ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
مشارکت مردمی در نوآوری اجتماعی
نوآوریهای اجتماعی در پاسخ به حل مسائل و نیازهای اجتماعی راهحلهای بدیع و جدیدی هستند که نسبت به راهحلهای قبلی، مؤثرتر، کارآمدتر و یا حتی عادلانهترند. خیریهها و سازمانهای مردم نهاد تنها یکی از بازیگران نوآوریهای اجتماعی هستند. نوآوریهای این بازیگران که ماهیتی نوعدوستانه دارند جهت اثرگذاری هر چه بیشتر نیازمند مشارکت مردمی هستند. لازمه موفقیت در جلب مشارکت مردمی برای این دست نوآوریهای اجتماعی، استفاده از ابزارهایی است که مبتنی بر ادراک دقیق چرایی مشارکت مردم در امور بشردوستانه باشد. در این راستا، پژوهش حاضر با بررسی ادبیات جامعهشناسی، روانشناسی و زیستشناسی اجتماعی در زمینه نوعدوستی و نیز مصاحبه با خبرگان جلب مشارکت در امور خیر و خیریههای نوآور، با استفاده از روش تحلیل مضمون به شناسایی ابعاد مشارکت مردمی در نوآوریهای اجتماعی پرداخته است. در پایان، مضامین فراگیر آگاهسازی، تقویت هویت و انسجام اجتماعی جامعه، تسهیل و جذاب نمودن مشارکت داوطلبانه، یادگیری و مهارتافزایی، اعتمادسازی و بهبود تعامل و ارتباط کنشگران اصلی به عنوان ابعاد اصلی مشارکت مردمی در نوآوریهای اجتماعی معرفی شدند.
https://www.nowavari.ir/article_91152_859f6b8ba792073cf9008172f262ce48.pdf
2019-05-22
1
20
نوآوری اجتماعی
خیریه
مشارکت مردمی
رفع فقر
محرومیتزدایی
علی رضا
چیت سازیان
achitsazian1361@gmail.com
1
عضو هیئت علمی دانشکده معارف اسلامی و مدیریت، دانشگاه امام صادق (ع)، ایران.
AUTHOR
محمدعلی
صادقی کیا
sadeghikia89@gmail.com
2
کارشناس ارشد سیاستگذاری عمومی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه امام صادق (ع)، ایران.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Bacon, N., Faizullah, N., Mulgan, G. & Woodcarft, S., 2008. How local areas innovate to adress changing social needs. Technology.
1
Caulier-Grice, J., Davies, A., Patrick, R. & Norman, W., 2012. Defining social innovation. A deliverable of the project: "The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe" (TEPSIE), European Commission-7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission: DG Research.
2
Cialdini, R. B., Baumann, D. J. & Kenrick, D., 1981. Insights from sadness: A three-step model of the development of altruism as hedonism. Developmental review, 1(3), pp. 207-223.
3
Darley, J. M. & Batson, C. D.,"1973. From Jerusalem to jericho": A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 27(1), p. 100.
4
Davies, A. & Simon, J.,2013b. “Citizen engagement in social innovation a case study report”, TEPSIE.
5
Deaux, k., Dane, F. C., Weightsman, L. & Sigelman, C., 1990. Social Psychology In the 90s. California: Brooks / Cole publishing company.
6
Davies, A. & Simon, J., 2013a. “Engaging Citizens in Social Innovation A short guide to the research for policy makersand practitioners”, Brussels: European Commission: A deliverable of the project:‘The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe’(TEPSIE), European Commission—7th Framework Programme.
7
Davies, A. & Simon, J., 2013c. The value and role of citizen engagement in social innovation, Brussels: European Commission: DG Research.
8
Davies, A., Simon, J., Patrick, R. & Norman, W., 2012. Mapping citizen engagement in the process of social innovation. A deliverable of the project:“The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe”(TEPSIE), European Commission–7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.
9
Europe, A. P., 2014. Guidelines on involving older people in social innovation development, innovAge.
10
Gerometta, J., Haussermann, H. & Longo, G., 2005. Social innovation and civil society in urban governance: Strategies for an inclusive city. Urban studies, 42(11), pp. 2007-2021.
11
Joshi, S., Director, D. & CII-ITC CESD, 2010. Sustainable & Inclusive Innovation: Strategies for Tomorrow’s World, Multiplexusindia.
12
Latané, B. & Darley, J. M., 1970. The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn't He Help? New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
13
Lauritzen, F. & Blöndal, O., 2009. CSI. Corporate Social Innovation Companies participation in solving global challenges,FORA.
14
Michelini, L., 2012. Social innovation and new business models: creating shared value in low-income markets :Springer .
15
Milgram, S., 1970. The experience of living in cities. Science, 167(3924), pp. 1461-1467.
16
Mulgan, G., 2006. The process of social innovation. Innovations: technology, governance, globalization, 1(2), pp. 145-162.
17
Mumford, M. D., 2002. Social innovation: ten cases from Benjamin Franklin. Creativity research journal, 14(2), pp. 253-266.
18
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. & Mulgan, G., 2010. The open book of social innovation. London: National endowment for science, technology and the art.
19
OECD, 2010. SMEs, Entrepreneurship and Innovation: OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship, Paris and Washington, D.C: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
20
OECD, 2010. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation, in: SMEs, Entrepreneurship and Innovation.
21
Osburg, T. & Schmidpeter, R., 2013. Social Innovation: Solutions for a Sustainable Future. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
22
Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K. & Miller, D. T., 2008. Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), pp. 34-43.
23
Piliavin, J. A. & charng, H. W., 1990. Altruism: a rewew of recent theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology.
24
Pol, E. & Ville, S., 2009. Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term. The Journal of socio-economics, 38(6), pp. 878-885.
25
Rüede, D. & Lurtz, K., 2012. Mapping the various meanings of social innovation: Towards a differentiated understanding of an emerging concept.
26
Schmitt, J., 2014. Social Innovation for Business Success: Shared Value in the Apparel Industry :Springer Science & Business Media.
27
Shaker A, Z. & COVIN, J. G., 1994. Domestic and international competitive focus, technology strategy and company performance: An empirical analysis. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 6(1), pp. 39-54.
28
Social Innovation Europe, 2012. Financing Social Impact: Funding social innovation in Europe – mapping the way forward.
29
TEPSIE, 2014. Social Innovation Theory and Research: A guide for researchers.
30
اخوان, م., 1387. فلسفه نوع دوستی. کتاب ماه فلسفه, جلد 10 و 11, صص. 22-27.
31
بارون, ر., بیرن, د. و برنسکامب, ن., 1389. روان شناسی اجتماعی. تهران: روان.
32
بدار, ل., دژیل, ژ. و لامارش, ل., 1381. روان شناسی اجتماعی. تهران: انتشارات ساوالان.
33
تنهایی؛, ا., 1386. نظریههای جامعهشناسی. مشهد: نشر مرندیز.
34
توسلی, غ., 1386. جامعهشناسی شهری. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه پیام نور.
35
حسینی, م., طالب پور, ا. و امامعلی زاده, ح., 1393. بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر رفتار نوعدوستانه در بین شهروندان همدانی در سال 1392. فصلنامه توسعه اجتماعی, 9(1), صص. 135-160.
36
دوچ, م. و کراوس, ر., 1374. نظریه ها در روانشناسی اجتماعی. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
37
ریاحی, پ. و قاضی نوری, س. س., 1392. مقدمهای بر نظام نوآوری؛ رویکردی گسترده. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
38
ریتزر, ج., 1374. نظریههای جامعهشناسی در دوران معاصر. تهران: انتشارات علمی فرهنگی.
39
ستوده, ه. ا., 1389. روانشناسی اجتماعی. تهران: انتشارات آوای نور.
40
عابدی جعفری, ح., تسلیمی, م., فقیهی, ا. و شیخ زاده, م., 1390. تحلیل مضمون و شبکه مضامین: روشی ساده و کارآمد برای تبیین الگوهای موجود در دادهای کیفی. اندیشه مدیریت راهبردی, 2(10), صص. 151-198.
41
فیالکوف, ی., 1383. جامعهشناسی شهر. تهران: نشر آگه.
42
کرایب, ی., 1389. نظریه اجتماعی کلاسیک، مقدمهای بر اندیشه مارکس وبر، دورکیم، زیمل و شهناز مسمی پرست. تهران: نشر آگه.
43
کلانتری, ص., ادیبی, م., ربانی, ر. و احمدی, س., 1386. بررسی بیتفاوتی اجتماعی و نوعدوستی در جامعه شهری ایران و عوامل مؤثر بر آن. دو ماهنامه دانشور رفتار, صص. 27-35.
44
کوزر, ل., 1387. زندگی و اندیشه بزرگان جامعهشناسی. تهران: نشر علمی.
45
گنجی, م., نیازی, م. و احسانی راد, ف., 1394. مشارکت در امور خیریه و وقف، پیش درآمدی بر توسعه پایدار. مطالعات توسعه اجتماعی-فرهنگی, صص. 25-45.
46
مبینی دهکردی, ع. و کشتکار هراکنی, م., 1395. فراترکیب مدلهای نوآوری اجتماعی. برنامه ریزی رفاه و توسعه اجتماعی, 7(26), صص. 101-138.
47
محمدی اصل, ع., 1386. مبانی روانشناسی اجتماعی. تهران: نشر علم.
48
مسعودی پور, س. و خیری, ب., 1393. جاذبههای تبلیغاتی مطلوب در بازاریابی اجتماعی انفاق بر اساس آموزههای قرآنی. اندیشه مدیریت راهبردی, 8(1), صص. 67-97.
