حکمرانی ارتباطی مبتنی بر زیست بوم نوآوری در شرکت‌های کوچک ومتوسط کهگیلویه بویراحمد

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت دولتی ،دانشگاه سیستان وبلوچستان، زاهدان، ایران

2 دانشیارگروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان، زاهدان، ایران

3 دانشیار گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان، زاهدان، ایران

4 استادگروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان، زاهدان، ایران

چکیده

زمینه: اجرای حکمرانی ارتباطی مبتنی برزیست بوم نوآوری در شرکت‌های کوچک ومتوسط کهگیلویه وبویراحمد می‌باشد که درواقع نیازمند بستر سازی وانجام اصلاحات لازم دارد
هدف: هدف از پژوهش حاضر ارائه حکمرانی ارتباطی مبتنی بر زیست بوم نوآوری درشرکتهای کوچک ومتوسط کهگیلویه وبویراحمد است. در این راستا، پژوهشگر تلاش کرده است ضمن شناسایی ابعاد,ومولفه های حکمرانی ارتباطی، پیشنهادهایی را برای انجام تحقیقات آتی در این زمینه ارائه دهد. درضمن به محدودیت‌ها وموانع پژوهش انجام شده دراین زمینه اشاره نموده است
روش تحقیق: توصیفی و از نوع همبستگی بوده است. دراین تحقیق در سه سطح به بررسی وتحلیل داده‌ها پرداخته شد. درسطح اول تحلیل توصیفی داده‌ها انجام شد. درسطح دوم به بررسی وتحلیل استنباطی داده‌ها پرداخته شدودرنهایت به استخراج مدل اصلی پژوهش با نرم افزار smartpls مبادرت گردید. جامعه آماری این پژوهش کلیه کارکنان ومدیران شرکت‌های مستقر در کهگیلویه بویراحمد و با استفاده از فرمول حجم نمونه آماری 200 نفر انتخاب شد که به لحاظ شیوه نمونه گیری، نمونه گیری از نوع تصادفی ساده است. ابزار اندازه‌گیری پژوهش از سه پرسشنامه استاندارد حکمرانی ارتباطی در شرکت‌های کوچک ومتوسط کهگیلویه بویراحمد بود که روایی و پایایی آن انجام‌شده بود، استفاده گردید.
یافته‌ها: ارائه حکمرانی ارتباطی مبتنی بر زیست بوم نوآوری هم در ارتقااعتماد بین بازیگران وهم در پایبندی به هنجارها وعمل متقابل، رفتارهای فرصت طلبانه واطمینان بخشی به روابط بین بازیگران اثرگذاراست.
نتیجه گیری: این پژوهش نشان داد حکمرانی ارتباطی مبتنی بر زیست بوم نوآوری وابعاد آن (اعتماد، تعامل بین بازیگران، رفتارهای فرصت طلبانه، هنجار وعمل متقابل، اهداف ومنافع مشترک) در شرکت‌های کوچک ومتوسط کهگیلویه بویراحمد کاربرددارد. همچنین حکمرانی ارتباطی می‌تواند به انسجام بخشی روابط بین بازیگران، تقویت اعتماد متقابل وعمل متقابل وتوزیع منصفانه سود بین بازیگران کمک شایانی کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Communication governance based on the ecosystem of innovation in small and medium-sized companies, Kohgilouye Boyerahmad

نویسندگان [English]

  • kasra khaghanizadeh 1
  • Mohamad Ghasemi 2
  • Abdolali Keshtegar 3
  • Habibollah Salarzehi 4
1 PhD. Student, Department of Public Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran
2 Associate Professor of Public Administration , Faculty of Management and Economics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran.
3 Associate Professor of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and ‎Economics ,University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran
4 Professor of Public Administration ‎ Faculty of Management and Economics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Background: The implementating of communicating governance based on the ecosystem of innovation in small and medium-sized companies of Kohgiluyeh and Bairahmad , which actually requires the bedding of a platform and the make of necessary reforms.
target: The aim of the current research is to peresent communicating governance based on the innovation ecosystem in small and medium companies in Kohgiluyeh and Boyar Ahmad .
Research Methodology: It was descriptive and correlational. In this research, data analysis was made in three levels. In the first level, descriptive data analysis was made. In the second level, inferential data analysis was made, and finally, the main research model was extracted with smartpls software. The statistical population of this research is all the employees and managers of the companies located in Kohgiluyeh and Boyer Ahmad of and using of the statistical sample size formula of 200 people, which is simple random sampling in terms of the sampling method. The research measurement tool consists of three standard questionnaires. Relational governance was used in small and medium enterprises of Kohgiluyeh , Boyer Ahmad, which its validity and reliability were made.
Finding: peresenting the communicating governance based on the innovation ecosystem is effective both in promoting trust between actors and in adhering to norms and reciprocity, opportunitical behaviors and ensuring to relationships between actors.
Conclution; This research showed that communicating governance based on the ecosystem of innovation and its dimensions (trust, interaction between actors, opportunistic behaviors, norm and mutual action, common goals and interests) is used in small and medium companies of Giloye Boyer Ahmad. Also, communicating governance can integrate to relationships between actors, strengthening mutual trust and reciprocity and impartial distribution of profits between actors perform pelentyful helping

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • relational governance
  • innovation ecosystem
  • small and medium companies of Kohgiluyeh Boyer Ahmad province
  • trust worthiness
  • opportunistic behaviors
منابع
اسدی فرد, رضا،  نوذری, مریم. (1401). الگوی توسعه زیست‌بوم نوآوری دانشگاه محور: مطالعه موردی ناحیه نوآوری شریف. مطالعات راهبردی سیاستگذاری عمومی 140-164,12(45)
اسفندیاری، نیما و مرادی، محمود و رمضانیان، محمد رحیم و ابراهیم پور ازبری، مصطفی ، (1403)، تحلیل زیست بوم نوآوری ایران از سیاستگذاری تا عمل: رویکرد مبتنی بر تحلیل تم.59-78,14(2)
اقبالی، محمدعلی و راستی برزکی، مرتضی و صفرزاده، سروش، (1402)، تجزیه و تحلیل پویای چالش‌های زیست بوم نوآوری فن آورانه سبز با در نظرگرفتن همکاری شرکت-های فن آور و استارت آپ‌ها تحت مداخله دولت .135-164,3(3)
صفدری رنجبر، مصطفی، (1402)، واکاوی برنامه‌های سیاستی توسعه و تقویت زیست بوم‌های نوآوری؛ یک اقدام پژوهی 91-106,2(33)
فتحعلی، مسعود و غلامی، مهران، (1403)،  ارزیابی زیست بوم نوآوری وزارت راه و شهرسازی با تاکید بر حمل ونقل ریلی. 53-72,199(32)
نوری، فرامرز و حسینی، سید صمد، (1403)،  آسیب شناسی اجرای خط مشی‌های زیست بوم نوآوری و فناوری در راستای توسعه سرمایه گذاری‌های استانی، 81-103,4(4)
             
