• صفحه اصلی
  • ارائه الگویی جهت تسهیل انتقال فناوری با محوریت واسطه‏های نوآوری باز

اشتراک گذاری

آدرس مقاله


کد مقاله : IMJ-1901-1178 (R3) بازدید : 196 صفحه: 74 - 96

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

ارائه الگویی جهت تسهیل انتقال فناوری با محوریت واسطه‏های نوآوری باز

محورهای موضوعی : مدیریت صنعتی

hadi hosseini 1 , naser azad 2 , Manuchehr Manteghi 3 , mahmood modiri 4

1 - Ph.D. Student of Islamic Azad University, Tehran South Branch
2 - Assistant Professor
3 - Professor, Department of Management, Faculty of Management, Malek Ashtar University
4 - Assistant Professor

تاریخ دریافت : 1397/10/18 تاریخ پذیرش : 1398/03/12 تاریخ انتشار : 1398/07/17

کلید واژه: دلفی فازی, تجزیه‌وتحلیل شبکه‏ای فازی, نوآوری باز, دیماتل فازی, واسطه‏های نوآوری باز,

چکیده مقاله :

این پژوهش به بررسی نقش واسطه های نوآوری باز در تسهیل برقراری ارتباط بین شرکت های صنعتی (متقاضیان فناوری) و شرکت های فناوری محور (ارائه‌دهندگان فناوری) می پردازد. همواره تبادلات فناورانه و رفع نیازهای صنعت با چالش های بسیاری مواجه است. در این میان، وجود نهادی به منظور تسهیل فرآیند تبادل فناوری در جهت افزایش تعاملات از اهمیت بسیاری برخوردار خواهد بود. با این حال، آن گونه که تجارب گذشته نشان می‌‌‌دهد، در کشور ما نهادهای واسطه، عملکرد مناسبی نداشته و تبادلات فناورانه، از شرایطی مطلوبی برخوردار نیست. بدین منظور ارائه الگویی برای راه اندازی چنین نهادی، هدف این پژوهش است. روش استفاده شده در این پژوهش به‌صورت کمی است. در ابتدا کارکردهای نهاد واسطه استخراج شده و سپس با استفاده از تکنیک‎ دلفی فازی کارکرد مناسب برای یک نهاد واسطه در کشور شناسایی و تقسیم بندی شده است. در ادامه اقدام به بررسی اثرگذاری و اثرپذیری و تعیین ارتباطات میان عوامل با استفاده از تکنیک دیمتل فازی کرده و با تکنیک تحلیل شبکه فازی وزن‌دهی و اولویت‌بندی کارکردهامورد بررسی قرار گرفته است.

چکیده انگلیسی:

This research examines the role of open innovation intermediaries in facilitating communication between industrial enterprises (technology applicants) and technology-centric companies (technology providers). There is always a lot of challenges for technology exchanges and the needs of the industry. In the meantime, institutional existence is important to facilitate the process of technology exchange to increase interactions. However, as past experiences show, intermediary institutions in our country have not functioned well, and technological exchanges do not have the desired conditions. To this end, the purpose of this study is to provide a model for setting up such an institution. The method used in this study is quantitative. Initially, the functions of the intermediate entity were extracted and then, using the fuzzy Delphi technique, the proper functioning of an intermediary entity in the country was identified and divided. In the following, we study the effectiveness and effectiveness of the relationship between the factors using the fuzzy demilitarization technique and have been investigated using the Fuzzy Network Analysis Technique for weighting and prioritizing.

منابع و مأخذ:


  1. A glimpse of the developments of the national Iranian market fan, internal report. (2018).
    2.
  2. Abbate, T., Coppolino, R., & Schiavone, F. (2013). Linking Entities in Knowledge Transfer: The Innovation Intermediaries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(3), 233-243. doi:10.1007/s13132-013-0156-5
    3.
  3. Aquilani, B., Abbate, T., & Dominici, G. (2016). Choosing Open Innovation Intermediaries through their web-based platforms. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 16, 35-60.
    4.
  4. Asadifard, Reza; Hadi Hosseini; Farzaneh Shojae and Talebian, Ahmad. (2015). Intermediary Challenges of Technology Exchange between Technology Companies and Industrial Companies in Iran (Case Study; Nanotechnology). The 5th International Conference and Ninth National Conference on Technology Management, Tehran, Iran Technology Management Association.
    5.
  5. Azad, Nasser & Hosseini, Hadi. (2018). A Comparative Study of Open Source Intermediary Institutions. Scientific Journal of Research, New Approaches to Management and Accounting, No. 6
    6.
  6. Bocquet, R., Brion, S., & Mothe, C. (2016). The Role of Cluster Intermediaries for KIBS’ Resources and Innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(S1), 256–277.
    7.
  7. Casali, G. L., Perano, M., & Abbate, T. (2017). Understanding Roles and Functions of Academic Libraries as Innovation Intermediaries within the Service-Dominant Logic Perspective: An Australian Case Study. Journal of Library Administration, 57(2), 135-150. doi:10.1080/01930826.2016.1211400
    8.
  8. Cheng, C.-H., & Lin, Y. (2002). Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. European journal of operational research, 142(1), 174-186.
    9.
  9. Chesbrough, H., & Schwartz, K. (2007). Innovating Business Models with Co-Development Partnerships. Research-Technology Management, 50(1), 55-59. doi:10.1080/08956308.2007.11657419
    10.
  10. Chisbrough, Henry William. (2012). Open Innovation: The New Paradigm of Creation and Commercialization of Technology, Kamran Bagheri and Marzieh Shavardi, Rasa Cultural Service Institute, Tehran, 2nd Edition.
    11.
  11. De Silva, M., Howells, J., & Meyer, M. (2018). Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: Knowledge–based practices and internal value creation. Research Policy, 47(1), 70-87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.011
    12.
  12. Diener, K., & Piller, F. (2010). The Market for Open Innovation Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the innovation process. Aachen RWTH Aachen University.
    13.
  13. Dong, A., & Pourmohamadi, M. (2014). Knowledge matching in the technology outsourcing context of online innovation intermediaries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(6), 655-668. doi:10.1080/09537325.2014.901500
    14.
  14. Elyasi, Mehdi. (2011). A model for the role of intermediary institutions in the development of technological cooperation between enterprises (case study of Iran's Aerospace Industries). Thesis, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabatabaee University, Tehran, Iran.
    15.
  15. Federico, S. (2018). The Role of Technology Centers as Intermediary Organizations Facilitating Links for Innovation: Four Cases of Federal Technology Centers in Mexico. Review of Policy Research, 0(0). doi:doi:10.1111/ropr.12293
    16.
  16. Fossen, K. V., Morfin, J., & Evans, S. (2018). A Local Learning Market to Explore Innovation Platforms. Procedia Manufacturing, 21, 607-614. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.162
    17.
  17. Gasco-Hernandez, M., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2017). Open Innovation and Co-creation in the Public Sector: Understanding the Role of Intermediaries. Paper presented at the International Conference on Electronic Participation.
    18.
  18. Gliedt, T., Hoicka, C. E., & Jackson, N. (2018). Innovation intermediaries accelerating environmental sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 1247-1261. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.054
    19.
  19. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715-728. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
    20.
  20. Intarakumnerd, P., & Chaoroenporn, P. (2013). The roles of intermediaries and the development of their capabilities in sectoral innovation systems: a case study of Thailand. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 21(sup2), 99-114. doi:10.1080/19761597.2013.819249
    21.
  21. Johnson, W. (2008). Resources and benefits of intermediate organizations supporting triple helix collaborative R&D: the case of Precarn. Technovation, 28(8), 495–505.
    22.
  22. Kanbach, D., & Stubner, S. (2016). Corporate Accelerators as Recent Form of Startup Engagement: The What, The Why, And The How (Vol. 32).
    23.
  23. Kivimaa, P., & Martiskainen, M. (2018). Innovation, low energy buildings and intermediaries in Europe: systematic case study review. Energy Efficiency, 11(1), 31-51. doi:10.1007/s12053-017-9547-y
    24.
  24. Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 849-860. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001
    25.
  25. Klerkx, L., Álvarez, R., & Campusano, R. (2015). The emergence and functioning of innovation intermediaries in maturing innovation systems: the case of Chile. Innovation and Development, 5(1), 73-91. doi:10.1080/2157930X.2014.921268
    26.
  26. Kokshagina, O., Le Masson, P., & Bories, F. (2017). Fast-connecting search practices: On the role of open innovation intermediary to accelerate the absorptive capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 232-239. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.009
    27.
  27. Künne, Christoph W. (Ed). (2018). Online Intermediaries for Co-Creation: An Explorative Study in Healthcare (pp. 65-117). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
    28.
  28. Lin, M., & Wei, J. (2018). The impact of innovation intermediary on knowledge transfer. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 502, 21-28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.02.207
    29.
  29. Lopez, H., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2009). How innovation intermediaries are shaping the technology market? An analysis of their business model. Retrieved from: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20458/.
    30.
  30. Lopez-Vega, H., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2009). Connecting open and closed innovation markets: A typology of intermediaries. Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/27017/.
    31.
  31. Lu and et al. (2013). Environmental Strategic Orientations for Improving Green Innovation Performance in Fuzzy Environment - Using New Fuzzy Hybrid MCDM Model. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 15, (3).
    32.
  32. Lukkarinen, J., Berg, A., Salo, M., Tainio, P., Alhola, K., & Antikainen, R. (2018). An intermediary approach to technological innovation systems (TIS)—The case of the cleantech sector in Finland. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 26, 136-146. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.04.003
    33.
  33. Marine, A., Elsa, B., Tobias, F., Pascal, L. M., Blanche, S., Martin, S., Anna, Y. (2017). Explicating the role of innovation intermediaries in the “unknown”: a contingency approach. Journal of Strategy and Management, 10(1), 19-39. doi:doi:10.1108/JSMA-01-2015-0005
    34.
  34. Morgan, E. J., & Crawford, N. (1996). Technology broking activities in Europe – a survey. International Journal of Technology Management, 12(3), 360–367.
    35.
  35. Nell, P. S. V., & Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Innovation intermediaries: a case study of yet2.com. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 7(3), 215-231. doi:10.1504/ijtip.2011.044611
    36.
  36. Ngongoni, C. N., Grobbelaar, S., & Schutte, C. (2017). The Role of Open Innovation Intermediaries in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Design. The South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 28(3), 10. doi:10.7166/28-3-1839
    37.
  37. Nilsson, M., Sia-Ljungström, C. (2013). The Role of Innovation Intermediaries in Innovation Systems”,  International European  Forum, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria, 2013
    38.
  38. Oliver, G., Michael, D., & Ellen, E. (2011). The role of intermediaries in cross‐industry innovation processes. R&D Management, 41(5), 457-469. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00651.x
    39.
  39. Schenk, E., Guittard, C., & Pénin, J. (2017). Open or proprietary? Choosing the right crowdsourcing platform for innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.021
    40.
  40. Shearmur, R., & Doloreux, D. (2018). KIBS as both innovators and knowledge intermediaries in the innovation process: Intermediation as a contingent role. Papers in Regional Science, 0(0). doi:10.1111/pirs.12354
    41.
  41. Stewart, J., & Hyysalo, S. (2008). Intermediaries, users and social learning in technological innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(03), 295-325. doi:10.1142/s1363919608002035
    42.
  42. Tjong Tjin Tai, S.-Y., & Davids, M. (2016). Evolving roles and dynamic capabilities of an innovation agency: the Dutch Rijksnijverheidsdienst, 1910–1940. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(5), 614-626. doi:10.1080/09537325.2015.1126571
    43.
  43. Ulrich, L. (2013). The Collaboration of Innovation Intermediaries and Manufacturing Firms in the Markets for Technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(S1), 142-158. doi:doi:10.1111/jpim.12068
    44.
  44. Van Lente, H., Hekkert, M., Smits, R., & van Waveren, B. (2003). Roles of Systemic Intermediaries in Transition Processes. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(3), 247-279. doi:10.1142/s1363919603000817
    45.
  45. Visser, E.-J., & Atzema, O. (2008). With or Without Clusters: Facilitating Innovation through a Differentiated and Combined Network Approach. European Planning Studies, 16(9), 1169-1188. doi:10.1080/09654310802401573
    46.
  46. Weng, C. S. (2017). Innovation Intermediaries in Technological Alliances. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 14(02), 1740013. doi:10.1142/s0219877017400132
    47.
  47. Yang, J., Tzeng, G. H. (2011). An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method. Expert Systems with Applications.
    48.
  48. Ye, J., & Kankanhalli, A. (2013). Exploring innovation through open networks: A review and initial research questions. IMB Management Review, 25(2), 69-82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2013.02.002
    49.
  49. Zylberberg, E. (2017). Beyond RTO Benchmarking: Towards a Typology of Innovation Intermediaries. MIT-IPC Working Paper 17-002. Retrieved from https://ipc.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2019-01/17-002.pdf
    50.
_||_

