Cilt 8, Sayı 2, Sayfalar 151 - 173 2017-07-31

İnovatif Firmaların İnovasyon Yönetim Perspektiflerindeki Farklılıklar: İzmir Vaka Çalışması
Differences in Innovation Management Perspectives of Innovative Firms: A Case Study in İzmir

Murat NAZLI [1] , E. Evla KESİCİ [2] , Gönenç DALGIÇ TURHAN [3] , Hande ARBAK [4]

60 69

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, İzmir’deki inovasyon dinamiklerini anlamak için, ildeki inovatif firmaların inovasyon yönetimi perspektifini ve gelecek algılarını ortaya çıkartmaktır. Buna bağlı olarak, İzmir’deki 20 inovatif firma, yarı yapılandırılmış yüz yüze görüşme tekniği kullanarak ve içerik analizi yaparak incelenmiştir. Çalışma çıktıları temel olarak, inovasyon yönetiminin farklı başlıkları altında çeşitli yaklaşımlar olduğunu göstermektedir. Örneğin, firmaların % 85’inin ürün inovasyonuna, % 30’unun da hem stratejik hem de inovasyon planına sahip olduğunu ortaya çıkartmıştır. Ayrıca, firmaların % 75’i inovatif faaliyetler ile ilgilenen bir birimin ve aynı zamanda atanmış bir yöneticinin olduğundan bahsetmektedir. Katılımcıların % 85’i yaratıcı düşünceyi ve inovasyonu tetikleyecek çeşitli araçlar kullanmaktadır ki, inovatif fikirlerin % 65’i, çalışan önerilerinden çıkmıştır. Firmaların sadece % 35’i inovatif perspektifler yakalamak için sistematik bir yaklaşımı olduğunu ifade etmektedir. Sonuçlar inovasyon yönetimi ve bölgenin gelecek durumu ile ilgili çok boyutlu bir perspektifi işaret etmektedir. Firmaların algısındaki bu farklılık, firmaların inovasyon alanındaki başarısının, standart bir prosedürü izlemek yerine, kendilerinin özgün anlayışları doğrultusunda gerçekleştiğini göstermektedir.

Primary purpose of the study is to find out the innovation management perspectives and future perceptions of innovative firms in İzmir, Turkey, in order to understand the current and future innovation dynamics of the province. Accordingly, 20 innovative firms in Izmir are analysed by using a face to face semi-structured interview technique and performing a content analysis. Study outcomes basically revealed a great diversion in various topics of innovation management. For instance; 85 % of firms focus on product innovation and 30 % of firms have both a strategic plan and an innovation plan. In addition, 75 % of firms mentioned that there is either a department or an appointed manager in dealing with innovation activities. 85 % of respondents use several tools to trigger creative thinking and innovation whereas 65 % of innovative ideas are generated from employees’ suggestions. Only 35 % of firms emphasized that they have a systematic approach in finding out innovative perspectives.
Results indicate a multidimensional understanding of innovation management and also in future perspective of the province. This diversion in the perception of firms, reveal that firms gain success in innovation, through a unique understanding of their own, more than implementing a standard procedure.
  

