ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
یادگیری سیاستی در سیاستهای توسعه فناوری و نوآوری ایران (مطالعه قوانین برنامه سوم، چهارم و پنجم توسعه)
مقاله حاضر با هدف بررسی یادگیری سیاستی و سازوکارهای آن در عمدهترین تلاشهای سیاستگذاری فناوری و نوآوری ایران، بر برنامههای توسعه به عنوان مهمترین سیاستهای توسعهای میان مدت کشور تمرکز نموده است. با بررسی 5 برنامه توسعه اخیر، برنامههای سوم تا پنجم توسعه که دارای نگاهی منسجمتر و یکپارچه در قالب یک فصل مجزا به توسعه فناوری و نوآوری هستند به عنوان سه قانون منتخب مورد مطالعه قرار گرفت. پس از بررسی و تحلیل محتوای اسناد سیاستی و مصاحبه با 18 نفر از بازیگران اصلی این فرآیند، 16 مقوله محوری در توسعه فناوری و نوآوری استخراج گردید. سهم غالب یادگیری سیاستی در این 16 مقوله به یادگیری سیاسی و فنی به ترتیب با 8 و 7 تکرار اختصاص یافته است. این سهم بالای یادگیری سیاسی به عنوان نازلترین نوع یادگیری، نشان از بلوغ پایین یادگیری در بدنه سیاستگذاری فناوری و نوآوری کشور است. یادگیری فنی و مفهومی (با 7 و 5 وقوع) نشان از تلاشهای نسبتاً موفق سیاستی است که عموماً بازیگران سیاستی سطح پایین و میانی درصدد بهبود و استمرار روند موفقیتهای گذشته هستند نتایج این پژوهش میتواند در شناخت دقیقتر فضای سیاستی توسعه فناوری و نوآوری در دو دهه گذشته و تجارب آتی مفید باشد.
https://www.nowavari.ir/article_60171_04c1aeac65a26c5420e2c7af5d324c0a.pdf
2017-08-23
1
30
یادگیری سیاستی
یادگیری
قانون برنامه توسعه
سیاستهای توسعه فناوری و نوآوری
کیارش
فرتاش
kiarash.fartash@yahoo.com
1
دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
AUTHOR
مهدی
الیاسی
elyasi.atu@gmail.com
2
استادیار، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی
LEAD_AUTHOR
سید سروش
قاضی نوری
ghazinoori@gmail.com
3
سازماناستادیار، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی
AUTHOR
سید حبیب ا...
طباطبائیان
taba@tsi.ir
4
دانشیار دانشکده حسابداری و مدیریت دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی
AUTHOR
Argote, L., 2012. Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media.
1
Bennett, C. J. & Howlett, M., 1992. The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences, 25(3), pp. 275-294.
2
Bernal, J. D., 1939. The Social Function of Science. London: George Routledge & Sons LTD.
3
Biegelbauer, P., 2016. How different forms of policy learning influence each other: case studies from Austrian innovation policy-making. Policy Studies, 37(2), pp. 129-146.
4
Borrás, S. & Edquist, C., 2013. The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological forecasting and social change, 80(8), pp. 1513-1522.
5
Bush, V., 1945. Science, the endless frontier: A report to the president on a program for postwar scientific research, National Science Foundation.
6
Creswell, J. W., 2014. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. SAGE.
7
Dolowitz, D. & Marsh, D., 1996. Who Learns What from Whom: A Review of the Policy Transfer Literature. Political Studies, 44(2), pp. 343-573.
8
Dolowitz, D. & Marsh, D., 2000. Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy Making. Governance, 13(1), pp. 5-23
9
Dunlop, C. M. & Radaelli, C. M., 2013. Systematizing policy learning: From monolith to dimensions. Political Studies, Volume (61), pp. 599-619
10
Etheredge, L. S., 1985. Can Governments Learn? American Foreign Policy and Central American Revolutions. New York: Pergamon Press.
11
Eyestone, R., 1977. Confusion, diffusion and innovation. American Political Science Review, Volume (71), pp. 441-7.
12
Freeman, C., 1987. Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan. Pinter Pub Ltd.
13
Freeman, R., 2006. Learning in public policy. In: M. Moran, M. Rein & R. E. Goodin, eds. Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14
Grin, J. & Loeber, A., 2007. Theories of policy learning: Agency, structure and change. In: F. Fischer, G. J. Miller & M. S. Sidney, eds. Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
15
Hall, P. A., 1993. Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), p. 275–96.
16
Heclo, H., 1974. Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
17
Kim, L., 1997. Imitation to innovation: The dynamics of Korea’s technological learning. Harvard Business Press.
18
Levy, J. S., 1994. Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping the Conceptual Minefield. International Organization, 48(2), pp. 279-312.
19
Lieu, J., 2013. Influences of policy learning, transfer, and post transfer learning in the development of China’s wind power policies, Doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex.
20
Majone,, G. & Wildavsky, A., 1979. Implementation as evolution. In: J. L. Pressman & A. Wildavsky, eds. Implementatron. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 177- 194.
21
May, P. J., 1992. Policy Learning and Failure. Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), pp. 331-354.
22
McCann, E. & Ward, K., 2013. A multi-disciplinary approach to policy transfer research: geographies, assemblages, mobilities and mutations. Policy Studies, 34(1), pp. 2-18.
23
Meseguer, C., 2008. Learning, Policy-Making and Market Reforms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24
Murrall-Smith, S., 2012. Policy learning and the development of renewable energy policy in the United Kingdom, Doctoral dissertation, University of Plymouth.
25
Rietig, K. & Perkins, R., 2017. Does learning matter for policy outcomes? The case of integrating climate finance into the EU budget. Journal of European Public Policy, pp. 1-19.
26
Rose, R., 1991. What Is Lesson-Drawing?. Journal of Public Policy, 11(1), pp. 3-30.
27
Sabatier, P. A., 1988. An advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein. Policy Sciences, Volume (21), pp. 129-68.
28
Sabatier, P. A. & Jenkins-Smith, H. C., 1999. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: an assessment. In: P. A. Sabatier, ed. In Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, Colo: Westview.
29
Schneider, A. & Ingram, H., 1988. Systematically Pinching Ideas: A Comparative Approach to Policy Design. Journal of Public Policy, 8(1), pp. 61-80.
30
Tuchman, B. W., 1984. The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. New York: Knopf .
31
Wieczorek, A. J. & Hekkert, M. P., 2012. Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars. Science and Public Policy, 39(1), pp. 74-87.
32
حبیب زاده، ط.، 1393. بررسی سیاستگذاری فناوری در آیینه اسناد و قوانین ایران: آیا با تورم اسناد کلیگو و اجرا نشده روبرو هستیم؟ http://drhabibzadeh.com/pages-106.html[Accessed 20 1 1396].
33
سالدانا، ج.، 1395. راهنمای کدگذاری برای پژوهشگران کیفی. تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
34
فراستخواه، م.، 1395. روش تحقیق کیفی در علوم اجتماعی: با تأکید بر نظریهی بر پایه گراندد تئوری، تهران: انتشارات آگاه.
35
فرتاش، ک.، 1393. تجزیه و تحلیل قوانین علم و فناوری و سیاستهای کلان برنامه چهارم و پنجم توسعه با دیدگاه نظام ملی نوآوری.
36
قاضی نوری، س س.، 1393. طرح تدوین احکام پیشنهادی برنامه ششم توسعه اقتصادی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی کشور در حوزه پژوهش و فناوری، به سفارش مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور، انتشار به صورت محدود.
37
قاضی نوری، س س.، کاظمی، ح.، روشنی، س.، ردائی، نیلوفر.، 1394. بررسی اهداف و ابزارهای سیاستی در اسناد مرتبط با علم و فناوری، فصلنامه سیاست علم و فناوری، شماره 3، پاییز، صص 71-86 .
38
گودرزی، م.، 1393. آسیب شناسی مواد قانونی مرتبط با علم و فناوری در برنامههای توسعه 5 ساله کشور و ارائه رئوس مفاد پیشنهادی برنامه ششم توسعه در این حوزه، به سفارش پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری، انتشار به صورت محدود، با همکاری جلیل غریبی و حسین رضا علیزاده.
39
گودرزی، م.، علیزاده، ح ر.، غریبی، ج.، 1393. آسیبشناسی سیاستهای علم و فناوری در ایران: تحلیلی بر برنامههای پنج ساله توسعه، فصلنامه توسعه مدیریت فناوری، شماره 2، پاییز، صص 137-161.
40
نوروززاده، ر.، شفیع زاده، ح.، روحانی، شادی.، 1392. ارزیابی و تحلیل بخش علم و فناوری: قانون برنامه پنجم توسعه از منظر اسناد بالادستی، فصلنامه راهبرد، شماره 66، بهار، صص 285-314.
41
ین، ر.، 1393. ورد پژوهی در تحقیقات اجتماعی. چاپ اول تهران: نشر نی.