References:
Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem.HarwardBusiness Review,84(4),98-107
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58.
and opportunism in megaproject alliance contracts: The inter play between governance, trust and culture. International Journal of Project Management, 39(4), 394–405
Argyres, N., Bercovitz, J., & Zanarone, G. (2020). The role of relationship scope in sustaining relational contracts in interfirm networks. Strategic Management Journal, 41(2), 222–245.
Bacon, E., Williams, M. D., & Davies, G. (2020). Coopetition in innovation ecosystems: A comparative analysis of knowledge transfer configurations. Journal of Business Research, 115(2),307-316
Benitez-Avila, C., Hartmann, A., Dewulf, G., & Henseler, J. (2018). Interplay of relational and contractual governance in public-private partnerships: the mediating role of relational norms, trust and partners’ contribution. International Journal of Project Management, 36(3), 429–443.
Berthod, O., Grothe-Hammer, M., Müller-Seitz, G., Raab, J., Sydow, J., 2017. From high- reliability organizations to high-reliability networks: the dynamics of network governance in the face of emergency. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 27 (2), 352–371
Brockman, P., Khurana, I. K., & Zhong, R. I. (2018). Societal trust and open innovation. Research Policy, 47(10), 2048–2065.
Broekhuizen, T. L. J., Emrich, O., Gijsenberg, M. J., Broekhuis, M., Donkers, B., & Sloot, L. M. (2021). Digital platform open ness: Drivers, dimensions and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 122, 902–914.
Cannon, J. P. a. P., W.D. Jr (1999). "Buyer-seller relationships in business markets." Journal of Marketing Research 36(4): 439-460.
Cao, Z., & Lumineau, F. (2015). Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational governance: A qualitative and meta analytic investigation. Journal of Operations Management,15-42,33-34
Cao, Z., Lumineau, F., 2015. Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational
Cenamor, J., & Frishammar, J. (2021). Openness in platform ecosystems: Innovation strategies for complementary products. Research Policy, 50(1), 104148.
Chams-Anturi, O., Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Escorcia-Caballero, J. P. (2020). Linking organizational trust and performance through ambidexterity. Personnel Review, 49(4), 956–973.
Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Guo, Y., & Xu, Y. (2021). Research on the coordination mechanism of value cocreation of innovation eco systems: Evidence from a Chinese artificial intelligence enterprise. Complexity, 6, 1-16
Dahlander, L., & Magnusson, M. (2005). Relationships between open source software companies and communities: Observations from Nordic firms. Research Policy, 34(4), 481–493.
Dedehayir, O., Mkinen, S. J., & Roland Ortt, J. (2018). Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: A literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 18–29
Dong, W., Ma, Z., & Zhou, X. (2017). Relational governance in supplier-buyer relationships: The mediating effects of bound ary spanners’ interpersonal guanxi in hina’s B2B market. Journal of Business Research, 78, 332–340.
Dong, W., Ma, Z., & Zhou, X. (2017). Relational governance in supplierbuyer relationships: The mediating effects of boundary spanners' interpersonal guanxi
Farjoun, M., 2010. Beyond dualism: stability and change as a duality. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35 (2), 202–225
Fawcett, S. E., Osterhaus, P., Magnan, G.M., Brau, J.C., & McCarter, M.W. (2007). "Information sharing and supply chain performance: the role of connectivity and willingness" Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 12(5): 358–368
Felin, T., & Zenger, T. R. (2014). Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Research Policy, (5)43,914-925.
Frazier, G. L. (2009). Physical distribution and channel management: a knowledge and capabilities perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2),23-36
Galvin, P., Tywoniak, S., & Sutherland, J. (2021). Collaboration
Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Gil, N. (2009). "Developing Cooperative Project Client-Supplier Relationships: How Much to Expect from Relational Contracts?" California Management Review 51(2): 144-169.
governance: a qualitative and meta-analytic investigation. J. Oper. Manag. 33–34 (1), 15–42
governance: evidence from long-term public–private procurement arrangements. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 14 (1), 43–54
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, (3)91,481-510.
Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 90–91, 102098.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Alain, F., Magnus, K., & Alain, F. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities: Emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics,47(3),1-13
Hannah, D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2018). How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3163–3192
Heide, J. B. (1994). Interorganizational governance in marketing channels. The Journal of Marketing, 71-85.
Hoetker, G. P., & Mellewigt, T. (2009). Choice and performance of governance mechanisms: Matching alliance governance to asset type. Strategic Management Journal, 30(10), 1025–1044
Hoppner, J. J., & Griffith, D. A. (2011). The role of reciprocity in clarifying the performance payoff of relational behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 920–928.
Huang, J. W., & Li, Y. H. (2017). Green innovation and performance: The view of organizational capability and social reciprocity. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 1-16