  1. A glimpse of the developments of the national Iranian market fan, internal report. (2018).
    2.
  2. Abbate, T., Coppolino, R., & Schiavone, F. (2013). Linking Entities in Knowledge Transfer: The Innovation Intermediaries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(3), 233-243. doi:10.1007/s13132-013-0156-5
    3.
  3. Aquilani, B., Abbate, T., & Dominici, G. (2016). Choosing Open Innovation Intermediaries through their web-based platforms. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 16, 35-60.
    4.
  4. Asadifard, Reza; Hadi Hosseini; Farzaneh Shojae and Talebian, Ahmad. (2015). Intermediary Challenges of Technology Exchange between Technology Companies and Industrial Companies in Iran (Case Study; Nanotechnology). The 5th International Conference and Ninth National Conference on Technology Management, Tehran, Iran Technology Management Association.
    5.
  5. Azad, Nasser & Hosseini, Hadi. (2018). A Comparative Study of Open Source Intermediary Institutions. Scientific Journal of Research, New Approaches to Management and Accounting, No. 6
    6.
  6. Bocquet, R., Brion, S., & Mothe, C. (2016). The Role of Cluster Intermediaries for KIBS’ Resources and Innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(S1), 256–277.
    7.
  7. Casali, G. L., Perano, M., & Abbate, T. (2017). Understanding Roles and Functions of Academic Libraries as Innovation Intermediaries within the Service-Dominant Logic Perspective: An Australian Case Study. Journal of Library Administration, 57(2), 135-150. doi:10.1080/01930826.2016.1211400
    8.
  8. Cheng, C.-H., & Lin, Y. (2002). Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. European journal of operational research, 142(1), 174-186.
    9.
  9. Chesbrough, H., & Schwartz, K. (2007). Innovating Business Models with Co-Development Partnerships. Research-Technology Management, 50(1), 55-59. doi:10.1080/08956308.2007.11657419
    10.
  10. Chisbrough, Henry William. (2012). Open Innovation: The New Paradigm of Creation and Commercialization of Technology, Kamran Bagheri and Marzieh Shavardi, Rasa Cultural Service Institute, Tehran, 2nd Edition.
    11.
  11. De Silva, M., Howells, J., & Meyer, M. (2018). Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: Knowledge–based practices and internal value creation. Research Policy, 47(1), 70-87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.011
    12.
  12. Diener, K., & Piller, F. (2010). The Market for Open Innovation Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the innovation process. Aachen RWTH Aachen University.
    13.
  13. Dong, A., & Pourmohamadi, M. (2014). Knowledge matching in the technology outsourcing context of online innovation intermediaries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(6), 655-668. doi:10.1080/09537325.2014.901500
    14.
  14. Elyasi, Mehdi. (2011). A model for the role of intermediary institutions in the development of technological cooperation between enterprises (case study of Iran's Aerospace Industries). Thesis, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabatabaee University, Tehran, Iran.
    15.
  15. Federico, S. (2018). The Role of Technology Centers as Intermediary Organizations Facilitating Links for Innovation: Four Cases of Federal Technology Centers in Mexico. Review of Policy Research, 0(0). doi:doi:10.1111/ropr.12293
    16.
  16. Fossen, K. V., Morfin, J., & Evans, S. (2018). A Local Learning Market to Explore Innovation Platforms. Procedia Manufacturing, 21, 607-614. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.162
    17.
  17. Gasco-Hernandez, M., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2017). Open Innovation and Co-creation in the Public Sector: Understanding the Role of Intermediaries. Paper presented at the International Conference on Electronic Participation.
    18.
  18. Gliedt, T., Hoicka, C. E., & Jackson, N. (2018). Innovation intermediaries accelerating environmental sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 1247-1261. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.054
    19.
  19. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715-728. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
    20.
  20. Intarakumnerd, P., & Chaoroenporn, P. (2013). The roles of intermediaries and the development of their capabilities in sectoral innovation systems: a case study of Thailand. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 21(sup2), 99-114. doi:10.1080/19761597.2013.819249
    21.
  21. Johnson, W. (2008). Resources and benefits of intermediate organizations supporting triple helix collaborative R&D: the case of Precarn. Technovation, 28(8), 495–505.
    22.
  22. Kanbach, D., & Stubner, S. (2016). Corporate Accelerators as Recent Form of Startup Engagement: The What, The Why, And The How (Vol. 32).
    23.
  23. Kivimaa, P., & Martiskainen, M. (2018). Innovation, low energy buildings and intermediaries in Europe: systematic case study review. Energy Efficiency, 11(1), 31-51. doi:10.1007/s12053-017-9547-y
    24.
  24. Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 849-860. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001
    25.
  25. Klerkx, L., Álvarez, R., & Campusano, R. (2015). The emergence and functioning of innovation intermediaries in maturing innovation systems: the case of Chile. Innovation and Development, 5(1), 73-91. doi:10.1080/2157930X.2014.921268
    26.
  26. Kokshagina, O., Le Masson, P., & Bories, F. (2017). Fast-connecting search practices: On the role of open innovation intermediary to accelerate the absorptive capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 232-239. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.009
    27.
  27. Künne, Christoph W. (Ed). (2018). Online Intermediaries for Co-Creation: An Explorative Study in Healthcare (pp. 65-117). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
    28.
  28. Lin, M., & Wei, J. (2018). The impact of innovation intermediary on knowledge transfer. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 502, 21-28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.02.207
    29.
  29. Lopez, H., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2009). How innovation intermediaries are shaping the technology market? An analysis of their business model. Retrieved from: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20458/.
    30.
  30. Lopez-Vega, H., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2009). Connecting open and closed innovation markets: A typology of intermediaries. Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/27017/.
    31.
  31. Lu and et al. (2013). Environmental Strategic Orientations for Improving Green Innovation Performance in Fuzzy Environment - Using New Fuzzy Hybrid MCDM Model. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 15, (3).
    32.
  32. Lukkarinen, J., Berg, A., Salo, M., Tainio, P., Alhola, K., & Antikainen, R. (2018). An intermediary approach to technological innovation systems (TIS)—The case of the cleantech sector in Finland. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 26, 136-146. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.04.003
    33.
  33. Marine, A., Elsa, B., Tobias, F., Pascal, L. M., Blanche, S., Martin, S., Anna, Y. (2017). Explicating the role of innovation intermediaries in the “unknown”: a contingency approach. Journal of Strategy and Management, 10(1), 19-39. doi:doi:10.1108/JSMA-01-2015-0005
    34.
  34. Morgan, E. J., & Crawford, N. (1996). Technology broking activities in Europe – a survey. International Journal of Technology Management, 12(3), 360–367.
