چارچوب همکاری‌های فناورانه میان مجموعه یکپارچه‌ساز با سایر بازیگران شبکه‌های نوآوری سامانه‌های محصول‌پیچیده

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیئت‌علمی دانشکده حسابداری و مدیریت دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی

2 کارشناس ارشد مدیریت فناوری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی

3 عضو هیئت‌علمی مجتمع دانشگاهی مدیریت و مهندسی صنایع، دانشگاه صنعتی مالک اشتر

چکیده

سامانه‌های محصول‌پیچیده یکی از عوامل ایجاد مزیت رقابتی در اقتصاد مدرن است. ویژگی‌هایی مانند ساختار شبکه‌ای و حضور بازیگران متعدد با زمینه‌های دانشی متنوع، سبب می‌شود تا سازمان یکپارچه ساز یا هاب الگوهای همکاری متفاوتی را در مواجهه با هر یک از بازیگران انتخاب کند. این مقاله در پی پاسخ به این سؤال است که بر اساس ویژگی‌های مختلف مرتبط با هر یک از بازیگران، محتوای دانش و فناوری مورد تعامل و سایر ویژگی‌های ارتباطی میان طرفین، کدام یک از الگوهای همکاری فناورانه در این شبکه‌ها پیشنهاد می‌شود. پس از مرور ادبیات، شش شاخص اصلی برای تعیین نوع همکاری فناورانه با سه گروه بازیگر اصلی شامل شرکت‌های بزرگ و متوسط صنعتی، شرکت‌های نوپای فناوری محور و دانشگاه‌ها و مراکز تحقیقاتی شناسایی شد. سپس شش روش اصلی در همکاری‌های سازمان یکپارچه‏ساز با سایر بازیگران شامل برون‌سپاری، لیسانس، اتحاد راهبردی، تحقیق و توسعه مشترک، سرمایه‌گذاری مشترک و ادغام و اکتساب مدنظر قرار گرفت. در نهایت با استفاده از روش تحلیل مد خوشه‌ای و محاسبه ضریب توافق درونی، الگوی پیشنهادی برای همکاری بر اساس وضعیت همکاری در هر یک از شاخص‌های شش‌گانه مشخص شد.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Technological Collaboration Framework for the Hub and other Actors of Innovation Networks of CoPS

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Naghizadeh 1
  • Hosein Khayatifard 2
  • Jafar Gheidar Khelejani 3
  • Manouchehr Manteghi 3
1 Asistant professor, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
2 Master of Technology management, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
3 Asistant Professor, Faculty of Management and Industrial Engineering, Malek Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Complex products and systems (CoPS) ​​are one of the factors that create competitive advantage in the modern economy. Features such as network structure and the presence of multiple actors with diverse knowledge backgrounds make the integrator organization (hub) forced to choose different types of collaboration with each actor. This research seeks to answer the question of what kind of technological collaboration is proposed on the basis of the various characteristics associated with each actor, the content of the interaction knowledge and technology and other communication features between the parties. After reviewing the literature, six key indicators were identified to determine the type of technology collaboration with three major actor groups including large and medium-sized companies, new technology base firm, and universities and research centers then Six main approaches were considered in integrating collaboration with other actors, including outsourcing, licensing, strategic alliances, joint research and development, joint ventures and merge and acquisitions. Finally, using the cluster mode analysis method and calculating the internal coefficient of agreement, the proposed method for collaboration based on cooperation status in each of the six indicators was identified.
 
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Complex Products and Systems
  • Innovation Network
  • Technological Collaboration
[1] Hobday, M. (1998). Product Complexity, Innovation and Industrial Organization. Research Policy, 689–710.

[2] Naghizadeh, M., Manteghi, M., & Naghizadeh, R. (2015). Convergence Among Science and Technology Capabilities of Different Players in Aviation Complex Product Systems Journal of Technology Development Management, 3(3), 27-54.  {in Persian}

[3] Mohammadi, M., Hoseini, A., Hamidi, M., Mahmoudi, B., & Sadabadi, A. (2014). Selection of Appropriate Model of Technology Transfer in Firms with Complex Products and Systems (CoPS), (Case Studies: Tuga Company. Journal of Technology Development Management, 2(4), 55-84. {in Persian}

[4] Safdari Ranjbar, M., Rahmanseresht, H., Manteghi, M., & Ghazinoori, S. S. (2016). Factors Driving Latecomer Firms Technological Capability Acquiring and Building in Manufacturing Complex Product Systems: The Case of Oil Turbo Compressor Company (OTC). Journal of  innovation management, 5(3), 1-26. {in Persian}

[5] Safdari Ranjbar, M., Gheidar Kheljani, J., Tahmasbi S., & Tavakoli, GH. (2016). Key Capabilities Required for Innovation and Development of Defense Complex Products and Systems. Journal of Technology Development Management, 4(2), 133-158. {in Persian}

[6] Miller, R., Hobday, M., Demers, T. L., & Olleros, X. (1995). Innovation in Complex Systems Industries: the Case of Flight Simulation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 363-400.