49
مسعودی پور, س. و قاسمی, ب., 1396. طراحی چارچوب تبلیغاتی اجتماعی برای جلب کمکهای مردمی مبتنی بر الگوی دینی. فصلنامه مدیریت اسلامی, 25(4), صص. 123-149.
50
ممتاز, ف., 1387. جامعهشناسی شهر. تهران: انتشارات شرکت سهامی انتشار.
51
مورتون, د. و کراوس, ر., 1374. نظریهها در روانشناسی اجتماعی. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
52
نقدی, ا., 1382. انسان و شهر (درآمدی بر جامعهشناسی شهری). همدان: انتشارات فنآوران.
53
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
شناسایی بازیگران اصلی و نقشهای کلیدی در زیستبوم نوآوری نوپاها: مطالعهای در استان همدان
نوآوری در برترین نسل خود از طریق تعاملات گسترده و تبادل دانش و محصولات در بین کنشگرانی با ویژگیهای حیاتگونه به وقوع میپیوندد. این خصوصیات در قالب مفهوم زیستبوم بهتر درک شده و امکان سیاستگذاری مییابد؛ به خصوص هنگامی که ریزارگانیزمهایی نسبتا نوآور و وابسته به محیط یعنی نوپاها مورد توجه باشند. این پژوهش زیستبوم نوآوری نوپاها را با هدف شناسایی بازیگران اصلی و نقشهای کلیدی آن مورد مطالعه قرار داده است. تحقیق دارای دو مرحله کیفی و کمی است. بخش کیفی مرور نظاممند ادبیات ده سال اخیر طی هفت مرحله شامل تعیین کلمات کلیدی، جستجو، سازماندهی، ارزیابی، گسترش، تفسیر و ارائه است. حاصل این بخش شناسایی دانشگاهها، مراکز رشد، تامین کنندههای مالی، شرکتها، شتابدهندهها و پارک-های علم و فناوری به عنوان بازیگران اصلی و همچنین زمینهسازی، متولدسازی، حمایتگری، مربیگری و سازآرایی به عنوان نقشهای کلیدی بوده است. پس از آن در بخش کمی به کمک تحلیل ساختاری رابطه بین نقشها با توانمندی نوآوری نوپاها در استان همدان بر مبنای دادههای جمع آوری شده در اوایل سال 97 آزمون شد که تائید شدند. این پژوهش به لحاظ نظری یک چارچوب با حداقلهای مورد نیاز برای تشکیل زیستبوم نوآوری نوپاها را شناسایی کرده و به لحاظ عملی دلالت بر آن دارد که استان همدان عمدتا به حمایتگری پرداخته و برای پیشرفت زیستبوم نیازمند توجه به سایر نقشهاست.
https://www.nowavari.ir/article_81027_a64eaff892776d40ff290984faf43102.pdf
2019-05-22
21
56
نوپاها
رویکرد زیستبومی
زیستبوم نوآوری
بازیگران اصلی در زیستبوم نوآوری
نقش های کلیدی در زیستبوم نوآوری
مهدی
محمدی
mohammadi.mehdi@gmail.com
1
استادیار دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران،ایران.
LEAD_AUTHOR
حمید رضا
یزدانی
hryazdani@ut.ac.ir
2
استادیار دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، پردیس فارابی دانشگاه تهران،ایران.
AUTHOR
حامد
اجاقی
hamed_ojaghi@ut.ac.ir
3
دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت تکنولوژی، پردیس فارابی دانشگاه تهران،ایران.
AUTHOR
Adner, R. and Kapoor, R. 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), pp. 306-333.
1
Afuah, A. 2000. How much do your co-opetitors' capabilities matter in the face of technological change? Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), pp. 397-404.
2
Al-Mubaraki, H.M. and Busler, M. 2014. Beyond Incubators Mechanisms: Innovation, Economic Development and Entrepreneurship. In B. Galbraith ed. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. pp. 18-26.
3
Alberti, F.G. and Pizzurno, E. 2017. Oops, I did it again! Knowledge leaks in open innovation networks with start-ups. European Journal of Innovation Management, 20(1), pp. 50-79.
4
Andersson, M. and Xiao, J. 2016. Acquisitions of start-ups by incumbent businesses: A market selection process of “high-quality” entrants? Research Policy, 45(1), pp. 272-290.
5
Anokhin, S. and Wincent, J. 2012. Start-up rates and innovation: A cross-country examination. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1), pp. 41-60.
6
Audretsch, D.B., Aldridge, T.T. and Sanders, M. 2011. Social capital building and new business formation: A case study in Silicon Valley. International Small Business Journal, 29(2), pp. 152-169.
7
Azzam, J.E., Ayerbe, C. and Dang, R. 2017. Using patents to orchestrate ecosystem stability: the case of a French aerospace company. International Journal of Technology Management, 75(1-4), pp. 97-120.
8
Bertoni, F., Colombo, M.G. and Grilli, L. 2011. Venture capital financing and the growth of high-tech start-ups: Disentangling treatment from selection effects. Research Policy, 40(7), pp. 1028-1043.
9
Bilau, J. and Sarkar, S. 2016. Financing innovative start-ups in Portuguese context: what is the role of business angels networks? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 7(4).
10
Bonardo, D., Paleari, S. and Vismara, S. 2010. The M&A dynamics of European science-based entrepreneurial firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), pp. 141-180.
11
Breznitz, D. and Taylor, M. 2014. The communal roots of entrepreneurial–technological growth–social fragmentation and stagnation: reflection on Atlanta's technology cluster. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 26(3-4), pp. 375-396.
12
Breznitz, S.M., Clayton, P.A., Defazio, D. and Isett, K.R. 2018. Have you been served? The impact of university entrepreneurial support on start-ups' network formation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(2), pp. 343-367.
13
Buckley, A.P. and Davis, S. 2016. Evaluating the Contribution of Technology Start-up Incubators: Exploring Methodological and Data-related Conundrums, Kidmore End, Academic Conferences International Limited.
14
Busquets, J. 2010. Orchestrating Smart Business Network dynamics for innovation. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(4), pp. 481-493.
15
Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Zhao, Y.S. 2002. Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), pp. 515-524.
16
Calcagnini, G. et al. 2016. The role of universities in the location of innovative start-ups. Journal of Technology Transfer ,41(4), pp. 670-693.
17
Cantù, C. 2015. A service incubator business model: external networking orientation. IMP Journal, 9(3), pp. 267-285.
18
Cardenas, J.M. and Rondon, I. 2015. Innovation and Startup Pathways in a University Scope. In D. F. Kocaoglu et al. eds. Picmet '15 Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology. pp. 968-971.
19
Chatterji, A.K. 2009. SPAWNED WITH A SILVER SPOON? ENTREPRENEURIAL PERFORMANCE AND INNOVATION IN THE MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRY. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), pp. 185-206.
20
Clarysse, B. and Bruneel, J. 2007. Nurturing and growing innovative start-ups: the role of policy as integrator. R & D Management, 37(2), ppp. 139-149.
21
Claver-Cortes, E., Marco-Lajara, B., Manresa-Marhuenda, E. and Garcia-Lillo, F. 2018. Location in scientific-technological parks, dynamic capabilities, and innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(4), pp. 377-390.
22
Clayton, P., Feldman, M. and Lowe, N. 2018. BEHIND THE SCENES: INTERMEDIARY ORGANIZATIONS THAT FACILITATE SCIENCE COMMERCIALIZATION THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1), pp. 104-124.
23
Colombelli, A. 2016. The impact of local knowledge bases on the creation of innovative start-ups in Italy. Small Business Economics, 47(2), pp. 383-396.
24
Comberg, C., Seith, F., German, A. and Velamuri, V.K. 2014. Pivots in Startups: Factors Influencing Business Model Innovation in Startups, Manchester, The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).
25
Desyllas, P. and Hughes, A. 2008. Sourcing technological knowledge through corporate acquisition: Evidence from an international sample of high technology firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 18(2), pp. 157-172.
26
Dhanaraj, C. and Parkhe, A. 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of management review 31(3) 659-669.
27
Doruk, O.T. and Soylemezoglu, E. 2014. The Constraints of Innovation in Developing Countries: Too many barriers to start ups? In M. Ozsahin ed. 10th International Strategic Management Conference 2014. pp.944-949.
28
Duening, T.N., Hisrich, R.A. and Lechter, M.A. 2014. Technology Entrepreneurship: Taking Innovation to the Marketplace: Elsevier Science.
29
Dushnitsky, G. and Shaver, J.M. 2009. LIMITATIONS TO INTERORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION: THE PARADOX OF CORPORATE VENTURE CAPITAL. Strategic Management Journal, 30(10), pp. 1045-1064.
30
Džupka, P., Klasová, S. and Kováč, V. 2016. Analysis of innovative start-up companies – Case of košice region. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 20(1), pp. 40-56.
31
Feld, B. 2012. Startup communities: Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city: John Wiley & Sons.
32
Festel, G. 2013. Academic spin-offs, corporate spin-outs and company internal start-ups as technology transfer approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), pp. 454-470.
33
Flavia Luciane, S., Italo Fernando, M., Cristiane, K. and Andréa Bach, R. 2018. To Internationalize or Not to Internationalize? A Descriptive Study of a Brazilian Startup. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(3).
34
Fritsch, M. and Aamoucke, R. 2013. Regional public research, higher education, and innovative start-ups: an empirical investigation. Small Business Economic, 41(4), pp. 865-885.