42
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
اثر سیاستهای تنظیمی بر توانمندی نوآوری بنگاههای تولید داروی ایران
فهم اثر سیاستهای وضع شده در پاسخ به شکستهای بازار و سیستم همواره مورد توجه محققان بوده است. آنها در مسیر مطالعات خود تلاش کردهاند با توسعه مفهوم افزودنی رفتاری، نگاه خروجی محور به ارزیابی سیاست را بسط داده تا بتوانند اثر مداخلات دولت را بر رفتار بنگاه رصد نمایند. در این تحقیقات بر توانمندی نوآوری و خردبنیانهای آن به عنوان مبینهای رفتاری بنگاه در ارزیابی مداخلات کمتر تمرکز شده است. از اینرو پژوهش حاضر با تاکید بر توانمندی نوآوری به عنوان یک افزودنی رفتاری تلاش میکند، اثرات سه سیاست تنظیمی طرح ژنریک، نظام قیمتگذاری و نظام تعرفه گمرکی را بر رفتار نوآوری در شرکتهای تولید دارو بسنجد. پژوهش حاضر از دسته پژوهشهای آمیخته با استفاده از استراتژی مطالعه چند موردی و ابزار تحلیلی نگاشت شناختی است که الگوی اثر سیاستهای تنظیمی را در سه سطح اهداف سیاستی پنجگانه (گسترش بازار، افزایش دسترسیپذیری، ارتقای کیفیت، انگیزش تحقیق و توسعه و ارتقای زنجیره تولید)، خردبنیانهای توانمندی نوآوری (هوش نوآوری، تصمیمگیری، ترکیب و راهبری) و عملکرد نوآورانه (محصول و فرآیند) ترسیم کرده است. همچنین با استفاده از تحلیل حساسیت اثرات ذیل 26 سناریو، چگونگی تغییرات سه سطح مولفه مورد توجه قرار گرفتهاند. نتایج نشان میدهد هر چند اعمال این سیاستها بر اهداف سیاستی گسترش بازار دارویی، دسترسپذیری و ارتقای زنجیره تولید دارویی کشور و همچنین بر نوآوری فرآیند مفید بوده و توانسته الگوهایی را در هوش نوآوری و راهبری شرکتها ایجاد نماید اما اثر منفی آنها بر کیفیت دارو و انگیزش تحقیق و توسعه و همچنین نوآوری محصول و خردبنیان ترکیب قابل توجه است.
https://www.nowavari.ir/article_60172_c4cdfd2c7a29f20bd937d21911a4b6c0.pdf
2017-08-23
31
64
سیاستهای تنظیمی
ارزیابی مداخلات سیاستی
ابزارهای سیاستی
توانمندی نوآوری
خردبنیان
جواد
سلطان زاده
jsoltanzadeh@yahoo.com
1
دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
LEAD_AUTHOR
مهدی
الیاسی
elyasimail@gmail.com
2
دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی
AUTHOR
جهانیار
بامداد صوفی
soufi.a@atu.ac.ir
3
دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی
AUTHOR
ابوالفضل
کزازی
kazazi@atu.ac.ir
4
دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی
AUTHOR
Achilladelis, B. & Antonakis, N. 2001. The dynamics of technological innovation: the case of the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 30(4), pp. 535-588.
1
Adler, P.S. & Shenbar, A. 1990. Adapting your technological base: the organizational challenge. Sloan Management Review, 32(1), pp.25-37.
2
Aerts, K. & Schmidt, T. 2008. Two for the price of one?: Additionality effects of R&D subsidies: A comparison between Flanders and Germany. Research policy, 37(5), pp. 806-822.
3
Afcha Chávez, S.M. 2011. Behavioural additionality in the context of regional innovation policy in Spain. Innovation, 13(1), pp. 95-110.
4
Ambrosini, V. & Bowman, C. 2009. What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management? International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), pp.29-49.
5
Arora, A., Gambardella, A., Magazzini, L. & Pammolli, F. 2009. A breath of fresh air? Firm type, scale, scope, and selection effects in drug development. Management Science, 55(10), pp. 1638-1653.
6
Arrow, K. 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors. Princeton University Press. pp. 609-626.
7
Ashford, N.A. & Heaton, G.R. 1983. Regulation and technological innovation in the chemical industry. Law and Contemporary Problems, 46(3), pp. 109-157.
8
Autio, E., Kanninen, S. & Gustafsson, R. 2008. First-and second-order additionality and learning outcomes in collaborative R&D programs. Research Policy, 37(1), pp. 59-76.
9
Barney, J. & Felin, T. 2013. What are microfoundations? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), pp. 138-155.
10
Barouni, M., Ghaderi, H. & Banouei, A. 2012. Pharmaceutical Industry and Trade Liberalization Using Computable General Equilibrium Model. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 41(12), pp. 66.
11
Basmenji, K. 2004. Pharmaceuticals in Iran: An Overview. Arch Iranian Med, 7(2), pp. 158-164.
12
Biernacki, P. & Waldorf, D. 1981. Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), pp. 141-163.
13
Blind, K. 2010. The Use of the Regulatory Framework for Innovation Policy. In R. E. Smits, S. Kuhlmann & P. Shapira eds. The theory and practice of innovation policy: An international research handbook. Edward Elgar.
14
Blind, K., Buhrelen, B., Menrad, K., Hafner, S., Walz, R. & Kotz, C., 2004. New Products and Services: Analysis of Regulations Shaping New Markets: Study Funded by the European Commission, DG Enterprise/Innovation Policy Unit, in the Framework of the Innovation/SMEs Programme, Part of the Fifth Research Framework Programme.
15
Blume-Kohout, M.E. & Sood, N. 2013. Market size and innovation: Effects of Medicare Part D on pharmaceutical research and development. Journal of Public Economics, Volume (97), pp. 327-336.
16
Boeing, P. 2014. China’s R&D Subsidies-Allocation and Effectiveness. ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper(14-103).
17
Börjesson, S., Elmquist, M. & Hooge, S. 2014. The challenges of innovation capability building: Learning from longitudinal studies of innovation efforts at Renault and Volvo Cars. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Volume (31), pp. 120-140.
18
Borrás, S. & Edquist, C. 2013. Competence Building: A Systemic Approach to Innovation Policy. Lund University, CIRCLE-Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy.
19
Bowman, C. & Ambrosini, V. 2003. How the resource-based and the dynamic capability views of the firm inform corporate-level strategy. British Journal of Management,14(4), pp. 289-303.
20
Bruni, D.S. & Verona, G. 2009. Dynamic marketing capabilities in Science-based firms: An exploratory investigation of the pharmaceutical industry. British Journal of Management, 20(1), pp. 101-117.
21
Buisseret, T.J., Cameron, H.M. & Georghiou, L. 1995. What difference does it make? Additionality in the public support of R&D in large firms. International Journal of Technology Management,10(4), pp. 587-600.
22
Busom, I., Corchuelo, B. & Martínez-Ros, E. 2014. Tax incentives or subsidies for business R&D? Small Business Economics, 43(3), pp. 571-596.
23
Chen, H.-h. 2003. Comparative Analysis and Benchmarking: Corporate Strategy Analysis of Four International Pharmaceutical Companies: Universal-Publishers.
24
Cheraghali, A., Nikfar, S., Behmanesh, Y., Rahimi, V., Habibipour, F., Tirdad, R., Asadi, A. & Bahrami, A.,. 2004. Evaluation of availability, accessibility and prescribing pattern of medicines in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
25
Cheraghali, A.M. 2006. Iran pharmaceutical market. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, Volume(1), pp.1-7.
26
Choi, J.Y., Lee, J.H. & Sohn, S.Y. 2009. Impact analysis for national R&D funding in science and technology using quantification method II. Research Policy, 38(10), pp. 1534-1544.
27
Christensen, J.F. 1995. Asset profiles for technological innovation. Research Policy, 24(5), pp.727-745.
28
Clarysse, B., Wright, M. & Mustar, P. 2009. Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: A learning perspective. Research policy, 38(10), pp. 1517-1533.
29
Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), pp. 128-152.
30
Crafts, N. 2006. Regulation and productivity performance. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(2), pp. 186-202.
31
Creswell, J.W. & Clark, V.L.P. 2007. Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
32
Czarnitzki, D., Ebersberger, B. & Fier, A. 2007. The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: empirical evidence from Finland and Germany. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(7), pp. 1347-1366.
33
Czarnitzki, D. & Licht, G. 2006. Additionality of public R&D grants in a transition economy. Economics of Transition, 14(1), pp. 101-131.
34
Dai, X. & Cheng, L. 2015. The effect of public subsidies on corporate R&D investment: An application of the generalized propensity score. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume (90), pp. 410-419.
35
Davari, M., Walley, T. & Haycox, A. 2011. Pharmaceutical Policy and Market in Iran: Past Experiences and Future Challenges. Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, 2(1), pp. 47-52.
36
Davenport, S., Grimes, C. & Davies, J. 1998. Research collaboration and behavioural additionality: a New Zealand case study. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(1), pp. 55-68.
37
Davit, B.M. et al. 2009. Comparing generic and innovator drugs: a review of 12 years of bioequivalence data from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 43(10), pp. 1583-1597.
38
DiMasi, J.A., Hansen, R.W., Grabowski, H.G. & Lasagna, L. 1991. Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Health Economics, 10(2), pp.107-142.
39
Dinarvand, R. 2009. New national drug policy in Iran leading to expanded pharmaceutical market and extended access of public to medicines. Iranian J Publ Health, 38(1), pp. 158-161.
40
Dixon, S., Meyer, K. & Day, M. 2014. Building dynamic capabilities of adaptation and innovation: a study of micro-foundations in a transition economy. Long Range Planning, 47(4), pp. 186-205.
41
Dolfsma, W. & Seo, D. 2013. Government Policy and Technological Innovation—A Suggested Typology. Technovation, 33(6), pp. 173-179.
42
Dubois, P., de Mouzon, O., Scott‐Morton, F. & Seabright, P. 2015. Market size and pharmaceutical innovation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 46(4), pp. 844-871.
43
Duguet, E. 2003. Are R&D subsidies a substitute or a complement to privately funded R&D? Evidence from France using propensity score methods for non-experimental data. Evidence from France using Propensity Score Methods for Non-Experimental Data (July 2003). University of Paris I Cahier de la MSE EUREQua Working Paper(2003.75).
44
Eden, C. 2004. Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 159(3), pp. 673-686.