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. The American Economic Review, 86 (3), 630-640.
  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99-120.
  • Beyene, K. T., Shi, C. S., & Wu, W. W. (2016b). The Impact of Innovation Strategy on Organizational Learning and Innovation Performance: Do Firm Size and Ownership Type Make Difference? South African Journal Of Industrial Engineering, 27 (1), 125-136. doi:10.7166/27-1-1308
  • Bilton, C., & Cummings, S. (2010). Creative strategy: reconnecting business and innovation, Wiley, Chichester. ISBN: 1405180196, 978-1-4051-8019-1.
  • Brown, R. (2016). Mission impossible? Entrepreneurial universities and peripheral regional innovation systems. Industry and Innovation, 23 (2), 189-205.
  • Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31 (6), 515-524.
  • Camisón, C., & Villar-López, A. (2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 67 (1), 2891-2902.
  • Candemir, A., & Zalluhoglu, A. E. (2013). Exploring the Innovativeness and Market Orientation through Mission and Vision Statements: The Case of Istanbul Stock Exchange Companies. Procedia-Social & Behavioral Sciences, 99 (Proceedings of 9th International Strategic Management Conference), 619-628. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.532.
  • Carneiro, A. (2000). How does knowledge management influence innovation and competitiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4 (2), 87-98.
  • Chereau, P. (2015). Strategic Management of Innovation in Manufacturing SMEs: Exploring the Predictive Validity of Strategy-Innovation Relationship. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19 (01), 1550002.
  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), Special Issue: Technology, Organizations and Innovation, pp.128-152.
  • Dalgıç, G., Hacıoğlu, F., Arbak, H., Taşpınar, P., Gençer, H., & Karaata, S. (2015). İnovasyon Ölçümüne İlişkin Bir Derleme: Dünyadan ve Türkiye’den Bazı Öne Çıkan Yaklaşımlar. Dr. Rasim Akpınar (Ed.), AR-GE ve İnovasyon Programlarında Değerlendirme ve Etki Analizi, pp.41-67, İzmir: Kitapana.
  • Dalgıç, G., Kuckertz, A., & Bulut, Ç. (2016). Antecedents of Transnational Entrepreneurial Behavior: Evidence from Turkish-German Firms. In Pyka, A., Kuştepeli, Y., and Hartmann, D. (Eds.), International Innovation Networks and Knowledge Migration: The German–Turkish Nexus, 161-179, Routledge.
  • Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 555-590.
  • Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42 (5), 693-716.
  • Díaz-García, C., González-Moreno, A., & Sáez-Martínez, J. F. (2015). Eco-innovation: insights from a literature review. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, (17) 1, 6-23. doi:10.1080/14479338.2015.1011060
  • Drucker, P. (2010). The Five Most Important Questions Self-Assessment, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
  • Drucker, P. (1998). The Discipline of Innovation, John Wiley and Sons.
  • Erol, Y., & Kanbur, E. (2014). Misyon ve Vizyon İfadelerine Göre Türkiye'nin İlk 100 Büyük Şirketinin Girişimcilik Özellikleri. Business & Economics Research Journal, 5 (3), 149- 165.
  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29 (2), 109-123.
  • Fletcher, M., & Harris, S. (2012). Knowledge acquisition for the internationalization of the smaller firm: Content and sources. International Business Review, 21 (4), 631-647.
  • Garriga, H., von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. (2013). How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 34 (9), 1134-1144.
  • Graham, D. & Bachmann, T. T. (2004). Ideation: The Birth and Death of Ideas. John Wiley and Sons Inc. ISBN: 978-0471479444.
  • Hall, R. (1993). A Framework Linking Intangible Resources And Capabilities To Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (8), 607-618.
  • Haller, J. (2013). Open Evaluation: Integrating Users into the Selection of New Product Ideas, Gabler Verlag. Hernández-Espallardo, M., Sánchez-Pérez, M., & Segovia-López, C. (2011). Exploitation-and exploration-based innovations: the role of knowledge in inter-firm relationships with distributors. Technovation, 31 (5), 203-215.
  • Izmir Development Agency (2013). 2014-2023 İzmir Bölge Plan. Retrieved from http://media.wix.com/ugd/d51593_286404a521f3414181652789ef309af6.pdf
  • Izmir Development Agency (2014). Izmir Mevcut Durum Analiz 2013, Tukelmat A.Ş, Izmir. ISBN: 978-605-5826-12-3.
  • Khorsheed, S. M., & Al-Fawzan, A. M. (2014). Fostering university–industry collaboration in Saudi Arabia through technology innovation centers. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 16 (2), 224–237.
  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science, 3 (3), 383-397.
  • Laosirihongthong, T. Prajogo, D. I., & Adebanjo, D. (2014). The relationships between firm’s strategy, resources and innovation performance: resources-based view perspective, Production Planning & Control, 25 (15), 1231-1246. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2013.819593
  • Learned, E. P., Christensen, C. R., Andrews, K. R., & Guth, W. D. (1965). Business policy: Text and cases. Homewood: Irwin.
  • Leiponen, A. (2005). Organization of knowledge and innovation: the case of Finnish business services. Industry and Innovation, 12 (2), 185-203.
  • McDonald, R. E. (2007). An Investigation of Innovation in Nonprofit Organizations: The Role of Organizational Mission. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36 (2), 256-281.
  • Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, process. Academy of Management Review, 3 (3), 546-562.
  • Morgan, J. (2015). The Five Types Of Innovation For The Future Of Work. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2015/07/27/the-5-types-of-innovation-for-the-future-of-work-pt-1-employee-innovation/#310e26e14104
  • MSIT - Ministry of Science, Industry & Technology (2016). Retrieved from http://btgm.sanayi.gov.tr/userfiles/file/istatistiki%20bilgiler/nisan%202016/Arge_Merkezi_portal%20Slaytlar%C4%B1%20%20nisan%202016(1).pdf
  • OECD-Eurostat (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines For Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition.
  • OECD (2015). The Innovation Imperative: Contributing to Productivity, Growth and Well-Being, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264239814-en
  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8 (3).
  • Osuna, A. M. A. (2014). Innovation and internationalization as a single strategy of the firm: A unification of theories. International Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 7(1), 73-84.
  • Perry, M. (2014). Learning regions as a framework for innovation policy: A review of the issues. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 16 (3), 286-302.
  • Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26 (1), 22-40.
  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Free Press, New York. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (Vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Romijn, H., & Albaladejo, M. (2002). Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms in southeast England. Research policy, 31(7), 1053-1067.
  • Sahay, Y. P., & Gupta, M. (2016). Organization design & perceptions of innovation: implications for the Indian pharmaceutical sector. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 52 (1), 157-171.
  • Slavkovic, M., & Babic, V. (2013). Knowledge management, innovativeness, and organizational performance: Evidence from Serbia. Economic Annals, 58 (199), 85-107.
  • Subramanian, A., & Nilakanta, S. (1996). Organizational innovativeness: Exploring the relationship between organizational determinants of innovation, types of innovations, and measures of organizational performance. Omega, 24(6), 631-647.
  • Temel, S. T., Akdeniz, R. T., & Sukan, F. T. (2011). Ar-Ge ve inovasyon açısından İzmir KOBİ'lerinin durumu. Finans Politik Ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, 48 (555), 83.
  • Villan, W. J., da Silva, S. B., & Camilo, S. P. O. (2016). The Scientific Production Exploring Innovation as Competitive Strategy. Business Management Dynamics, 5 (9), 33-47.
  • Woiceshyn, J., & Eriksson, P. (2014). How innovation systems in Finland and Alberta work: Lessons for policy and practice. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 16 (1), 19-31.
  • Yu, X., & Si, S. (2012). Innovation, internationalization and entrepreneurship: A new venture research perspective. Innovation, 14 (4), 524-539.
Konular Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler
Dergi Bölümü Makaleler
Yazarlar

Yazar: Murat NAZLI
E-posta: nazli.murat@gmail.com

Yazar: E. Evla KESİCİ
E-posta: eevlamutlu@gmail.com

Yazar: Gönenç DALGIÇ TURHAN
E-posta: turhan@gonencdalgic.com

Yazar: Hande ARBAK
E-posta: handearbak@hotmail.com

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { esam333826, journal = {Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi}, issn = {1309-887X}, address = {Ege Üniversitesi}, year = {2017}, volume = {8}, pages = {151 - 173}, doi = {10.18354/esam.333826}, title = {İnovatif Firmaların İnovasyon Yönetim Perspektiflerindeki Farklılıklar: İzmir Vaka Çalışması}, language = {tr}, key = {cite}, author = {NAZLI, Murat and ARBAK, Hande and DALGIÇ TURHAN, Gönenç and KESİCİ, E. Evla} } @araştırma makalesi { esam333826, journal = {Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi}, issn = {1309-887X}, address = {Ege Üniversitesi}, year = {2017}, volume = {8}, pages = {151 - 173}, doi = {10.18354/esam.333826}, title = {Differences in Innovation Management Perspectives of Innovative Firms: A Case Study in İzmir}, language = {en}, key = {cite}, author = {NAZLI, Murat and ARBAK, Hande and DALGIÇ TURHAN, Gönenç and KESİCİ, E. Evla} }
APA NAZLI, M , KESİCİ, E , DALGIÇ TURHAN, G , ARBAK, H . (2017). İnovatif Firmaların İnovasyon Yönetim Perspektiflerindeki Farklılıklar: İzmir Vaka Çalışması. Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8 (2), 151-173. DOI: 10.18354/esam.333826
MLA NAZLI, M , KESİCİ, E , DALGIÇ TURHAN, G , ARBAK, H . "İnovatif Firmaların İnovasyon Yönetim Perspektiflerindeki Farklılıklar: İzmir Vaka Çalışması". Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi 8 (2017): 151-173 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/esam/issue/30730/333826>
Chicago NAZLI, M , KESİCİ, E , DALGIÇ TURHAN, G , ARBAK, H . "İnovatif Firmaların İnovasyon Yönetim Perspektiflerindeki Farklılıklar: İzmir Vaka Çalışması". Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi 8 (2017): 151-173
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - İnovatif Firmaların İnovasyon Yönetim Perspektiflerindeki Farklılıklar: İzmir Vaka Çalışması AU - Murat NAZLI , E. Evla KESİCİ , Gönenç DALGIÇ TURHAN , Hande ARBAK Y1 - 2017 PY - 2017 N1 - doi: 10.18354/esam.333826 DO - 10.18354/esam.333826 T2 - Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 151 EP - 173 VL - 8 IS - 2 SN - 1309-887X-2149-0465 M3 - doi: 10.18354/esam.333826 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.18354/esam.333826 Y2 - 2017 ER -
EndNote %0 Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi İnovatif Firmaların İnovasyon Yönetim Perspektiflerindeki Farklılıklar: İzmir Vaka Çalışması %A Murat NAZLI , E. Evla KESİCİ , Gönenç DALGIÇ TURHAN , Hande ARBAK %T İnovatif Firmaların İnovasyon Yönetim Perspektiflerindeki Farklılıklar: İzmir Vaka Çalışması %D 2017 %J Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi %P 1309-887X-2149-0465 %V 8 %N 2 %R doi: 10.18354/esam.333826 %U 10.18354/esam.333826