in China's B2B market. Journal of Business Research.
Industrial Marketing, 37(1), 195–208.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39,2255-2276
Kapoor, R., & Agarwal, S. (2017). Sustaining superior performance in business ecosystems: evidence from application software developers in the iOS and android smartphone ecosystems. Organization Science, 28(3), 1–21.
La Porte, T.R., 1996. High reliability organizations: Unlikely, demanding and at risk. J. Conting. Crisis Manag. 4 (2), 60–71
Letaifa, S. B. (2014). The uneasy transition from supply chains to ecosystems: The value-creation/value-capture dilemma. Management Decision, 52(2), 278–295
Li, D. H., Chen, Y. R., & Zhou, P. L. (2021). Paths of cross- bound ary network governance in introducing disruptive technological innovation: The case of Baidu Apollo autonomous drivingopen platform. Journal of Management World, 37(4), 130–159. (in Chinese)
Lin, S. (2018). The structural characteristics of innovation ecosystem: A fashion case. European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(4), 620–635.
Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: A service dominant logic perspective. Mis Quarterly, 39(1), 155–175.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
mechanisms and negotiation strategies in fixed-duration interfirm relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58(9), 1226–1239.
Megnigbeto, E. (2018). Modelling the triple helix of universityindustry-government relationships with game theory: Core, Shapley value and nucleolus as indicators of synergy within an innovation system. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1118–1132.
Ness, H. (2009). "Governance, negotiations, and alliance dynamics: Explaining the evolution of relational practice." Journal of Management Studies 46(3): 451–480
Ness, H., & Haugland, S. A. (2005). The evolution of governance
North, D.C., 2005. Understanding the Process of Cconomic Change. Princeton University Press, NJ.
Oh, D. S., Phillips, F., Park, S., & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination. Technovation, 54, 1–6.
Palay, T. M. (1984). Comparative institutional economics: The governance of rail freight contracting. The Journal of Legal Studies, 13(2), 265-287.
Pomegbe, W., Li, W., Dogbe, C., & Otoo, C. (2021). Closeness or opportunistic behavior? Mediating the business ecosystem governance mechanisms and coordination relationship. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 28(3), 530–552.
Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. (2002). "Do Formal Contracs and Relational Governance Function as Substitutes or Complements?" Strategic Management Journal 23: 707-725.
Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. (2002). Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 707–725.
Poppo, L., Zenger, T., 2002. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as
Priscila, R., Sergio, S., Porto, G. S., & Martinez, M. P. (2018). Relational capability and strategic alliance portfolio configu ration: A study of Brazilian technology firms. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 13(5), 1026–1049.
Ritala, P., & Almpanopoulou, A. (2017). In defense of ‘eco’ in innovation ecosystem. Technovation, 60–61, 39–42.
Schaeffer, P. R., Guerrero, M., & Fischer, B. B. (2021). Mutualism in ecosystems of innovation and entrepreneurship: A bidirec tional perspective on universities’ linkages. Journal of Business Research, 134, 184–197
Shaikh, M., & Levina, N. (2019). Selecting an open innovation community as an alliance partner: Looking for healthy communities and ecosystems. Research Policy, 48(8), 103766.
Song, J. (2016). Innovation ecosystem: Impact of interactive patterns, member location and member heterogeneity on cooperative innovation performance. Innovation: Organization and Management, 18(1), 1–17.
Steinbruch, F. K., Nascimento, L., & Menezes, D. (2022). The role of trust in innovation ecosystems. Journal of Business and
Steinbruch, F. K., Nascimento, L., & Menezes, D. (2022). The role of trust in innovation ecosystems. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 37(1), 195–208.
substitutes or complements? Strateg. Manag. J. 23 (8), 707–725
Sun, X., & Zhang, Q. (2021). How can dynamic capabilities make sense in avoiding value co-creation traps? Management Decision, 60(3), 735–757
Tiziana, R., Marco, T., & Francesco, B. (2017). Searching through the jungle of innovation conceptualisations: System, network and ecosystem perspectives. Journal of Service
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.
Vargo, S. L., Heiko, W., & Melissa, A. A. (2015). Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 63–72.
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., 2007. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty, second ed. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif.
Zhou, Y., Xu, Y., & Wang, Q. (2024). How to Complete Supply Chain Integration and Improve Supply Chain Performance Through Relationship Governance in the Digital Age. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 32(1), 1-29.
Welter, F. (2012). All you need is trust? A critical review of the trust and entrepreneurship literature. International Small Business Journal, 30(3), 193–212
Zhao, X., Xie, J., & Leung, J. (2002). "The impact of forecasting model selection on the value of information sharing in a supply chain" European Journal of Operation Research: 321-344
Zheng, J., Roehrich, J.K., Lewis, M.A., 2008. The dynamics of contractual and relational
Zhou, H., Yao, Y., & Chen, H. (2018). How does open innovation affect firms’ innovative performance: The roles of knowledge attributes and partner opportunism. Chinese Management Studies, 12(4), 720–740.