شناسایی و اولویت‌بندی شاخص‌های کلان حکمرانی نوآوری

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران

2 دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

حکمرانی نوآوری مربوط به نقش‌آفرینی دولت در نظام نوآوری است که در آن دولت باید از طریق مشارکت عمومی در سیاست‌گذاری، همکاری و تعامل در میان سطوح مختلف قدرت و همچنین با طراحی، تدوین و پیشنهاد اهداف واضح که امکان تدوین سیاست‌های لازم در زمینه نوآوری را فراهم می‌کند، بستر لازم را برای تحقق نوآوری فراهم آورد. اغلب مشکلات و چالش‌هایی که کشورها خصوصاً کشورهای کمتر توسعه‌یافته در زمینه نوآوری با آن مواجه هستند مربوط به حکمرانی نوآوری بوده و گام اول در بهبود وضعیت و تقویت حکمرانی نوآوری کشورها شناسایی وضعیت موجود آن‌ها می‌باشد بر همین اساس این مقاله به دنبال شناسایی و اولویت‌بندی شاخص‌هایی برای سنجش و ارزیابی حکمرانی نوآوری در سطح کلان بود که به منظور دستیابی به این هدف، ابتدا با مرور ادبیات حکمرانی نوآوری و همچنین نظرخواهی از خبرگان، شاخص‌هایی برای ارزیابی حکمرانی نوآوری در سطح کلان استخراج و سپس این شاخص‌ها را با استفاده از روش سوارا در محیط فازی وزن دهی و اولویت‌بندی نمود در نهایت نیز با استفاده از شاخص های اصلی حکمرانی نوآوری در سطح کلان و همچنین تحلیل سیاست های به کار گرفته شده در زمینه علم، فناوری و نوآوری، وضعیت حکمرانی نوآوری کشور ترکیه به عنوان کشوری در حال توسعه که تجربیات آن می تواند در زمینه سیاست گذاری علم و فناوری برای جمهوری اسلامی ایران مفید باشد، بررسی گردید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Identify and prioritize macro indicators of innovation governance

نویسنده [English]

  • Mohammad Reza Mohammad Aliha 2
1
2 Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran,Iran
چکیده [English]

Innovation governance refers to the active role of the government in the innovation system where it should pave the way for innovations via participatory decision-making, cooperation between those in power, as well as developing and proposing clear goals and targets that make it possible to design appropriate policies for innovation. Most of the problems and challenges that counties, especially less developed ones, encounter in terms of innovation are related to innovation governance. Furthermore, the first step in promoting and enhancing innovation governance is to know countries’ current status. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to identify and prioritize indicators for evaluation of innovation governance at macro level. To that end, first, the available literature was reviewed and experts were consulted to extract the indictors for evaluation of innovation governance at macro level. Then, these indicators were weighed and prioritized using fuzzy SWARA.
finally, using the main indicators of innovation governance at the Macro Level As well as analyzing the policies applied in science, technology and innovation, the status of Turkey's innovation governance as a developing country whose experiences in science and technology policy making could be useful to the Islamic Republic of Iran was examined.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Governance
  • Innovation
  • Indicators
  • Fuzzy SWARA
  • Turkey

مراجع

  1. Arnold, E., Boekholt, P., Deiaco, E., & McKibbin, S. (2003). Research and innovation Governance in eight countries. A Meta-Analysis.
  2. Boekholt, P., Arnold, E., Deiaco, E., McKibbin, S., Simmonds, P., Stroya, J., & de la Mothe, J. (2002). The Governance of research and innovation. an international comparative study country reports. Technopolis, Amsterdam.
  3. Chene, M. (2012). Overview of corruption and anti-corruption in Turkey. U 4 anti- corruption resource center, Transparency (No:313). Retrieved from https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/assets/uploads/helpdesk/313 Overview of corruption and anti-corruption in Turkey.
  4. Deshamps. (2012). Innovation governance: nine models in use, IMD Global Board Center.
  5. Dutrénit, G., & Puchet, M. (2015). Tensions of science, technology and innovation policy in Mexico: analytical models, institutional evolution, national capabilities and governance. presented in the Atlanta Conference On Science and InnovationPolicy, September 17th-19th, Atlanta.
  6. Erdil, E., & PamukÃ, T. (2016). RIO country report 2015: Turkey (No. JRC101241). Joint Research Centre(Seville site).
  7. European Commission (2019). Commission staff working document (Turkey Report). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood enlargement/sites/near/files/20190529-turkey-report.pdf
  8. Gebhardt, C., & Stanovnik, P. (2016). European innovation policy concepts and the governance of innovation: Slovenia and the struggle for organizational readiness at the national level. Industry and Higher Education, 30(1), 53-66.
  9. Gorkey-Aydinoglu, S., & Ozdemir, Z. (2015). Governance of Technology and Innovation Policy Mix: The Estonian Experience Since 2000. Review of European Studies, 7(7), 144.
  10. Hajihoseini, H., Mohammadi, M., Abbasi, F., & Elyasi, M. (2011). Analysis of Iranian innovation system`s governance based on innovation policy making cycle, 4(1), 33-48.
  11. Heidaryd Dahooie, J., Mohammadi, N., Vanaki, A., & Ghaffari, S. (2017). A hybrid approach for selecting appropriate technological forecasting technique, 4(4), 163-194.
  12. Investment Support and Promotion Agency of Turkey (2010). Turkey’s    Vision 2023. Retrieved from http://www.turkey-japan.com/business/category1/category1_70.pdf
  13. Karo, E. (2010). Improving governance of science and innovation policies, or just bad policy emulation? the case of the Estonian R&D system. Administrative Culture, 11(2), 174-201.
  14. Kattel, R. (2004). Governance of innovation policy: the case of Estonia. Trames, (4), 419-427.
  15. Kazazoglu, G. N. (2014). National innovation system. In Turkish Public Administration Annual, 39-40, 49-65.
  16. Keršulienė, V., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Integrated fuzzy multiple criteria decision making model for architect selection. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(4), 645-666.
  17. Keršuliene, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of business economics and management, 11(2), 243-258.
  18. Keshishyan Siraki, G., & Soheiy Najafabadi, S. (2019). The effects of politics on turkey's economic development and its integration into the global economy (1990-2017).. World Politics, 8(1), 97-128. (In Persian)
  19. Kuhlmann, S., & Ordóñez-Matamoros, G. (Eds.). (2017). Research handbook on innovation governance for emerging economies: Towards Better Models. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  20. Laranja, M. (2012). Network governance of innovation policies: The technological plan in Portugal. Science and Public Policy, 39(5), 655-668.  http://dx.doi.org/10/1093/scipol/scs043.
  21. Mavi, R. K., Goh, M., & Zarbakhshnia, N. (2017). Sustainable third-party reverse logistic provider selection with fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy MOORA in plastic industry. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 91(5-8), 2401-2418.
  22. Ministry of Development (2014).The tenth development plan (2014-2018).ankara.http://www.mod.gov.tr/ListsRecentPublications/Attachments/75/The%2520Tenth%2520Development%2520Plan%2520(2014-2018)
  23. Ministry of European Union Affairs (2016). Turkey’s national action plan for the EU accession. Retrieved from https://www.ab.gov.tr/files/5%20Ekim/eylem_plani_ing_ic_sirali_internet_icin_tarandi.pdf
  24. Moonen, P. (2017). The governance of innovation from a European perspective, social articulation and transmission of knowledge. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 30(2), 243-262.
  25. Mugabe, J. (2015). Governance of science, technology and innovation for food security in Africa: A conceptual framework for developing Indicators. The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation(CTA). Retrieved 9 October 2017, from http://knowledge.cta.int.
  26. OECD. (2009). Reviews of innovation policy: Korea. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/publications/oecd-reviews-of-innovation-policy-korea-2009-9789264067233-en.htm.
  27. OECD. (2012). Science, technology and industry outlook 2012. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-science-technology-and-industry-outlook-2012/turkey_sti_outlook-2012-74-en
  28. OECD. (2016). G20 innovation report 2016. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/ G20-innovation-report-2016.pdf
  29. Oh, S. H., & Lee, K. J. (2013). Governance system of governmental R&D programs: Formation and transformation of the Framework Act on Science and Technology in Korea. Science and Public Policy, 40(4), 492-503.
  30. Paterson, A., Adam, R. & Mullin, J. (2003). The relevance of the national system of innovation approach to mainstreaming science and technology and technology for development in NEPAD and the AU”, Pretoria, The Department of Science and Technology, Available from: http://www.nepad.org/2005/files/documents/125.pdf [Accessed: 19/06/2006].
  31. Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations, London: Macmillan. Radjou, N., J. Prabhu and S. Ahuja, Jugaad Innovation: Think Frugal, Be Flexible, Generate Breakthrough Growth, San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass.
  32. Remøe, S. O., Fraas, M., Kaloudis, A., Mariussen, Å., Røste, R., Ørstavik, F., & Aanstad, S. (2004). Governance of the norwegian innovation policy system: contribution to the OECD MONIT project.
  33. Salazar, M. (2017). The colombian system of science, technology and innovation in transition: how governance is being affected. Chapters, 232-264.
  34. Saritas, O., Taymaz, E., & Tumer, T. (2007). Vision 2023: Turkey's national technology foresight program: A contextualist analysis and discussion. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(8), 1374-1393.
  35. Schlossstein, D. F., & Reichartshausen, S. (2007). Recent changes to Korea’s innovation governance. Duisburger arbeitspapiere ostasienwissenschaften duisburg working papers on east asian studies, 81.
  36. Schüller, M., Conlé, M., & Shim, D. (2012). Korean innovation governance under Lee Myung-Bak–A Critical analysis of governmental actors’ new division of labour. In Korean Science and Technology in an International Perspective, 109-128. Physica-Verlag HD.
  37. Taymaz, E. (2006). An Assessment of the industrial technology project: final report, Ankara: Middle East Technical University.
  38. Todeva, E. (2005). Governance, control and coordination in network context: the cases of Japanese Keiretsu and Sogo Sosha", Journal of International Management, 11(1), 87-109.
  39. Todeva, E. (2013). Governance of innovation and intermediation in Triple Helix interactions. Industry and Higher Education, 27(4), 263-278.
  40. Tumushabe, G. W., & Mugabe, J. O. (2012). Governance of science, technology and innovation in the East African community: Inaugurals Biennial Report 2012.
  41. Unctad. (2011). A Framework for science, technology and innovation policy reviews, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations, Switzerland.
  42. Voeten, J., De Haan, J., & de Groot, G. (2011). Is that innovation? assessing examples of revitalized economic dynamics among clusters of small producers in northern Vietnam’, in A. Szirmai, W. Naude and M. Goedhuys (eds), Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Economic Development, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 96–121.
  43. Yilmaz, B. (2011). National innovation system building in a developing country context: the case of Turkey (Doctoral dissertation).
  44. Zolfani, S. H., Yazdani, M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2018). An extended stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) method for improving criteria prioritization process. Soft Computing, 22(22), 7399-7405.

 

 

فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی
دوره 11، شماره 43
مهر 1399
صفحه 113-138

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 08 دی 1398
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 24 اردیبهشت 1399
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 10 تیر 1399

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار