Presenting a model for determining the level of technological complexity of research and development activities in knowledge-based companies (case study: companies based in Golestan Science and Technology Park)
Subject Areas : Industrial ManagementGholamali shahmoradi 1 , Taghi Torabi 2 , Reza Radfar 3 , Mohammadhasan Cheraghali 4
1 - Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Technology Management, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3 - Professor, Department of Technology Management, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
4 - Assistant Professor, Department of Planning, Administrative Sciences and Management, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Technological complexity, research and development, knowledge-based companies,
Abstract :
Today, the research activities of knowledge-based companies are considered important sources of transformation in the fields of technology and knowledge production. The more advanced the level of these activities and the higher their technological complexity are, the more innovative and competitive products grow. The present study was conducted with the aim of providing a model for determining the level of technological complexity of research and development in knowledge-based companies. In terms of its purpose, this research is part of applied research, and regarding methodology, it is in the category of mixed research. In the qualitative section, the data was collected from the literature review and semi-structured interviews with 20 experts in the field of research and development. First, seven categories were extracted for the complexity levels of research and development, and the Frascati category (including basic research, applied research, and experimental development) was selected based on the experts’ opinions. Then, during three stages of coding (open, central and selective), the influential factors in determining the level of complexity were identified and the research model was formed. In the quantitative part, the data was collected from a sample of 290 people from the target statistical population (Golestan Science & Technology Park) through a researcher-made questionnaire. Then, the data was analyzed and model fit test using structural equation modeling method, was conducted. The data analysis was done using smart pls3 software. The results indicated a suitable fit of the data with the final model, including complexity levels and 91 effective indicators in determining complexity levels. This model can be a suitable tool for research and development departments of knowledge-based companies, in order to improve the level of research and development based on global standards and create transformation in the fields of technology and knowledge production and increase added value.
Key Words:complexity,research and development,technology,knowledge base
1.Introduction
Today, knowledge-based economy is considered one of the important and influential areas in the economic development and growth of countries. In this regard, knowledge-based companies, which are known as the main engine of economic growth and development, play an important role in the growth of the knowledge-based economy. During the recent decades, industrial developments and innovations have resulted from innovative and creative activities in knowledge-based companies. Research and development activities make it possible for knowledge-based companies to adapt to the changes and fluctuations in the market through efficient methods, offer new products and achieve sustainable competitive advantages. The more innovative and creative the research and development activities in knowledge-based companies are, the more advanced technologies and higher technological capabilities become available, leading to the production of new more competitive products and services., and increased productivity. An important factor that has led developed countries to be the leaders in the knowledge-based economy is the performance of advanced and fundamental research and development activities, which has improved the efficiency and effectiveness of activities and the production of innovative products with advanced technologies. This has resulted in the growing share of knowledge-based economy in these countries.
- Literature Review
Brockel (2018) conducted a study titled “Measuring technological complexity- current approaches and a new measure of structural complexity”. In this research, while examining two existing empirical measures of technological complexity, including the reflection approach (Hidalgo &Hausman, 2009) and the knowledge synthesis difficulty approach (Fleming & Sorenson, 2001), a new approach of structural complexity is presented , and then, using these three approaches, Five indicators are provided to measure the complexity of technology based on the criteria of increasing complexity over time, larger research and development, collaborative research and development, and spatial concentration. Amsden and Tchang (2003) conducted a study titled “A New Approach to Assess the Technological Complexity of Different Classes of Research and Development” (with examples from Singapore). In this research, a framework for classifying activities that take place in the form of research and development in different countries has been presented. To determine the framework, the five classifications of research and development, including pure science, basic research, applied research, exploratory development and advanced development were used, and eight criteria were used to identify the type of activity class and to determine the level of complexity, including research search, research objective, outputs, performance, time horizon, used techniques, required qualifications and the scope of the work are presented.
- Methodology
The current study is applied research with a mixed-method approach for data collection which was carried out qualitatively and quantitatively. The statistical population of the qualitative part of the research included 20 experts in the field of research and development and specialists of knowledge-based companies who were selected using the snowball sampling method. The desired data was collected through the semi-structured interviews, and the sampling method was theoretical saturation which ended with the interview of the 20th participant. Also, the statistical population of the quantitative part of the research included managers and experts of companies in Golestan Science and Technology Park, and its statistical sample was determined by simple random sampling and sample size table. Library and interview data were used to collect the qualitative data. Also, a researcher-made questionnaire was used to collect the data in the quantitative part of the study, which was designed based on the findings of the qualitative part of the research. To analyze the data of the qualitative section, content analysis and three stages of coding (open, central and selective) were used. Also, for the quantitative data analysis, structural equation modeling method was used with smart pls3 software.
