فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی

فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی

تحلیل ذی‌نفعان در مدیریت مشارکتی زیست‌بوم­های نوآور شهری

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان
مجتبی رفیعیان 1
افسانه حکانی 2
1 استاد، دانشکده هنر، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
2 کارشناسی ارشد، دانشکده هنر، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
10.22034/smsj.2025.468367.2051
چکیده
دنیای مدرن امروزی، سه انقلاب بزرگ (کشاورزی، صنعتی، اطلاعات) را پشت سر گذاشت که روش کار و زندگی مردم را تغییر داد. اکنون با ظهور اقتصاد دانش بنیان و جهانی شدن اقتصاد، دانش و نوآوری به عنوان منابع اصلی سرمایه شناخته می‌شوند. لذا توجه اندیشمندان از راهکارهای افزایش کمی تولید به سمت راهکارهای بسط دانش و نوآوری متمرکز شده است. ساختار تولید از خوشه‌های صنعتی (با هدفی صرفاً شغلی و صنعتی) به نواحی نوآوری تغییر کرد، تا اقتصاد را با جوانب اجتماعی، مکانی، و دانش بشری ارتباط دهد. ناحیه نوآوری، رویکردی برای ایجاد شهرهای هوش‌مند و پایدار از طریق دانش و نوآوری است. در این فرایند، حاکمیت، فرایند مشارکتی تلقی می‌شود، که دولت با ذی‌نفعان همکاری و هم‌فکری می‌کند. این پژوهش با هدف شناسایی، اولویت‌بندی و تحلیل شبکه روابط ذی‌نفعان ناحیه نوآوری مدرس، در پی ایجاد مدیریت مشارکتی و ارتقای ارتباطات به سطح ملی و بین‌المللی و ایجاد ناحیه‌ای فراگیر و پایدار است. با انجام مصاحبه‌های نیمه ساختار یافته، به شناخت ذی‌نفعان و بررسی ارتباطات میان آنها و با استفاده از تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی به تحلیل روابط‌شان پرداخته شد. با توجه به نتایج، نهادهای دولتی و مدیریت ناحیه نوآوری مدرس، بیشترین قدرت و تاثیرگذاری را در میان سایر ذی‌نفعان به خود اختصاص دادند که نشانۀ ساختار قدرت متمرکز این ناحیه است. این پژوهش می‌تواند مبنایی برای ارزیابی روابط میان ذی‌نفعان متعدد در زیست‌بوم‌های نوآوری و توسعه روند مشارکتی این نواحی قرار گیرد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
"تحلیل ذینفعان"
"ناحیه نوآوری مدرس"
"نوآوری باز"
"اکوسیستم نوآوری"
"مدیریت مشارکتی"

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Stakeholder analysis in collaborative management of innovative urban ecosystem

نویسندگان English

Mojtaba Rafieian 1
Afsaneh Hakani 2
1 Professor, Faculty of Arts, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Ma graduated, Faculty of Arts, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

  Introduction: The trajectory of human civilization has been shaped by a series of transformative revolutions. Historically, the agricultural revolution allowed societies to settle and sustain larger populations through organized farming. The industrial revolution introduced mechanization and mass production, transforming work systems and urban landscapes. The information revolution further changed the dynamics of work and life, introducing digital technologies that redefined communication, access to data, and global connectivity. Each of these revolutions not only restructured economic systems but also reshaped social interactions, governance models, and spatial arrangements. Today, we are witnessing the emergence of the knowledge-based economy- a paradigm where knowledge, innovation, and intellectual capital serve as the primary drivers of economic growth. In tandem with globalization, these forces are decentralizing traditional power structures and emphasizing collaboration, creativity, and continuous learning. In this evolving context, the focus of urban development is shifting from purely increasing the quantity of production to expanding qualitative growth through innovation, human capital development, and cross-sectoral synergy. As a response to this shift, the traditional model of industrial clusters, which were often single-purpose and occupationally segmented, is being transformed into innovation zones. Unlike industrial clusters, innovation zones are multidimensional ecosystems that integrate economic activities with social, spatial, and human dimensions. These zones aim to foster smart, inclusive, and sustainable urban development that is based on participatory governance and knowledge-based activities. In this context, governance is no longer a top-down model but a participatory process. This includes collaboration between government agencies, private institutions, academic institutions, civil society, and local communities. Emphasis on co-creation, shared responsibility, and a long-term vision are core principles that underpin the development of successful innovation ecosystems.
