u7 EYtıj,o

a

iş,: is*. ş,ı*ğ

3rd lıte-rnotlonolMon açene..t lnformotion Systu ms Confq.ra.ncq,,6-B Octc6e.r 2016, lzmir

CONFERENCEPROCEEDİNGS

aoa

DİLDİRİLERa

KıTADI.ş§

3. UluslororosıYonztim Dılışım Sıs tz,mleli Ko nf e,ronsı

§

2o16İzmlr

.:"§" ı ,",']__ ;.J-§rcffiffi

BILDIRILER K]TABI

TEKNOLOJİ GELiŞTiRME BöLGELERİNDE İNOVASYON sTRATEıir-nnİ:

sAKARyA TEKNoKENT önNnĞi

İzzet KILINÇI, Aslıhan ÜNAllrDüzce Üniversitesi

özİnovasyon giiniimüz iş diinyasında rekabetin anahtarıdır ve almr zamanda varoluş amaçlarr inovasyon

yapmak olan Teknokentlerin can damandır. Bu araştrrmanın amacı, SakaryaTeknokent A.Ş.'de faaiiyet gösteren

işletmelerin inovasyon stratejilrini Venkatraman (l989)'ın 6 stratejik yönelim boyufunu -saldırganlık, anaiiz,sawnuculuk, gelecekçilik, proaktiflikverisktilik- dikkate alarak belirlemektir. Bu amaçla Sakarya Teknokent'tefaaliyet gösteren firmalarda görev yapan 4 işletnıe sahibi yöneticive 7 yetkili yönetici ile yarı biçimlendirilmişgörüşmeler geçekleştirilmiştir. Bu yolla elde edilen veriye, içerik analizi uygulanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, SakaryaTeknokent'teki işletmelerin çoğunlukla saıunmacl ve proaktifstratejiyi benimsedikleri belirlanmiştir. Analiz,gelecekçilik ve risklilik boyutları da etkin olarak uygulanmaktadr.

Anahtar Keümeler: İrrovasyon stratejisi, teknoloji geliştirme bölgesi, teknokent, içerik analizi

INNOVATION STRATEGIES IN TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AREAS:

CASE OF SAKARYA TEKNOKENT

Abstract

Innovation is the kelstone of competitiveness in today's business world as well as lifeblood ofente4)rises in technocities, as their purpose of existence is to innovate. In this research, it was aimed to defineirınovation stategies of enterprises in Sakarya Teknokentlnc (ST)., regarding into Venkafaman's (1989) 6

dimensions: aggressiveness, analysis, defensiveness, futurity, proactiveness, and riskiness. For this pulpose,semistructured interviews were conducted with 4 owner-managers and 7 authorized-managers ofenterprises inST. Content Analysis was applied to the data. As a result, it was defined that enterprises in ST mostly adopt

defensive arıd proactive strategy. Analysis, futurity, aıd riskiness dimensions are also adopted efficiently.Kelıı,ords: Inııovation strategy, technology development areas, technocity, content analysis

INTRODUCTION

"The best way to predict the fufuIe is to invent it", A popular quote from an educator, a

computing pioneer, an inventor Alan Kay who conceived of innovations as laptop or graphicalinterfaces yeals before they realizeğ and also combined his engineering brilliance with knowledge ofchild development, epistemology, molecular biology and more (www.ted.com). His quoted words andthe way he followed in achieviıg success expfesses excellently "how an idea can fum into value".Minds feeding from different sources gains different point of views and generate new ideas. Theseideas arouse willing people, gather around a common vision, and bring financial gain that is almostovershadowed with excitement of producing a novel thing. That is the way ofinnovating. ln today'sworld entelprises should innovate be successful, to be competitive, and to be leader in market.

Technoparks are the centels that support irınovation and Resealch & Development (R&D)activities. The first technopark in world -Stanford Research Park- was found in North California,USA, and after spread worldwide. The number of technoparks in a country is associated with itstechnology production. Technoparks are defined with various teıms in different countries according totheir structure as; "research park" in USA, "science park" in England, and "Technopolis" in Japan(Harmancı and Önen, 1999).

In Turkey, foundation activities of Technoparks started at 1980s. As a result of these efforts,Technology Centers were established in 1990 with collaboration of Small and Medium Industry

135

PROCEEDINGS

Development Organüation (KOSGEB) and universities. Legislative framework was con§tituted in2001 as the 4697 numbered law went into effect, and technoparks were defined as "TechnologyDevelopment Areas (TDA)" (www. TGBT. org.tr). According to the law "Technology developmentareas are technoparks or technocİtİes İn a specİfic unİversİty, advanced technology instifutions, orResearch & Development (R&D) center where the firms employed or oriented to high technology thatproduce/develop software or technology by benefiting from opporfunities of the same universi§,advanced technology in§tifute, or (R&D) center of institute; operate for transforming a technologicalinvention to a commercial product, methoğ or service, and conlribute to regional devetopment by thisway" (TeknolojiGeliştirmeBölgeleriUygulamaYönetmeliğ, 2014). Within the scope of this law, 64TDAs were establisheğ and 50 of them actively operating as of May, 2016 (BTGM, 2016).

It is obvious that innovation is essential for TDAs, and TDAs are essential for innovationactivities. Therefore, enterprises operating in TDAs should adopt an innovation strategy in order tosurvive. The purpose of this research is to determine innovation strategies of TDAs in SakaryaTeknokent by following a qualitative methodology.