- Result
The results of the present research can be actually a comprehensive solution to solve the problem of the lack of advanced and complex research and development activities in most Iranian knowledge-based companies. In the proposed model, to determine the level of technological complexity of the research and development activities, 91 criteria in the form of six constructs (causal factors, background factors, intervening factors, central category, strategies and consequences) were identified and approved. These criteria include: 18 causal factors, 15 contextual factors, 11 intervening factors, 11 central factors, 21 strategy items and finally 15 consequence items.
- Discussion
Previously, Amsden and Tchang (2003) identified only eight criteria to determine the level of technological complexity of research and development activities (i.e., research search, research objective, outputs, performance, time horizon, used techniques, required competencies and work size) and were indifferent to the role of other factors. Unlike the current research criteria, these eight criteria are only experimental criteria and do not include theoretical criteria, and due to the small number of produced criteria, they lack the necessary comprehensiveness to determine the level of complexity, and therefore, may produce inaccurate results. Zarei Mahmoudabadi et al. (2013) also identified factors that are effective in evaluating research and development activities in the form of two categories of input factors and output factors. These factors play a role in the level of complexity of research and development activities, but their number is limited to only six factors (including the number of enrollments in science and engineering fields, the number of R&D researchers, R&D costs, the number of scientific and engineering articles, received international patents and export of advanced technology) which is not enough to measure the level of complexity of research and development activities. Mohammadzadeh et al. (2013) have also identified and introduced very limited factors (including human capital, company size, profitability, industry concentration and non-governmental ownership) that are effective on the research and development activities of companies. Therefore, the literature review showed that the studies conducted regarding the research and development activities of knowledge-based companies were not comprehensive enough.
Abdulahi Khoshmardan, S., Manteghi, M., & Khamseh, A. (2022). Presenting a model to identify the complexity dimensions of technological superprojects with metacombination method. Innovation Management in Defense Organizations, 5(3), 1-26. [In Persian]. doi:10.22034/qjimdo.2022.323737.1476
Amsden, H., & Ted Tschang, F. (2003). A new approach to assessing the technological complexity of different categories of R&D (with examples from Singapore). Research Policy, 32 (2003) 553–572. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00080-X
Armaghan, N., Ghaed Sharfi, H., & Agha beigi, S. (2022). The role of open innovation in the technology development of knowledge-based companies, case study: Incubator of Iranian Research Organization for science and Technology. Journal of Technology Development Management, 10(1), 37-60. [In Persian]. doi:10.22104/jtdm.2022.5132.2863
Asghari, M., Khamseh, A., & Pilevari, N. (2021). A model for improving R&D abilities with a qualitative approach in the power plant equipment manufacturing and energy supply industries. Journal of Innovation Management In Defensive Organizations, 3(10), 125-150. [In Persian]. doi:10.22034/qjimdo.2020.220525.1275
Babkin, A. V., Lipatnikov, V. S., & Muraveva, S. V. (2015). Assessing the impact of innovation strategies and R&D costs on the performance of IT companies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 20)7(, 749-758. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.153
Bach, M. (2016). Technology Acceptance Model for Business Intelligence Systems: Preliminary Research. Procedia Computer Science, 100(2), 995-1003. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.270
Broekel, T. (2018). Measuring technological complexity – current approaches and a new measure of structural complexity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07357, 1-38. arXiv:1708.07357v3 [stat.AP] 9 Mar 2018
Chen, C. P., Hu, J. L., Yang, C. H.; et al. (2011). An international comparison of R&D efficiency of multiple innovative outputs: the role of the national innovation system. Innovation, 13(3), 341–360. doi:10.5172/impp.2011.13.3.341
Da silva, F., De Araujo Querido Oliveira, E., & de Moraes, M. (2016). Innovation development process in small and medium technology-based companies. Journal of Innovation and management review, 13(3) 176-189. doi:10.1016/j.rai.2016.04.005
Erasmus, E., Rothmann, S., & Van Eeden, C. (2015). A structural model of technology acceptance. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SATydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 41(1), Art. 1222, 12. doi:10.4102/sajip.v41i1.1222