45
Edler, J. & Georghiou, L. 2007. Public Procurement and Innovation—Resurrecting the Demand Side. Research Policy, 36(7), pp. 949-963.
46
Eger, S. & Mahlich, J.C. 2014. Pharmaceutical regulation in Europe and its impact on corporate R&D. Health Economics Review, 4(1).
47
Eisenhardt, K.M. & Martin, J.A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), pp. 1105-1121.
48
Elsenhardt, K.M. & Martin, J.A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they. Strategic Management Journal , 21(1), pp. 1105-1121.
49
Falk, R. 2007. Measuring the effects of public support schemes on firms’ innovation activities: Survey evidence from Austria. Research Policy, 36(5), pp.665-679.
50
Felin, T., Foss, N.J., Heimeriks, K.H. & Madsen, T.L. 2012. Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), pp. 1351-1374.
51
Francis, J.G. 1993. The politics of regulation: a comparative perspective: Cambridge Univ Press.
52
Galunic, D.C. & Eisenhardt, K.M. 2001. Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), pp. 1229-1249.
53
Gao, C. 2014. The effect of American industry deregulation on firm innovation behaviors: a difference in differences approach. University of Delaware.
54
Georghiou, L. 1994. Impact of the framework programme on European industry: European Commission, Directorate General Telecommunications, Information Market and Exploitation of Research.
55
Georghiou, L. 2002. Impact and additionality of innovation policy. IWT Studies, Volume (40), pp.57-64.
56
Georghiou, L. 2006. Effective innovation policies for Europe—The missing demand-side. Economic Council of Finland.
57
Georghiou, L. & Clarysse, B. 2006. Introduction and synthesis. In OECD ed. Government R&D Funding and Company Behaviour: Measuring Behavioural Additionality. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. pp. 9-38.
58
Georghiou, L. & Office., C. 1993. The impact of European Community policies for research and technological development upon science and technology in the United Kingdom: a report prepared for DGXII of the Commission of the European Communities and the UK Office of Science & Technology.
59
Giaccotto, C., Santerre, R. & Vernon, J. 2005. Drug Prices And R&D Investment Behavior In The Pharmaceutical Industry. The Journal Of Law & Economics, 48(1), pp. 195-214.
60
Gök, A. 2010. An evolutionary approach to innovation policy evaluation: Behavioural additionality and organisational routines. Manchester Business School.
61
Golec, J. & Vernon, J.A. 2010. Financial effects of pharmaceutical price regulation on R&D spending by EU versus US firms. Pharmacoeconomics, 28(8), pp. 615-628.
62
González, X. & Pazó, C. 2008. Do Public Subsidies Stimulate Private R&D Spending? Research Policy, 37(3), pp. 371-389.
63
Görg, H. & Strobl, E. 2007. The effect of R&D subsidies on private R&D. Economica, 74(294), pp. 215-234.
64
Gray, S.A., Gray, S., Cox, L.J. & Henly-Shepard, S. 2013. Mental modeler: a fuzzy-logic cognitive mapping modeling tool for adaptive environmental management. System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on, IEEE.
65
Guan, J. & Ma, N. 2003. Innovative capability and export performance of Chinese firms. Technovation, 23(9), pp. 737-747.
66
Guan, J. & Yam, R.C. 2015. Effects of government financial incentives on firms’ innovation performance in China: Evidences from Beijing in the 1990s. Research Policy, 44(1), pp. 273-282.
67
Haas, J.S., Phillips, K.A., Gerstenberger, E.P. & Seger, A.C. 2005. Potential savings from substituting generic drugs for brand-name drugs: medical expenditure panel survey, 1997–2000. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142(11), pp. 891-897.
68
Hassali, M.A. et al. 2009. Consumers’ views on generic medicines: a review of the literature. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 17(2), pp. 79-88.
69
Helfat, C. & Peteraf, M. 2009. Understanding dynamic capabilities: progress along a developmental path. Strategic Organization, 7(1), pp. 91.
70
Helfat, C.E. et al. 2007. Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations: John Wiley & Sons.
71
Helfat, C.E. & Peteraf, M.A. 2015. Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), pp. 831-850.
72
Henly-Shepard, S., Gray, S.A. & Cox, L.J. 2015. The use of participatory modeling to promote social learning and facilitate community disaster planning. Environmental Science & Policy, Volume (45), pp. 109-122.
73
Heshmati, A. & Loof, H. 2005. The impact of public funds on private R&D investment: New evidence from a firm level innovation study.
74
Hotho, J.J., Becker-Ritterspach, F. & Saka-Helmhout, A. 2012. Enriching absorptive capacity through social interaction. British Journal of Management, 23(3), pp. 383-401.
75
Hsu, F.-M., Horng, D.-J. & Hsueh, C.-C. 2009. The effect of government-sponsored R&D programmes on additionality in recipient firms in Taiwan. Technovation, 29(3), pp. 204-217.
76
Huff, A.S. 1990. Mapping strategic thought: John Wiley & Sons.
77
Hussinger, K. 2008. R&D and subsidies at the firm level: An application of parametric and semiparametric two-step selection models. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(6), pp. 729-747.
78
Hyvärinen, J. & Rautiainen, A.-M. 2007. Measuring additionality and systemic impacts of public research and development funding—the case of TEKES, Finland. Research Evaluation, 16(3), pp. 205-215.
79
Kale, D. & Little, S. 2007. From imitation to innovation: The evolution of R&D capabilities and learning processes in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(5), pp. 589-609.
80
Katz, A. 2007. Pharmaceutical lemons: innovation and regulation in the drug industry. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 14(1), pp. 1-41.
81
Kebriaeezadeh, A. et al. 2013. Trend analysis of the pharmaceutical market in Iran; 1997–2010; policy implications for developing countries. DARU journal of pharmaceutical Sciences, 21(1), pp. 52.
82
Kelly, G. 1955. Personal construct psychology. New York: Norton.
83
Kemp, R. & Pontoglio, S. 2011. The innovation effects of environmental policy instruments-A typical case of the blind men and the elephant? Ecological Economics, Volume (72), pp. 28-36.
84
Knockaert, M., Spithoven, A. & Clarysse, B. 2014. The impact of technology intermediaries on firm cognitive capacity additionality. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume (81), pp. 376-387.
85
Kobayashi, Y. 2014. Effect of R&D tax credits for SMEs in Japan: A Microeconometric Analysis Focused on Liquidity Constraints. Small Business Economics, 42(2), pp. 311-327.
86
Koch, T. 2006. Establishing rigour in qualitative research: the decision trail. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(1), pp. 91-100.
87
Koenig, P. & MacGarvie, M. 2011. Regulatory policy and the location of bio-pharmaceutical foreign direct investment in Europe. Journal of Health Economics, 30(5), pp. 950-965.
88
Lach, S. 2002. Do R&D subsidies stimulate or displace private R&D? Evidence from Israel. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(4), pp. 369-390.
89
Langfield-Smith, K. & Wirth, A. 1992. Measuring differences between cognitive maps. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43(12), pp.1135-1150.
90
Lerner, J. 2000. The government as venture capitalist: the long-run impact of the SBIR program. The Journal of Private Equity, 3(2), pp. 55-78.
91
Lööf, H. & Heshmati, A. 2005. The impact of public funds on private R&D investment: New evidence from a firm level innovation study. MTT Discussion Papers, Volume (3), pp. 1-26.
92
Luukkonen, T. 1998. The difficulties in assessing the impact of EU framework programmes. Research Policy, 27(6), pp. 599-610.
93
Mahoney, R. 2007. Building Product Innovation Capability in Health. In A. Krattiger et al. eds. Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: a handbook of best practices. UK, Oxford.
94
Majone, G. 1996: Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.
95
Markoczy, L. & Goldberg, J. 1995. A method for eliciting and comparing causal maps. Journal of Management, 21(2), pp. 305-333.
96
Metcalfe, J.S., Georghiou, L., Cunningham, P. & Cameron, H.M. 1992. Evaluation of the impact of European Community research programmes upon the competitiveness of European industry-Concepts and approaches. EUR 14198 EN. Research evaluation. Science and Technology Policy Series.
97
Montibeller, G. & Belton, V. 2006. Causal maps and the evaluation of decision options -a review. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(7), pp. 779-791.
98
Nadkarni, S. & Nah, F.F.-H. 2003. Aggregated causal maps: An approach to elicit and aggregate the knowledge of multiple experts. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(1).
99
Nelson, R.R. & Winter, S. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap.
100
Niosi, J. 2002. National systems of innovations are “x-efficient”(and x-effective): Why some are slow learners. Research Policy, 31(2), pp. 291-302.
101
O’Connor, G.C. 2008. Major innovation as a dynamic capability: A systems approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(4), pp. 313-330.
102
Onishi, K. & Nagata, A. 2010. Does Tax Credit for R&D Induce Additional R&D Investment?: Analysis on the effects of gross R&D credit in Japan. Journal of Science Policy and Research Management, Volume (24), pp. 400-412.
103
Pammolli, F., Magazzini, L. & Riccaboni, M. 2011. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 10(6).
104
Paraskevopoulou, E. 2012. Non-technological regulatory effects: Implications for innovation and innovation policy. Research Policy, 41(6), pp. 1058-1071.
105
Porter 1991. America’s green strategy. Scientific American, 264(4).
106
Porter, M. & Van der Linde, C. 1995. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), pp. 97-118.
107
Radas, S., Anić, I.-D., Tafro, A. & Wagner, V., 2015. The effects of public support schemes on small and medium enterprises. Technovation, Volume (38), pp. 15-30.
108
Ramos Perez, C. 2016. Designing a behavioural additionality evaluation methodology for the Knowledge Transfer Partnerships Scheme employing case-based methods and theory-based evaluation approaches. University of Manchester.