    35.
  35. Nell, P. S. V., & Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Innovation intermediaries: a case study of yet2.com. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 7(3), 215-231. doi:10.1504/ijtip.2011.044611
    36.
  36. Ngongoni, C. N., Grobbelaar, S., & Schutte, C. (2017). The Role of Open Innovation Intermediaries in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Design. The South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 28(3), 10. doi:10.7166/28-3-1839
    37.
  37. Nilsson, M., Sia-Ljungström, C. (2013). The Role of Innovation Intermediaries in Innovation Systems”,  International European  Forum, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria, 2013
    38.
  38. Oliver, G., Michael, D., & Ellen, E. (2011). The role of intermediaries in cross‐industry innovation processes. R&D Management, 41(5), 457-469. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00651.x
    39.
  39. Schenk, E., Guittard, C., & Pénin, J. (2017). Open or proprietary? Choosing the right crowdsourcing platform for innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.021
    40.
  40. Shearmur, R., & Doloreux, D. (2018). KIBS as both innovators and knowledge intermediaries in the innovation process: Intermediation as a contingent role. Papers in Regional Science, 0(0). doi:10.1111/pirs.12354
    41.
  41. Stewart, J., & Hyysalo, S. (2008). Intermediaries, users and social learning in technological innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(03), 295-325. doi:10.1142/s1363919608002035
    42.
  42. Tjong Tjin Tai, S.-Y., & Davids, M. (2016). Evolving roles and dynamic capabilities of an innovation agency: the Dutch Rijksnijverheidsdienst, 1910–1940. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(5), 614-626. doi:10.1080/09537325.2015.1126571
    43.
  43. Ulrich, L. (2013). The Collaboration of Innovation Intermediaries and Manufacturing Firms in the Markets for Technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(S1), 142-158. doi:doi:10.1111/jpim.12068
    44.
  44. Van Lente, H., Hekkert, M., Smits, R., & van Waveren, B. (2003). Roles of Systemic Intermediaries in Transition Processes. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(3), 247-279. doi:10.1142/s1363919603000817
    45.
  45. Visser, E.-J., & Atzema, O. (2008). With or Without Clusters: Facilitating Innovation through a Differentiated and Combined Network Approach. European Planning Studies, 16(9), 1169-1188. doi:10.1080/09654310802401573
    46.
  46. Weng, C. S. (2017). Innovation Intermediaries in Technological Alliances. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 14(02), 1740013. doi:10.1142/s0219877017400132
    47.
  47. Yang, J., Tzeng, G. H. (2011). An integrated MCDM technique combined with DEMATEL for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method. Expert Systems with Applications.
    48.
  48. Ye, J., & Kankanhalli, A. (2013). Exploring innovation through open networks: A review and initial research questions. IMB Management Review, 25(2), 69-82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2013.02.002
    49.
  49. Zylberberg, E. (2017). Beyond RTO Benchmarking: Towards a Typology of Innovation Intermediaries. MIT-IPC Working Paper 17-002. Retrieved from https://ipc.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2019-01/17-002.pdf
    50.

سکوی نشر دانش

سند یا سکوی نشر دانش ،سامانه ای جهت مدیریت حوزه علمی و پژوهشی نشریات دانشگاه آزاد می باشد

پیوندهای سایت

مراکز مرتبط

پشتیبانی

صفحات رسمی

حقوق این وب‌سایت متعلق به سامانه مدیریت نشریات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی است.
حق نشر © 1403-1400

صفحه اصلی| عضویت/ ورود| درباره سند| تماس با ما|
[English] [العربية] [en] [ar]