Fallah, E., & Salami, R. (2016). A comparative study of the knowledge-based economy of Iran with selected Asian countries and providing a road map to improve Iran's situation. Alzahra University Economic Development Policy Quarterly, 4(4), 145-169. [In Persian]. doi:10.22051/edp.2018.15842.1097
Ferri, R., Spanò, M., & Maffei, C. (2021). How risk perception influences CEOs' technological decisions: extending the technology acceptance model to small and medium-sized enterprises' technology decision makers. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3), 777-798. doi:10.1108/EJIM-09-2019-0253
Gallagher, D., Ting, L., Palmer, A. (2008). A Journey into the Unknown: Taking the Fear out of Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS for the First-Timer User. The Marketing Review, 8(3), 255-275. doi:10.1362/146934708X337672
Ghazi Nouri, S., Bamdad Sufi, J., & Radaei, N. (2016). Investigating the behavior and performance of Iranian knowledge-based companies with a taxonomy approach. Technology Development Management Quarterly, 4(3), 9-32. [In Persian]. DOI: 10.22104/jtdm.2017.1660.1587
Ghelichli, B., & Makani, A. (2016). Entrepreneurial competencies, innovation and performance of knowledge-based companies. Strategic management studies. 7(27), 89-106. [In Persian]. dor:20.1001.1.22286853.1395.7.27.4.7
Haji Gholam Saryazdi, A. (2020). The dynamics of technology level changes of technology companies in Yazd Science and Technology Park. Innovation Management, 9(2), 63-93. [In Persian]. dor:20.1001.1.23225386.1399.9.2.3.3
Hashemi, Z. (2019). Investigating the behavior of human resource attraction for research and development in knowledge-based companies in response to financial and tax policies: a case study of Iran. Technology Development, 7(3), 124-91. [In Persian]. doi:10.22104/jtdm.2020.4004.2414
Jarot, S., Astari, R. (2017). Evaluation of knowledge management system using technology acceptance model. proceeding of the electrical engineering computer science and informatics, 4(1). dor:10.1109/EECSI.2017.8239158
Keshavarz, S., Yaghoubi, N. M., & Deghati, A. (2021). Evaluating the success factors of knowledge-based companies in Fars Science and Technology Park with structural equation modeling approach. Science and Technology Policy Quarterly, 11(1), 35-50. [In Persian]. dor:20.1001.1.24767220.1400.11.1.10.8
Khamseh, A., & Asari, M. H. (2019). Research and development management (an integrated approach to the concepts, structure and organization, capabilities and management of research and development projects). Karaj: Sarafraz. 1-506. [In Persian]
Kongkav Monfared, A. (2020). Analyzing the impact of technological innovation adoption factors and resource commitment on knowledge management capabilities in order to increase competitive advantage (research sample: knowledge-based companies in Yazd province). Organizational Knowledge Management, 3(10), 175-147. [In Persian]. dor:20.1001.1.26454262.1399.3.3.5.9
Majidi Kalibar, M., Samei Nasr, M., & Mohammadkhani, K. (2015). Factors affecting innovation in small and medium enterprises. Science and Technology Policy, 5(2), 35-49. [In Persian]. dor:20.1001.1.24767220.1394.05.2.3.1
Mansouri, S., Vazifeh, Z., & Yousefi, J. (2017). Prioritization of drivers of effective factors in the direction of the development of knowledge-based companies in Kerman province. Scientific Research Quarterly of Entrepreneurship Development, 10(2), 319-338. [In Persian]. doi:10.22059/jed.2017.230257. 652181
McNerney, J., Doyne Farmer, J., Redner, S., & E Trancik, J. (2011). the role of design complexity in technology improvement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 108 (22) 9008-9013. doi:10.1073/pnas.1017298108
Miyazaki, K., & Kijima, K. (2000). complexity in technology management. Technological Forecasting and Social change, 64(1), 39-54. doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(99)00072-4
Molepo, P. M., Marnewick, A.,& Joseph, N. (2019). Complexity factors affecting research and development projects duration. 2019 IEEE Technology & Engineering Management Conference (TEMSCON), Atlanta, GA, USA, 2019, pp. 1-6. doi:10.1109/TEMSCON.2019.8813667
Mubarak, M. F., Shaikh, F. A., Mubarik, M., Samo, K. A., & Mastoi, S. (2019). The Impact of Digital Transformation on Business Performance, A Study of Pakistani SMEs. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 9(6), 5056-5061 doi:10.48084/etasr.3201
Nepelski, D., & De Prato, G. (2020). Technological complexity and economic development. Review of Development Economics, 24(2). 448-470. doi:10.1111/rode.12650
Lei Lv, Y., & Yuanchang W. (2020). The Impact of R&D Input on Technological Innovation: Evidence from South Asian and Southeast Asian Countries. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society (DDNS). 2020(5):1-11, Article ID 6408654. doi10.1155/2020/6408654
OECD, (2015). Frascati manual 2015: guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development, 52-60.
