Journals / EGE STRATEJİK ARAŞTIRMALAR DERGİSİ / 2017 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

Differences in Innovation Management Perspectives of Innovative Firms: A Case Study in İzmir

İnovatif Firmaların İnovasyon Yönetim Perspektiflerindeki Farklılıklar: İzmir Vaka Çalışması

Pages
151–173
Publication Date
2017-07-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

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.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis: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.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Accordingly, 20 innovative firms in Izmir are analysed by using a face to face semi-structured interview technique and performing a content analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İnovasyon · Araştırma Geliştirme · İnovasyon Yönetimi

Abstract

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.

Özet

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

NAZLI, M., KESİCİ, E. E., TURHAN, G. D., ARBAK, H. (2017). Differences in Innovation Management Perspectives of Innovative Firms: A Case Study in İzmir. EGE STRATEJİK ARAŞTIRMALAR DERGİSİ, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 151–173. https://ajindex.com/articles/661359

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. 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.
  2. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99-120.
  3. 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
  4. Bilton, C., & Cummings, S. (2010). Creative strategy: reconnecting business and innovation, Wiley, Chichester. ISBN: 1405180196, 978-1-4051-8019-1.
  5. Brown, R. (2016). Mission impossible? Entrepreneurial universities and peripheral regional innovation systems. Industry and Innovation, 23 (2), 189-205.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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:
  10. Kitapana. Dalgıç, G., Kuckertz, A., & Bulut, Ç. (2016). Antecedents of Transnational Entrepreneurial Beh