طراحی الگوی نوآوری باز صنعت طلای ایران

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار، دانشگاه یزد، یزد، ایران

2 دانش آموخته دکتری، دانشگاه یزد، یزد، ایران

3 استاد، دانشگاه یزد، یزد، ایران

4 استادیار، مجتمع آموزش عالی بم، بم، ایران

چکیده

نوآوری باز، طی دهۀ گذشته به‌طور گسترده‌ای در پیشینه مدیریت نوآوری مورد بحث بوده است. این امر موجب شناسایی هرچه بیشتر مزایای آن گردیده است، نظیر استفاده از ورودی‌های دانش برای تسریع نوآوری‌های داخلی و گسترش بازار برای استفاده‌های خارجی از نوآوری در شرکت‌های کوچک و متوسط. هدف این پژوهش، دستیابی به الگوی ساختاری نوآوری باز برای صنعت طلای ایران با بررسی عوامل تأثیرپذیر و تأثیرگذار و تبیین چگونگی روابط میان آن‌هاست. پژوهش از نوع کیفی با ماهیت اکتشافی ـ تبیینی است و از رویکردهای مرور نظام‌مند پیشینه پژوهش و فراترکیب و تحلیل مضمون بهره گرفته است. در این خصوص، از بین 3151 مقالۀ اولیه، 54 مقاله پس از گذر از لایه‌های متعدد ارزیابی، مورد بررسی محتوایی قرار گرفته و متغیرها و واحدهای معنایی مورد نظر شناسایی شده است. سپس 25 کد مفهومی اولیه، استخراج و پس از اعتبارسنجی آن با خبرگان، روابط میان آن‌ها نیز از متون علمی استنتاج شد و در یک الگوی مفهومی ترسیم گردید. در ادامه برای تطبیق الگوی مذکور در صنعت طلا، مصاحبه‌هایی نیمه‌ساختارمند با خبرگان صنعت طلا طرح‌ریزی و اجرا شد، که این اقدامات منجر به شناسایی 11 عامل جدید و اختصاصی برای صنعت طلا گردید. با ادغام و دسته‌بندی عامل‌ها، 34 مقولۀ نهایی شناسایی و با بررسی روابط بین آن‌ها، الگو نوآوری باز در صنعت طلا تدوین و عامل‌های مهم تأثیرگذار و تأثیرپذیر در الگو شناسایی گردید. همچنین، در این میان سه عامل کلیدی شامل نهادسازی میانجی، تغییرپذیری مدیران و عامل اعتمادسازی در همکاری و مشارکت‌ها، تأثیرگذارترین عوامل‌ در الگو شناسایی شدند که علاوه بر تاثیر بر روی دیگر عوامل‌ موجب تقویت نوآوری باز و در نتیجه تقویت متغیرهای عملکردی می‌گردند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Designing an open innovation pattern for the Iranian gold industry

نویسندگان [English]