35
Fritsch, M. and Noseleit, F. 2013. Start-ups, long- and short-term survivors, and their contribution to employment growth. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 23(4), pp. 719-733.
36
Fukugawa, N. 2013. Heterogeneity among science parks with incubators as intermediaries of research collaborations between startups and universities in Japan. International Journal of Technology Transfer & Commercialisation, 12(4), pp. 231.
37
Ghezzi, A. et al. 2016. A role for startups in unleashing the disruptive power of social media. International Journal of Information Management, 36(6, Part A), pp. 1152-1159.
38
Ghio, N., Guerini, M. and Rossi-Lamastra, C. 2016. University knowledge and the creation of innovative start-ups: an analysis of the Italian case. Small Business Economics, 47(2), pp. 293-311.
39
Giarratana, M.S. 2004. The birth of a new industry: entry by start-ups and the drivers of firm growth - The case of encryption software. Research Policy, 33(5), pp. 787-806.
40
Goswami, K., Mitchell, J.R. and Bhagavatula, S. 2018. Accelerator expertise: Understanding the intermediary role of accelerators in the development of the Bangalore entrepreneurial ecosystem. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), pp. 117-150.
41
Gudanescu, N.L. 2009. Innovative Start-ups & Technology Transfer challenges in the context of Business Internationalization.
42
Haines, T. 2016. Developing a Startup and Innovation Ecosystem in Regional Australia. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(6), pp. 24-32.
43
Henrekson, M. and Johansson, D. 2010. Gazelles as job creators: a survey and interpretation of the evidence. Small Business Economics, 35(2), pp.227-244.
44
Hockerts, K. and Wustenhagen, R. 2010. Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids - Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), pp. 481-492.
45
Hu, G.L. 2015. Development Stage and Trend of Chinese College Students' internet start-up. In K. A. Grant and G. Rao eds. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Cultivating Undergraduate Entrepreneurship and Management Engineering. pp. 33-38.
46
Humala, I.A. 2015. Leadership toward creativity in virtual work in a start-up context. Journal of Workplace Learning, 27(6), pp. 426-441.
47
Hunt, R.A. 2013. Entrepreneurial tweaking: An empirical study of technology diffusion through secondary inventions and design modifications by start-ups. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(2), pp. 148-170.
48
Kebbi, A. and Valliere, D. 2016. The Double J-Curve: A Model for Incubated Start-ups. In I. Aaltio and M. T. Eskelinen eds. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. pp. 371-380.
49
Kirchberger, M.A. and Pohl, L. 2016. Technology commercialization: a literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), pp. 1077-1112.
50
Kohler, T. 2016. Corporate accelerators: Building bridges between corporations and startups. Business Horizons, 59(3), pp. 347-357.
51
Komi, M., Still, K., Wallin, A. and Jaring, P. 2015. Accelerating the innovation process of start-ups - Business incubator and accelerator services in Finland, Manchester, The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).
52
Koster, S. and van Stel, A. 2014. The relationship between start-ups, market mobility and employment growth: An empirical analysis for Dutch regions. Papers in Regional Science, 93(1), pp. 203-217.
53
Kumar, P., Dass, M. and Kumar, S. 2015. From competitive advantage to nodal advantage: Ecosystem structure and the new five forces that affect prosperity. Business Horizons, 58(4), pp. 469-481.
54
Leten, B. et al. 2013. IP Models to Orchestrate Innovation Ecosystems: IMEC, A PUBLIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE IN NANO-ELECTRONICS. California Management Review, 55(4), pp. 51-64.
55
Livi, C. and Jeannerat, H. 2015. Born to be Sold: Start-ups as Products and New Territorial Life Cycles of Industrialization. European Planning Studies, 23(10), p. 1953.
56
Lombardi, R., Trequattrini, R. and Russo, G. 2016. Innovative start-ups and equity crowdfunding. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 19(1-2), pp. 68-83.
57
Makinen, S.J. and Ieee 2014. A View on Science-based Start-ups as Innovation Ecosystems: Exploring Functions of Basic Mechanisms. 2014 Ieee International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology (Icmit 2014), pp. 223-229.
58
Malek, K., Maine, E. and McCarthy, I.P. 2014. A typology of clean technology commercialization accelerators. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,Volume(32), pp. 26-39.
59
Mian, S., Lamine, W. and Fayolle, A. 2016. Technology Business Incubation: An overview of the state of knowledge. Technovation, Volume(50-51), pp. 1-12.
60
Moroni, I., Arruda, A. and Araujo, K. 2015. The Design and Technological Innovation: How to Understand the Growth of Startups Companies in Competitive Business Environment. Procedia Manufacturing,Volume(3), pp. 2199-2204.
61
Morris, M.H., Shirokova, G. and Tsukanova, T. 2017. Student entrepreneurship and the university ecosystem: a multi-country empirical exploration. European Journal of International Management, 11(1), pp. 65-85.
62
Nambisan, S. and Baron, R.A. 2013. Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: Entrepreneurs' self-regulatory processes and their implications for new venture success. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 37(5), pp. 1071-1097.
63
Naude, W., Gries, T., Wood, E. and Meintjies, A. 2008. Regional determinants of entrepreneurial start-ups in a developing country. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20(2), pp. 111-124.
64
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Frels, R. 2016. Seven Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach: SAGE Publications.
65
Oppong-Tawiah, D. and Chan, Y.E. 2016. The influence of IT and knowledge capabilities on the survival of university IT startups. International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship, 3(2), pp. 150-172.
66
Overholm, H. 2015. Collectively created opportunities in emerging ecosystems: The case of solar service ventures. Technovation,Volum(39–40), pp. 14-25.
67
Paradkar, A., Knight, J. and Hansen, P. 2015. Innovation in start-ups: Ideas filling the void or ideas devoid of resources and capabilities? Technovation 41-42 1-10.
68
Passaro, R., Quinto, I. and Thomas, A. 2017. Start-up competitions as learning environment to foster the entrepreneurial process. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(3), pp. 426-445.
69
Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M. and Van Hove, J. 2016. Understanding a new generation incubation model: The accelerator. Technovation,Volume(50-51), pp. 13-24.
70
Peters, L. and Sundararajan, M. 2003. Acquisition of resources for commercializing emerging technologies: Comparing large firms with startups.
71
Pittayasophon, S. and Intarakumnerd, P. 2017. University and industry collaboration in Japan and Thailand: influence of university type. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 25(1), pp. 23-40.
72
Presutti, M., Boari, C. and Majocchi, A. 2011. The Importance of Proximity for the Start-Ups' Knowledge Acquisition and Exploitation. Journal of Small Business Management 49(3) 361-389.
73
Ramirez-Aleson, M. and Fernandez-Olmos, M. 2018. Unravelling the effects of Science Parks on the innovation performance of NTBFs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(2), pp. 482-505.
74
Ratinho, T. and Henriques, E. 2010. The role of science parks and business incubators in converging countries: Evidence from Portugal. Technovation, 30(4), pp. 278-290.
75
Richter, C.H., Xu, J. and Wilcox, B.A 2015. Opportunities and challenges of the ecosystem approach. Futures, Volume( 67), pp. 40-51.
76
Ries, E. 2011. The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses: Crown Books.
77
Ritala, P., Agouridas, V., Assimakopoulos, D. and Gies, O. 2013. Value creation and capture mechanisms in innovation ecosystems: a comparative case study. International Journal of Technology Management, 63(3-4), pp. 244-267.
78
Ritala, P. and Almpanopoulou, A. 2017. In defense of 'eco' in innovation ecosystem. Technovation Volume(60-61), pp. 39-42.
79
Rostarova, M. and Rentkova, K. 2016. INVESTMENT CRITERIA OF THE SUCCESSFUL START-UP ACCELERATORS, Varazdin, Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency (VADEA).
80
Roundy, P.T. 2017. Hybrid organizations and the logics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(4), pp. 1221-1237.
81
Rubin, T.H., Aas, T.H. and Stead, A. 2015. Knowledge flow in Technological Business Incubators: Evidence from Australia and Israel. Technovation, Volume(41-42), pp. 11-24.
82
Savaneviciene, A., Venckuviene, V. and Girdauskiene, L. 2015. Venture Capital a Catalyst for Start-Ups to Overcome the "Valley of Death": Lithuanian Case. In C. Bektas ed. 4th World Conference on Business, Economics and Management. pp. 1052-1059.
83
Shane, S. 2009. Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), pp.141-149.
84
Simon, H. and Leker, J. 2016. Using Startup Communication for Opportunity Recognition an Approach to Identify Future Product Trends. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(08) 1640016.
85
Sipola, S., Puhakka, V. and Mainela, T. 2016. A start-up ecosystem as a structure and context for high growth. Advances in International Management, Volume(29), pp. 179-202.
86
Spender, J.C., Corvello, V., Grimaldi, M. and Rippa, P. 2017. Startups and open innovation: a review of the literature. European Journal of Innovation Management, 20(1), pp. 4-30.
87
Spigel, B. 2017. The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1) , pp. 49-72.
88
Spigel, B. and Harrison, R. 2018. Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal , 12(1), pp. 151-168.
89
Squicciarini, M. 2009. Science parks: seedbeds of innovation? A duration analysis of firms' patenting activity. Small Business Economics, 32(2), pp. 169-190.
90
Su, D., Ali, M. and Sohn, D.W. 2011. A model to create high-tech start-ups from the academic environment: The case of Peking University (PKU) and Tsinghua University (THU). African Journal of Business Management, 5(26), pp.10821-10833.
91
Su, J., Cao, H. and Wang, H. 2013. Key Factors on the Process of Born Globals from Start-Up to Growth: PV Enterprises in China. 2013 International Conference on Management (Icm 2013 , pp.1221-1228.
92
Subrahmanya, M.B. 2017. Comparing the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems for Technology Startups in Bangalore and Hyderabad, India. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(7).
93
Swamidass, P. 2013. University startups as a commercialization alternative: lessons from three contrasting case studies. Journal of Technology Transfer,38(6), pp. 788-808.
94
Talaia, M., Pisoni, A. and Onetti, A. 2016. Factors influencing the fund raising process for innovative new ventures: an empirical study. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(2), pp. 363-378.
95
Usman, M. and Vanhaverbeke, W. 2017. How start-ups successfully organize and manage open innovation with large companies. European Journal of Innovation Management, 20(1), pp. 171-186.
96
Valkokari, K., Seppanen, M., Mantyla, M. and Jylha-Ollila, S. 2017. Orchestrating Innovation Ecosystems: A Qualitative Analysis of Ecosystem Positioning Strategies. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(3), pp. 12-24.
97
van Gils, M.J.G.M. and Rutjes, F.P.J.T. 2017. Accelerating chemical start-ups in ecosystems: the need for biotopes. European Journal of Innovation Management, 20(1), pp. 135-152.
98
van Weele, M., van Rijnsoever, F.J. and Nauta, F. 2017. You can't always get what you want: How entrepreneur's perceived resource needs affect the incubator's assertiveness. Technovation Volume(59), pp. 18-33.
99
Vasquez-Urriago, A.R., Barge-Gil, A. and Rico, A.M. 2016. Science and Technology Parks and cooperation for innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Research Policy, 45(1), pp.137-147.
100
Vieira, K.C., Alcantara, V.D., do Prado, J.W. and Bermejo, P.H.D. 2015. External Sources in the process of Open Innovation: Reinforcing and Restrictive Factors in Tech Startups. Risus-Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, 6(3), pp. 3-28.
101
Weiblen, T. and Chesbrough, H.W. 2015. Engaging with Startups to Enhance Corporate Innovation. California Management Review 57(2) 66-90.
102
Wright, M., Siegel, D.S. and Mustar, P. 2017. An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups. Journal of Technology Transfer ,42(4), pp. 909-922.
103
Xiao, L. and North, D. 2018. The role of Technological Business Incubators in supporting business innovation in China: a case of regional adaptability? Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 30(1-2), pp. 29-57.
104
Yang, S., Kher, R. and Lyons, T.S. 2018. Where Do Accelerators Fit in the Venture Creation Pipeline? Different Values Brought by Different Types of Accelerators. Entrepreneurship Research Journal 8(4) 13.
105
Zahra, S.A. and Nambisan, S. 2011. Entrepreneurship in global innovation ecosystems. AMS Review, 1(1) , pp. 4.
106
Zhang, Y. and Li, H. 2010. Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: the role of ties with service intermediaries. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), pp. 88-109.
107
سید عباس زاده, م., امانی ساری بگلو, ج., خضری آذر, ه. & پاشوی, ق., 1391. مقدمه ای بر مدل یابی معادلات ساختاری به روش PLS و کاربرد آن در علوم رفتاری. ارومیه: انتشارات دانشگاه ارومیه.
108
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
توسعه مدل نظام نوآوری فناورانه رادیودارو در ایران با تأکید بر ابعاد فراملی
در سال های اخیر، فناوری رادیودارو، علیرغم تحریمهای جوامع بینالملل علیه فعالیت هستهای ایران به پیشرفت های چشمگیری دست یافته است. در این مقاله می خواهیم دریابیم که با لحاظ کردن بعد فراملی، نظام نوآوری فناورانه رادیودارو به چه مرحله ای از توسعه دست می یابد. این مسئله با استفاده از روش"تحلیل تاریخی رویدادها" و "کدگذاری مصاحبه های نیمه باز" صورت گرفته تا مرحله توسعه موتور نوآوری نظام در وضعیت موجود و با لحاظ کردن بعد فراملی را شناسایی کند. دریافتیم که در وضعیت کنونی، حلقههای "موتور ساختاردهی" تشکیل شده است اما با توجه به بازخورد دریافتی از متخصصین، میتوان دریافت که مشخصات نظام در موتور ساختاردهی، کاملاً با وضعیت کنونی سازگار نیست. بنابراین، شکلگیری ناقص موتور ساختاردهی را پذیرفته و بر این اساس، مرحله توسعه نظام را، آستانه مرحله اوج گیری شناسایی کردیم. با اضافه شدن بعد فراملی و بر اساس نتایج بخش دوم، می توان دریافت که نظام نوآوری فناورانه رادیودارو، به مرحله اوج گیری و موتور ساختاردهی صعود کامل خواهد داشت.
https://www.nowavari.ir/article_91153_b7371bd7def6427b45116cc00ce5fead.pdf
2019-05-22
57
88
رادیودارو
نظام نوآوری فناورانه
ابعاد فراملی
سعیده
لرستانی
s.lorestani@yahoo.com
1
دانشجوی دکتری سیاستگذاری علم و فناوری، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصادی، دانشگاه مازندران، ایران.
AUTHOR
محمود
یحیی زاده فر
m.yahyazadeh@umz.ac.ir
2
عضو هیئت علمی دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصادی، دانشگاه مازندران،ایران.
LEAD_AUTHOR
طاهره
میرعمادی
tamiremadi@yahoo.com
3
عضو هیئت علمی مرکز پژوهشهای علمی و صنعتی ایران.
AUTHOR
محسن
علیزاده ثانی
alizadehsani@umz.ac.ir
4
عضو هیئتعلمی دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصادی، دانشگاه مازندران، ایران.
AUTHOR
Allen, R.H & Sriram, R.D 2000, the role of standards in innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, Volume (64), pp. 171-181.
1
Amin, A 2002, Spatialities of globalisation. Environ. Plan. A, Volume (34), pp. 385-399.
2
Annemarth E.M. Bleeker 2013, Diffusion of Solar PV From a TIS Perspective & its Transnational Factors, A case study of Tanzania, Institute for Environmental Studies.
3
Archibugi, D & Pietrobelli, C 2003, The globalisation of technology and its implications for developing countries: windows of opportunity or further burden? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, Volume (70), pp. 861-883.
4
Anderson, K., Martin, W., van der Mensbrugghe, D.,(2006). Doha merchandise trade reform: what is at stake for developing countries? World Bank Econ. Rev. Volume (20), pp. 169-195.
5
Bai, X, Wieczorek, A.J, Kaneko, S, Lisson, S & Contreras, A 2009, Enabling sustainability transitions in Asia: the importance of vertical and horizontal linkages, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, Volume (76), pp. 255-266.
6
Beaverstock, J.V. Hall, . S.J.E & Faulconbridge, J.R 2006, The internationalization of Europe's contemporary transnational executive search industry, in: J.W. Harrington, W. Daniels (Eds.) 28 Knowledge-based services, internationalization and regional development, Ashgate Publishing, Hampshire/Burlington, 2006.
7
Bento, N & Fontes, M 2015, Spatial Diffusion and the Formation of a Technological Innovation System in the Receiving Country: The Case of Wind Energy in Portugal, Environmental Innovation and SocietalTransitions, Volume (15), pp. 158-179.
8
Bergek, A, Jacobsson, S, Carlsson, B, Lindmark, S, & Rickne, A 2008, Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis, Research Policy, Volume (37), pp. 407-429
9
Binz, C, Truffer, B & Coenen, L 2014, Why Space Matters in Technological Innovation Systems: Mapping Global knowledge Dynamics of Membrane Bioreactor Technology, Research Policy, Volume (43), pp. 138-155.
10
Binz, C, Truffer, B, Li, L, Shi, Y, Lu, Y, 2012, Conceptualizing leapfrogging with spatially coupled innovation systems: the case of onsite wastewater treatment in China, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, Volume (79), PP. 155-171.
11
Blomstr€om, M & Sj€oholm, F 1999, Technology transfer and spillovers: does local participation with multinationals matter? Eur. Econ. Rev. Volume (43), PP. 915-923.
12
Brandt, U.S & Svendsen, G.T 2006, Climate change negotiations and first-mover advantages: the case of the wind turbine industry. Energy Policy, Volume (34), pp. 1175-1184.
13
Bryman, A 2006, integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research. 6(1), pp. 97-113.
14
CACETC 2000, China Wind Power e Study Report. As Part of UNFCCC Technological Needs Assessment
15
Cao, C 2008, China's brain drain at the high end. Asian Popul. Stud. Volume (4), pp. 331-345.
16
Carlsson, B 2006, Internationalization of innovation systems: a survey of the literature. Res. Policy, Volume (35), pp. 56-67.
17
Chappin, E. J. L 2008, Emission-trading as transition instrument for emission reductions? In Groenewegen, J. P. M., T. Fens, J.-F. Auger, and K. Paardenkooper-Suli, editors, 11th Annual International Conference on the Economics of Infrastructures, Delft, 2008. Delft University of Technology
18
Coe, N.M, Dicken, P & Hess, M. 2008, Global production networks: realizing the potential. J. Econ. Geogr. Volume (8), pp. 271-295.
19
Coenen, L & Truffer, B 2012, Places and Spaces of Sustainability Transitions: Geographical Contributions to an Emerging Research and Policy Field.European Planning Studies, 20(3), pp. 367-374.
20
Coenen, L, Benneworth, P & Truffer, B 2012, toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Res. Policy, Volume (41), pp. 968-979.
21
Edsand, H 2016, Technological Innovation Systems and the wider context: A framework for developing countries," MERIT Working Papers 017, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
22
Ernst, D & Kim, L 2002, Global production networks, knowledge diffusion, and local capability formation. Res. Policy, Volume (31), pp. 1417-1429.
23
Ernst, D 2002, Global production networks and the changing geography of innovation systems, Implications for developing countries. Econ. Innov. New Technol. Volume (11), pp. 497-523.
24
Ernst, D, Kim, L 2002, Global production networks, knowledge diffusion, and local capability formation. Res. Policy, Volume (31), pp. 1417-1429.
25
Fu, X, Pietrobelli, C & Soete, L 2011, The role of foreign technology and indigenous innovation in the emerging economies: technological change and catching-up. World Dev. Volume (39), pp. 1204-1212.
26
Geels, F.W 2013, The impact of the financial-economic crisis on sustainability transitions:Financial investment, governance and public discourse. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions, Volume (6), pp. 67–95.
27
Gereffi, G & Fernandez-Stark, K 2011, Global Value Chain Analysis, a Primer. Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness at the social science institute.
28
Gereffi, G, Humphrey, J & Sturgeon, T 2005, The Governance of Global Value Chains, Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), pp.78-104.
29
Gosens, J, Lu, Y & Coenen,L 2015, The Role of Transnational Dimensions in Emerging Economy ‘Technological Innovation Systems’ for Clean- Tech, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume (86), pp. 378-388.
30
Gosens, J, Lu, Y 2013, From lagging to leading? Technological innovation systems in emerging economies and the case of Chinese wind power. Energy Policy, Volume (60),pp. 234-250.
31
Hansen, J.A & Lehmann, M 2006, Agents of change: universities as development hubs. J. Clean. Prod. Volume (14), pp. 820-829.
32
Hansen, U.E & Nygaard, I 2013, transnational linkages and sustainable transitions in emerging countries: exploring the role of donor interventions in niche development.Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit., Volume (8), pp. 1-19.
33
Hekkert, M.P , Suurs, R.A.A, Negro, S, Kuhlmann,S & Smits,S 2007, Functions of Innovation Systems: A New Approach for Analysing Technological Change, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume (74), pp. 413-432.
34
Hekkert, M.P, Negro, S.O, Harmsen, R & Heimeriks, G.J 2011, Technological Innovation System Analysis: A Manual for Analysts. Utrecht University, Report for Joint Research Center, Energy Institute.
35
Henderson, J, Dicken, P, Hess, M, Coe, N & Yeung, H.W.-C 2002, Global production networks and the analysis of economic development. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. Volume (9), pp. 436-464.
36
Hillman, K, Suurs, R, Hekkert, M & Sandén, B 2008, Cumulative Causation in Biofuels Development: A Critical Comparison of the Netherlands and Sweden, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Volume (20), pp. 592-612.
37
Hoekman, B.M, Maskus, K.E & Saggi, K 2005, Transfer of technology to developing countries: unilateral and multilateral policy options. World Dev. Volume (33), pp. 1587-1602.
38
Hultman, N.E, Pulver, S, Guimarães, L, Deshmukh, R & Kane, J 2010, Carbon market risks and rewards: Firm perceptions of CDM investment decisions in Brazil and India, Energy Policy, In Press, Corrected Proof (2010).
39
IAEA 2006, Advances in medical radiation imaging for cancer diagnosis and treatment, Nuclear Technology Review 2006, pp. 110-127.
40
IEA/OECD 2001, Technology without Borders e Case Studies of Successful Technology Transfer. IEA/OECD, Paris.
41
Inkpen, A.C 2000, learning through joint ventures: a framework of knowledge acquisition. J. Manag. Stud. Volume (37), pp. 1019-1044.
42
Jacobsson, S & Johnson, A 2000, the diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy, Volume (28), pp. 625–640.
43
Jalilian, A, Beiki, , Hassanzadeh-Rad, A, Eftekhari, A & Geramifar, P 2016, Production and Clinical Applications of Radiopharmaceuticals and Medical Radioisotopes in Iran, Semin Nucl Med. 2016 Jul, 46(4), pp. 340-58
44
Kinoshita, Y 2000, R&D and Technology Spillovers via FDI, Innovation and Absorptive Capacity, CEPR/WDI Annual Conference on Transition Economies in Moscow for comments and Murali Parsa at the Czech Statistical Office for providing the data
45
Kukk, P, Moors, E.H.M & Hekkert, M.P 2015, The Complexities in System Building Strategies: The Case of Personalized Cancer Medicines in England, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume (98), pp. 47-59.
46
Lema, R & Lema, A 2012 Technology Transfer? The Rise of China and India in Green Technology Sectors, Innovation and Development, 2(1), pp. 23-44.
47
Lewis, J.I 2011, Building a national wind turbine industry: experiences from China, India and South Korea. Int. J. Technol. Glob. 5, 281e305.
48
Lewis, J.I, Wiser, R.H 2007, fostering a renewable energy technology industry: an international comparison of wind industry policy support mechanisms. EnergyPolicy, Volume (35), pp. 1844-1857.
49
Løvdal, N & Neumann, F 2011, Internationalization as a strategy to overcome industry barriersdan assessment of the marine energy industry. Energy Policy, Volume (39), pp. 1093-1100.
50
Lundvall, B.-Å, Johnson, B, Andersen, E.S, Dalum, B, 2002, National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Res. Policy, Volume (31), pp. 213-231.
51
Markard, J & Truffer, B 2008, Technological innovation systems and the multi level perspective: towards an integrated framework. Res. Policy, Volume (37), pp. 596-615.
52
Markard, J, M, Suter & Ingold, K. 2015, Socio-Technical Transitions and Policy Change: Advocacy Coalitions in Swiss Energy Policy. SPRUWorking Paper Series, SWPS, Volume (18), pp. 215-237.
53
Markard, J, Raven, R & Truffer, B 2012, Sustainability Transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy 41, 955–967 (Introduction paperfor the special section).
54
Markides, C., Geroski, P. (2005). Fast Second. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
55
Martinot, E, Chaurey, A, Lew, D, Moreira, J.R & Wamukonya, N., 2002. Renewable energy markets in developing countries. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. Volume (27), pp. 309-348.
56
Maskus, K.E 2000, Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy. Peterson Institute.
57
Mattoo, A.M, Olareagga, K & Saggi, M 2004, Mode of foreign entry, technology transfer, and FDI policy, J. Devel. Econ., 75(1), pp. 95-111.
58
Miremadi, T 2016, A Model for Science and Technology Diplomacy: How to Align the Rationales of Foreign Policy and Science. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2737347
59
Mohamad, Z.F 2011, The emergence of fuel cell technology and challenges for catching-up by latecomers: insights from Malaysia and Singapore. Int. J. Technol.Glob. Volume (5), pp. 306-326.
60
Negro, S & Hekkert, M 2008, Explaining the Success of Emerging Technologies by Innovation System Functioning: The Case of Biomass Digestion in Germany, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Volume (20), pp. 465-482.
61
Nemet, G.F 2009, Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change. Res. Policy, Volume (38), pp. 700-709.
62
Nye, J 2010, The Future of American Power. Foreign Affairs , November December.
63
Ockwell, D.G, Watson, J, MacKerron, G, Pal, P & Yamin, F 2008, Key policy considerations for facilitating low carbon technology transfer to developing countries. Energy Policy, Volume (36), pp. 4104-4115.
64
OECD 2005, Governance of Innovation Systems. Volume 1: Synthesis Report. Paris: OECD.
65
OECD, 2011 Invention and Transfer of Environmental Technologies, OECD Studies on Environmental Innovation. OECD Publishing.
66
Paez, D, Becic, T, Bhonsle, U, Jalilian, A.R, Nuñez-Miller. R & Osso, J.A. J.r., 2016, Current status of nuclear medicine practice in the Middle East. Sem. Nucl. Med. (2016), Volume (46), pp. 265 272.
67
Panayotou, T 2013, Instruments of Change: Motivating and Financing Sustainable Development. London, Routledge.
68
Peltier, N. P & Ashford, N.A., 1998. Assessing and rationalizing the management of a portfolio of clean technologies: experience from a French environmental fund and a World Bank Cleaner Production demonstration project in China. J. Clean.Prod. Volume (6), pp. 111-117.
69
Peterson, S 2008, Greenhouse gas mitigation in developing countries through technology transfer?: a survey of empirical evidence. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Global Change, Volume (13), pp. 283-305.
70
Poole, M.S, Van de Ven, A.H, Dooley, K & Holmes, M.E 2000,Organizational change and innovation processes, theories and methods for research, Oxford: Oxford University Press.- Semin Nucl Med 2016, Volume (46), pp. 265-272
71
REN21 2013. Renewables 2013 Global Status Report. REN21 Secretariat, Paris.
72
Rennings, K & Beise, M, 2003, "Lead Markets of Environmental Innovations: A Framework for Innovation and Environmental Economics," ZEW Discussion Papers 03-01, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
73
Rennings, K 2000, Redefining innovationdeco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. Volume (32), pp. 319-332.
74
Rousselin, M 2012, But why would they do that? European external governance and domestic preferences of rule importers. J. Contemp. Eur. Res. Volume (8), pp. 470-489
75
Ru, P, Zhi, Q, Zhang, F, Zhong, X, Li, J & Su, J 2012, Behind the development of technology: the transition of innovation modes in China's wind turbine manufacturing industry. Energy Policy, Volume (43), pp. 58-69.
76
Rumbaugh, T & Blancher, N 2004, China: International Trade and WTO Accession. IMF working paper WP/04/36.
77
Saxenian, A 2002, transnational communities and the evolution of global production networks: the cases of Taiwan, China and India. Ind. Innov, Volume (9), pp. 183-202.
78
Saxenian, A 2005, from brain drain to brain circulation: transnational communities and regional upgrading in India and China. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. Volume (40),pp.35-61.
79
Schmidt, T.S & Dabur, D 2014, Explaining the Diffusion of Biogas in India: A New Functional Approach Considering National Borders and Technology Transfer, Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Volume (16),pp.171-199.
80
Smarzynska Javorcik, B 2004, the composition of foreign direct investment and protection of intellectual property rights: evidence from transition economies. Eur. Econ. Rev. Volume (48), pp. 39-62.
81
Steele, F., 2005. Event history analysis, NCRM/004. National Centre for Research Methods.
82
Suurs, R.A.A 2009, Motors of sustainable innovation. Towards a theory on the dynamics of technological innovation systems, thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
83
Suurs, R.A.A, Hekkert, M.P 2009, Cumulative causation in the formation of a technological innovation system: the case of biofuels in the Netherlands. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 2009, Volume (76), pp. 1003–20.
84
Suurs, R.A.A, Hekkert, M.P, Kieboom, S, Smits, R.E.H.M 2010, Understanding the formative stage of technological innovation system development: the case of natural gas as an automotive fuel. Energ Policy, Volume (38), pp. 419-431.
85
Taylor, R 2005, China's Human Resource Management Strategies: The Role of Enterprise and Government, Asian Business & Management, 4 (1) pp. 5-21.
86
Teece, D.J 2001, Firm capabilities and economic development: implications for the newly industrializing economies. In: Kim, L., Nelson, R.R. (Eds.), Technology, Learning and Innovation: Experiences of Newly Industrializing Economies.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
87
Van Alphen, K, Hekkert, M.P & van Sark, W.G.J.H.M 2008, Renewable energy technologies in the Maldivesdrealizing the potential. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Volume (12), pp. 162-180.
88
Van Asselt, H & Brewer, T 2010, Addressing competitiveness and leakage concerns in climate policy: an analysis of border adjustment measures in the US and the EU. Energy Policy, Volume (38), pp. 42-51.
89
Vasseur, V, Kamp, L.M & Negro, S.O 2013, A comparative analysis of photovoltaic technological innovation systems including international dimensions: the cases of Japan and the Netherlands. J. Clean. Prod. Volume (48), pp. 200-210.
90
Viotti, E.B 2002, National learning systems: a new approach on technological change in late industrializing economies and evidences from the cases of Brazil and South Korea. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, Volume (69), pp. 653-680.
91
Wieczorek, A.J, Berkhout, F, & Raven, R 2013, transnational linkages in sustainability experiments of India, Paper presented at International Sustainability Transition Conference in Zurich, Switzerland, June 2013, pp. 19-21.
92
Wieczorek, A.J, Negro, S.O, Harmsen, R, Heimeriks, G.J, Luo, L & Hekkert, M.P 2013, A review of the European offshore wind innovation system, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume (26), pp. 294-306.
93
Wilkins, G 2002, Technology Transfer for Renewable Energy: Overcoming Barriers in Developing Countries. Earth Scan, London.
94
Worrell, E, van Berkel, R, Fengqi, Z, Menke, C, Schaeffer, R.O & Williams, R 2001, Technology transfer of energy efficient technologies in industry: a review of trends and policy issues. Energy Policy, Volume (29), pp. 29-43.
95
WTO 2014, WTO Mission Statement. http://www.wto. org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/wto_dg_stat_e.htm.
96
Yoo, Y, Lyytinen, K & Yang, H 2005. The role of standards in innovation and diffusion of broadband mobile services: the case of South Korea. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst, Volume (14), pp. 323-353.
97
Young, O.R 2011, Effectiveness of international environmental regimes: existing knowledge, cutting-edge themes, and research strategies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. Volume (108), pp. 19853-19860.
98
Zhao, M 2006, Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection. Manag. Sci. Volume (52), pp. 1185-1199.
99
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
بررسی چالشهای همکاری دانشگاه-صنعت (مورد مطالعه: شرکت توزیع نیروی برق تهران بزرگ)
همکاری دانشگاه و صنعت، اگرچه دارای سبقهای طولانی است، همچنان، بهویژه در کشورهای در حال توسعه و توسعهنیافته، از وضعیت مطلوبی برخوردار نیست. در ادبیات پژوهش، مطالعات متعددی به بررسی چالشها و مشکلات همکاری دانشگاه و صنعت پرداختاند، با این حال، کمتر مطالعهای به چشم میخورد که به تحلیل علی معلولی چالشهای همکاری صنعت و دانشگاه پرداخته باشد. بدین منظور، در این پژوهش علاوه بر ارائه مدلی مفهومی به منظور جمع بندی نظرات قبلی در خصوص فرایند همکاری صنعت و دانشگاه، تحلیل ساختاری سلسله مراتبی از چالشهای همکاری صنعت و دانشگاه با استفاده از روشهای دلفی فازی و مدلسازی ساختاری تفسیری (ISM)، در مورد مطالعه شرکت توزیع نیروی برق تهران بزرگ، پیشنهاد گردید. نتایج تحقیق نشان میدهد، چالش ریشهای و کلیدی در همکاری صنعت برق و دانشگاه، وجود فرایندهای بوروکراتیک و دیوانسالار است که منجر بروز چالشهای دیگری از جمله کاهش انگیزه پژوهشگران به همکاری میگردد. بر اساس نظر خبرگان پژوهش، روش پیشنهادی در بررسی علی معلولی و ساختاری چالشها میتواند تا حد قابل ملاحظهای مثمر ثمر باشد.
https://www.nowavari.ir/article_91154_c258620b66de8b702b8983d6f8275ba0.pdf
2019-05-22
89
106
همکاری صنعت و دانشگاه
چالش ها
روش دلفی فازی
مدلسازی ساختاری تفسیری
مارال
مقدس نوده
maralmoghadas1989@hotmail.com
1
کارشناس ارشد مدیریت تکنولوژی، گرایش تحقیق و توسعه، شرکت توزیع نیروی برق تهران بزرگ، ایران.
LEAD_AUTHOR
Ankrah, S. & Al-Tabbaa, O. 2015. Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, Volume(31), pp.387-408.
1
Barringer, B. R. & Harrison, J. S. 2000. Walking a Tightrope: Creating Value Through Interorganizational Relationships. Journal of Management, Volume(26), pp. 367-403.
2
Bekkers, R. & Bodas Freitas, I. M. 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, Volume(37), pp. 1837-1853.
3
Bonaccorsi, A. & Piccaluga, A. 1994. A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university-industry relationships. R&D Management, Volume(24), pp. 229-247.
4
Bruneel, J., D’este, P. & Salter, A. 2010. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, Volume(39), pp. 858-868.
5
Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. 2000. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Strategic Learning in a Knowledge economy. Elsevier.
6
D'este, P., Guy, F. & Iammarino, S. 2012. Shaping the formation of university–industry research collaborations: what type of proximity does really matter? Journal of economic geography, Volume(13), pp. 537-558.
7
Dalkey, N. & Helmer, O. 1951. The use of experts for the estimation of bombing requirements: A project Delphi experiment. The Rand Corporation.
8
Hall, B. H., Link, A. N. & Scott, J. T. 2001. Barriers Inhibiting Industry from Partnering with Universities: Evidence from the Advanced Technology Program. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Volume(26), pp. 87-98.
9
Hsu, T. & Yang, T. 2000. Application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in the selection of advertising media. Journal of Management and Systems, Volume(7), pp. 19-39.
10
Kuo, Y.-F. & Chen, P.-C. 2008. Constructing performance appraisal indicators for mobility of the service industries using Fuzzy Delphi Method. Expert Systems with Applications, Volume(35), pp. 1930-1939.
11
Mehregan, M. R., Chaghooshi, A. J. & Hashemi, S. H. 2014. Analysis of sustainability drivers among suppliers of Iranian Gas Engineering and Development Company. International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, Volume(7), pp. 437-455.
12
Meredith, J. 1998. Building operations management theory through case and field research. Journal of operations management, Volume(16), pp. 441-454.
13
Oliver, C. 1990. Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of management review, Volume(15), pp. 241-265.
14
Perkmann, M. & Walsh, K. 2007. University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, Volume(9), pp. 259-280.
15
Rajalo, S. & Vadi, M. 2017. University-industry innovation collaboration: Reconceptualization. Technovation, Volume(62-63), pp. 42-54.
16
Villani, E., Rasmussen, E. & Grimaldi, R. 2017. How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume(114), pp. 86-102.
17
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. & Frohlich, M. 2002. Case research in operations management. International journal of operations & production management, Volume(22), pp. 195-219.
18
Warfield, J. N. 1974. Developing Interconnection Matrices in Structural Modeling. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on, Volume(4), pp. 81-87.
19
Zahra, S. A. & George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of management review, Volume(27), pp. 185-203.
20
شفیعی مسعود، یزدانیان وحید (1387)، توسعه مفهومی ارتباط بین صنعت و دانشگاه: از رهیافتهای عملگرا تا رهیافتهای نهادگرا، مجله صنعت و دانشگاه، سال اول(شماره1)، صص 33-45.
21
شفیعی مسعود، رحمان پوری محمد، بهادری مرتضی (1391)، بررسی موانع و راهکارهای ارتباط صنعت و دانشگاه. فصلنامه نوآوری و ارزشآفرینی، سالاول (شماره 1)، صص 5-18.
22
شیری، حامد (1394)، بررسی رابطه دانشگاه با صنعت و چالشهای آن: پژوهشی کیفی در بین دانشجویان دانشگاه تهران. نشریه صنعت و دانشگاه، سالهشتم (شماره 29 و 30)، صص 1-9.
23
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
بررسی تاثیر سرمایه اجتماعی بر توسعه شایستگیهای رده اول و رده دوم فناورانه در همکاریهای میانسازمانی
شتاب زیاد تغییرات فناورانه در عصر حاضر، بسیاری از سازمانها را به این نتیجه رسانده است که دستیابی به شایستگیهای فناورانه به تنهایی و بدون همکاری با دیگر سازمانها غیرممکن است. یکی از عواملی که به هر سازمانی در افزایش شایستگیهایش با استفاده از همکاریهای میان سازمانی کمک میکند، سرمایه اجتماعی است. این مقاله با دیدگاه دانشمحور به همکاریهای میان سازمانی، به بررسی تاثیر سرمایه اجتماعی شرکت بر توسعه شایستگی فناورانه رده اول و دوم در همکاریهای میان سازمانی میپردازد. بدین منظور پس از توسعه فرضیهها و تشکیل مدل مفهومی، برای تجزیه و تحلیل دادههای جمعآوری شده از 60 شرکت دارویی، از روش مدلسازی معادلات ساختاری و روش حداقل مربعات جزئی استفاده می شود. نتایج پژوهش تایید کننده وجود رابطه میان ابعاد سرمایه اجتماعی شرکت و افزایش شایستگیهای رده اول و دوم فناورانه آن در همکاریهای میان سازمانی است. اما نشان میدهد که تاثیر بعضی از ابعاد سرمایه اجتماعی بر افزایش شایستگیهای رده اول و دوم در همکاری یکسان نیست.
https://www.nowavari.ir/article_88588_eb72cc7eff178e75ae4ee318d32f4e4f.pdf
2019-05-22
107
131
همکاریهای میان سازمانی
سرمایه اجتماعی
شایستگی رده اول فنارانه
شایستگی رده دوم فناورانه
نیما
مختارزاده
mokhtarzadeh@ut.ac.ir
1
عضو هیئتعلمی، دانشگاه تهران، ایران.
LEAD_AUTHOR
مریم
فاقعی
maryam.faghei@ut.ac.ir
2
دانشجوی دکتری، دانشگاه تهران، ایران.
AUTHOR
Adler, P.S. & Kwon, S.-W., 2002. Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27(1), pp.17–40.
1
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. a, 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 15(4), pp.542–548.
2
Astellas Pharma, U.S., 2016. Inc. 2015. Mycamine injection package insert. https://dailymed. nlm. nih. gov/dailymed/drugInfo. cfm.
3
Atuahene-Gima K. & J.Y. Murray., 2007. Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development: A social capital perspective in new technology ventures in China. J. Int.Marketing, 15(2), pp.1–29.
4
Azar, A., Gholamazdeh, R. & Mehdi Ghanavati, 2012. Structural path Modeling in Management: Application of SmartPLS Software (In Persian),
5
Barclay, D., Higgins, C. & Thompson, R., 1995. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to casual modeling: personal computer adoption ans use as an Illustration,
6
Barclay, D., Higgins, C. & Thompson, R., 1995. The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), pp.285–309.
7
Carayannis, E.G. & Alexander, J., 2002. Is technological learning a firm core competence, when, how and why? A longitudinal, multi-industry study of firm technological learning and market performance. Technovation, 22(10), pp.625–643.
8
Chatenier, E. et al., 2009. The Challenges of Collaborative Knowledge Creation in Open Innovation Teams. , 8(3).
9
Chiesa, V. & Manzini, R., 1998. Organizing for technological collaborations : a managerial perspective. , (1996), pp.199–212.
10
Chung, S., Singh, H. & Lee, K., 2000. Complementarity, Status Similiarity, and Social Capital as Drivers of Alliance Formation. Strategic Management Journal, 21, pp.1–22.
11
Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), pp.297–334.
12
Cummings, J.L. & Teng, B.-S.S., 2003. Transferring R & D knowledge: The key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, 20(1-2 SPEC.), pp.39–68.
13
Danneels, E., 2016. Survey measures of first- and second-order competences. Strategic Management Journal, 37(10), pp.2174–2188.
14
Danneels, E., 2002. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), pp.1095–1121.
15
Dehghanan, H. & Hrandi, A., 2014. Investigating the Impacts of Social Capital on Innovation Performance with an Emphasis on the Mediatory Role of Knowledge Transfer: A Case Study of Iranian IT Knowledge-based Firms. Innovation Management Journal, 3(1), pp.1–22 (In Persian).
16
Diamantopoulos, A. et al., 2012. Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), pp.434–449.
17
DiMasi, J.A. et al., 1991. Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of health economics, 10(2), pp.107–142.
18
Dodgson, M., 1993. Learning, Trust, and technological collaboration.
19
Dodgson, M., 1994. Technological Collaboration and Innovation, Edward Elgard.
20
Doz, Y.L., 1996. The evolution of strategic alliances: inital conditions or learning processes? Strategic Management Joumal, 17, pp.55–83.
21
Dyer, J. & Nobeoka, K., 2000. Creating and Managing a High-Performance Knowledge-Sharing Network: The Toyota Case. Source: Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), pp.345–367.
22
Dyer, J.H., Kale, P. & Singh, H., 2001. How to make strategic alliances work. MIT Sloan management review, 42(4), pp.37–43.
23
Ferreras-Mendez, J.L., Fernandez-Mesa, A. & Alegre, J., 2016. The relationship between knowledge search strategies and absorptive capacity: A deeper look. Technovation, 54, pp.48–61.
24
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), p.39.
25
Garud, R. & Nayyar, P.R., 1994. Transformative capacity: Continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 15(5), pp.365–385.
26
Geringer, J.M. & Hebert, L., 1989. Control and Performance of International Joint Ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 20(2), pp.235–254.
27
Ghoshal, S., 1987. Global strategy: An organizing framework. Strategic management journal.
28
Hagedoorn, J., 2013. NOTES AND COMMUNICATIONS A NOTE ON INTERNATIONAL MARKET LEADERS OF STRATEGIC AND NETWORKS TECHNOLOGY. Strategic Management Journal, 16(3), pp.241–250.
29
Hamel, G., 1991. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic management journal.
30
Hamel, G., 1991. Competition for Competence and Inter-Partner Learning Within International Strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S1), pp.83–103.
31
Hedberg, B., 1981. How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck, eds. Handbook of Organizational Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–27.
32
Hoffmann, W. & Schlosser, R., 2001. Success factors of strategic alliances in small and medium-sized enterprises: An empirical survey. Long Range Planning, 34(3), pp.357–381.
33
Hulland, J., 1999. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), pp.195–204.
34
Inkpen, A., 1998. Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategic alliances. , 12(4), pp.69–80.
35
Inkpen, A. & Currall, S., 2004. The Coevolution of Trust, Control, and Learning in Joint Ventures. Organization Science, 15(5), pp.586–599.
36
Inkpen, A. & Tsang, E.W.K., 2005. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), pp.146–165.
37
Ireland, R., Hitt, M. & Vaidyanath, D., 2002. Alliance Management as a Source of Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 5(9), pp.208–214.
38
Soltanzadeh et al., 2017. The Effect of Regulatory Policies on the Innovation Capability of Iranian Pharmaceutical Companies. Innovation Management Journal, 6 (2), pp.31–64 (In Persian).
39
Jarillo, J., 1988. On strategic networks. Strategic management journal.
40
Kavusan, K., Noorderhaven, N.G. & Duysters, G.M., 2016. Knowledge acquisition and complementary specialization in alliances: The impact of technological overlap and alliance experience. Research Policy, 45(10), pp.2153–2165.
41
Khanna, T. et al., 1998. THE DYNAMICS OF LEARNING ALLIANCES : COMPETITION , COOPERATION , AND RELATIVE SCOPE. Strategic Management Journal, 19(January 1995), pp.193–210.
42
Krackhardt, 1992. The strength of strong ties, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
43
Larsson, R. et al., 1998. The Interorganizational Learning Dilemma: Collective Knowledge Development in Strategic Alliances. Organization Science, 9(3, Special Issue: Managing Partnerships and Strategic Alliances), pp.285–305.
44
Leana, C. & Pil, F., 2006. Social Capital and Organizational Performance : Evidence from Urban Public Schools. Organization Science, 17(3), pp.353–366.
45
Lei, D., Hitt, M.A. & Bettis, R., 1996. Dynamic core competencies through meta learning and strategic context. Journal of Management, 22(4), pp.549–561.
46
Levinthal, D. & Fichman, Q., 1988. Dynamics of interorganizational attachments: Auditor-client relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly.
47
Lubatkin, M., Florin, J. & Lane, P., 2001. Learning together and apart: A model of reciprocal interfirm learning. Human Relations, 54(10), pp.1353–1382.
48
Lyles, M.A. & Salk, J.E., 1996. Knowledge Acquisition From Foreign Parents In Interational Joint Ventures. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, SPECIAL ISSUE.
49
Makhija, M. V & Ganesh, U., 1997. The Relationship Between Control and Partner Learning in Learning-Related Joint Ventures. , (September 2016).