109
Rasekh, H.R., Mehralian, G. & Vatankhah-Mohammadabadi, A.A. 2012. Situation analysis of R & D activities: an empirical study in Iranian pharmaceutical companies. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 1(4), pp. 1013-1025.
110
Ratanawijitrasin, S. 2007. Drug Regulation and Incentives for Innovation: The Case of ASEAN. WHO. Available at: www. who. int/intellectualproperty/studies/Drugregulationincentives. pdf.
111
Reinkowski, J., Mitze, T., Alecke, B. & Untiedt, G. 2010. R&D Subsidies and Private Sector Innovativeness: New Empirical Evidence for East German Firms.
112
Riege, A.M. 2003. Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review with “hands-on” applications for each research phase. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), pp. 75-86.
113
Rodhain, F. 1999. Tacit to explicit: transforming knowledge through cognitive mapping—an experiment. Proceedings of the 1999 ACM SIGCPR conference on Computer personnel research, ACM.
114
Assessment of the public tools used to promote R&D investment in Spanish SMEs. Small Business Economics, 43(4), pp. 959-976.
115
Romero-Jordán, D., Delgado-Rodríguez, M.J., Álvarez-Ayuso, I. & de Lucas-Santos, S. 2014. Assessment of the public tools used to promote R&D investment in Spanish SMEs. Small Business Economics, 43(4), pp. 959-976.
116
Santerre, C.G.R.E. & Vernon, J.A. 2004. Drug Prices and R&D Investment Behavior in the Pharmaceutical Industry.
117
Seyedifar, M. et al. 2015. An evaluation of policies and procedures of successful pharmaceutical exporters and the comparison of Iranian counterpart policy. Journal of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmaceutical Management, 1(3/4), pp. 39-44.
118
Shabaninejad, H. et al. 2014. Identifying and prioritizing industry-level competitiveness factors: evidence from pharmaceutical market. DARU journal of pharmaceutical Sciences, 22(1), pp. 35.
119
Smith, K. 2000. Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: rethinking the role of policy. Enterprise and innovation management studies, 1(1), pp. 73-102.
120
Soete, L. et al. 2002. Benchmarking National Research Policies: The Impact of RTD on Competitiveness and Employ ment (IRCE). Strata-ETAN Expert Working Group, European Commission DG Research, Brussels.
121
Stewart, L.A. 2010. The Impact of Regulation on Innovation in the United States: A Cross-Industry Literature Review. USA, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.
122
Strauss, K., Lepoutre, J. & Wood, G. 2017. Fifty shades of green: How microfoundations of sustainability dynamic capabilities vary across organizational contexts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(9).
123
Teece, D. & Pisano, G. 1994. The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and Corporate change, 3(3), pp. 537-556.
124
Teece, D.J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), pp. 1319-1350.
125
Teece, D.J. 2012. Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), pp.1395-1401.
126
Teece, D.J. 2017. Towards a capability theory of (innovating) firms: implications for management and policy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(3), pp. 693-720.
127
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, Volume(18), pp. 509-533.
128
Tran, T.A. & Daim, T. 2008. A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(9), pp. 1396-1405.
129
Van Den Ende, J. et al. 1998. Traditional and modern technology assessment: toward a toolkit. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58(1), pp. 5-21.
130
Vernon, J.A. 2005. Examining the link between price regulation and pharmaceutical R&D investment. Health Economics, 14(1), pp. 1-16.
131
Wallsten, S.J. 2000. The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: the case of the Small Business Innovation Research program. The RAND Journal of Economics, 31(1), pp.82-100.
132
Wang, C.L. & Ahmed, P.K. 2007. Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), pp. 31-51.
133
Weber, K.M. & Rohracher, H. 2012. Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41(6), pp. 1037-1047.
134
Winter, S.G. 2003. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), pp. 991-995.
135
Woolthuis, R.K., Lankhuizen, M. & Gilsing, V. 2005. A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25(6), pp. 609-619.
136
Yang, C.-H., Huang, C.-H. & Hou, T.C.-T. 2012. Tax incentives and R&D activity: Firm-level evidence from Taiwan. Research Policy, 41(9), pp. 1578-1588.
137
Zaboli, P. et al. 2016. Pharmaceutical laws and regulations in Iran: An overview. Journal of Research in Pharmacy Practice, 5(3), pp. 155.
138
Zahra, S.A. & George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), pp. 185-203.
139
Zahra, S.A., Sapienza, H.J. & Davidsson, P. 2006. Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), pp. 917-955.
140
Zollo, M. & Winter, S.G. 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), pp.339-351.
141
آذر، عادل و حسن زاده کریم آبادی، حمید رضا،1381، نگاشت مفهومی و کارکردهای مدیریتی آن چشم انداز مدیریت بازرگانی، تابستان و پاییز، شماره 3 و 4، صص. 77-104.
142
دانائیفرد حسن،1386. پارادایمهای رقیب در علم سازمان و مـدیـریـت: رویـکـرد تـطبـیقـی به هستـیشنـاسی، شنـاختشنـاسی و روششناسی. راهبردهای بازرگانی-دانشور رفتار سابق؛ ۱ (۲۶)،صص. ۸۹-۱۰۴
143
رمضانی، ابوالفضل و میرزامحمدی، علی،1392. تحلیل شبکههای اجتماعی. ایران: تهران: انتشارات جامعه شناسان.
144
سازمان غذا و دارو،1394.آییننامههای و مقررات.:
145
سلطانزاده، جواد، الیاسی، مهدی، بامداد صوفی، جهانیار و کزازی، ابوالفضل،1396. «شناسایی خردبنیانهای توانمندی نوآوری شرکتهای تولید داروی کشور: مطالعه چند موردی». فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی بهبود مدیریت. سال یازدهم، شمار 1، پیاپی 35،صص. 206-163.
146
صفری، حسین، حشمتی پور، فاطمه، مهرابی، علی و نصابی، وحیدرضا،1391. مدلسازی عوامل مؤثر بر بهاشتراکگذاری اطلاعات در زنجیره تأمین شرکت ایران خودرو خراسان با استفاده از روش ترکیبی نگاشت علّی و شبکههای بیزین. فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، 4(10)، صص. 65-92.
147
صارمی، محمود، حسینی، سید محمود، محقر، علی و حیدری، علی، 1388. مدلسازی کیفی مزیت رقابتی در صنایع مبتنی بر فنآوریهای پیشرفته. نشریه مدیریت صنعتی، 1(3)، صص. 53-68.
148
ضرغامی فرد، مژگان و آذر، عادل،1394. تحلیلی بر شیوه نگاشت شناختی در ساختار بندی دادههای کیفی مطالعات سازمانی. مطالعات رفتار سازمانی، 3(1 ، 2 (پیاپی 8 و 9))، صص. 185-159.
149
کارگر شهامت بهمن، تقوا محمدرضا، طباطبائیان سید حبیب اله، صالحی صدقیانی جمشید، الزامات شکل گیری شبکه نوآوری تحلیلی از قاعده بنگاهداری در بخش دارویی ایران، بهبود مدیریت، سال دهم، شماره 34، صص. 94-49.
150
مدنی، حسامالدین، شاهحسینی، محمد حسن و خمسه، عباس،1390. تأثیر طرح ژنریک بر توسعه توانمندیهای فناوری. مجله پژوهشی حکیم، (1) 14، صص. 31-23.
151
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
واکاوی اهداف و توانمندسازهای مشارکت در زیست بوم پلتفرم از دیدگاه نوآوران طرف عرضه در صنعت نرم افزار: شرکت های کوچک مستقر در تهران
نوآوران طرف عرضه نقش مهمی در موفقیت پلتفرم و افزایش تعداد کاربران آن ایفا میکنند. مطالعه حاضر با تمرکز بر دیدگاه این نوآوران قصد دارد اهداف آنها از مشارکت در زیستبوم پلتفرم و توانمندسازهای آنها را واکاوی نماید. جامعه آماری این پژوهش را شرکتهای کوچک ایران در صنعت نرمافزار تشکیل میدهند. رویکرد مقاله حاضر کیفی است و در آن از راهبرد پژوهشی مطالعه چند موردی اکتشافی استفاده شده است. گردآوری دادهها از طریق42 مصاحبه نیمهساختیافته با 26 شرکت کوچک در حوزه توسعه برنامههای کاربردی مبتنی بر پلتفرمهای اندروید یا آیاُاِس انجام شده است. تحلیل دادههای گردآوری شده در دو مرحله کدگذاری باز و کدگذاری محوری صورت پذیرفته است. یافتههای پژوهش اهداف اصلی نوآوران طرف عرضه از مشارکت در زیستبوم پلتفرم را در شش مقوله، دسترسی به مشتریان، پاسخگویی به مشتریان، توسعه گستره کسبوکار، افزایش اعتبار، صرفهجویی در هزینهها، و تمرکز بر نوآوری نشان میدهد. اشتراکگذاری منابع، رهبری پلتفرم، شایستگی قوانین و مقررات، و بلوغ شرکای تجاری و سرمایهگذاران نیز بهعنوان توانمندسازهای اصلی مشارکت از دیدگاه این نوآوران محسوب میشوند.
https://www.nowavari.ir/article_60176_78c3d8ae784ca4215d86762daee94f31.pdf
2017-08-23
65
86
توانمندسازها
زیستبوم پلتفرم
نوآوران طرف عرضه
نوآوری
مریم
یارمحمدی
yarmohammadi.m@srbiau.ac.ir
1
دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، تهران، ایران
AUTHOR
مهران
رضوانی
m.rezvani@ut.ac.ir
2
دانشیار دانشکده کارآفرینی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
LEAD_AUTHOR
محمود
البرزی
m.alborzi@srbiau.ac.ir
3
دانشیار گروه مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، تهران، ایران
AUTHOR
Baldwin, C.Y., & Woodard, C.J., 2009. The architecture of platforms: a unified view, in A. Gawer, (ed.) Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Mass, UK and Northampton, pp. 19–44.
1
Benlian, A., Hilkert, D., & Hess, T., 2015. How Open Is This Platform? The Meaning and Measurement of Platform Openness from the Complementors’ Perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 30(3), pp. 209–228.
2
Berends, H., Jelinek, M., Reymen, I., & Stultiëns, R., 2014. Product innovation processes in small firms: Combining entrepreneurial effectuation and managerial causation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), pp. 616–635.
3
Boudreau, K., 2010. Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control. Management Science, 56(10), pp. 1849–1872.
4
Boudreau, K. J., & Hagiu, A., 2009. Platform rules: multi-sided platforms as regulators, in A. Gawer, (ed.) Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Mass, UK and Northampton, pp. 163–191.
5
Boudreau, K.J., & Jeppesen, L.B., 2015. Unpaid crowd complementors: The platform network effect mirage. Strategic Management Journal, 36(12), pp. 1761–1777.
6
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Hałaburda, H., 2014. When does a platform create value by limiting choice? Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 23(2), pp. 259–293.
7
Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D.J., 2012. Cocreation of Value in a Platform Ecosystem: The Case of Enterpreise Software. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), pp. 263–290.
8
Ciriello, R.F., Richter, A., & Schwabe, G., 2016. Designing an idea screening framework for employee-driven innovation. In: Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. pp. 4262–4271.
9
Creswell, J.W., 2008. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Research, 3, p.670.
10
Cusumano, M.A., & Gawer, A., 2002. The Elements of Platform Leaderhsip. MIT Sloan Management Review, (spring), pp. 51–58.
11
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp. 532–550.
12
Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M., 2011. Platform envelopment. Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), pp. 1270–1285.
13
Evans, D.S., 2003. The Antitrust Economics of Multi-Sided Platform Markets. Yale Journal on Regulation, 20(2), p.325.
14
Evans, D.S., 2009. How catalysts ignite: the economics of platform-based start-ups, in A. Gawer, (ed.) Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Mass, UK and Northampton, pp. 99–128.
15
Gawer, A., 2009. Platform dynamics and strategies: from products to services, in A. Gawer, (ed.) Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Mass, UK and Northampton, pp. 45–76.
16
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M.A., 2014. Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), pp. 417–433.
17
Gawer, A., & Henderson, R., 2007. Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from Intel. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 16, pp. 1–34.
18
Ghanam, Y., Maurer, F., & Abrahamsson, P., 2012. Making the leap to a software platform strategy: Issues and challenges. Information and Software Technology, 54(9), pp. 968–984.
19
Ghazawneh, A., & Henfridsson, O., 2013. Balancing platform control and external contribution in third-party development: The boundary resources model. Information Systems Journal, 23(2), pp. 173–192.
20
Giardino, C., Unterkalmsteiner, M., Paternoster, N., Gorschek, T., & Abrahamsson, P., 2014. What do we know about software development in startups? IEEE Software, 31(5), pp. 28–32.
21
Hagiu, A., 2009. Two-Sided Platforms: Pricing and Social Efficiency. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18, pp. 1011–1043.
22
Hausman, A., 2005. Innovativeness among small businesses: Theory and propositions for future research. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(8), pp. 773–782.
23
Hidding, G.J., Williams, J., & Sviokla, J.J., 2011. How platform leaders win. Journal of Business Strategy, 32(2), pp. 29–37.
24
Huang, P., Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., & Wu, D.J., 2009. When Do ISVs Join a Platform Ecosystem? Evidence from the Enterprise Software Industry. In: ICIS 2009 Proceedings. pp. 1–18.
25
Jiao, J., Simpson, T.W., & Siddique, Z., 2007. Product family design and platform-based product development: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 18(1), pp. 5–29.
26
Kude, T., Dibbern, J., & Heinzl, A., 2012. Why do complementors participate an analysis of partnership networks in the enterprise software industry? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(2), pp. 250–265.
27
Lee, S.M., Kim, T., Noh, Y., & Lee, B., 2010. Success factors of platform leadership in web 2.0 service business. Service Business, 4(2), pp. 89–103.
28
Lu, J.W., & Beamish, P.W., 2001. The internationalization and performance of SMEs. Strategic Management Journal, 22, pp. 565–586.
29
Marion, T.J., Friar, J.H., & Simpson, T.W., 2012. New product development practices and early-stage firms: Two in-depth case studies. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(4), pp. 639–654.
30
Muffatto, M., & Roveda, M., 2002. Product architecture and platforms: a conceptual framework. International Journal of Technology Management, 24(1), pp. 1–16.
31
Muffatto, M., 1999. Platform strategies in international new product development. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(5/6), pp. 449–460.
32
Nambisan, S., & Sawhney, M., 2011. Orchestration Processes in Network-Centric Innovation: Evidence from the Field. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), pp. 40–57.
33
Ondrus, J., Gannamaneni, A., & Lyytinen, K., 2015. The impact of openness on the market potential of multi-sided platforms: A case study of mobile payment platforms. Journal of Information Technology, 30(3), pp. 260–275.
34
Radas, S., & Božić, L., 2009. The antecedents of SME innovativeness in an emerging transition economy. Technovation, 29(6-7), pp. 438–450.
35
Rickmann, T., Wenzel, S., & Fischbach, K., 2014. Software Ecosystem Orchestration: The Perspective of Complementors. Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Savannah, pp. 1–14.
36
Robertson, D., & Ulrich, K., 1998. Planning for Product Platforms. Sloan Managament Review, 39(4), pp. 19–31.
37
Sarantakos, S., 2005. Social Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire.
38
Scozzi, B., C. Garavelli, & K. Crowston., 2005. Methods for modelling and supporting innovation processes in SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(1), pp. 120–137.
39
Song, M., Podoynitsyna, K., Van Der Bij, H., & Halman, J.I.M., 2008. Success factors in new ventures: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Volume (25), pp. 7–27.
40
Swan, K.S., Kotabe, M., & Allred, B.B., 2005. Exploring robust design capabilities, their role in creating global products, and their relationship to firm performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(2), pp. 144–164.
41
Tee, R., & Gawer, A., 2009. Industry architecture as a determinant of successful platform strategies: a case study of the i-mode mobile Internet service. European Management Review, 6(4), pp. 217–232.
42
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M., 2002. Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), pp. 195–219.
43
Weber, R.P., 1990. Basic content analysis. Sage, Newbury Par, CA.
44
West, J., 2003. How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies. Research Policy, 32(7), pp. 1259–1285.
45
Wheelen, T.L., & Hunger, J.D., 1999. Strategic Management and Business Policy. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
46
Wheelwright, S.C., & Clark, K.B., 1992a. Creating project plans to focus product development. Harvard Business Review, 70(2), pp. 70–82.
47
Wheelwright, S.C., & Clark, K.B., 1992b. Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. New York, NY.
48
Yarmohammadi, M., Rezvani, M., & Alborzi, M., 2017. How Complementors Screen New Product Ideas: A Qualitative Multiple Case Study. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Paris, France. pp. 669–676.
49
Yin, R. K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.
50
Yoffie, D.B., & Kwak, M., 2006. With Friends Like these: The Art of Managing Complementors. Harvard Business Review, 84(9), pp. 88–98.
51
Zhu, F., & Iansiti, M., 2012. Entry into Platform-based Markets. Strategic Management Journal, 33(1), pp. 88–106.
52
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
تناسب سطح نوآوری در محصول با میزان تغییر در علامت تجاری: پیمایشی از مشتریان محصولات شوینده و بهداشتی
انتخاب رویکرد مناسب برای علامت تجاری عاملی مهم در تعیین موفقیت محصولات جدید است. هدف از پژوهش حاضر پاسخ به این سوال است که الگوی مشتریان برای انتخاب محصولات نوآورانه با توجه به علامت تجاری همراه با این محصولات چیست؟ در این مقاله با اتکا بر رویکرد پیمایشی ، نظرات 385 نفر از مشتریانِ مراجعه کننده به فروشگاههای بزرگ شهر تهران در خصوص خرید و استفاده از مواد شوینده و بهداشتی جمعآوری شد. نتایج نشان میدهد که پذیرندگان اولیه، نوآوریهای فنی جهشیتر (حاوی تفاوت اساسی با محصولات قبلی) را بههمراه علائم تجاری جدید و محصولات فعلی را بههمراه علامت تجاری فعلی میپذیرند اما در خصوص نوآوریهای تدریجیتر (حاوی تفاوت جزئی با محصولات قبلی)، الگوی یکسانی را نشان نمیدهند. در حالیکه برای سایر پذیرندگان، محصولات فعلی که بههمراه علامت تجاری فعلی عرضه میشوند منطقیتر به نظر میرسند، نوآوریهای تدریجیتر را نیز معمولا با توسعه علامت تجاری شناخته و قبول میکنند اما در خصوص نوآوریهای جهشیتر الگوی نسبتا پراکندهای حول دو انتخاب متضاد علامت تجاری فعلی و علامت تجاری جدید نشان میدهند. در این مقاله دلایل این الگوها که از جمعآوری دادههای کیفی حاصل شده است نیز تا حدودی توانسته به تبیین علل بوجود آمدن این الگوها کمک کند
https://www.nowavari.ir/article_60173_3d463691029462a5d93a813e65a72ac6.pdf
2017-08-23
87
108
نوآوری محصول
نوآوری جهشی
نوآوری تدریجی
علامت تجاری جدید
توسعه علامت تجاری
پذیرندگان اولیه
جلیل
غریبی
jalil_int@yahoo.com
1
دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.
