الگوی نظری افزایش بهره‌وری تحقیق و توسعه در فضای نوآوری باز مبتنی بر سکوی مشترک

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران جنوب،ایران Me.hkashi@gmail.com

2 استاد دانشگاه صنعتی مالک اشتر، تهران، ایران/ نویسنده مسئول مکاتبات Manteghi@guest.ut.ac.ir

3 دانشیار دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران جنوب، ایران

4 استادیار دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران جنوب، ایران.

چکیده

سازمان‌هایی که پارادایم نوآوری باز را برای توسعه محصولات جدید خود انتخاب می نمایند، نیاز دارند که در جهت افزایش بهره وری تحقیق و توسعه از راهبردهای اهرمی تنوع بالا در تحقیق و توسعه استفاده نمایند که کلید آن سکوی مشترک است. در این مقاله با استفاده از روش کیفی و با راهبرد تئوری-پردازی از طریق مطالعه موردی و تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها به کمک نظریه‌پردازی داده بنیاد، بطور اکتشافی با مطالعۀ چهار سکوی مشترک نسبتاً موفق و از طریق مصاحبه نیم‌ ساختاریافته و تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها، الگوی نظری افزایش بهره‌وری تحقیق‌وتوسعه بر مبنای راهبرد سکوهای مشترک در فضای نوآوری باز تدوین شد. در این مقاله اولا با مطالعه موج‌های مطرح شده در ادبیات سکوی مشترک مشخص شد که در فضای نوآوری باز سازمان‌های تحقیق و توسعه ضرورت دارد که در زمینه استراتژی توسعه محصول با گذر از از موج اول و دوم سکوهای محصولی و زنجیره تامین به سمت موج‌های جدید سوم و چهارم سکوهای صنعتی و دویا چند سویه مبتنی بر نوآوری بار حرکت کنند. ثانیا عوامل موثر بر افزایش بهره وری تحقیق و توسعه مبتنی بر این رویکرد در قالب یک الگوی علمی تدوین شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The pattaern of increasing the productivity of research and development with open innovation approach based on common platform

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hossein Kashi 1
  • Manouchehr Manteghi 2
  • Changiz Valmohammadi 3
  • Kambiz Jalali Farahani 4
1 PhD student, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran branch, Iran/Me.hkashi@gmail.com
2 Professor of Malik Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran/ Correspondence author Manteghi@guest.ut.ac.ir
3 Associate Professor, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, Iran
4 Associate Professor, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, Iran
چکیده [English]

Organizations that choose the open innovation paradigm for the development of their new products need to use leverage strategies of high diversity in research and development, the key of which is the common platform, in order to increase the productivity of research and development. In this article, using the qualitative method and theorizing strategy through case study and data analysis with the help of foundation data theorizing, exploratively by studying four relatively successful common platforms and through semi-structured interviews and Analyzing the data, the theoretical model of increasing the productivity of research and development based on the strategy of common platforms in the space of open innovation was formulated. In this article, first of all, by studying the waves mentioned in the common platform literature, it was determined that in the open innovation space, it is necessary for research and development organizations to go from the first and second wave of product platforms and supply chain to the product development strategy. To move towards the third and fourth new waves of industrial and multi-directional platforms based on innovation. Secondly, the effective factors for increasing the productivity of research and development based on this approach were formulated in the form of a scientific model.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Productivity
  • Research and Development
  • Platform
  • Open Innovation
Armstrong, M., 2006. Competition in two-sided markets. RAND Journal of Economics, 37, pp.668–91.
Baldwin, C. Y. and Clark, K.. 1997. Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review, 75 No.5, pp.84–93.
Baldwin, C. Y. and Woodard, C.J., 2009. The architecture of platforms: Aunified view. In: A. Gawer, ed. Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Cheltenham, U.K: Edward Elgar Publishing.pp.19–44.
Bogers, M. Chesbrough, H. Heaton, S., 2019. Strategic Management of Open Innovation: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective. California Management Review, 62, pp.77–94.
Bremmer, R., 2000. Big, Bigger, biggest. Automotive world, June, pp.36–44.
Bresnahan, T. F., & Greenstein, S., 1999. Technological competition and the structure of the computer industry. Journal of Industrial Economics, pp.1–40.
Brusoni, S. Prencipe, A., 2006. Making design rules: a multidomain prespective. Org. Sci, 17 No.2, pp.179–189.
Caillaud, B. Jullien, B., 2003. Chicken & egg: competition among intermediation service providers. RAND Journal of Economics, 34(2), pp.309–328.
Cenamor, J. and Frishammar, J., 2021. Openness in platform ecosystems : Innovation strategies for complementary products. Research Policy, [online] 50(1), p.104148. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104148>.
Chesbrough, H., & Socolof, S.J., 2000. Creating New Ventures from Bell Labs Technologies. Research Technology Management, pp.13–17.
Chesbrough, H. and Bez, S.M., 2020. Barriers in Searching for Alternative Business Models: An Essay on the Fear of Looking Foolish. In: M. (Ed. . Sund, K.J., Galavan, R.J. and Bogers, ed. Business Models and Cognition (New Horizons in Managerial and Organizational Cognition,. Emerald Publishing Limited.pp.187–202.
Chesbrough, H., 2010. Business Model Innovation : Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Planning, [online] 43(2–3), pp.354–363. Available at: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.010>.
Chesbrough, H.W., 2003. Open Innovation The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, Masaachsetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H.W., 2011. Open Services Innovation: Rethinking Your Business to Grow and Compete in a New Era. Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J.W., 2003. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 2nd ed.
Cusumano, M. A., Gawer, A., & Yoffie, D. B. (2019). The bisiness of platforms: stretegy in the age of digital competition, innovatin and power. Harper Business.
Cusumano, M; Yoffie, D; Gawer, A., 2020. The Future of Platforms. MIT Sloan Management Review, 61, pp.46–54.
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Graebner, M.E., 2005. theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, pp.25–32.
Evans, D. S. Hagiu, A. and Schmalensee, R., 2006. Invisible Engines: How Software Cambridge, Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries. MA, USA: MIT Press.
Evans, D.., 2003. The antitrust economics of multi-sided Platform markets. Yale Journal on Regulation, 20, pp.352–82.
Facin, A. L. F Leonardo Gomes, A. D. V. Spinola, M.D.M., 2016. The Evolution of the Platform Concept: A Systematic Review. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, 63, NO. 4.
Fixson, S.K., 2005. Product architecture assessment: A tool to link product, process, and supply chain design decisions. J. Oper. Manage, 23, n, pp.345–369.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M.A., 2008. How companies become platform lead- ers. MIT Sloan Manage. Rev, 49, no. 2, pp.28–35.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M.A., 2014. Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. J. Product Innov Management, 31 No. 3, pp.417–433.
Gawer, A., 2009a. Platform dynamics and strategies: From products to services. In: Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Cheltenham, U.K: Edward Elga.pp.45–76.
Gawer, A., 2009b. Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Glaser, B., 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, Mill Valley. CA: Sociology Press.
Hallerstede, S.H., 2013. Managing the Lifecycle of Open Innovation Platforms. Nürnberg: Springer.
Jose, A. and Tollenaere, M., 2005. Modular and platform methods for product family design: Literature analysis. Intell. Manuf, 16 no.3, pp.371–390.
Kude, T. Dibbern, J. and Heinzl, A., 2012. Why do complementors participate? Industry, An analysis of partnership networks in the enterprise software. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage, 59, no. 2, pp.250–265.
Livingston, W., 2009. Discovering the academic and social transitions of re-enrolling student veterans at one institution: A grounded theory. ProQuest.
Martin, M. V. and Ishii, K., 2002. Design for variety: Developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures. Res. Eng. Des, 13, No 4, pp.213–235.
McGrath, M.E., 1995. Product Strategy for High-Technology Companies. New York, NY, USA: Irwin Professional.
Meyer, M. H. and Utterback, J.M., 1993. The product family and the dynamics of core capability. Sloan Manage. Rev, 34 no. 3, pp.29–47.
Parker, G. Van Alstyne, M., 2017. Innovation, Openness, and Platform Control. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, pp.1–18.
Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M.A. and Choudary, S.., 2016. PLATFORM REVOLUTION HOW NETWORKED MARKETS ARE TRANSFORMING THE ECONOMY AND HOW TO MAKE THEM WORK FOR YOU. W. W. Norton.
Publication, B.S.I.S., 2014. PD CEN / TS 16555-1 : 2013 BSI Standards Publication Innovation Management Part 1 : Innovation Management System.
Robertson, D. and Ulrich, K., 1998. Planning for product platforms. Sloan Manage. Rev, 39, no. 4, pp.19–31.
Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J., 2003. Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), pp.990–1029.
Rouvinen, P., 2002. R&D–Productivity Dynamics:CAUSALITY, LAGS, AND ‘DRY HOLES’. Journal of Applied Economics, pp.123–156.
Sako, A. Davies, A., 2003. Modularity and outsourcing: the nature of Co-evolution of product artichecture in the global automotive industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sawhney, M.., 1998. Leveraged high-variety strategy: from portfolio thinking to platform thinking. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26 No.1, pp.54–61.
Simpson, T.W & Siddique, Z. & Roger, J., 2005. Product platform and Product family design: Methods and application. Springer.
Smedlund, A., Lindblom, A. and Mitronen, L., 2018. Collaborative Value Co-creation in the Platform Economy.
Steinberg, M., 2019. The Platform Economy. University of Minnesota Press.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Suh, E. S. de Weck, O. L. and Chang, D., 2007. Flexible product platforms: Framework and case study. Res. Eng. Des, 18 No 2, pp.67–89.
Szczesny, J., 2003. Mazda3 ushers in new Ford era: Platform sharing across global brands 2006. Ford’s new way of doing business.
Ulrich. K. T. and Eppinger, S.D., 2000. Product Design and Development. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Wheelwright, S. C. and Clark, K.B., 1992. Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency and Quality. New York, NY, USA: Free Press.
With, A.M.R., 2003. Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review hands-on applications for each research phase”, Qualitative Market. Research: An International Journal, 6(2), pp.75–86.
Won Park, Y., 2018. Business Architecture Strategy and Platform-Based Ecosystems. Saitama: Springer.
Yin, R.K., 2015. Case study research. Design and methods. London: Sage.
استراوس، آ.، و کوربین، ج.، 1387. اصول روش تحقیق کیفی: نظریه مبنایی، رویه‌ها و شیوه‌ها. ترجمه ب محمدی. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
دانایی‌فرد، ع.، و الوانی، ح.، 1391. روش‌شناسی پژوهش کیفی در مدیریت: رویکردی جامع. تهران: اشراقی، صفار.
ناظمی، ا.، مظاهری، ک.، شماعی، ع.، و قدیری، ر.، 1388. آینده‌نگاری فناوری هوافضا در ایران 1404. تهران: مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور.
والمحمدی، چ.، 1391. مدیریت کیفیت و بهره‌وری. جلد دوم. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران جنوب.