فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی

فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی

ارائه چارچوب ارزیابی اکوسیستم کارآفرینی پارک‌های علم و فناوری

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری،گروه کارآفرینی، واحد قزوین، دانشگاه آزاد سلامی، قزوین، ایران
2 استادیار، گروه مدیریت و برنامه ریزی آموزشی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران
3 استادیار، گروه مدیریت دولتی، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
مفهوم اکوسیستم کارآفرینی به معنای اندیشه و عمل برای طراحی سیاست های کارآفرینی بکار گرفته شده است هدف این تحقیق ارائه چارچوب ارزیابی اکوسیستم کارآفرینی پارک های علم و فناوری است. این پژوهش به صورت کیفی و بر مبنای نظریه داده بنیاد سیستماتیک می‌باشد. داده های پژوهش از طریق مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته شامل 15 نفر از خبرگان حوزه کارآفرینی و پارک‌های علم و فناوری کشور تا رسیدن به اشباع نظری صورت گرفت و نمونه گیری از نوع هدفمند به روش نظری وگلوله برفی انجام شد. روایی از روش لینکلن و گوبا و پایایی از طریق پایایی باز آزمون و توافق بین دو کدگذار انجام شد. تحلیل داده ها نیز با رویکرد استراس و کوربین در سه مرحله کد گذاری باز، محوری و گزینشی انجام شد. چارچوب ارائه شده حاکی از آن است که عوامل علی ( ویژگی ساختارهای محلی، سیاست های کارآفرینی و شاخص‌های کارآفرینی محلی)، عوامل زمینه‌ای ( منابع مالی، انسانی، زیرساخت فیزیکی و ناملموس، ظرفیت سازی، ترویج، توانمندسازها)، عوامل مداخله گر (سازگاری، حذف تنش، تاب آوری)، راهبردها (تعاملات درون و برون اکوسیستمی)، پیامدها ( خلق ثروت، نیروی کار، کسب و کارها) و پدیده محوری، ارزیابی اکوسیستم کارآفرینی پارک های علم و فناوری (با شاخص‌های حمایت‌گری ، واسطه‌گری، فرصت سازی فناورانه، کمک به بهره برداری از فرصت، ماهیت اکوسیستم) می‌باشد. چارچوب پیشنهادی می‌تواند به عنوان مبنایی برای ارزیابی اکوسیستم کارآفرینی ایجاد شده یا توسعه پارک های علم و فناوری مورد استفاده قرار گیرد.
کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Providing a framework for evaluation the entrepreneurial ecosystem of science and technology parks

نویسندگان English

Nika Khajepourshirvan 1
Parviz Saketi 2
Kaveh Teymournejad 3
1 Ph.D. student, Department of entrepreneurship, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Management and Educatinal Planing, University of Shiraz, Shiraz, Iran
3 Assistant Professor,Department of public Administration, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