T Hf,o RETICAL BAc KGRO ıJND

Innovation

Godin's (2008) project on history of innovation starts with a quote from Mandeville's TheFable of the Bees: "We have a Violent Fondness for change, and greater eagerness after Novelties".These words summarize excellently the pushing power and excitement of newness. Giüng bidh tonew ideas and contributing to their traısformation process to value: "Innovation"- the crucialcompetitive advantage in today's dynamic and furbulent era. The change have never been so rapiğand the new ideas have never become old such faster through the history.

And in business world that is able to capture the nove§ is a powerfiıl canüdate for being theMaster of the market. As Porter and Ketels (2003) stated that a high and increasing level ofproductivity and innovation is indicator of competitiveness. The most important source of dynamicimprovement in productivity is the creation and commercialization of new information.

Although inıovation is an ambiguous concept and attributed to different definitions, it isobvious that "new idea" and "value" -commonly associated wiü commercialization- are the basiccomponents. Besİdes, every İnventİon İs not accepted as an innovation (Unal and Krlınç, 2016). So,how it was defined in literafure? Although the term of "innovation', used to define "unusual andextraordinary" things from l880s, none ofthem has been as influential as the Schumpeter.Accordingto Schumpeter, innovation is a "process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes theeconomic structure from withiıı, İncessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one".(Sledzik, 2013:90), lJK Department ofTrade and Industry in1998, preferred a broad definition "Thesuccessful exploitation of new ideas" (Adams et.al. 2006: 22) and, widely accepted one the OsloManual definition: "Aı irınovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product(good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new organızatioıal method in businesspractices, workplace organization or external relations" (OECD andEC 2005: 46).

Strategy

The term "strategy" is originally a military tefm that derived from the ancient Greek word"strategos" -art of army general (Mintzberg, 1987), and has been used in business world after WorldWar II, as retired army offrcşs went into business. Soldiers brought with them some arrny terms, andstrategy is the most adopted orıe (Drejer, 2002). *Strategİ' has interpreted variously tkough historicaldevelopmerıt of strategic manageın€nt fıeld. As Harı*rick and Fredericson (2001: 48) stated "Strategyhas become a catchall term used to mean whatevo on€ wants it to mean".

The founder ofstrategic ffınagement field, Ansoff(1965: 106) defined strategy as "a rule formaking decisions", and it differs froırı policy a§ strategy is a contingent decisiorı. The ğpical

BILDIKILER KITABI

definition in literature is Chandler's (1962:13) "Strategy is the determination of the basic long-termgoals of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the ailocation of resources necessalyfor carrying out these goals" (p.13), Mintzberg (1978:934) introduced a new insight to literafure bydefining shategy as "a patteın in a stream of decisions." Hamel emphasized revolution in strategyconcept(l996:70) "Strategy is revolution; everything else is tactics!"Kıiınç et a|. (2012: 13)introduceda philosophic definition depending on Tao thought and Sun Tzu's principles "Deep knowledge, strongaction".

A1l these definitions reflect different point of view, and proves that there is not a specificdefinition. Even though researchers attribute different meanings to sffategy, its most common andbroad definition is "the way". Strategy is "the way to the aim"-

Innovation Strategies

As stated previously, innovation is the crucial competitive advantage in today's businessworld, So, organizations should innovate, and adopt a strategy either deliberate or emergent. The wayorganizations follow while innovating is their innovation strategy. On Table 1, ilınovation stfategydefinitions fıom literafure are shown:

Table 1. Definitions of Innovation Strategy

Author(s'| Definition of Innovation stratesı

Gilbeıt ( l994) Innovation strategy detemines to what degree and I what way a fimattempts to 6e imovation to execute its business strategy.

Firth and Narayanan(1 996)

We focus our analysis on realized strategies at the firm level, and hencedefine a frrm's new product strategy as the aggregate patten of productinhoductions that that emerqe from the fim over time.

Dyer and Song (1998)Innovation strategy, defined as the new product and maket developmentplans of the fim...

Vahs (2002)

Innovation strategy contains the strategic goals md activities for theproduct md process imovations aimed at. [Subsequently Vüs discrıssesl-Innovation strategy defined as functional oI meta strategy.-Innovation stratew as malket entrv or timins stratery.

Hauschildt (2004)

Innoyation strategies [formulated via questions]-Aim at om imovations at all? Imitate or not imovate at all?- Iınovation on own or in cooperation with others?-Imovation as permanent task or one ofproject(s)?-hmovation as core task ofthe firm?

Source:Strecker, N. (2009). Innovation Strategy and Firm Performance: An empirical sfudy ofpublicly listedfirms. Wissenschaft: Gabler. p.16

Definitions plesented on Table 1 emphasizes in what way the firms innovate, and fof sure there is nota common stlategy that firms adopt in this process. Researchers introduced classificationsanddimensions ofbusiness strategy regarding into innovationas presented on Table 2.

I37

Table 2. Classifications of Business Strategies

Author(§) classifications

Ansoffmd Stewrd (1967)' First to the market, follow the mket leader, applied engineering, develop me-too Droducts.