[7] Kiamehr, M. (2017). Paths of Technological Capability Building in Complex Capital Goods: The Case of Hydro Electricity Generation Systems in Iran. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 215-230

[8]  Manteghi, A., Manteghi,  M., & Tabatabaiya,n S. H. (2014). System Integration; A Key Capability in the Field of Complex Systems and Products (CoPS). 4th International Conference and 8th National Conference on Technology Management. {in Persian}

[9] Naghizadeh, M., Manteghi, M., Ranga, M., & Naghizadeh, R. (2016). Managing Integration in Complex Product Systems: The Experience of the IR-150 Aircraft Design Program. Technological Forecasting & Social Change.

[10] Choung, j.-Y., & Hwang, H. (2007). Developing the Complex Systems in Korea: The Case of TDX and CDMA Telecom System. International Journal of Technological Learning Innovation and Development, 204-225.

[11] Chen, j., Tong, l., & Ngai, e. w. (2007). Inter-organizational Knowledge Management in Complex Products and Systems: Challenges and an Exploratory Framework. Journal of Technology Management in China, 134-144.

[12]            Igel, B., & Wei, Z. (2002). A Framework to Analyse the Competence to Innovate Complex Product Systems in the Stored Program Control Switchboard Industry. Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management.

[13] Kargar Shahamat, B. (2017). Explaining the Pattern of Innovation Network in Pharmaceutical Sector of Iran, Tehran: Allameh Tabatabaei Uneversity. {in Persian}

[14]  Ceglie, G., & Dini, M. (1999). SME Cluster and Network Development in Developing Countries: The Experience of UNIDO. Unido.

[15]  Asadifard, R. (2019). The Policies for Stimulating Networks in Science and Technology Development.  Journal of  Science & Technology Policy, 11(2), 333-346. {In Persian}.

[16] J.Tidd & .J. Besant, (2015). Innovation Management: Integrating Technological Change, Market, and Organizational Change, Rasa Cultural Services Institute. {in Persian}

[17] Levén, P., Holmström, J., & Mathiassen, L. (2014). Managing Research and Innovation Networks: Evidence From a Government Sponsored Cross-industry Program. Research Policy.

[18] Gil, N. (2007). On The Value of Project Safeguards: Embedding Real Options in Complex Products and Systems. Research Policy, 980-999.

[19]  Zülch, G., Jonsson, U., & Fischer, J.(2002). Hierarchical Simulation of Complex Production Systems by Coupling of Models. International Journal of Production Economics, 39-51.

[20]  Elyasi, M., & Shafiee, M. (2014). Innovation Networks in Complex Product Systems (CoPS), Journal of Industrial Technology Development, 12(23), 31-40. {in Persian}

[21] Hobday, M., Davies, A., & Prencipe, A. (2005). Systems Integration: A Core Capability of the Modern Corporation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1109-1143.

[22] Barlow, J. (2000). Innovation and Learning in Complex Offshore Construction Projects. Research Policy, 973-989.

[23] Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. J. (2000). Innovation in Project-based, Service-enhanced Firms: The Construction of Complex Products and Systems. Research Policy, 955–972.

[24] Dodgson, M. (1992). The Future for Technological Collaboration. Futures, 459-470.

[25] Teece, D. (1992). Competition, Cooperation, and Innovation: Organizational Arrangements for Regimes of Rapid Technological Progress. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1-25.

[26] Ansari, R . (2012). Technology Collaboration: Key Concepts and Success Factors. Journal of Parks and Growth Centers, 65-71. {in Persian}

[27] Fritsch, M., & Lukas, R. (2001). Who Cooperates on R&D?Research Policy, 297-312.

[28] Katila, R., & Mang, P. Y. (2003). Exploiting Technological Opportunities: The Timing of Collaborations. Research Policy, 317-332.

[29] Hax, A. , & Majluf , N. (1996). Concept and Process; A Pragmatic Approach. Prentice Hall.

[30] Nummela, N. (2003). Looking Through a Prism—multiple Perspectives to Commitment to International R&D Collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 135-148.

[31] Chiesa, V. (2001). R&D Strategy & Organization: Managing Technical Change in Dynamic Contexts. Imperial College Press.

[32] Chiesa, V., & Manzini, R. (1998). Organizing for Technological Collaborations: A Managerial Perspective. R&D management, 199-212.

[33] Hadavand, M. (2006). Technology Transfer Contracts.  Tadbir, {in Persian}

[34] Arabi, S. A. (2006).  Technology transfer Methods.  Tadbir, 61-64. {in Persian}

[35] Arasti, M. , Modarres Yazdi, M. ,  Delavari, M. (2008). Presenting a Comprehensive Model for Selecting the Appropriate Method of Technology Transfer. Sharif Scientific and Research Journal. 145-153. {in Persian}

[36] Tahmasebi, S. Fartoukzadeh, H. & Boushehri, A (2016). The Role of Technology Management Capability in the Process of Developing New Defense Products (Experimental Findings). Scientific-Extension Quarterly of Standard and Quality Management. 135-162. {in Persian}

[37] Birko , S., Dove , E., & Özdemir , V. (2015). Evaluation of Nine Consensus Indices in Delphi Foresight Research and Their Dependency on Delphi Survey Characteristics: A Simulation Study and Debate on Delphi Design and Interpretation. PLoS One.