  Methodology: This research was conducted in three stages. In the first stage, the main stakeholders of the district were identified using a snowball sampling method, and semi-structured interviews were used to accurately identify multiple stakeholders and their level of influence and impact. Next, to ensure the completeness of the list of stakeholders, the stakeholders identified from the interviews were compared with stakeholders in the research literature, and if an individual or group was left off the list, they were added to the final list through more detailed review and interviewing. The next step was to determine the power and influence of each stakeholder using network analysis theory. Finally, in order to measure the level of participation of the stakeholders' network of Modares Innovation District, the participation indicators were evaluated using the output of the software.
  Results and discussion: According to the results, government institutions and the management of the Modares innovation district have the most power and influence among other stakeholders, which shows the centralised power structure of this district and their role is important in the process of establishing collaborative management of the district. Also, the interpretation of the results of the Modares innovation network in terms of the collaborative structure shows that, despite the efforts of the management of the innovation district to create collaborative management with incentive solutions, meetings, etc., the Modares innovation network is still dominated by a hierarchical structure of larger governing powers. The inter-organizational relationship can be considered as a type of coordination in the current situation. This type of cooperation is characterised by the establishment of short-term, often informal and largely voluntary relationships between activists. In this type of relationship, little effort is made to convince of common goals and the relationship is based more on information sharing, pooling of few resources and low power level of the actors, so that the relationship takes place with low risk.
  Conclusion: Stakeholder analysis plays an important role in the collaborative management of innovation ecosystems. It allows urban planners and decision-makers to identify and understand the different stakeholders involved in the process at the right time. This analysis enables them to assess the power dynamics between stakeholders, their level of influence on decision-making processes and potential conflicts. Stakeholder analysis also helps to develop strategies for effective stakeholder engagement throughout the ecosystem creation process. Stakeholder analysis and an understanding of the relationships and proportions between them can be used in the collaborative management of innovative urban areas, and it causes the innovative areas to enter the dynamic ecosystem of the city and change with it, causing social, economic and cultural growth. When describing an innovation system at the urban level, the main actors who play an important role in its formation, the networks (influential and influencing forces) and the innovation environment are important. In addition to the elements mentioned above, components such as a common and clear vision, strong and inclusive leadership, decentralised and flexible organisational structure, self-sufficiency and independence, commercialisation of knowledge and research, participation of university, industry and community in the direction of development, physical resources and human entrepreneurs, diverse financial resources, entrepreneurial approach in education and learning, innovative culture, focus on environmental changes and adaptability to the environment, acceptance of environmental challenges, effective intra-organisational and external relations.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Stakeholder analysis
Madras innovation zone
Open innovation
Innovation ecosystem
Participatory management
1.      Abdelgwad, S. (2019). Understanding the Innovation District: Knowledge Economy and the Use of Space Barcelona and Dubai. Global Markets and Local Creativities (GLOCAL), 1–87.
2.      Arbabi, H., Alishahi, S., Sobhiyah, M. H., & Taheripour, S. (2020). Analyzing stakeholders’ interactions in an urban project with non-level intersection in Urmia using the power and interest matrix and social network analysis. Motaleate Shahri, 10(37), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.34785/J011.2020.361 [In Persian]
3.      Ardill, N., & Oliveira, F. L. De. (2018). Social innovation in urban spaces. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, October. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2018.1526177
4.      Arifin, A., & Alizar, A. M. (2017). Governance, Accountability and Stakeholder Engagement. Performance Accountability and Combating Corruption, 1–20.
5.      Asgari, A., Korsandi, A., & Ghiyasi, S. (2020). Implementing an Innovation District with the Aim of Regional Development under the Anchor Approach Using the Fourth Generation University. Science & Technology Policy, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.22034/jstp.2020.12.3.1241 [In Persian]
6.      Babaei, H., Rafiyan, M., Rousta, M., & Pasian Khamari, R. (2018). Analysis of Organizational Network of Participatory Management in Urban Renaissance of Gorgans Historical Context. Bagh-e Nazar, 15(63), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.22034/BAGH.2018.67364 [In Persian]
7.      Boyer, J. (2020). Toward an Evolutionary and Sustainability Perspective of the Innovation Ecosystem: Revisiting the Panarchy Model. Sustainability, 1–17. https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/su12083232
8.      Brem, A., & Radziwon, A. (2017). Technological Forecasting & Social Change Ef fi cient Triple Helix collaboration fostering local niche innovation projects – A case from Denmark. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 123, 130–132. https://doi.org/DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.002
9.      Bruce Katz and Julie Wagner. (2014). The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geography of Innovation in America. Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, May, 34.
10.   Budden, P., & Fiona, M. (2019). MIT’ s Stakeholder Framework for Building & Accelerating Innovation Ecosystems. MIT’s Laboratory for Innovation Science & Policy, April.
11.   Chen, W. M., Wang, S. Y., & Wu, X. L. (2022). Concept Refinement, Factor Symbiosis, and Innovation Activity Efficiency Analysis of Innovation Ecosystem. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1942026
12.   Cobben, D., Ooms, W., & Roijakkers, N. (2023). Indicators for innovation ecosystem health: A Delphi study. Journal of Business Research, 162(April 2022), 113860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113860
13.   Company, D. investment & financial consulting. (2021). Tarbiat Modares University Innovation Zone Investment Atlas Report. www.daricnovin.ir [In Persian]
14.   Daniela Torres, J. F. O. (2015). Setting the stage for stakeholders’ engagement in smart sustainable cities. ITU-T Focus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities. www.itu.int/itu- t/climatechange
15.   Dedehayir, O., Makinen, S., & Ortt, R. (2016). Roles during Innovation Ecosystem Genesis: A Literature Review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 17(2), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2016.1233087
16.   Drucker, Joshua M. and Kayanan, Carla Maria and Renski, Henry C., Innovation Districts as a Strategy for Urban Economic Development: A Comparison of Four Cases. (August 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3498319 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3498319
17.   Ebrahimi, M., Shams, M. Q., Varnamkhasti, V. K., & Akbari, M. (2022). Conceptualizing the social-oriented strategies for Businesses. Strategic Management Studies, 13(52), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.22034/SMSJ.2022.163797 [In Persian]
18.   Eftekhari, A. R., Omidvar, N., & Zanjanian, H. (2020). Organizational Network Analysis in the Management of Rural Hadi Plan. Case Study: Islamroud Village, Torghabeh-Shandiz County. Journal of Spatial Planning, 24(3), 105–137. https://doi.org/DOR: 20.1001.1.16059689.1399.24.3.5.7 [In Persian]
19.   Engel, J. S., Berbegal-mirabent, J., & Piqué, J. M. (2018). The renaissance of the city as a cluster of innovation. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1532777
20.   Esmaeilpoorarabi, N., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2018). Land Use Policy Does place quality matter for innovation districts? Determining the essential place characteristics from Brisbane’ s knowledge precincts. Land Use Policy, 79(August), 734–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.016
21.   Esmaeilpoorarabi, N., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2018). Land Use Policy Evaluating place quality in innovation districts: A Delphic hierarchy process approach. Land Use Policy, December 2017, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.027
22.   Esmaeilpoorarabi, N., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2020). How can an enhanced community engagement with innovation districts be established? Evidence from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Cities, 96(June 2019), 102430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102430
23.   Esmaeilpoorarabi, N., Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., & Guaralda, M. (2019). How does the public engage with innovation districts? Societal impact assessment of Australian innovation districts. Sustainable Cities and Society, 52(August 2019), 101813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101813
24.   Florida, R. (2012). The-Creative-Class-Revisited-FLorida.pdf. https://doi.org/https://paas.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/The-Creative-Class-Revisited-FLorida.pdf
25.   Ghorbani, M., & Dehbozorgi, M. (2014). Stakeholders’ Analysis, Social Power and Network Analysis in Natural Resources Co-Management. Journal of Range and Watershed Managment, 67(1), 141–157. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22059/jrwm.2014.50835 [In Persian]
26.   Goldar, Z., Amiri, M., Qolipour sote, R. A., & Moazzami, M. (2017). Designing a conceptual framework for stakeholder involvement in public policy. Audit Knowledge, 17(66), 81–105. https://sid.ir/paper/511788/fa [In Persian]
27.   Golkarian, A., Hosseini, mahbube sadat, & Ghorbani, M. (2020). Analysis of the social network of local stakeholders in the governance of water resources (study area: Khoro olya watershed - Neishabur city). Pasture and Watershed, Journal of Natural Resources of Iran, 72(3), 683–698. https://doi.org/10.22059/JRWM.2019.223139.1086 [In Persian]
28.   Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 90–91(June 2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102098
29.   Gu, Y., Hu, L., Zhang, H., & Hou, C. (2021). Innovation Ecosystem Research: Emerging Trends and Future Research. Sustainability, 1–21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011458
30.   Haefner, N., Palmié, M., & Leppänen, P. T. (2023). With (Out) a Little Help From My Friends? Reconciling Incongruous Findings on Stakeholder Management, Innovation, and Firm Performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211024497
31.   Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 821–830. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12136
32.   Hegyi, F. B., Zhu, M., & Janosov, M. (2021). Measuring the Impact of Urban Innovation Districts. https://doi.org/10.2760/11053
33.   Hendriks, F. (2014). Understanding Good Urban Governance: Essentials, Shifts, and Values. Sage-Urban Affairs Review, March. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087413511782
34.   Hwang W., V. &, & Horowitt, G. (2012). The Rainforest. The secret to building the next Silicon Valley. In California, USA: Regenwald Los Altos Hills (Vol. 53, Issue 9). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
35.   Jiang, S., Hu, Y., & Wang, Z. (2019). Core firm-based view on the mechanism of constructing an enterprise innovation ecosystem: A case study of Haier Group. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113108
36.   Johnson, B. (2008). Cities, systems of innovation and economic development. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, 10(2–3), 146–155. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.453.10.2-3.146
37.   Jr, B. A. (2023). The Role of Community Engagement in Urban Innovation Towards the Co- Creation of Smart Sustainable Cities the Role of Community Engagement in Urban Innovation Towards the Co ‑ Creation of Smart Sustainable Cities. In Journal of the Knowledge Economy (Issue March). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01176-1
38.   Karimlou, R., & Zakery, A. (2021). Analysing the Interactions Between Key Stakeholders in a Regional Innovation System (Case Study: Rab-e- Rashidi Special Region of Science and Technology). Improvement Management, January. https://doi.org/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350094235 [In Persian]
39.   Kayanan, C. M. (2022). A critique of innovation districts: Entrepreneurial living and the burden of shouldering urban development. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 54(1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X211049445
40.   Khalili, A., & Dehghani, M. (2021). Appropriateness Analysis of the Cluster Approach in Knowledge-Based Urban Development of Isfahan. SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL OF IRANIAN ARCHITECTURE & URBANISM, 11(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.30475/ISAU.2020.250746.1531 [In Persian]
41.   Knowles, H., & Spencer, N. (2016). Designing with stackeholders during social innovation project: A mapping and analysis tool. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING AND PRODUCT DESIGN EDUCATION, September.
42.   Kuchaksarai, F. S., & Rad, M. G. (2016). The role and participation of stakeholders in formulating and implementing development plans. www.dfrc.ir [In Persian]
43.   Larijani, M., Ghorbani, M., & Rahmani Azad, E. (2013). Analysis of the network of local stakeholders and key actors (social power) in participatory land management (study area: Lezor village pasture users). Researches in Earth Science, 4(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.20088299.1392.4.1.3.3 [In Persian]
44.   Lee, S. Y., Martin-Fernández, S., & Díaz-Puente, J. M. (2022). Unravelling interactive innovation through a stakeholder-associated risk analysis: Evidence from two case studies in Spain. New Medit, 21(2), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2202f
45.   Miandashti, M. Z. (2017). Introduction of regional innovation system. Science and Technology Policy, 08(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.24767220.1397.08.2.9.8 [In Persian]
46.   Miklian, J., & Hoelscher, K. (2018). A new research approach for peace innovation. Innovation and Development, 8(2), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2017.1349580
47.   Mohammadi, Y., Moghbel, A., & Moghaddam, N. B. (2019). Functional Analysis Framework of Regional Innovation System in Developing Countries. Technology Development Management, 43–87. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22104/jtdm.2019.3129.2079 [In Persian]
48.   Mohammadi, Y., Moghbel, B., Bagheri, M., & Afsar, A. (2018). Innovation Development Compatible with Regions (IDCR) in Developing Countries: The Case of Iran. Improvement Management, 12(3), 89–107. https://doi.org/https://sid.ir/paper/363471/fa [In Persian]
49.   Nabipour, I. (2020). The Fifth Generation University: Based on the Quintuple Helix of Carayannis and Campbell. Iranian South Medical Journal, 23(2), 165–194. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.52547/ismj.23.2.165 [In Persian]
50.   Niakan, L., & Khadivar, A. (2022). Identifying and strategically analyzing the needs and expectations of insurance industry stakeholders. Strategic Management Studies, 13(50), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.22034/SMSJ.2022.152226 [In Persian]
51.   Nikina, D. A., Piqué, J. M., & Luis, S. (2016). Areas of Innovation in a Global World: Concept and Practice. international Assosiation of science parks and area of innovation. https://www.iasp.ws/our-industry/knowledge-room/areas-of-innovation-in-a-global-world--concept-and-practice
52.   Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2018). Attributes of successful place-making in knowledge and innovation spaces: evidence from Brisbane’ s Diamantina knowledge precinct. Journal of Urban Design, 4809(May), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1454259
53.   Pourmatin, P., & Rafieian, M. (2023). Providing the Pattern of Planning and Policy-making of Urban Innovation Districts and their Possible Effects: Case Study: Modares Innovation District 4. Urban Economics and Planning, 4(2), 150–175. https://doi.org/10.22034/UEP.2023.406287.1383 [In Persian]
54.   Radulescu, C. M., ¸Stefan, O., R˘adulescu, G. M. T., R˘adulescu, A. T. G. M., & R˘adulescu, M. V. G. M. (2016). Management of Stakeholders in Urban Regeneration Projects. Case Study: Baia-Mare, Transylvania. Sustainability, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030238
55.   Rafieian, M. (2022). Urban innovation area from theory to practice. Tarbiat Modares University. [In Persian]
56.   Read, D. C. (2016). Case Studies in Innovation District Planning and Development. NAIOP.
57.   Region6. (2023). No Title. https://region6.tehran.ir/ [In Persian]
58.   Rissola, G., Monardo, B., Bevilacqua, C., & Trillo, C. (2019). Place-Based Innovation Ecosystems. Joint Research Centre (JRC). https://doi.org/10.2760/91941
59.   Roustaei, N., Taghavi, N., Sherafat, A., & Pakgohar, A. (2023). Explaining the desire for a cooperative economy in a cooperative settlement. 14(55), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.22034/smsj.2023.176429 [In Persian]
60.   Russo, A. P., & Van Der Borg, J. (2010). An urban policy framework for culture-oriented economic development: Lessons from the Netherlands. Urban Geography, 31(5), 668–690. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.31.5.668
61.   Saketi, P., Khajepour Shirvan, N., & Teymournajad, K. (2024). Journal of Strategic Management Studies Providing a framework for evaluation the entrepreneurial ecosystem of science and technology parks. Strategic Management Studies, 15(57), 181–208. https://doi.org/10.22034/smsj.2023.374096.1756 [In Persian]
62.   Sanaei, A., Ghorbani, M., Salari, F., & Saeidigarghani, H. (2015). Analysis of Trust and Participatory Management by Users Network in Toward Rangelands Co-management (Case study: Gorgoo region- Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province). Journal of Rangeland, 9(2), 182–194. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.20080891.1394.9.2.7.2 [In Persian]
63.   Shojaei, S., Nouri, S. S. G., & Ali, B. (2013). A Model for Innovation Auditing at National Level. Technology Development Management Quarterly, 1(2), 3–29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22104/jtdm.2013.31 [In Persian]
64.   Smirnova, M. M., Kouchtch, S., Väätänen, J., & Podmetina, D. (n.d.). Key Stakeholders Interaction as a Factor of Innovativeness in Transitional Economies: the case of Russia.
65.   Tabibi, S. H., Rafieian, M., Majedi, H., Ziari, Y., Branch, N. T., Azad, I., Branch, C. T., Azad, I., & Author, C. (2020). The Role of Knowledge-Based and Innovative Cities in Urban and Regional Development. Urban Planning Knowledge, 4(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.22124/upk.2020.15004.1332 [In Persian]
66.   Wang, J., & Tong, C. (2021). Policy Zoning Method for Innovation Districts to Sustainably Develop the Knowledge-Economy: A Case Study in Hangzhou, China. Sustainability. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13063503
67.   Yang, R. J. (2013). An investigation of stakeholder analysis in urban development projects: Empirical or rationalistic perspectives. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 838–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.011
68.   Yigitcanlar, T., Esmaeilpoorarabi, N., & Guaralda, M. (2018). Place Quality in Innovation Clusters: An Empirical Analysis of Global Best Practices from Singapore, Helsinki, New York, and Sydney. Cities. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.11.017
69.   Zarghami, H. (2019). An overview of the patterns of development of university, industry and government relations to promote innovation. Science and Technology Policy, 8(2), 103–112. https://doi.org/dor 20.1001.1.24767220.1397.08.2.7.6 [In Persian]
70.   Zebardast, E., & Naeini, M. D. G. H. (2020). Knowledge-Based Urban Development Stakeholder Analysis (Case Study: Isfahan City). Researches of Human Geography, 53(1), 323–341. https://doi.org/10.22059/jhgr.2020.280961.1007921 [In Persian]
71.   Zibuschka, J., Laufs, U., & Engelbach, W. (2014). Stakeholder Analysis of a Platform and Ecosystem for Open Innovation in SMEs to cite this version: HAL Id: hal-01056003. HAL Open Science, 110–116.
فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی
دوره 16، شماره 63
پاییز 1404
صفحه 17-38

  • تاریخ دریافت 30 تیر 1403
  • تاریخ بازنگری 31 اردیبهشت 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 06 شهریور 1404