Introduction
The study of science and technology parks literature shows that approaches based on regional economy, technological and industrial clusters, and innovation systems are the basis for creating science and technology parks. The main idea of the formation of science and technology parks is to develop technology and entrepreneurship and promote innovation culture through managing the flow of knowledge and technology between universities, research institutes and private companies and the market. In the past years, many policymakers, academics and company managers have increasingly recognized the benefits of regional entrepreneurial ecosystems. Accordingly, the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystem means thinking and action have been used to design entrepreneurial policies. Examining the research reports indicates that a small number of technological businesses enjoy parking services in the life cycle of the company, which is caused by two categories of factors, the first includes the macro issues, such as reduction of government budgets, lack of management efficient systems, sanctions and bottlenecks in international communication, lack of participation of the private sector, and the second includes lack of experience of the park headquarters in managing technology and innovation, crisis management and solving upcoming challenges, and issues such as managing interactions, resilience and sustainability of businesses. Hence, the purpose of this research is to provide a framework for evaluating the entrepreneurial ecosystem of science and technology parks, because according to the experiences gained, providing the framework prevents the partiality and insularity of science and technology parks in drafting programs to support entrepreneurial processes and minimizes parallel work and waste of resources.
Methodology
The research is qualitative and based on systematic grounded theory. The data of the research was collected through semi-structured interviews including 15 experts in the field of entrepreneurship and science and technology parks of the country until reaching theoretical saturation and purposeful sampling was done by theoretical and snowball method. The statistical population of this research consists of experts related to the field of research. Sampling is also purposeful and in the form of snowballs. Sampling continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Furthermore, results evaluation criteria are as follows: 1. Matching, 2. Ability to understand, 3. Ability to generalize, 4. Control, 5- Practical relevance, 6- Efficiency, and 7- Modifyability. For determining the overall validity of the model in this research, the ratio test wass used to measure the validity of the ground theory.
Results and Discussion
Data analysis was also done with the Strauss and Corbin approach in three stages of open, axial and selective coding. The result showed that causal-conditions (characteristics of ecosystem place structures, entrepreneurship policies and ecosystem place entrepreneurship indicators), contextual-conditions (financial, human, physical and intangible infrastructure, capacity building, promotion, enablers), Intervening-conditions (adaptability, elimination of tension, resilience), strategies (inside- and outside- entrepreneurial ecosystem interactions), outcomes (wealth creation, workforce, businesses), pivotal include, evaluation the entrepreneurial ecosystem of science and technology parks (with  indicators of support, mediation, technical opportunism,  and help for explotation of opportunity).
Conclusion
Unfortunately, science and technology parks rarely evaluate the entrepreneurial ecosystem created by themselves and only rely on performance evaluation results. A short-term solution in this field is to sensitize the officials of the parks and the Ministry of Science to the issue of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, so that they consider the evaluation of the entrepreneurial ecosystem along with the evaluation of the park’s performance, because the most important task of the park is streamlining and creating stable connections
to carry out its missions. Considering the financial constraints and the threatening environmental conditions of the country, the best strategy is to use the capabilities of the ecosystems in a win-win relationship to advance the park’s goals.The proposed framework can be used as a basis for evaluation the establishment or development of entrepreneurial ecosystem of science and technology parks. To this end, the following suggestions are presented: 1. It is suggested that in future research, the framework presented in this research should be used to evaluate the entrepreneurial ecosystem of other Science and Technology Parks of the Ministry of Science across the country with a wider population and statistical sample and compare the results with these results. 2. It is suggested to conduct comparative studies to take advantage of the situation of other countries in evaluating the entrepreneurial ecosystem of science and technology parks in the world. 3. It is suggested that the evaluation framework of the entrepreneurship ecosystem of science and technology parks related to executive bodies and specialized parks be designed and its results be compared with this research
 