LEAD_AUTHOR
ندا
ناظمی
neda.nazemi92@gmail.com
2
دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات شاهرود، شاهرود، ایران
AUTHOR
Aaker, D. & Keller, K., 1990. Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions. Journal of Marketing , 54(1), pp. 27-41.
1
Assael, H., 1995. Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. Cincinnati: South Western College Publishing.
2
Atashfaraz, M. & Abadi, M., 2016. Impact of E-Service Innovation on Brand Equality and Customer Loyality in Samsung International Corporation. Procedia Economics and Finance, Volume 36, pp. 327-335.
3
Bauer, R., 1960. Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking. Chicago, Proceedings of the 43rd. Conference of the American Marketing Association.
4
Berthon, P., Hulbert, J. & Leyland, . F., 1999. Brand Management Prognostications. MIT Sloan Management Review, 40(2), pp. 53-65.
5
Brexendorf, T. O., Bayus, B. & Keller, K. L., 2015. Understanding the interplay between brand and innovation management: findings and future research directions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(5), pp. 548-557.
6
Brooker, G., 1984. An assessment of an expanded measure of perceived risk. In: T. C. Kinnear, ed. NA - Advances in Consumer Research. Provo: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 439-441.
7
Camisón, C. & Villar-López, A., 2014. Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), pp. 2891-2902.
8
Castaño, R., Sujan, m., Kacker , M. & Sujan, H., 2008. Managing Consumer Uncertainty in the Adoption of New Products: Temporal Distance and Mental Simulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), pp. 320-336.
9
Chandy, R. K. & Tellis, G., 2000. The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing , 64(3), pp. 1-17.
10
Chandy, R., Prabhu, J. & Antia, K., 2003. What Will the Future Bring? Dominance, Technology Expectations, and Radical Innovation. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), pp. 1-18.
11
Cooper, R. G., 1994. New products: the factors that drive success. International Marketing Review , 11(1), pp. 60-76.
12
Damanpour, F., Walker, R. & Avellaneda, N., 2009. Combinative Effects of Innovation Types and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Study of Service Organizations. Journal of Management Studies , 46(4), pp. 650-675.
13
DelVecchio, D. & Smith, D., 2005. Brand-Extension Price Premiums: The Effects of Perceived Fit and Extension Product Category Risk. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 33(2), pp. 184-196.
14
Dhanora, M., Sharama, R. & Khachoo, Q., 2017. Non-linear impact of product and process innovations on market power: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Economic Modelling. In Press.
15
Dowling, G. & Staelin, R., 1994. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research , 21(1), pp. 119-134.
16
Fadzline, P., Mat Nor, N., Mohamad, S.J. 2014. The Mediating Effect of Design Innovation between Brand Distinctiveness and Brand Performance: Evidence from Furniture Manufacturing Firms in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 130, pp. 333-339.
17
Fang, E. 2008. Customer participation and the trade-off between new product innovativeness and speed to market. Journal of Marketing,72(4), pp. 90-104.
18
Florea, D.L. 2015. The Relationship between Branding and Diffusion of Innovation: A Systematic Review. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, pp. 1527-1534.
19
Ghazinoory, S. & Riahi, P. 1393. introduction to innovation system (broad approach). tehran, markaz-e-nashr-e daneshgahi.
20
Gill, T. & Lei, J. 2009. Convergence in the High-Technology Consumer Markets: Not all Brands Gain Equally from Adding New Functionalities to Products. Marketing Letters, 20(1), pp. 91.
21
Gourville, J. T. 2006. Eager Sellers & Stony Buyers. Harvard Business Review, 84(6), pp. 98-106.
22
Govindarajan, V. & Kopalle, P.K. 2006. Disruptiveness of Innovations: Measurement and an Assessment of Reliability and Validity. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), pp. 189-199.
23
Gunday, G. & Alpkan, L., 2011. Effects of Innovation Types on Firm Performance. International Journal of production economics, 133(2), pp. 662-676.
24
Henderson, R. M. & Clark, K.B. 1990. Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), pp. 9-30.
25
Hoeffler, S. 2003. Measuring Preferences for Really New Products. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), pp. 406-420.
26
Janis, I.L. & Mann, L. 1977. Decision making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment, New York, NY: Free Press.
27
Karimian, H., Shekarchizadeh, A., Rismankarzadeh, R. 1394. An Investigation of Influential Factors in Choosing Brands of Washing Products by Female Isfahanis Customers. Marketing Management, Volume (10), pp. 17-34.
28
Klink, R. R. & Athaide, G. A. 2010. Consumer Innovativeness and the Use of New Versus Extended Brand Names for New Products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(1), pp. 23-32.
29
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G., 2016. Principles of Marketing, 16th Ed. Boston: Pearson.
30
Kotler, P. & Dupree, J. 1997. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control, Test Item File, Prentice Hall.
31
Lim, K. & O’Cass, A. 2001. Consumer Brand Classifications: an Assessment of Culture-of-Origin Versus Country-of-Origin. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(2), pp. 120-136.
32
Mortensen, P. S. & Bloch, C. W. 2005. Oslo Manual-Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, Organisation for Economic Cooporation and Development, OECD.
33
Nelson, R.R. & Rosenberg, N. 1993. Technical Innovation and National Systems. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Volume (1), pp. 3-21.
34
Ogiba, E.F. 1988. The Dangers of Leveraging. Adweek, (January 4), 42.
35
Rezayi, H. 1394. Investigating Marketing Strategy for Tage New Product (Ultrapower). Forsat Emrooz.
36
Riley, F. D. O., Pina, J.M. & Rafael, B. 2013. Downscale Extensions: Consumer Evaluation and Feedback Effects. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), pp. 196-206.
37
Rogers, E. M. 2010. Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, 5th Edition.
38
Roselius, T. 1971. Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction Methods. The Journal of Marketing, 35(1), pp. 56-61.
39
Ross, I. 1979. An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, JSTOR, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
40
Sehumpeter, J. A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 25(1), pp. 90-91.
41
Smith, D. C. & C. W. Park. 1992. The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), pp. 296-313.
42
Somji, A. 2000. Inside New Product Statistics. Unpublished MA in Marketing Thesis. Kingston Business School, Kingston upon Thames, UK.
43
Wernerfelt, B. 1988. Umbrella branding as a signal of New Product Quality: An Example of Signalling by Posting a Bond. The RAND Journal of Economics, pp. 458-466.
44
Wu, Y., Balasubramanian, S. & Mahajan, V., 2004. When is a Preannounced New Product Likely to be Delayed? Journal of Marketing, 68(2), pp. 101-113.
45
قاضی نوری، سید سپهر و پریسا ریاحی، 1393 مقدمه ای بر نظام نوآوری: رویکردی گسترده، تهران، مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
46
کریمیان. حامد، احمدرضا شکرچی زاده، ریحانه ریسمانکارزاده، 1394، بررسی عوامل موثر بر انتخاب برند مواد شوینده از دیدگاه بانوان شهر اصفهان، مجله مدیریت بازاریابی، شماره 27، صص 34-17.
47
رضایی. هدی، 1394، بررسی راهبرد بازاریابی محصول جدید تاژ به نام مایع ظرفشویی اولتراپاور/ رونمایی از محصول کم مصرف در دوران بحران آب، روزنامه فرصت امروز.
48
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
دستهبندی ابزارهای سیاست نوآوری تقاضامحور با استفاده از رویکرد فراترکیب
سیاست نوآوری تقاضامحور مجموعهای از اقدامات عمومی برای افزایش تقاضای نوآوری، بهبود شرایط ادراک نوآوری یا بهبود بیان تقاضا به منظور ترغیب و انتشار نوآوری میباشد. این مقاله با بهرهگیری از روش فراترکیب به دنبال ارائه دستهبندی جدیدی از ابزارهای سیاستی معرفیشده در مطالعات این حوزه میباشد. بهاینمنظور بر اساس روش فراترکیب 252 مقاله و کتاب شناسایی شده از پایگاههای رسمی مقالات معتبر مورد بررسی قرار گرفته و پس از طی مراحل لازم 105 مقاله و کتاب مورد تحلیل نهایی قرار گرفته. تجزیهوتحلیل مقالات و نتایج روش فراترکیب نشان داد که ابزارهای تحریک طرف تقاضای نوآوری را میتوان در قالب سه زمینه اصلی دستهبندی نمود که عبارتند از سیاستهای محرک تقاضای دستگاههای دولتی(B2G)، سیاستهای محرک تقاضای مصرفکنندگان نهایی(B2C) و سیاستهای محرک تقاضای کسبوکارهای بزرگتر (b2B). تحلیل انجام شده بیانگر این است که در دسته سوم از ابزارهای مذکور محققان مطالعات کمتری داشتهاند و ابزارهای صریح و عملیاتی ارائه نشده و خلاء پژوهشی در این دسته به چشم میآید که نیازمند پژوهشهای بیشتر است.
https://www.nowavari.ir/article_60175_cf8651aeea01a5d6df300d7fff3741e7.pdf
2017-08-23
109
138
سیاستهای نوآوری تقاضامحور
ابزارهای سیاستی
فراترکیب
مصطفی
محسنی کیاسری
mohseni@tsi.ir
1
پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری ریاست جمهوری دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران
AUTHOR
مهدی
محمدی
memohammadi@ut.ac.ir
2
عضو هیات علمی دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران.
LEAD_AUTHOR
احمد
جعفر نژاد
jafarnjd@ut.ac.ir
3
عضو هیات علمی دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران.
AUTHOR
نیما
مختارزاده
mokhtarzadeh@ut.ac.ir
4
عضو هیات علمی دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران.