Ostadi, B., & Sadri, M. (2020). Identifying and prioritizing performance evaluation indicators of knowledge-based companies. Quarterly Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 9(18), 69-80. [In Persian]. http://journalie.ir/Article/19766
pakniat, M., Ansari, R. & Shahin, A. (2016). Analysis of the impact of technological innovation capabilities on technology commercialization and the performance of knowledge-based companies in Isfahan province. Innovation Management, 5(3), 59-84. [In Persian]. https://www.nowavari.ir/ article_44425. html? lang=fa
Radfar, R., & Khamseh, A. (2017). Technology management: a comprehensive view on technology, innovation and commercialization. second edition. Tehran: Scientific and Cultural Publishing Company, 1-532. [In Persian]
Radfar, R., & Khamseh, A. (2008). Investigating the effects of globalization of research and development on technology development and innovation. Technology Growth Quarterly, Volume 4(16), 1-10. [In Persian]. http://www.roshdefanavari.ir/Article/1393060911021836
Ramezanian, M. R., Moradi, M., & Basaghzadeh, N. (2012). The effect of the knowledge sharing process and the ability to absorb knowledge on the ability to innovate. Public Management Perspective, 3(11), 91-111. [In Persian]. https://jpap.sbu.ac.ir/article_94700.html
Rannikko, H. (2012). Early Development of New Technology-Based Firms, Longitudinal Analysis on New Technology- Based Firms’ Development from Population Level and Firm Level Perspectives. Hanken School of Economics.
Shakeri, R., Hasani, R., Abdul Maleki, M., & Ajang, M. R. (2022). Presenting the innovation performance model of knowledge-based companies: a meta-composite approach. Public Management Research, 15(55), 125-154. [In Persian]. doi:10.22111/jmr.2021.34686.5113
Simsek, K., & Yildirim, N. (2016). Constraints to Open Innovation in Science and Technology Parks. Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 35 ,719 – 728. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.073
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basic of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing Grounded Theory. third edition, Los Angeles: stage publication, 1-333. doi:10.1177/1094428108324514
Su, Y., & Li, M. (2021). Applying Technology Acceptance Model in Online. Entrepreneurship Education for New Entrepreneurs, Front, Psychol,2(9), 34-66. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713239
Torabzadeh, M. S., Sajjadieh, A., & Hejazi Fard, S. (2018). Identifying organizational factors affecting research and technology management of knowledge-based organizations in Iran. Public Management Perspective, 9(35), 56-88. [In Persian]. dor:20.1001.1.22516069.1397.9.3.3.2
Vaesen, K., & Houkes, H. (2017). Complexity and technological evolution: what everybody knows? springer, Biology & Philosophy 32(3),1245-1268. doi:10.1007/s10539-017-9603-1
Yahyaei, M., & Hassanzadeh, A. (2018). Presenting the technology commercialization model in knowledge-based companies in the field of ICT. Investment Knowledge, 7(26), 63-82. [In Persian]. https://jik.srbiau.ac.ir/article_12601.html
Yugue, R. T., & Maximiano, A. C. A. (2013). Understanding and Managing Project Complexity. Revista de Gestão e Projetos-GeP, 4(1), 01-22. doi:10.5585/gep.v4i1.109
Zarei Mahmoudabadi, M., Tahari Mehrjordi, M. H., & Mahdavian, A. (2013). Evaluation of research and development activities in Iran: data envelopment analysis approach. Industrial Management, 6(1), 55-74. [In Persian]. doi:10.22059/imj.2014.523