(1q1^\a offensive^ defemive- imitative. denendent. traditional. oooorhınisticMiles and Snow (l97tl) a Prosnective- defender. analuer- reactor.

Urbarı and Hauser (1980)'Gilbert (1994) "

Reactive imovation stTategy: Responsive, imitative, second-but-better,defensive.Proactive innovation stratery: R&D baseğ entrepreneufial, acquisitive, maketbased.

Porter (1980) "Cost leadersbip (imovation follower)product differentiation based on irırıovations (imovation leadership)

Cooper (1984)"Ethnology oriented, balancer, techıologically insufEcient, low budgetconseruative- hish budset

t ambkin (1988) 'Hultink andRobben (1995) "

Technological innovator, rapid copier, cost reducer.

Venkatraman (1989) "Morgan and Strons (1998)'

Aggressiveness, malysis, defensiveness, futurity, proactiveness, riskrness

Johne and Snelson (l990)' Traditional asset-based market-based

Wright, Kroll, hingle and Johrıson(1990İPame1. Lester and Menefee (2000)"

Prospector, defbnder, ffialwr, reactor, balancer.

Mmu (1992)"Manu and Sriram ('l996)u

Product imovator, plocess imovator, late enterer, non-imovator, origimlinitiators.

Gilbett (l 994) proactive innovation stratesv. reactive imovation stratee\

Firth and Narayanan (1996) b The imovators, investors in technology, searching for new mmkets, business as

usual. middle-of-the-road

Motohashi (1998)bHigh-tech and in-house R&D, hightech and open R&D, techıology dependent,intemedirv. traditional industry

Lrmn and Mazzuca (1998)' Customer orienteğ process oriented, initiator oriente4 leaıing oriented

Veugelers and Cassimm (1999)" Producing of innovation itself. purchasins of imovation, hybrid strategy

Roger (2001)' First to market, rapid follower, niche player, response to changing marketneeds and wants

Hauschildt (2004)bOutsourcing of innovation, inıovating at-house

Johnson (2010)" The Four Box Business Mode1 Framework: Customer value proposition , profitfomul a_ kev resources_ kev processes

Rasheed (2012)d

7 keys:Anticipate a futue of disruption, intentionally create disruption, inspirec.reative iıtelligence, create a sustainable business model, cultivate minıovation ecosystem, engage with collaborative technology, make innovationviral

Şatpathy, Agrawal md Molrapatm(2015)e

Piormer, fast follower, imitative, dependent, Low-cost, specialization

Sourceş:a. Akman, G. and Yılmz, C. (2008). Inıovative capability, imovatiotr strutegy and mrket orientation: an empirical amlysis inTukish softrue indusw,lntemational Jounal of Innovation Management, 12(01),69-1ll.

b.Streckeı N. (2009). Imovation shategy and Fim Pqfomnce: An empirical sfudy of publicly listed fms. Wissosçhaft: Gablo. (p. 21)

c.Rasheeğ H. (2012). Iınovation Strategy: Seven Keys to CTetive Ledership and a Sustairble Innovation. Bloomington: iUnivose. (p.

u-xxi)

d.Johason, M.V. (2010). Seüing üe Wlıite Space: Business Model Imovation for Glowth md Renewal. Boston, Massachusetts: HryaIdBusin€ss Press. (p.24)

Satpathy, A., Agrawal, A. and Mohapatra, S. (20l 5). Imovation Stratery fol EntelpTises in Emerging Economies: Case Studies for DigitalAge. UK: Emoald. (p.6l{2).

138

BLLDLNLER rır,qıı

Classifications presented on Table 2, genera||y defines the strategies adopted by organizationsin new product development and irınovation process, and categorizes them for their features. Besides,Johnson (201i) and Rasheed (2012) introduces frameworks and keys to managers for successfulinnovations. Among these classifications, especially Miles and Snow's (1978) and Venkatraman's(1989) tlpologies draw considerable interest in literature, and subjected to many researches(Hambrick, 1983; Parnell and Wright, 1993; Bergeron and Raymond, 1995; Bergeıon et a1., 2000;O'Reagean and Ghobadian, 2006; Karabulut, 20 1 5 ).

Miles and Snow, proposed a strategic typology defining that which strategiesorganizationsfollow in solving their entrepreneurial, engineering and administrative problems in organizationaladaptation process, and defined 4 §pes of organization: The Defender, "deliberately enacts andmaintains an environment for which a stable form of organizalion is appropriate"; the Prospectol"enacts an environment that is more dynamic those of other §pes of organizatiorıs within the sameindustry". The Analyzer "is a unique combination of Prospector and Defender §pes, a true analyzer isan organization that attempts to minimize risk while maximizing the opporfunity for profit", and theReactor, "exhibits a pattern of adjustment to its environment that is both inconsistent and unstable"(Miles et a1., 19'78:550-557).

Venkatraman (1989) defined 6 dimensions of strategic orientation: aggressiveness, analysis,defensiveness, futuülty, proactiveness, and riskiness. The definitions and items of 6 dimensions arepresented on Table 3.

Table 3. Venkatraman's (1989) 6 dimensions of strategic orientation

Definitionş Tndicators of Dimensions

ğ

Thç po§tWe adopted by an olganiation in its allocation ofresources in oldğ to improve its ffiket position faster thaıits competitorŞ in the target milket.

l. Sacrificing Fofitability to gain marketshare2. cutting prices to incrca§g mlket shale3. setting prices below Çompetition4, Seeking miket shale position at theexpense of cash flow atrd profitability

The postue of overall problem solving, an importantchalacteIistic of the olganizational decision-making,tendency to sealching fol loots ofproblems and finding bestpossible altemative solutions (Mi1lo aıd FrieseD, 1984).This dimension also emphasizes comprehen§ivenes§ tait(Irederickson, 1984), md refeIs to the extffit of intemlconsistency mong resource allocation and achieved goals.Thç importmt point here is that it is different ftom"analysis" behayior of Miles and Snow Typology (1978)that was defined in the mid-Imge oI balanÇe between'nııelwrosnecJino' anı]'nure]vdefensive' behavior

1. Emphasize effective coordination amongdifferent functional aeas2 . Infomation systems provide §upport foT

decision making3. When confronted wiıh a major decision,we usally try to develop üorough malysis4. U§e of planningtechniqugs5. Use of theoutput of managementinfomation m contIol systems

a

The dimereion refqs to det'ensive behavio (Miles aıdSnow, 1978) of organizations as to§t rçductim, effrciecyseeking method§, defending core technology (Thoıap6e,1967), and concept of domain defense (N4iles aıd Cama,1982).

1. Signifıcant modificati@s to themanufacturing technology2. Use of cost contol systens for mmitğingperfomance3, Use of producıion mmagenmt ıechniques4. Emphasis on produçt s.e+ity th.sgh th€ll.c

^f ^İolifr, .if.]Aa

The dimension reflects temporal considodics iı keystategic decisions, in terms of ıelative emphaeis o,{ lo1r-tem considentions vtrsus shortef-term cmidşıtir.Folecasting §ales, customğ preferences, fornnl ka<tha ofenviromental trends are emphasized in orgmiatix ıdoçlfufurity.

1 Our criteria fol reerce a[ocatiğgenerally leflect Short-tffi crcıdtrr*iffiter}b2. We emphasize basic regch t€ F§ideus with fufuıe competitive e*€3. Fuecasting key indicatğş of o?9n{ie§4 Fomal tacking of sigtiificşa geffidtrend§( ıllrL.l if .-"].."i"

^f ^;t;ü.r_^c

l39

PROCEEDINGS

This dimension leflects proactive behavior in relation topanicipatiQn in emergrng industries, continuous sealchfolmalket opportmities md eıpefimentation With potential

responses to chmging enviromental tmds (Miles and

Snow, l978).

L. Constantly seeking new opporhrnitiesıelated to the present operations2. Usually the fu§t one§ to introduce new

blands oI products in the malket3. Constantly on thelookoutfolbusine§sesthatcan be acquired4. Competito$ geneally preempt us byexnandins caDacitv ahead ofthem

This dimension reflects to what extent an olganization take

risk in resource allocation decisios, choice ofproducts andmatkets-

1. ouT opeIations can be genelallycharacterized as high-risk2 , we seem to adopt a ruther consetrativeview when naking mjor deçisions3. New projects are approved on a "stage-by-stage" basis nthel than with "blanket"approval4. A tendency to §upport plojeÇts whel€ the

expected retums aIe celtain (rev)

5. Opelations have generally followed the

"tried and tfue" paths

Table 3 was formed bv authoİs utilizing Venkatraman, N. (1989). Stfategic orlentatlon ot businessSource: Table 3 was formed byenterprises: The construct, dimensionality, and measureınent. Management science, 35(8), 942,962

Researches on lnnovation Strategies in Turkey

Some researchers were conducted to examine innovation capabilities, innovation strategies,

rglationships between them and their effect on olganizatİon's performance İı vafİous sectors İn

Turkey. Deniz (2008) defined that Small and Medium Enterprises (SME$ in Malatya were awafe ofand had the knowledge of innovation has a role in improving and protecting ıTrarket share, however

did not prefer agglessiveness as a primary sfoategy for being initiator in market, and mostly adopt

defensiveness. Akman and Yılrnaz (2008) conducted a research on Turkish software organizations and

found that strategies 'proactiveness, analysis and futufity' that were adopted by firms have positive

effect on innovation capability.Örücü et al. (20ll) examined the innovation strategies of SMEs inBalıkesir Organized Industrial Site, and defined that organizations mostly adopted defensive strategy.

çetinkaya-Bozkurt and Kalkan (2014) found that SMEs in Burdur adopted aıalıyz* and defendel

strategy. Karabulut (2015) conducted a research on 197 manufacfuring organizations (185 ofthemwere SMEg) and found that organizations mostly adopted defensive strategy to improve innovation

capability.

Research results indicate that organizations in Turkey in vafious sectors mostly adopt a

defensive strategy in developing new products. The researches were conducted on sectoral basİs, and

there is not an in-depth research especially conducted on Technology Development Areas' innovation

sfuategies fegarding into Venkatraman's (1989) dimensions that constitutes orİgİnality ofthis research.

METHODOLOGYResearch Goıl

The goal of this research is to determine innovation strategies of the enterprises operating inST. Therefore, the answer ofthe following research question was searched:

RQ: Which dimension(s) of Venkatraman (1989)'s typologı adopted by enteıpises in ST forinnovating?

Sımple ınd DraıFgf, this purpose we contacted with management of ST and received their permission about

Iesearch. Sakarya Teknokent lrrc. was found in 2@9 and has been opelating since 2010 in technology

development a(ea in Sakarya University. Its rnain service is to provide qualifıed offlces to

organizatiofts for research and development activities or provide land to organizations that want to

140

BILDIRILER KITABI

build their own buildings according to build-operate transfer model. 63 firms operate in SakaryaTeknokent (ST) in total and 18 of them belong to academicians (www.sakaryateknokent.com).

After approval, we communicated with the owner managers and authorized eı"nployees of eachenterprise. 11 ofthem accepted our interview request and included in research sample. Main interestsof the owner-managers of the enteıprises were business life and none of them were academicians.Descriptive features of enterprises are displayed on Table 4.

Table 4. Descriptive Features of Enterprises

Enterprises Participant's position Number of staff Field of ActivityEı Oma-mareger 4 SoftwreEı Omer-manager 4 SoftwareEı Omer-mamger R&DEı Authorized-:ımageı sottwileEs 9 R&DEt Anti 25 R&DEı Authorized-manago 25 SoftweEt Authorüed-lrmasğ 2 R&DEo t0 SoftwaeEıo Omo-mmager 5 Soflware

Erı Authorized-ü]magğ t0 R&D

Semi-strucfured interview methodology was followed in data gathering process. A qualitativeapploach was preffered İn order to get "toget a more İn-depthunderstanding of theideasandviews of apefson" (Schiller, 2006: 35). The intended pulpose of interview methodology in qualitative research isto reğard the subject ofthe feseafch in lens ofparticipants, and hy to understand how they gained thatpoint of view. Preparing the interview forr4 defining most of the question§ before the interviews, andallowing open-ended questions are the determinant featues of semi-strucfured interviews. (King,2004). Following that methodology, semi-strucfured interviews were conducted with 4 owner-managefs and7 aıthorızed rrıanagers, İn theİr offıces. 10 open ended çestions supported by probeswas addressed to participants. Question form was prepared fegarding Venkatraman (1989)'s 6 basicdimensions: Aggressiveness, analysis, defensiveness, futufity, ploactiveness and riskiness, and thescale that Akman aııdYı|maz (2008) used in their sfudy in order to measure dimensions of innovationstrategy, was utilized in this period. Besides these 10 questions, §ome othef questions were asked tothe participants that emerged in an improvisational manner during the interview. A flexible approachwas followed. Before starting to interview, permis§ion of participants were taken for using audiorecorder in order to prevent data lost. 2 partİcİpants did not accept this request and üat interviewrecords were taken as notes by the researcher. The irıteıviews conducted through May 2076, and, eachof the interviews took on average 30 minutes.

Content Analysis

After interview process was completed content analysis was applied to the data. Contentanalysis is widely used reseafch methodology that is classified under several titles as qualitative andquantitative content analysis, inductive aııd deductive contğf analysis (Kondracki and Wellman,2002), conıentional, directed, and summatiye content analysis(Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). Majordifferences among these classifications are related to coding schemes, ofigins of codes, and threads totrustworthiness. Despite the differences emerged from the methodology followed content analysis canbe generally defined as "interpreting meaning from the content of teü, data, and adhere to thenaturalistic paradigm" (Hsieh and Shanon, 2a05: 1277).

In this research a summative and deductive approach was followed that a predeterminedcontent (Venkatraman's 6 dimentions of strategic orientation) was §earched and counted in in thedata), additionally the findings were interpreted and quotes from participants was utilized to support

l41

PROCEEDINGS

the findings. In analyzing plocess following 8 steps was followed accofding to Zhaııg and Wildemuth(20i0):

l"t Step: The data was prepared: After interview process completed, 9 audio records and 2drafts were deciphered into Word documents.

2"d Step: The units of analysis defined: A11 11 Word documents included in analysis

completely.

3d Step: Categories and a coding scheme was developed: The scale of dimensions ofinnovation strategies modif,ıed by Yılmaz and Akman (2008) -presented on Table 5- related to

Venkatraman's 6 dimensions was defined as a pre-determined coding scheme.

4'1'Step: Coding scheme was tested on a sample of text: The items of the coding scheme were

searched in the text of the first interview, and evaluated whether the data meet the items, and to what

extent the items reflect the data.

5r Step: A11 the documents were coded:11 documents were coded according to pre-determined

coding scheme.

6'h Step: Coding consistency was assessed: Consistency of coding tfuough the data was

rechecked.

7'h Step: Conclusions was drawn from the data: The coding scheme and number of the

enterprises that meet the codes was formed and presented on Table 5. Each of the enterprİses was

represented with the capital E and random numbers from 1 to 1 1, as El:Enteıprise l .

8thStep: Findings were reported: Findings presented on Table 5, interpreted according toparticipants' explanations and supported with quotes in some places.

FINDINGS

Table 5 displays the distribution of enteıprises according to items.

Table 5. Distribution of Enteıprises for Venkatraman's 6 Dimensions

Dimen§ion§ of Innovation strategy Enterpri§e§ Total

AGRİSsI\.ENEssprice is decreased aeouentlv to increase market §hue E-10

Pricinq below comDetthve Dflc€ E-l, 2, 3

Satrifice pfofit§ in ordei to introduce a new product to the market

@rliel than competitols

E-l. 2. ]

ANAIYSIS (in new Eoduct development activities)

coordination between ditlbrent department§ üS very lmportant to

be successful

E-I,2,3,4,1 ,8,9, 1l 8

While making a decision, infomtion systems of the ffmDIovide an effiaient suDDort

E-2,4,1, 11 4

We use anahtical methods for decision-making E-2. 3. 6. 7. 8.1 1 6

I Isins vaıious nlannins technioues E-2. 3. 4. 8. 9. 10^ 1 1 7

DEFENSIVENEss (To compete competitor§' new ploducts)

Makins chaneeş in product develoDment method sometines E-2,3.4,6, 8 5

Developing quality and perfomance of cmetrt ploduct§ E,|.2,3,4. 6.1 .8.9 8

l §inp modern manapement technioues F,-l,2,3,4,5, 6. 7. 8. 9.1 1 t0

Teamwork approach to producrprorc§s development pIoJec1 E-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,] 0. l l i]FUTLrRITYour firm is futwe oriented E-l,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 9

ou fiIm investigates continually for potential ploducts E:2.3.4" 5.6. 7. 8. 9. 1 1 9

our fiIm trY to forecast befolehand future maİkçt trends E-2.3.8.9. 11 5

I42

aiıniüma rirnı

Mğk€ting lesearÇh activities focus on acquidng knowledgeabout futue customer needs

E-|,2,3,4,5,6,7,1| 8

PROACTIVENESSour fm is an initiator for deEnjns new Droduct in the rorket E-3, 5, 7, 8, l0, l 1 6

oU fim reseilches Dew DroducI oDDorfunitieS continuallv E-2.3-5-6-7-9.1| ,1

Imovation activitieş ue encouaged in ow fim E-l.2.3.4,5,6,7.8" 9" 10. l1 l1ou fim use new product approach to compete its competitors E_3,7,8,9, l0, l1 6ou lim tries to be initiato! against competitors about producingnew Droduct md ide§

E-2,3,5,6"7,8,10,11 8

RISKTNESSwe ilpport to develop trew prcduct that tre wcceşşful mdmakes a profit most certaiıly

E-|,2,4,5,6,7,10, 11 8

we act with deliboatiotr when make a deci§ion about developinga new product

E-l, 3, 4, 5, 6"7,8, l0, 11 9

lmovalon acnvlnes are seen as verv n*y E-l. 2.4. 8. 9. l0 6]movation activities ale not accepted apploach None 0

Table 5 indicates that enterprises distributed among dimensions closely, exceptaggressiveness, but clustering İs higher especially on defensiveness and proactiveness in all items.

Aggressiveness

Enterprises in ST commonly adopt a low-price behavior especially in first entrance to market.As they gain expefience in time, they tend to price around the market price. Costs and project time,number of staff, market demand, and competitors' price are effective factors in defining product'sprice. Especially software enterprises that produce original products according to customer's demand,market prİce is'not so effective in price policy, irstead customers are effective on price as they referthe product to their environment. Specification prevents competition, enterprises compete not on pricebut on options they added to their products that are useful for their cu§tomers.

Analysis

Marketing research plays a signifıcant role in enterprises' decision making process for a newproduct development activity. Requiremerıts and expectations of customers, market share of similarproducts, trading volume of market are evaluated carefully. Consulting to academicians and expertsfrom the fielğ referring to statistical data, pilot practices, customer feedbacks are effective façtors thatenterprİses refer İn thİs period. Coordination among different departınents is also one of the importantpoints in new product development activities, but providing coordination is not a difficult task forenterprises in ST because oftheir small-scaled structure. In most enterprises, there is a flat-hierarchicenvironment that departınents ale not sçarated certainly. Therefore, the information flows quicklythrough the enterprise andsure, sales dçartment steps forward in gathering the voice of customer.Experience of the owner-manager in field is another significant factor in decision making in means ofobserving and evaluating the market and predicting the future performance of the product.

Defensiveness

In competing competitors' new products, enterprises in ST prefer improving performance andquality of their crırrent product rather than changing their product development technics; as trying newproduct methods require additional financial soürces, training and adapting staff to new methods.Enterprises especially prefer to introduce new options and features to their customers in order to stepforward in competition. Introducing products nrcdified specifically for customers' requirernents alsoprovides customef loyalty and reliance.

Teamwork approach is aıother advantage in competition, as all the participant §tated thatteamwork is essential to provide harmony and to rely on the product they introduce to the market.Modern management technics as encouraging supporting, participating accessibility are commonlyadopted by owner mııluıgers that are effective in fostering team spirit. An owner-manager's wordsexpre§ses teamwork's role in gaining competitive advantage as:

143

PROCEEDINGS

" ... For example, a family coınpany... You hıow a traditional m(lnqgement Style is adoPted in

such companies: the boss and the employees working under him. You cannot see 'a team' there.

However, the products that you produced with a team spirit, with consultation provide You asignfficant advantage in the market..."

Futurity

Almost all of the paıticipants defined their enterprise as "future oriented". They follow market

trends, new foreign products and theiI domestic modifications, and try to forecast fufure expectatİons

and requirements of customers. They take into account how will the condition of market, trends, and

also improvements in countries and world's economic and socioiogic behaviors be in the future.

Howeveİ, besides these efforts, participants state that it is not very possible to forecast future

conditions due to Turkey's strategic position in world, and global İnteractİons, asan ownel-manager

expressed:

"... Eyen the slightest crisis outbreak today, may affect our target sector quickly and lead to

trouble. In today's world eveıything is global. Troubles not only in Turkey but whereyer in the World

can get reaction quickly in our countıy. Although Turlrey improves preventing mechanisms in itself, is

influenced unavoidably ... "

Such unpredictability also affects enterprises negatively as it causes lack of motivation and

hopelessness among the staff, especially when a new ploject cannot succeed because ofthese market

conditions.

proactiveness

proactiveness is the most adopted dimension - with defensiveness- in all items as indicated inTab|e 2. Almost a1l of the participants defined their enterprise as an "initiator" in introducing new

products to the market. Innovation activities are encouraged and staffs are supported for generatİng

new ideas. Transforming new ideas to value is accepted main prrrpose of enterprise and lifeblood ofcompetition. An owner manager's answel expresses very we1l the harmony of presence of techrrocities

and requirement of innovation:

",.. Ifwe do not encourage innovation, we would not be in Tehıokent..."

lnnovation perception of enterprises in ST is commonly center on the view to obserwe and

follow foreign markets' new products closely and to match them with domestic market's demand.

Modifizing the product and adding new options specific for customer's requirements steps forward inthis process. As an owner manager stated "We do not rediscoyer America!"

Riskiness

Although innovation accepted as a powerful tool to be competitive, it is seen also a ris§activity by enterprises. However as seen on Table 5, none of the paıticipants stated innovationactivitİes and new ideas were suppressed. Innovation is encouraged, as mentioned before it is their

pulpose of being ST: to irrnovate and be an initiator. The important point here is they innovate

delİberately. Customer satisfaction is always in the forefront and they invest on products after

evaluating market conditions carefuliy, consulting to experts in the field and keeping a Plan-B on

standby in order to launch when things go ı^rong-as an owner manager stated:

" .... You should not fall in love with your product. Doing so, is really a great risk. We always

have Plans A, B, C... in any case. Namely, we say that if our product would not succeed in this Jorm,we will promote in another form. Because no guarqntees in business. People's decisions,

enforcements, ideas, market conditions, and also countly's economic condition... You neyer lmow...

I44

giı»IRiızn rırnı

CONCLUSION

This research was conducted to define innovation strategies of enterprises operating in ST. Aqualitative approach was adopted and semi-strucfured interviews were conducted with 4 owner-managers and 7 authorized-managers of enterprises. Venkatraman's 6 strategic orientationdimensions: aggressiveness, analysis, defensiveness, fuilürity, proactiveness, and riskiness weresearchedthrough the data by utilDing Akman and Yılmaz (2008)'s scale of "dimensiorş of innovationstfategies". The results of the content analysis indicate that enterprises in ST adopt 5 dimensions ofVenkatraman (1989): analysis, defensiveness, futurity, proactiveness, and riskiness. Among thesedimensions proactiveness and defensivenes§ come to the forefront with a little difference.

This research distinguishes from the others for foliowing a qualitative methodology, andspecifying on soiely to defining irınovation strategies ofTDAs in Turkey. Therefore, attracts attentionto importance of TDSs and gives insight to future research.

The limitation of research is that the sample consist of 1 1 oııner-managers and authorizedmanagers of enterprises in ST, hence findings may be unique to our sampie, Researches that willinclude broader sample, and conducted in different TDA's will provide comprehensive f,ındings. Themethodology we followed in this research is a deductive approach, and adhered to Venkatraman's sixdimensions ofbusiness orientation. Explorative, inductive researches as grounded theory-a qualitativepattern, will allow new concepts and relationships to emerge.

RLFERENCESAdams, R., Bessant, J. and Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: A

reiı,ew . International Journal of Management Reviews , 8(I) , 2I -47 .

Akman, G. and Yılmaz, C. (2008). Innovative capability, innovation strategy and marketorientation: an empirical analysis in Turkish software indııstry.International Journal of InnovationManagement, 1 2 (0 1), 69 -1 1I.

Alan Kay. (".d.). Ted.com. Retrieved June 7, 2016, from TED web site:https://www.ted. com/speakers l alan_kay (05. 05.20 1 6).

Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate Strateg): An Analytic Appraoch to Business Policy forGrowth and Espansion Penguin Books.

Bergeron, F. and Raymond, L. (1995, December). The contribution of IT to the bottom line: acontingency perspective ofstrategic dimensions. ln 1Cl§ (pp. 167,181).

Bergeron, F., Raüırnond, L. and Rivard, S. (2000). Fit in strategic information technologymanagement research: an empirical comparison of perspectives. Omega, 29(2), 125-142.

Bilim ve Teknoloji Gene1 Müdürlügıi (BGTM). (2016).TeknolojiGeliştirmeBölgeleri.http://btgm.sanayi.gov.trluserfiles/file/istatistiki%20bilgiler/maf/acL%BIs%202016lTGBYo2lwebV;o20sites1o/o20Mayo/oC4%Bls%2020I6o/o20son%o20haital%C4YoB|.pdf(10,06.2016).

Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strateg) and structure: Chapters in the history of the Americanenterprise. Massachusetts Instifute of Techırolo gy Cambridge.

Çetinkaya-Bozl«ırt, Ö. and Kalkan, A. (20t4). KOBI'lerin Isletme Stratejileri, lnovasyonTiirleri ve Inovasyonlarini Etkileyen Faktörler: Burdur Modeli. Ege Akademik Bakış, l4(2), 189.

Deniz, M. (2008). Kobilerde Yenilik, Yenilik Stratejileri ve Bir Uygulama. SÜ İİBF Sosyal veEkononıik Araştırnıalar Dergisi, 14I-1"7 5.

Drejer, A. (2002). Strategic Management and Core Competencies: Theory and Application.USA: Quorum Books.

Hambrick, D. C. (1983). Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes of Miles andSnow's strategic t}pes. Academy of Management journal, 26(|), 5-26.

Hambrick, D. C. and Fredrickson, J. W. (2001). Are you sule you have a strategy?. TheAcademy of Management Executive, 15(4), 48-59.

Hamel, G. (1996). Strateg1,, as revolution (pp. 69-71). Harvard Business Review.

I45

PROCEEDINGS

Harmancr, M. and Önen, M.O. (1999). Dünyada ve Türkiye'de Tehıoparkve TehıokentUygılamaları. TiirkiyeKalkrnmaBankası A.Ş. AraştırmaMüdürlüğü, Mart, Arıkara.

Hsieh, H. F.,andSharınon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative contentanalysis. Qualitative health res earch, 1 5 (9), 127 7 -|288.

Karabuiut, A. T. (2015). Effects of lnnovation Strategy on Firm Performance: A StudyConducted on Manufacturing Fiıııs in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,195, 1338-134,/.

Kıhnç, I., Öncü, M. A. and Tasgit, Y. E. (20|2). Sırn Tzu's principles of war afi and today'scompetİtİon strategİes: a relatİve appfoach. International Journal of Research in Business and SocicılScience (2147 -447 8), 1 (1), 8-1 7.

King, N. (2004). Using interviews in qualitativeresearch. In C. Casselland S. Gillian (Eds.)Essentialguidetoqualitativemethods in organizationalresearch. London: Sage.

Kondracki, N. L.,Wellman, N. S., andAmundson, D. R. (2002). Content analysis: review ofmethodsandtheirapplications in nutritioneducation. Joıırnal ofnı.ıtrition education and behavior, 34(4),224-230.

Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process.NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D. and Coleman, H. J. (1978). Organizational strategy,structure, and process. A cad emy of m an agement r evi aı, 3 (3), 5 46 - 5 62.

Mİntzberg, H. (1978). Patteıus in strategyformation.Management science,24(9),934-948.Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting strateg), (pp. 66-75). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Schoo1

Press.OECD and EC (2005). Oslo Manual: guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation

data (Third Edition). France: OECD.O'Regan, N. and Ghobadian, A. (2006). Perceptions of generic silategies of smal1 and medium

sized engineering and electronjcs manufacfurers in the [JK: The applicability of the Miles and Snow§pology. Journal of Manufacturing Technologı Managem ent, I 7 (5), 603 -620.

Önicü, B., Kıhç, R. and Savaş, A. (2011). KOBj'lerde inovasyoıı stratejileri ve inovasyonyapmayı etkileyen fahörler: bir uygulama.

Parnell, J. A. and Wright, P. (1993). Generic stlategy and performance: An empirical test ofthe Miles and Snow §po|ogy. British Journal of Management,4(1),29-36.

Pisano, P.G. (2015). You need an innovation stategy. hwsLlhbr.oryl2O15l06/you_need_an-innovation-strategy (1 4.05.20 1 6).

Rasheed, H. (2012). Innoyation Strateglı: Seven Keys to Creative Leadership and aSııs tainab l e Innovati on. Bloomington: iUniverse.

Schilling, J. (2006). On thepragmatics of qualitative assessment. European Journal ofPsy cholo gicalAs s es sment, 2 2 (|), 28-37 .

Strecker, N. (2009). Innovation Strategy and Firm Performance: An empirical sfudy ofpublicly listed firms. Wissenschaft: Gabler,

Teknoloji Geliştirme Böigeleri Uygulama Yönetmeliği (2014).http://www.mevzuat.gov.trlMetin.Aspx?MevzuatKoc-7.5.19475&sourceXmlSearch:TEKNOLOJ%C4%B0%20GEL%C4%BO%C5%9ET%C4%BOP.} E%20B%C3%96LGELER%C4%B0%20IJYGULAMA%20Y%C3%96NETMEL%C4%BO%C4%9E%C4%BO&MevzuatIliski:0 (09.04.20 1 6).

Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgesi Derneğ (n.d). Tiirkiye'de teknoparklar.http ://www.tgbd.org.trlWebContent/WebCont entl 47 07 (09.04.2016).

Ünal, A. and Kılınç. İ. iZOl0_1. İnovasyon yönetimi, in Girişimcilik ve inovasyon yönetimi. K.Çatı (Ed.), 99-134. Ankara: Nobel AkademikYayıncılık.

Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of businessenterprises: Theconstruct,dimens ionality, and measurement. Man a g em ent S ci enc e, 3 5 (8), 9 42 -9 62.

Zhang, Y. W.,andWildemuth, B. M. (2010). BM 2O09,'Qualitative analysis ofcontent'. Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Libraıy, 7-72.

1,46