AUTHOR
رضا
اسدی فرد
reza_asadifard@tsi.ir
5
پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری
AUTHOR
Aschhoff, B. and Sofka, W. 2009. Innovation on demand-Can public procurement drive market success of innovations? Research Policy, 38(8), pp. 1235-1247.
1
Baindur, S. 2005. A demand-oriented stimulus program for university science commercialization. Ottaw a Policy Research Associates.
2
Barroso, J. et al. 2003. The Challenges of Searching for and Retrieving Qualitative Studies. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25(2), pp. 153-178.
3
Bench, S. and Day, T. 2010. The user experience of critical care discharge: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(4), pp. 487-499.
4
Bilgram, V., Brem, A. and Voigt, K.-i. 2008. User-centric Innovations in New Product Development — Systematic Identification of Lead Users Harnessing Interactive and Collaborative Online-tools. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(03), pp. 419-458.
5
Blind, K. 2004. New Products and Services:Analysis of Regulations Shaping New Markets. ReportKarlsruhe: European Commission.
6
Bogliacino, F.a.P., Mario 2009. Innovation performance in Europe: a long term perspective?, INNOMETRICS.
7
Boon, W.P.C., Moors, E.H.M., Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R.E.H.M. 2011. Demand articulation in emerging technologies: Intermediary user organisations as co-producers? Research Policy, 40(2), pp. 242-252.
8
Borrás, S. and Edquist, C. 2013. The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), pp. 1513-1522.
9
Bottazzi, L., Da Rin, M. and Hellmann, T. 2003. The changing face of the European venture capital industry: Facts and analysis: Survey of European Venture Capital (SEVeCa).
10
Caiazza, R. 2016. A cross-national analysis of policies affecting innovation diffusion. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), pp. 1406-1419.
11
Cantner, U., Graf, H., Herrmann, J. and Kalthaus, M. 2016. Inventor networks in renewable energies: The influence of the policy mix in Germany. Research Policy, 45(6), pp. 1165-1184.
12
Cardullo, M.W. and Sage, A.P. 2004. Information, knowledge and systems management approaches for a new global reserve currency. Information, Knowledge, Systems Management, 10(1), pp. 427-444.
13
Caselli, S., Stefano, G. and Perrini, F. 2009. Are Venture Capitalists a Catalyst for Innovation? European Financial Management, 15(1), pp. 92-111.
14
Christensen, J.L. 2008. The IPR System, Venture Capital and Capital Markets-Contributions and Distortions of Small Firm Innovation? . Aalborg University, DRUID Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy.
15
Cohen, B. and Amorós, J.E. 2014. Municipal demand-side policy tools and the strategic management of technology life cycles. Technovation, 34(12), pp. 797-806.
16
Cunningham, P. and Ramlogan, R. 2012. Compendium of Evidence on the Effectiveness of Innovation Policy Intervention: Innovation Networks. London and Manchester, NESTA and Manchester Institute of Innovation Research.
17
Edler, J. 2007. Demand-based Innovation Policy. Manchester Business School Working Paper.
18
Edler, J. 2009. Demand Policies for Innovation in EU CEE Countries. Manchester Business School Working Paper Research Paper No.579.
19
Edler, J. 2010. Demand Oriented Innovation Policy. In R. K. Smits, S.; Shapira, P. ed. The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy An International Research Handbook. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar,.
20
Edler, J. 2011. Innovation in EU CEE – what role for demand based policy? In A. Kaderabkova and S. Radosevic eds. Challenges of innovation policy on European Periphery: A Schumpeterian Perspective. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
21
Edler, J., Cameron, H. and Hajhashem, M. 2015. The intersection of intellectual property rights and innovation policy making - a literature review. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
22
Edler, J. and Georghiou, L. 2007. Public procurement and innovation—Resurrecting the demand side. Research Policy, 36(7), pp. 949-963.
23
Edler, J., Georghiou, L., Blind, K. and Uyarra, E. 2012. Evaluating the demand side: New challenges for evaluation. Research Evaluation, 21(1), pp.33-47.
24
Edler, J. and Yeow, J. 2016. Connecting demand and supply: The role of intermediation in public procurement of innovation. Research Policy, 45(2), pp. 414-426.
25
Edquist, C. 2009. Public Procurement for Innovation (PPI) – a Pilot Study. Lund University, CIRCLE - Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy.
26
Edquist, C. and Hommen, L. 1999. Systems of innovation: theory and policy for the demand side. Technology in Society, 21(1), pp. 63-79.
27
Edquist, C., Hommen, L. and Tsipouri, L. 2000. Public Technology Procurement and Innovation. New York: Springer US.
28
Edquist, C. and Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J.M. 2012. Public Procurement for Innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Research Policy, 41(10), pp. 1757-1769.
29
Edquist, C. and Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J.M. 2015. Pre-commercial procurement: a demand or supply policy instrument in relation to innovation? R&D Management, 45(2), pp. 147-160.
30
Edquist, C., Zabala, J.M. and Timmermans, B. 2012. A Conceptual Framework for Analyzying the Relations between Demand and Public Innovative Procurement and between Knowledge Intensive Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Lund University, CIRCLE.
31
Elder, J. 2013. Review of Policy Measures to Stimulate Private Demand for Innovation. Concepts and Effects. Nesta Working Paper No. 13/13.
32
EuropeanCommission 2006. Creating an Innovative Europe. Report of the Independent Expert Group.
33
Frenkel, A., Maital, S., Leck, E. and Israel, E. 2015. Demand-Driven Innovation: An Integrative Systems-Based Review of the Literature. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management,12(02).
34
Galbraith, B. and McAdam, R. 2013. The convergence of ICT, policy, intermediaries and society for technology transfer: evidence from European innovation projects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 25(3), pp. 249-252.
35
Georghiou, L., Edler, J., Uyarra, E. and Yeow, J. 2013. Policy instruments for public procurement of innovation: Choice, design and assessment. Technological Forecasting & Social Change.
36
Hannon, M.J., Foxon, T.J. and Gale, W.F. 2015. ‘Demand pull’ government policies to support Product-Service System activity: the case of Energy Service Companies (ESCos) in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume (108), pp. 900-915.
37
Hospers, G., Sautet, F. and Desrochers, P. 2008. Silicon Somewhere: Is there a Need for Cluster Policy? In C. Karlsson ed. Handbook of research on innovation and clusters: cases and policies. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 430-446.
38
Izsak, K. and Edler, J. 2011. Trends and Challenges in Demand-Side Innovation Policies in Europe. technopolis-group.
39
Kaiser, R. and Kripp, M. 2010. Demand-orientation in national systems of innovation: a critical review of current european innovation policy concepts. Druid Conference on “Opening Up Innovation: Strategy, Organization and Technology” Imperial College London Business School, Druid.
40
Ketels, C., Lindqvist, G. and Sölvell 2006. Cluster Initiatives in Developing and Transition Economies. Stockholm, Center for Strategy and Competitiveness.
41
Kuusisto, J. 2008. Mapping Service Innovation Policy in the Nordic Countries. ServINNo.
42
Landoni, M. 2011. emand driven innovation policy by forward public procurement: The Italian aerospace industry case. Post-Crisis Post-Lisbon Economic and Social Policy: A New Era?
43
Lember, V., Kattel, R. and Kalvet, T. 2011. Public procurement, innovation and policy : international perspectives. Urban Studies, 48(7), pp. 1373–1395.
44
Lundvall, B.-A. 1992. National Systems of innovation, Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: London UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
45
Lundvall, B.-A. 1998. Technological change and economic theory: innovation as an interactive process. From user-producer interaction to the national system 300 The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy of innovation. In e. a. G. Dosi ed. Technical Change and Economic Theory. London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter. pp. 349-369.
46
Malhotra, A., Gosain, S. and Sawy, O.A.E. 2005. Absorptive Capacity Configurations in Supply Chains: Gearing for Partner-Enabled Market Knowledge Creation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), pp. 145-187.
47
Miles, I. 2010. Demand-led innovation. INNO-GRIPS (Global Review of Innovation Intelligence and Policy Studies).
48
Moensted, M. 2007. Strategic networking in small high tech firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 3(1), pp. 15-27.
49
Moors, E., Enzing, C., Van Der Giessen, A. and Smits, R. 2003. User–producer interactions in functional genomics innovations. Innovation, 5(2-3), pp. 120-143.
50
OECD 2014. Intelligent Demand: Policy Rationale, Design and Potential Benefits: OECD Publishing.
51
Porter, M.E. 2000. Location, Competition and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), pp. 15-34.
52
Rank, D. 2002. Evaluation of the Networks of Centres of Excellence: Final Report. KPMG Consulting LP.
53
Rolfstam, M. 2005. Public Technology Procurement as a Demand-side Innovation Policy Instrument – an Overview of Recent Literatureand Events. European Commission.
54
Rolfstam, M. 2012a. An institutional approach to research on public procurement of innovation. Innovation, The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(3), pp. 303-321.
55
Rolfstam, M. 2012b. Public procurement of innovation: demand as in command or facilitation of endogenous knowledge conversion?
56
Rolfstam, M. 2012c. Understanding Public Procurement of Innovation: Definitions, Innovation types and Interaction modes. Social Science Research Network.
57
Roolaht, T. 2010a. The demand-side innovation policies in the context of small EU member country. Estonian Discussions on Economic Policy.
58
Roolaht, T. 2010b. The demand-side innovation policies in the context of small EU member country. Estonian Discussions on Economic Policy 18.
59
Rothwell, R. 1984. Technology-Based Small Firms and Regional Innovation Potential: The Role of Public Procurement. Journal of Public Policy, 4(4), pp. 307-332.
60
Sandelowski, M. and Barroso, J. 2007. Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. New York: Springer.
61
Smits, R. 2002. Innovation studies in the 21st century;: Questions from a user’s perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(9), pp. 861-883.
62
Spencer, G.M., Vinodrai, T., Gertler, M.S. and Wolfe, D.A. 2010. Do Clusters Make a Difference? Defining and Assessing their Economic Performance. Regional Studies, 44 (6), pp. 697-715.
63
Stephenson, K. 2010. How networks of trust can unlock innovation. . NESTA Guest Article.
64
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for Developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
65
Summers, J.A. et al. 2008. A preliminary synthesis of qualitative research: Gaining emotional well-being from other parents. Beach Center on Disability State of the Science Conference. Washington, DC.
66
Swink, M. 2006. Building Collaborative Innovation Capability. Research-Technology Management, 49(2), pp.37-47.
67
Timmermans, B. and Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J.M. 2013. Coordinated unbundling: A way to stimulate entrepreneurship through public procurement for innovation. Science and Public Policy, 40(5), pp. 674-685.
68
Uyarra, E. 2013. Review of Measures in Support of Public Procurement of Innovation. Nesta Working Paper. Nesta.
69
Uyarra, E. and Ramlogan, R. 2012. The effects of Cluster Policy on innovation. Compendium of Evidence on the Effectiveness of Innovation Policy Intervention. Manchester Institute of Innovation Research.
70
Vecchiato, R. and Roveda, C. 2014. Foresight for public procurement and regional innovation policy: The case of Lombardy, 43, pp. 438-450.
71
Zimmer, L. 2006. Qualitative meta-synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), pp. 311-318.
72
قاضینوری، س.، آزادگان مهر، م.، سیاست نوآوری در تئوری و عمل،1393. اصفهان، نشر دارخوین.
73
نقیزاده، ر.، الهی، ش.، منطقی، م. قاضینوری، س. 1393. فراترکیب مدلهای نوآوری منطقهای: مروری بر سالهای 2013-1990. فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی مدیریت نوآوری سال سوم(شماره چهارم).
74
نوروزی، ن.، الهی، ش.، حسنزاده، ع. حاجیحسینی، ح. 1393. ارائه چارچوبی از ابزارهای سیاستی علم و فناوری، با استفاده از رویکرد فراترکیب. فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی مدیریت نوآوری 3(2)، صص 124-103.
75
ودادهیر، ا. 1390. فراترکیب نتایج واکاویهای کیفی و مطالعات فرهنگی: واقعیت یا توهم. فصلنامه مطالعات فرهنگی دانشگاه تهران. 22(برگ فرهنگ)،صص 24-45.
76
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
نقش مخارج تحقیق و توسعه در میان عوامل موثر بر بهره وری نیروی کار (مورد ایران و شرکای تجاری منتخب)
ارتقاء سطح بهرهوری عوامل تولید یکی از مهمترین مولفههای تاثیرگذار بر رشد و توسعه اقتصادی کشورها محسوب میشود براساس نظریههای رشد اقتصادی درونزا، فعالیتهای تحقیقوتوسعه داخلی ، موجب استفاده موثرتر از منابع موجود و جذب فناوری پیشرفته خارجی در تولید کالاها و خدمات قابل تجارت میگردد و در نهایت بهبود بهرهوری تولید ارتقاء مییابد. با توجه به اهمیت موضوع، این پژوهش سعی دارد عوامل موثر بر بهرهوری نیروی کار در کشور ایران و شرکای تجاری منتخب آن در طول سالهای 2014-2004 با استفاده از روش پنل- دیتا بررسی کند. نتایج به دست آمده حاکی از آن است که متغیرهای امید به زندگی و سرمایه انسانی به ترتیب با داشتن ضریب 74/30 و 11/0، بیشترین و کمترین تاثیر را بر شاخص بهرهوری نیروی کار دارند. از طرفی، متغیر مخارج تحقیقوتوسعه با ضریب 71/1 دارای تاثیر مثبت بر بهرهوری نیروی کار است، اگرچه برطبق جایگاه مهم و حائز اهمیت این متغیر، توجه چندانی به آن صورت نگرفته است.
https://www.nowavari.ir/article_60174_d732e36b4d2fc00893877aa11dd1d441.pdf
2017-08-23
139
162
بهره وری نیروی کار
مخارج تحقیق و توسعه
سرمایه انسانی
امید به زندگی
روش پانل دیتا
زهرا
نجفی
najafi.29@gmail.com
1
مربی گروه اقتصاد دانشگاه پیام نور
LEAD_AUTHOR
کریم
آذربایجانی
azarbaiejani@yahoo.co.in
2
استاد گروه اقتصاد، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد، اصفهان، ایران
AUTHOR
Aghion, P. a. H. P., 1992. A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), pp. 323-351.
1
Anon., 2013. Global Competitiveness Report, World Economic Forum.
2
Aparicio, S. D. U. &. D. A., 2016. Institutional factors, Opportunity entrepreneurship and economic growth: panel data evidence. Technological Forcasting & Social Change, Volume 102, pp. 45-61.
3
Baumol, W. J., 1990. Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive. The Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), pp. 893-921.
4
Bowen, H. D. C. D., 2008. Institutional Context and the Allocation of Entrepreneurial Effort. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), pp. 747-767.
5
Cassiman, B. &. G. E. &. M.-R. E., 2010. Innovation, Export and Productivity. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28(4), pp. 372-376.
6
Cavdar, S. C. a. A. A. D., 2015. An Empirical Analysis about Technological Development and Innovation Indicator. World Conference on Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Procedia- Social and Behavioral
7
Coe, D. T. W. H. a. H. A., 2008. International R&D Spillovers and Institutions. International Monetary Fund WP/08/104 IMF Working Paper.
8
Crespi, G. a. Z. p., 2012. Innovation and Productivity: Evidence from Six Latin American Countries. World Development, 40(2), pp. 273-290.
9
Dolores, A. H., 2007. The Impact of R&D Spillovers on UK Manufacturing: A Dynamic Panel Approach. Research Policy, Volume 36, pp. 964-979.
10
Estrada, A. L.-S. D., 2001. Accounting for Spanish productivity growth using sectoral data: New Evidence. Working Papers 0110, Banco de España;Working Papers Homepage. .
11
Griliches, Z., 1979. Issues in assessing the contribution of Research & Development to Productivity Growth. Bell Journal of Economics, Volume 10, pp. 92-116.
12
Griliches, Z., 1986. Productivity, R&D and basic research at the firm level in the 1970’s. American Economic Review, Volume 76, pp. 141-154.
13
Grosman, G. M. a. H. E., 1991. Trade, Knowledge Spillovers, and Growth. European Economic Review, 35(2-3), pp. 517-526.
14
Harrison, R. T. M. C. M. &. G. P., 2004. Financial Bootstrapping and Venture Development in the Software Industry. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(4), pp. 307-333.
15
Landon-Lane, J. S. &. R. P. E., 2003. Accumulation and Productivity Growth in Industrializing Economies. Australia: The University of New South Wales, School of Economics.
16
Minniti, M., 2005. Entrepreneurship & Network Externalities. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 57(1), pp. 1-27.
17
OECD, 2005. OsloManual. Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data , Paris.
18
Ortega, C. a. M. C., 2008. Exploring the Relationship Between R&D and Productivity: A Country-level Study. Central Bank of Chile, Working Papers.
19
Rodil Marzabal, O. V. X. &. S. C. M. C., 2015. The relationship between innovation and export behaviour: The case of Galician firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 113, pp. 248–265 .
20
Romer, P. M., 1990. “Endogenous technological change. Journal of political Economy, 98(5), pp. 71-102.
21
Senhadji, A., 2000. Source of Economic Growth: An Extensive Growth Accounting Exercies. IMF Staff Papers.
22
Soderbom, M. T. F., 2003. Openness and human capital as source of productivity growth: An empirical investigation. Oxford: Centre for Study of African Economics.
23
Verner, D., 1999. Wages and Productivity Gaps: Evidence from Ghana. World Bank, Human Development, Africa technical Families, Volume 3.
24
Zachariadis, M., 2003. R&D, Innovation, and Technological Progress: A test of the Schumpeterian Framework without Scale Effects. Canadian Journal of Economics, 36(3), pp. 566-686.
25
ابونوری، عباسعلی، مهدی حنطه و آزیتا قربانی جاهد، 1392، بررسی نقش مولفههای اقتصاد دانش بنیان بر بهر هوری کل عوامل تولید، پژوهشنامه اقتصاد کلان، سال هشتم، شماره 16، صص. 52 - 31 .
26
باقرزاده، علی و اکبر کمیجانی، 1389، تحلیل اثر تحقی قوتوسعه داخلی و خارجی بر بهر هوری کل عوامل تولید در بخش کشاورزی ایران، فصلنامه مدلسازی اقتصادی، شماره 1، صص. 93 - 119 .
27
تشکینی، احمد، 1384 ، اقتصاد سنجی کاربردی به کمک Microfit ، موسسه فرهنگی هنری دیباگران تهران، چاپ اول.
28
تی اچ میوز، ماریوس و ادکوئیست، چارلز، 1389 ، مقدم های بر نوآوری در محصول و فرآیند، ترجمه: معصومه پورجعفری مقدم، مجله اقتصادی، ماهنامه بررسی مسائل و سیاس تهای اقتصادی، شمار ههای 7 و 8، صص 87 - 106 .
29
خاندوزی، سیداحسان، 1384 ، انگاره پورتر در تجارت و مزیت رقابتی، مجله راهبرد یاس )توسعه(، سال اول، شماره چهارم، صص 83 - 102 .
30