50
March, 1996. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. rganization Science, 2(1), pp.71–87.
51
McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L. & Chervany, N.L., 1998. Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships. the Academy of Management Review, 20(3), pp.472–490.
52
Misaki, M. et al., 1990. Basement membrane-related and type III procollagen-related antigens in serum of patients with chronic viral liver disease. Clinical Chemistry, 36(3), pp.522–524.
53
Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E. & Silverman, B.., 1996. Strategic Alliances and Interfirm Knowledge Transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), pp.77–91.
54
Naghizadeh, M., Seydnaghavi, M. & Ehsani, R., 2013. The Effects of Dynamic Capabilities on Product Innovation Capability in Iranian Pharmaceutical Firms. . Innovation Management Journal, 2(3), pp.27–51 (In persian).
55
Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S., 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of management review, 23(2), pp.242–266.
56
Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S. & Sumantra Goshal, 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), pp.242–266.
57
Nonaka, I., 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science.
58
Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
59
Portes, A., 1998. Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), pp.1–24.
60
Ring, P.S. & Van De Ven, A.H., 1994. Developmental Processes of Cooperative Inter- Organizational Relationships. , (June).
61
Robertsonm, T.S. & Gatignon, H., 1998. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT MODE: A TRANSACTION COST CONCEPTUALIZATION. Strategic Management Journal Strat. Mgmt. J, 1919, pp.515–531.
62
Schuhmacher, A., Gassmann, O. & Hinder, M., 2016. Changing R&D models in research-based pharmaceutical companies. Journal of translational medicine, 14(1), p.105.
63
Schweizer, L., 2005. Organizational Integration of Acquired Biotechnology Companies into Pharmaceutical Companies : The Need for a Hybrid Approach. The Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), pp.1051–1074.
64
Sen, P.K. & Sengupta, S., 1998. Impact of Strategic Alliances on Firm Valuation Author ( s ): Somnath Das , Pradyot K . Sen and Sanjit Sengupta Source : The Academy of Management Journal , Vol . 41 , No . 1 ( Feb ., 1998 ), pp . 27-41 Published by : Academy of Management Stable URL : ht. , 41(1), pp.27–41.
65
Simonin, B.L., 1999. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Source: Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), pp.595–623.
66
Simonin, B.L., 1997. THE IMPORTANCE OF COLLABORATIVE KNOW-HOW: AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), pp.1150–1174.
67
Tenenhaus, M., Amato, S. & Esposito Vinzi, V., 2004. A global goodness-of-fit index for PLS structural equation modelling. In Proceedings of the XLII SIS scientific meeting. pp. 739–742.
68
Tsai, W. & Ghoshal, S., 1998. Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks, Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal;, pp.464–476.
69
Tsang, E.W.K., 2002. ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE BY FOREIGN PARTNERS FROM INTERNATIONAL JOINT VENTURES IN A TRANSITION ECONOMY : LEARNING-BY-DOING AND LEARNING MYOPIA. Strategic Management Journal, 854(May), pp.835–854.
70
Wetzels, Odekerken-Schröder & van Oppen, 2009. Using PLS Path Modeling for Assessing Hierarchical Construct Models: Guidelines and Empirical Illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), p.177.
71
Williamson, O., 1975. Markets and hierarchies,
72
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E. & Sapienza, H.J., 2001. Social capital, knowledge acquisitions, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), pp.587–613.
73
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E. & Tontti, V., 2002. Social capital Knowledge and the international growth of technology based new firms. International Business Review, 11(3), pp.279–304.
74
Zollo, M. et al., 2002. Interorganizational Routines and Performance in Strategic Alliances. , 13(6), pp.701–713.
75
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
پیشبینی ضریب نفوذ نسل پنجم شبکه ارتباطی (5G) در ایران
هدف از این مقاله بررسی روشهای متنوع تحلیلی ضریب نفوذ فناوری نسل پنجم (5G) و در نهایت محاسبه ضریب نفوذ 5G در ایران بر اساس روش پرتو است. میزان ضریب نفوذ فناوری 5G برای پیشبینی زمان و نحوه گذر به شبکه 5G مهم است. در این مقاله فرض بر آن است که نفوذ اولیه 5G به میزان نفوذ موج قبلی فناوری بیسیم تلفن همراه که "نسل چهارم 4G" نامیده میشود، بستگی دارد. مشترکین تنها از نسل قبلی خود به یک نسل بعد مهاجرت خواهند کرد. محاسبه میزان ضریب نفوذ فناوری 5G بر اساس روش پرتو به میزان ضریب نفوذ 4G در همان سال بستگی دارد. ضریب نفوذ فناوری 5G در ایران روش پرتو محاسبه شده است. پیشبینی تعداد مشترکین منحصربهفرد 5G در سالهای بعد از راهاندازی نیز با پیشبینی تعداد مشترکین منحصربهفرد فناوری 4G با استفاده از روش گومپرتز صورت گرفته است. بهترین زمان جهت سرمایهگذاری گسترده اپراتور در حوزه 5G سال 2025 و بهترین زمان برای جایگزینی فناوری 5G بجای فناوری 4G در اپراتورهای ارتباطی و عدم سرمایهگذاری در حوزه 4G نیز سال 2029 پیشبینی شده است.
https://www.nowavari.ir/article_91155_58d80dbc5038a450567860e89b0182d2.pdf
2019-05-22
108
128
5G
نسل پنجم شبکه ارتباطی
ضریب نفوذ
روش پرتو
روش گومپرتز
زهرا
کوشکی
5g@itrc.ac.ir
1
پژوهشگر، پژوهشگاه ارتباطات و فناوری اطلاعات، ایران.
AUTHOR
رقیه
جدا
r.joda@itrc.ac.ir
2
عضو هیئتعلمی، پژوهشگاه ارتباطات و فناوری اطلاعات، ایران.
LEAD_AUTHOR
محمد
دین دوست
mdindoost@yahoo.com
3
پژوهشگر، پژوهشگاه ارتباطات و فناوری اطلاعات، ایران.
AUTHOR
غزاله
محسنی
g_mohseni@cr.ir
4
کارشناس، سازمان تنظیم مقررات و ارتباطات رادیویی، ایران.
AUTHOR
Bao, Y. et al. 2017, 'Quantitative techno-economic feasibility assessment', Mobile and wireless communications Enablers for the Twenty-twenty Information Society-II.
1
Charu & Gupta, R. 2015, 'A Comparative Study of Various Generations in Mobile Technology', International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT), 28(7), pp. 328–332.
2
Chu, W.-L. et al. 2009, 'Diffusion of mobile telephony: An empirical study in Taiwan', Telecommunications Policy, 33(9), pp. 506–520.
3
Geroski, P. A. 2000, 'Models of technology diffusion', Research Policy, 29(4–5), pp. 603–625.
4
Gompertz, B. 1825, 'On the Nature of the Function Expressive of the Law of Human Mortality, and on a New Mode of Determining the Value of Life Contingencies', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 115, pp. 513–583.
5
Gupta, R. & Jain, K. 2012, 'Diffusion of mobile telephony in India: An empirical study', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(4), pp. 709–715.
6
'Impacts of 5G on productivity and economic growth' 2018, Australian Government, Department of Communications and the Arts, Bureau of Communications and Arts Research.
7
Kovács, I. Z. et al. 2011, 'Mobile Broadband Traffic Forecast Modeling for Network Evolution Studies', IEEE.
8
Krendzel, A. & Ginzboorg, P. 2014, 'Expected Penetration Rate of 5G Mobile Users by 2020: A Case Study', MOBILITY 2014: The Fourth International Conference on Mobile Services, Resources, and Users Expected, pp. 78–81.
9
Meade, N. & Islam, T. 2006, 'Modelling and forecasting the diffusion of innovation - A 25-year review', International Journal of Forecasting, 22(3), pp. 519–545.
10
Michalakelis, C., Varoutas, D. & Sphicopoulos, T. 2008, 'Diffusion models of mobile telephony in Greece', Telecommunications Policy, 32(3–4), pp. 234–245.
11
Rogers, E. M. 1995, DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS, THE FREE PRESS, New York.
12
Rouvinen, P. 2006, 'Diffusion of digital mobile telephony: Are developing countries different?', Telecommunications Policy, 30(1), pp. 46–63.
13
Sridhar, K. S. & Sridhar, V. 2007, 'Telecommunications INfrastructure and Economic Growth: Evidence from Developing Countries', Applied Econometrics and International Development, 7(2), pp. 37–61.
14
The Mobile Economy: Europe 2015, GSMA Intelligence.
15
The Mobile Economy: Middle East and North Africa 2016, GSMA Intelligence.
16
The Mobile Economy: Middle East and North Africa 2017, GSMA Intelligence.
17
The Mobile Economy 2017, GSMA Intelligence.
18
Vanston, L. K. & Hodges, R. L. 2004, 'Technology forecasting for telecommunications', Telecommunications Forecasting, telektronikk, pp. 32–43.
19
Waverman, L., Meschi, M. & Fuss, M. 2005, 'The impact of telecoms on economioc growth in developing Countries', London Business School and LECG.
20
WINSOR, C. P. 1932, 'The Gompertz Curve as a Growth Curve', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 18(1), pp. 1–8.
21
Wu, F.-S. & Chu, W.-L. 2010, 'Diffusion models of mobile telephony', Journal of Business Research, 63(5), pp. 497–501.
22
Yamakawa, P. et al. 2013, 'the diffusion of mobile telephones: An empirical analysis for Peru', Telecommunications Policy, 37(6–7), pp. 594–606.
23