, P., & Sannemann, E. (1999, July). The concept of the integrated innovation process. In PICMET'99: Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology. Proceedings Vol-1: Book of Summaries (IEEE Cat. No. 99CH36310) (pp. 137-143). IEEE.

[24] Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1995). Who shall govern? CEO/board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection. Administrative science quarterly, 40(1), 60.

[25] Baker, W. E. (1990). Market networks and corporate behavior. American journal of sociology, 96(3), 589-625.

[26] Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(2), 229-252.

[27] Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., & Borgatti, S. P. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of management review, 22(4), 911-945.

[28] Granovetter, M. (2010). 19 Business Groups and Social Organization. The handbook of economic sociology, 429.

[29] Podolny, J. M. (1994). Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative science quarterly, 458-483.

[30] Abrahamson, E., & Fombrun, C. J. (1994). Macrocultures: Determinants and consequences. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 728-755.

[31] Kollock, P. (1994). The emergence of exchange structures: An experimental study of uncertainty, commitment, and trust. American Journal of sociology, 100(2), 313-345.

[32] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.