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Entrepreneurial ecosystem
Science and technology park
Framework
  • Carayannis, E.G., Grigoroudis, E., Campbell, D.F.J., Meissner, D., & Stamati, D. (2018). The ecosystem as helix: an exploratory theory-building study of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models. R&D Management, 48: 148-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12300
  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory3. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153.
  • Entezari, Y. (2019). The requirnmet for the development of University-based Entrepreneurial Ecosystem of Iran. Journal of research and planning in high education, 25(1),1-25. https://doi.org/10.22061/tej.2021.7450.2539.
  • Elyasi, , Maysami, A., & Mobini Dehkordi, A. (2019). Toward the Measurement Framework of Technological Entrepreneurship Ecosystem. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 27,4, 419-444. https://doi.org/ 10.1142/S0218495819500158.
  • Feld, B. (2012). Startup Communities: building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city, Hoboken: NJ, Wiley
  • Fioravanti, V., Stocker, F., & Macau, F. (2021). Knowledge transfer in technological innovation clusters. Innovation & Management Review. https: //doi.org/10.1108/INMR-12-2020-0176.
  • Flint, J. (1998). Behavioral phenotypes: conceptual and methodological issues. American journal of medical genetics, 81(3), 235-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19980508)81:3<235::AID-AJMG6>3.0.CO;2-V.
  • Germain, E., Klofsten, M., Löfsten, H., & Mian, S. (2022). Science parks as key players in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of R&D management, 65, 48-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12536.
  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
  • Graham, R. (2014). Creating university-based entrepreneurial ecosystems: evidence from emerging world leaders. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 20(4).
  • Hans, L., & Lindelöf, (2005). R&D networks and product innovation patterns—academic and non-academic new technology-based firms on Science Parks, Technovation, 25(9), 1025-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.02.007
  • Hayter, C. S., Nelson, A. J., Zayed, S., & O’Connor, A. C. (2018). Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: A review, analysis and extension of the literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(4), 1039-1082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9657-5
  • Hofmeister, G., Mukhtarova, K., Abdykalikova, M., Yerimpasheva, A., & Abikenov, A. (2019). Ecosystem of technological business: methods of analysis and development factors. Central Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.26577/CAJSH-2019-1-s1
  • International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation. Retrieved from https://www.iasp.ws/our-industry/definitions/science-park
  • Isenberg, D. (2010). How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution. Harvard Business Review. https://doi.org/j.sbspro.2015.06.242.
  • Keykha, A., Pourkarimi, J. (2021). Research Synthesis Components of Entrepreneurship Ecosystem of Entrepreneurial University. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 14(2), 320-301. DOI: 10.22059/jed.2021.320332.653621
  • Kurdi, M., Yeilaghi, Z. (2020). Identifying and evaluating factors affecting the success of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Applied modern studies in management, economics and accounting, 3(9), 72-91.
  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  • Löfsten, H., Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the Growth of New Technology-Based Firms–Academic–. Research Policy. 31. 859-876. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00153-6.
  • Miller, D., Acs, Z. (2017). The campus as entrepreneurial ecosystem: the University of Chicago. Small Business Economics. 49. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9868-4.
  • Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75– 86.
  • Nejad Taheri, A., Karshenasan, A., & Mohammadi, M. (2021). Evaluation and Analyzing Entrepreneurial Ecosystem and Business Environment of Iran Provinces by PFB Approach. Journal of Economics and Regional Development, 27(20), 101-127. https://doi.org/10.22067/erd.2021.18839.0.
  • Parker, L. D., & Roffey, B. H. (1997). Methodological themes: back to the drawing board: revisiting grounded theory and the everyday accountant’s and manager’s reality. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579710166730.
  • Post, D.M. (2002), Using stable isotopes to estimate trophic position: models, methods, and assumptions. Ecology, 83: 703-718. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[0703:USITET]2.0.CO;2
  • Ranjbaran, V., Eliasi, M., Goudarzi, M. (2022). Ecosystem assessment framework for start-up businesses (case study: Bushehr province). Roshd Technology Quarterly, 18(70), 45-52. https://doi.org/ 52547/jstpi.21020.18.70.12.
  • Rice, M. P., Fetters, M. L., & Greene, P. G. (2014). University-based entrepreneurship ecosystems: a global study of six educational institutions. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18(5-6), 481-501. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2014.064722.
  • Roja, A. (2015). Technology entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurship in the west region of Romania. Studia Universitatis Vasile Goldiș Arad, Seria Științe Economice, 25(1), 40-59. https://doi.org/10.1515/sues-2015-0004.
  • Secundo, G., Mele, G., Del Vecchio, P., & Degennaro, G. (2021). Knowledge spillover creation in university-based entrepreneurial ecosystem: the role of the Italian “Contamination Labs”. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 19(1), 137-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1785347.
  • Shane S. and Venkataraman S. (2001), Entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 13-16. https://doi.org/10.2307/259271.
  • Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41, 49– 72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167.
  • Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic Critique. European Planning Studies. 23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484.
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview.
  • Tansley, A.G. (1935). The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms. Ecology, 16: 284-307. https://doi.org/10.2307/1930070
  • Zacharakis, A., Shepherd, D., Coombs, J. (2003). The development of venture-capital-backed internet companies: An ecosystem perspective. Journal of Business Venturing. 18. 217-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00084-8.

 

دوره 15، شماره 57
بهار 1403
صفحه 181-208

  • تاریخ دریافت 09 آذر 1401
  • تاریخ بازنگری 26 دی 1401
  • تاریخ پذیرش 22 فروردین 1402