  • Habib Zare Ahmadabadi 1
  • Ali Karimi Zarchi 2
  • Habibollah Mirghafori 1
  • Seyed Haidar Mirfakhradini 3
  • Ali Saffari Darberazi 4
1 Associate Professor, Yazd university, Yazd, Iran
2 PhD Graduated, Yazd university, Yazd, Iran
3 Professor, Yazd university, Yazd, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Higher Education Complex of Bam, Bam, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Open innovation has been widely discussed in the management of the innovation literature over the past decade, which has led to the increasing recognition of its benefits, including the use of knowledge inputs to accelerate domestic innovation and expanding the market for using innovation in small and medium company. Better understanding of the stimulus, shaping, and consequence variables of open innovation can help to better explain the relationships between them and thus better plan open innovative actions. The policy of companies to expand innovative activities depends on identifying the position of its factors and drivers in their internal and external environment. In this regard, considering the gaps in the Iranian gold industry, a comprehensive pattern of open innovation was developed based on systematic review of articles and thematic analysis. This process was performed by identifying all the variables affecting the open innovation pattern in the Iranian gold industry and analyzing the relationships between them, as well as identifying the effects of open innovation on performance indicators.
Methodology: Tht research type is qualitative one with exploratory-explanatory nature in which the systematic review of research literature, meta-synthesis approach and thematic analysis have been used.In this regard, by carefully studying the existing resources at the international and national level in the field of open innovation, has identified the most important influential and influential factors in the open innovation process. Then, using the qualitative method (meta-synthesis approach), the identified factors were coded and modified and the relationships between them were identified in order to draw the initial pattern of innovation. Then, in order to adapt the identified framework specifically to the reality of Iran's gold industry, in line with the thematic analysis method, semi-structured interviews with gold industry experts designed and conducted. The results of these steps led to the identification of new variables, their coding and classification into new concept codes. By merging and categorizing the factors, final categories identified and by examining the relationships between them, an open innovation pattern in the Iranian gold industry developed and important influential and influential factors identified in the pattern.
Results and Discussion:  Based on the seven steps of meta-synthesis after passing through several layers of 54 articles evaluation from 3151 initial ones which chosen by careful content review and for identifying desired variables and semantic units. In this regard, 25 concept codes extracted and after examining their validation by help of subject matter experts, the relationships between them also induced from scientific texts and drawn in a conceptual framework. Then, in order to implement the identified framework in the gold industry of Iran, semi-structured interviews with the experts of the gold industry of Iran designed and conducted, which led to the identification of 11 new and specific factors for the gold industry. By merging and categorizing the factors, 34 final categories identified and by examining the relationships among them, the open innovation pattern in the gold industry of Iran developed and important influential and influential factors identified in the pattern.
Conclusion: Based on the type of relationships between factors using experts, it found that some factors have a more pivotal role and have a higher impact on other factors, which indicates their key and influential role in the pattern. Among these, three key factors including mediating institutionalization, manager variability and trust building factor in cooperation and partnerships with high impact and relationships identified in the pattern. In the meantime, by examining more closely the relationship between these three key factors, it shows that the two key factors of mediating institutionalization, the variability of their managers, directly affect the other key factor, which is building trust in cooperation and partnership, and strengthen. By analyzing the subsequent relationships, the factor of building trust in cooperation and partnership, we will see the impact of this factor on the factors of identifying knowledge resources and empowering managers and ultimately the impact of all of them on open innovation in the gold industry. Finally, by examining the final pattern and considering the importance of the mediating institutionalization variable in directly affecting the three influential variables in the pattern, it suggeste that science and technology parks and related unions and universities support the establishment of research institutions. Intermediary companies in various fields of education, research, services and technology to provide specialized services to this industry, to solve this convergent circle and thus strengthen open innovation in it. In addition, institutions related to holding specialized training courses in the gold industry, encouraging managers to participate in empowerment and development programs such as conferences, specialized meetings and visiting specialized exhibitions can strengthen the variability of managers, to further witness Increase trust in joint activities and efforts to identify and use new knowledge resources by companies. In addition, by strengthening the two factors of mediating institutionalization and variability by the relevant institutions, it is possible to strengthen the factor of building trust in cooperation and partnerships. In addition, the establishment of supporting institutions, such as the establishment of gold industrial development clusters, can increase trust-building processes in this industry and help develop open innovation in the Iranian gold industry. The results also show the direct and indirect impact of all extracted factors on open innovation and of course their effect on open innovation performance, which includes the company's performance including financial and non-financial performance and innovative performance including innovation penetration, innovation volume and scope of impact.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Open innovation
  • Institutionalization
  • Innovative performance
  • Trust-building processes

مراجع

  1. Abulrub, A.-H. G., & Lee, J. (2012). Open innovation management: challenges and prospects. International Conference on Leadership, Technology and Innovation Management, 130-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.017.
  2. Aghazadeh, H., Hassan Gholipour Yasuri, T., Mehrnoosh, M., Latifi, M. M., & Soleimani, S. (2019). Designing a sales model based on open innovation in the construction industry (sample study: Atlas Iranian Construction Companies Group). Business Management, (2) 11, 221-240. [in Persian]
  3. Ahmadi, A., Kazazi, A., Naghizadeh, M., & Amiri, M. (2019). A New Framework for Measuring and Implementing Open Innovation: A Context-Based Approach. Technology Development Management Quarterly , 7( 2), 9-32. [in Persian]
  4. Alamifar, F. (2013). Investigating the Impact of Open Innovation Approach on the Effectiveness of Innovation Process in Information and Communication Technology Organizations. Allameh Tabatabai University. [in Persian]
  5. Alexander, A. T., & Martin, D. P. (2013). Intermediaries for open innovation: A competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 80, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.07.013.
  6. Ardito, L., & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2017). Breadth of external knowledge sourcing and product innovation: The moderating role of strategic human resource practices. European Management urnal, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.01.005.
  7. Badawy, A. (2004). Open innovation :the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology :Henry W .Chesbrough. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA,2003,227 pages.J.Eng.Tech.Manage.21(3),, 241–244.
  8. Barbosa, A. P., Salerno, M. S., Brasil, V. C., & Nascimento, P. T. (2020). Coordination Approaches to Foster Open Innovation R&D Projects Performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2020.101603
  9. Barnes, T. P. (2006). Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool. Int. Proj. Manag. 24, 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.03.003.
  10. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108.
  11. Berchicci, L. (2013). Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy 42, 117– 127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.017.
  12. Bianchi, M., Cavaliere, A., Chiaroni, D., Frattini, F., & Chiesa, V. (2011). Organisational modes for Open Innovation in the bio-pharmaceutical. Technovation, 22-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.03.002.
  13. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3,77-101.
  14. Cheng, C. C., Yang, C., & Sheu, C. (2016). Effects of open innovation and knowledge-based dynamic capabilities on radical innovation :An empirical study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2016.07.002.
  15. Cheng, C., & Shiu, E. (2015). The inconvenient truth of the relationship between open innovation activities and innovation performance. Decis. 53 (3), 625–647. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2014-0163.
  16. Chesbrough, H. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Manage . Rev.44, 35–41.
  17. Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). The era of open innovation. Managing Innovation and Change.
  18. Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeque, W.,West, J. (Eds.), New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.
  19. Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. (2006). Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Manag. 36 (3), 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00428.x.
  20. Hoon, C. (2013). Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Case Studies: An Approach to Theory Building. Organizational Research Methods. 16(4) 522-556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113484969.
  21. Creswell, J. (2010). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, University of Alberta, Canada.
  22. Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699-709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013.
  23. Davoodi, N., Akbari, M., & Reward, H. (2016). Identify and prioritize the factors affecting the success of open innovation in information and communication technology companies. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 9 (1), 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.03.003.
  24. Dell’Anno, D., Evangelista, F., & Del Giudice, M. (2018). Internationalization of science-based start-ups: Opportunity or requirement? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9(2), 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0352-1.
  25. Dietrich, P. E. (2010). The dynamics of collaboration in multipartner projects. Manag. J. 41, 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20194.
  26. Dong, J. Q., & Netten, J. (2017). Information technology and external search in the open innovation age: New findings from Germany. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.021.
  27. Drechsler, W., & Natter, M. (2012). Understanding a firm's openness decisions in innovation. Journal of Business Research 65, 438–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.11.003.
  28. Fabricio Jr., R. d., Silva, F. R., Simoes, E., Galegale, N. V., & Akabane, G. K. (2015). Strengthening of Open Innovation Model: using startups and technology parks. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.051.
  29. Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a Theory of Open Innovation: Three Core Process Archetypes. R&D Management Conference (RADMA). Lisbon, Portugal.
  30. Geenen, S. (2018). Underground dreams. Uncertainty, risk and anticipation in the gold production network. Geoforum, 30-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.02.019.
  31. Geum, Y., Kim, J., Son, C., & Park, Y. (2013). Development of dual technology roadmap (TRM) for open innovation: Structure and typology. Eng. Technol. Manage. 30, 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2013.06.001.
  32. Ghassim, B., & Foss, L. (2018). Understanding the micro-foundations of internal capabilities for open innovation in the minerals industry: a holistic sustainability perspective. Resources Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.09.011.
  33. Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Sociology press.
  34. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Forth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: sage.
  35. Haji Akhoondi, A., Hashemzadeh Khorasgani, G., & Bushehri, A. (2020). Identify the macro factors affecting the success of open innovation in the ecosystem of digital knowledge-based businesses. Industrial Management, 12( 2), 372-334. [in Persian]
  36. Hamdani, J., & Wirawan, C. (2012). Open Innovation Implementation to Sustain Indonesian SMEs. Procedia Economics and Finance 4, 223 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00337-1.
  37. Hameed, W. U., Nisar, Q. A., & Wu, H.-C. (2021). Relationships between external knowledge, internal innovation, firms’open innovation performance, service innovation and business performance in the Pakistani hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102745.
  38. Hung, K., & Chou, C. (2013). The impact of open innovation on firm performance: the moderating effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence. Technovation 33 (10), 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.06.006.
  39. Janeiro, P., Proenca, I., & Goncalves, V. D. (2013). Open innovation: Factors explaining universities as service firm innovation sources. Journal of Business Research 66, 2017–2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.027.
  40. Javid, G., & Bagheri Nejad, J. (2012). Relationship between the open innovation process and the ability to attract firms. Quarterly Journal of Parks and Growth Centers 8 (3), 519-540. [in Persian]
  41. Jugend, D., Jabbour, C. J., Scaliza, J. A., Rocha, R. S., Gobbo Junior, J. A., Latan, H., & Salgado, M. H. (2018). Relationships among open innovation, innovative performance, government support and firm size: Comparing Brazilian firms embracing different levels of radicalism in innovation. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.02.004.
  42. Karimi Zarchi, A. (2015). Cognitive study report of the golden cluster of Yazd province. Yazd Industrial Towns Company. [in Persian]
  43. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Manag. J. 43 (5),, 867–878. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507.
  44. Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open Innovation in SMEs - An intermediated network model. Research Policy,39(2), 290-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.12.009.
  45. Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of family medicine and primary care, 4(3), 324. 4103/2249-4863.161306.
  46. Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: examining environmental influences. R&D Manag. 39 (4), 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00561.x.
  47. Lichtenthaler, u. (2011). Open innovation: past research, current debates, and future directions. Manag. Perspect. 25, 75–93. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.25.1.75.
  48. Meissner, D. (2015). Public-private partnership models for science, technology, and innovation. Retrieved from J. Knowl. Econ:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0310-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0310-3
  49. Mohseni Kiasari, M., Mohammadi, M., Jafarnejad, A., Mokhtarzadeh, N., & Asadi Fard, R. (2017). Handling demand-driven innovation policy tools using a hybrid approach. Innovation Management, 6 (2), 109-138. [in Persian]
  50. Naqshbandi, M. M., & Tabche, I. (2018). The interplay of leadership, absorptive capacity, and organizational learning culture in open innovation: Testing a moderated mediation model. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.03.017.
  51. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.
  52. Noruzi, N., Elahi, Sh., Manteghi, M., & Ghazi Nouri, S. s. (2014). Provide a framework of science and technology policy tools, using a hybrid approach. Innovation Management, 3 (2), 103-124. [in Persian]
  53. Oberg, C., & Alexander, A. T. (2018). The openness of open innovation in ecosystems –Integrating innovation and management literature on knowledge linkages. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.10.005.
  54. Pateli, A., & Lioukas, S. (2019). 2019. How functional involvement affects the transformation of external knowledge into innovation outcomes. R&D Manage. 49 (2), 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12280.
  55. Popa, S., Soto-Acosta, P., & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2017). Antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of innovation climate and open innovation: An empirical study in SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.014.
  56. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswary, V. (2004). Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy and Leadership 32(3), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570410699249.
  57. Reed, R., Storrud-Barnes, S., & Jessup, L. (2012). How open innovation affects the drivers of competitive advantage: trading the benefits of IP creation and ownership for free invention. Decis. 50 (1), 58–73. ttps://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211194877.
  58. Rogbeer, S., Almahendra, R., & Ambos, B. (2014). Open-innovation effectiveness:When does the macro design of alliance portfolios matter? Journal of International Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2014.09.003.
  59. Rohrbeck, R., Holzle, K., & Gemunden, H. (2009). Opening up for competitive advantage:how Deutsche Telekom creates an open innovation ecosystem. R&D Manag. 39 (4), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00568.x
  60. Rudsaz, H. A., Seyed Naqavi, M., Abdoli mosinan, F. (2020). The effect of open innovation on competitive advantage with the mediating role of knowledge management. Scientific Quarterly of Industrial Management Studies, 18(95), 117-150. [in Persian]
  61. Saebi, T., & Foss, N. J. (2014). Business models for open innovation: Matching heterogenous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions. European Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.11.002.

 Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2006). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer Publishing Company.

  1. Savino, T., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Albino, V. (2017). Search and recombination process to innovate: a review of the empirical evidence and a research agenda. J. Manag. Rev. 19 (1), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12081.
  2. Silva, F. M., Araujo Oliveira Querido, E. A., & Moraes, M. d. (2016). Innovation development process in small and medium technology-based companies. Innovation & Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rai.2016.04.005.
  3. Singh, S. K., Gupta, S., Busso, D., & Kamboj, S. (2021). Top management knowledge value, knowledge sharing practices, open. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.040.
  4. Spithoven, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Roijakkers, N. (2013). Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises. Small Bus. Econ. 41 (3), 537–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9453-9.
  5. Taheri, S., & Shavalpour, S. (2018). The Impact of Open Government Data and Data Innovation on Business Development in the Life Insurance Industry. Journal of Technology and Growth, 14 (55), 63-75 7508/jstpi.2018.03.007. [in Persian]
  6. Triguero, A., Fernandez, S., & Saez-Martinez, F. J. (2018). Inbound open innovative strategies and eco-innovation in the Spanish food and beverage industry. Sustainable Production and Consumption 15, 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.04.002.
  7. Wang, C.-H., Chang, C.-H., & Shen, G. C. (2015). The effect of inbound open innovation on firm performance: Evidence from high-tech industry. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 99, 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.006.
  8. West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management 36(3), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00436.x.
فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی
دوره 14، شماره 54
تیر 1402
صفحه 265-290

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 28 مهر 1400
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 25 بهمن 1401
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 18 فروردین 1401

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار