Journal of Strategic Management Studies

Journal of Strategic Management Studies

Toward scientific and technological leadership: a strategic framework based on institutional mapping and national division of labor

Document Type : Research

Author
Ghasem Azadi
Assistant Professor, Policy Evaluation and Science, Technology and Innovation Monitoring Department, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran
10.22034/smsj.2025.546198.2200
Abstract
Introduction:
In recent years, the concept of "scientific and technological leadership" has become a prominent feature in the leadership discourse, upstream documents, and national development plans of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Positioned as an overarching goal of its scientific and civilizational policy, this reflects a fundamental shift in policy making-from positioning the country as a consumer of knowledge to becoming a producer and reference point in global knowledge production.
Methodology:
The primary objective of this research is to develop a framework for a national division of labor aimed at achieving scientific and technological leadership in Iran. This study employs a systematic analysis of upstream documents, expert opinions, and institutional mapping to identify responsibilities among relevant institutions. Guided by the theoretical framework of science, technology, and innovation (STI) governance-particularly the concept of "functional coherence levels"-the research addresses the following key question:
How can scientific and technological leadership be achieved within the framework of Iran’s Islamic-Iranian identity through a well-defined national division of labor and inter-institutional coordination?
This main objective is pursued through four specific sub-objectives:
1. Extraction and classification of macro-level and operational strategies related to scientific leadership from upstream documents.
2. Analysis and alignment of these strategies with international innovation governance concepts, particularly "functional coherence levels. "
3. Design of a conceptual model for the national division of labor among governing, executive, intermediary, and knowledge-producing institutions.
4. Proposal of actionable policy recommendations for implementing, coordinating, and monitoring the designed framework.
The methodological approach is a qualitative, interpretive, and systematic document analysis conducted in three stages:
1. Extraction of strategies and policies from key documents.
2. Categorization of these elements across thematic domains and functional levels.
3. Systematic analysis and alignment with the theoretical framework.
The Delphi method, engaging 16 experts from academia, senior scientific management, policymaking, and the private sector, was used to validate the identified strategies and the proposed division-of-labor model.
Results and Discussion:
Coding was organized into eight thematic axes, each encompassing key actions assigned to relevant institutions:
Production of beneficial and indigenous science
Intelligent engagement with the global community
Training and retention of elite human capital
Transformation of the education, research, and innovation system
Linkage between university, industry, and society
Enhancement of infrastructure and support systems
Development of a culture of scientism and scientific ethics
International and civilizational engagement
Through institutional mapping, four categories of institutions were identified, each responsible for a distinct dimension of the system:
Governing Institutions: High-level policymakers and regulators positioned at the governance level. They define "what should be done and why" by formulating the national vision, setting strategic priorities, allocating resources, and monitoring implementation.
Government Ministries and Agencies: Primary actors at the executive level of STI governance, responsible for translating macro-level policies into concrete operational actions.
Research and Innovation Institutions: The main pillars of knowledge and technology production, operating at the production level to generate foundational, applied, and technological knowledge.
Intermediary Institutions: These institutions act as the "glue" within the innovation system. Situated between academia, industry, and government, they bridge the gap between knowledge creation and socio-economic application by fostering networks, facilitating knowledge exchange, enabling commercialization, and supporting financing.
Conclusion:
The findings of this study collectively indicate that integrating strategic management principles into STI governance is essential for achieving scientific and technological leadership. This requires a shift from operational management to integrated strategic management, wherein:
Each institution operates based on its specific mission;
Processes are guided by strategic tools;
The overall system evolves through collaboration, knowledge integration, and innovation-driven accountability.
This approach enables an intelligent national division of labor. Institutions understand not only what to do but also why and how their tasks fit within a coordinated national system. Consequently, achieving scientific leadership cannot be realized through publishing papers or registering patents alone; it demands the deep integration of strategic management into the governance of STI systems. In today’s complex environment, scientific organizations and governance bodies must adopt strategic frameworks to guide their activities through a combination of innovation models, knowledge management, networking, and strategic flexibility. The framework developed in this study provides a roadmap for coordination among various institutions-including governance bodies, policymakers, implementers, funding agencies, knowledge producers, and market actors-to collectively advance Iran's scientific and technological leadership.

Keywords
Strategic planning
scientific and technological leadership
management strategies
institutional mapping
national division of labor
Subjects
1.      Abdolhosseinzadeh, M., et al. (2015). The model of scientific authority in the Islamic Republic of Iran based on the statements of the Supreme Leader. Basij Strategic Studies Quarterly, 18(68): 30-5. magiran.com/p1500920 [In Persian]
2.      Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate strategy. McGraw-Hill.
3.      Azadi, G. (2023). Leadership Roadmap in Science, Technology and Innovation Based on Iran Policy. Popularization of Science, 14(1), 58-81. doi: 10. 22034/popsci. 2023. 347119. 1205 [In Persian]
4.      Azadi Ahmadabadi, G. (2019). Identifying policies, explaining concepts and indicators of authority in science, technology and innovation. Research project, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP).
5.      Bagheri moghaddam, N., Azadi, G. and khorarsani, M. (2022). Presenting a Conceptual Model for the Realization of Scientific Leadership in Iran's Higher Education System. Rahyaft, 32(4), 53-64. doi: 10. 22034/rahyaft. 2023. 11451. 1449 [In Persian]
6.      Bakhtiyari, H., Jafari, J., Molasadeghi, M. and Abasi, H. (2021). Design the Interpretive Structural Model of Components Affecting the Scientific Authority of the Universitys. Strategic Management Thought, 15(2), 45-84. doi: 10. 30497/smt. 2022. 241980. 3314 [In Persian]
7.      Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
8.      Barzegar, p., Mahdinejhad noori, M., Fateh rad, M. and Mahdi Zahedi, M. (2021). Architecture of Science, Technology and Innovation of the Islamic Republic of Iran in order to Achieve Scientific Authority in Horizon 1440. Interdisciplinary Studies on Strategic Knowledge, 5(19), 7-38. https://dor. isc. ac/dor/20. 1001. 1. 74672588. 1400. 5. 19. 1. 7 [In Persian]
9.      Bohrani, A. and Foroutani, Z. (2022). The concept and drivers of scientific authority in the civilizational discourse of Imam Khamenei. Rahyaft, 32(3), 3-20. doi: 10. 22034/rahyaft. 2023. 11393. 1413 [In Persian]
10.   Carraz, R. (2012). Improving science, technology and innovation governance to meet global challenges. In Meeting Global Challenges through Better Governance (pp. 33-52). OECD Publishing. https://www. oecd. org/en/publications/meeting-global-challenges-through-better-governance_9789264178700-en. html
11.   Carraz, R. (2012). National innovation systems and functional coordination. OECD Publications.
12.   Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. MIT Press.
13.   Edquist, C. (2005). Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges. Oxford Handbook of Innovation, 181-208. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0007
14.   Figueroa, A., & Stamm, A. (2012). Effective international science, technology and innovation collaboration: From lessons learned to policy change. In Meeting Global Challenges through Better Governance (pp. 53-78). OECD Publishing.
15.   Ghobadi, A. (2006). Scientific authority with an Islamic approach. Resalat Newspaper, Saturday, August 5, 2006, No. 5930. [In Persian]
16.   Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S., Eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks,105-117.
17.   Hafezi, R., Mirza Rasouli, F. and Aminlou, M. (2022). An Essay on Scientific Authority from the Perspective of a Selected Pre-eminent Iranian Scientist. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 15(3), 29-40. doi: 10. 22034/jstp. 2022. 13956 [In Persian]
18.   Haghdoost A, Noori Hekmat S, Dehnavieh R, Poursheikhali A. (2019). A Practical Look At the Concept of Scientific Authority. Iran J Cult Health Promot; 3 (1) :16-23. http://ijhp. ir/article-1-144-en. html [In Persian]
19.   Haghdoost, A. A., emadi, S. and Noori Hekmat, S. (2022). Layered analysis of obstacles to achieve scientific authority at individual, organizational and subject levels in medical sciences. Rahyaft, 32(4), 39-52. doi: 10. 22034/rahyaft. 2023. 11428. 1437. [In Persian]
20.   Hajian heidary, M., Mozafari, N., khanmohammadi, H. and Mirzaaliyan, M. (2022). Identifying and analyzing factors affecting the authority of disciplines in order to achieve the scientific authority of universities (case study: Allameh Tabataba'i University). Rahyaft, 32(3), 55-72. doi: 10. 22034/rahyaft. 2023. 11414. 1428 [In Persian]
21.   Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. Palgrave Macmillan.
22.   Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Governance, 16(2), 129-156. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649
23.   Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business Press.
24.   Khokhar, M. (2024). Governance of Public-Private Partnerships: What Works and What Does Not. In Science, Technology and Innovation Ecosystem: An Indian and Global Perspective (pp. 115-130). Springer. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1007/978-981-97-2815-2_7
25.   Latifi, M.; Tahmasbi Blokabad, R.; Javadi, M.; Mirzaei Havshki, M. (2018). Extracting and Prioritizing Strategies for Achieving Scientific Authority an Importance- Performance Analysis (IPA). Strategy, 27(1). https://dor. isc. ac/dor/20. 1001. 1. 10283102. 1397. 27. 1. 1. 5 [In Persian]
26.   Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter Publishers.
27.   Magro, E., Navarro, M., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2014). Coordination-mix: The hidden face of STI policy. Review of Policy Research, 31(5), 463-478. http://dx. doi. org/10. 1111/ropr. 12090
28.   Mahdi nejadnoori, M., Abedidni, D., Ramezani, M. and Savari, A. (2019). A strategic model of national authority based on science with an emphasis on Jihadist management. National Security, 9(31), 107-136. https://dor. isc. ac/dor/20. 1001. 1. 33292538. 1398. 9. 31. 5. 9 [In Persian]
29.   Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management. Free Press.
30.   Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation. Wiley.
31.   Perini, F. (2010). From innovation projects to knowledge networks: the sectoral organisation of innovation in the Brazilian ICT sector. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 3(2), 184-205. RePEc:ids:ijtlid:v:3:y:2010:i:2:p:132-163  
32.   Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P., & Probert, D. R. (2004). Technology roadmapping-A planning framework for evolution and revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(1-2), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625%2803%2900072-6
33.   Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press.
34.   Rudy, K. (2010). University and Scientific Authority; Based on the Experience of Imam Sadeq University. Tehran: Imam Sadeq University Publications. [In Persian]
35.   Safdari Ranjbar, M. (2022). Conceptualization of technological authority from technological catch-up perspective; Indicators, requirements and policy solutions. Rahyaft, 32(4), 65-84. doi: 10. 22034/rahyaft. 2023. 11416. 1427 [In Persian]
36.   Salmi, J., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). The road to academic excellence: The making of world-class research universities. World Bank Publications.
37.   Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Sage Publications.
38.   Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
39.   Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.
40.   Yazdani S, Dashti M, Hoseini Abardeh M, Haghdoost A. (2022). Roadmap for Achieving Supremacy in Medical Sciences Universities. Iran J Cult Health Promot, 5 (4) :427-433. http://ijhp. ir/article-1-513-en. html [In Persian]
41.   Yazdani, Sh. (2019). Scientific Authority, Book One: Concepts, Vocabulary, and Definition. Tehran: National Center for Strategic Research on Medical Education. [In Persian]
Journal of Strategic Management Studies
Volume 17, Issue 66
Summer 2026
Pages 175-200

  • Receive Date 12 September 2025
  • Revise Date 28 October 2025
  • Accept Date 15 December 2025