Investigating the role of the industrial sector context in the functioning of technology exchange intermediaries in the technological innovation ecosystem in Iran; Areas of study: pharmaceutical, agricultural, and oil, gas, and petrochemical industr

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Innovation Policy and Foresight, Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Innovation Policy and Foresight, Technology Studies Institute, Tehran,Iran

3 Department of Innovation Policy and Foresight, Technology Studies Institute,Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Objective: Innovation has become a crucial factor in industrial competitiveness, prompting firms to seek collaborations within the innovation ecosystem to foster innovation. Given the significance of technological cooperation and the challenges involved, technology exchange intermediaries have gained attention in recent years as facilitators of such collaborations. These intermediaries play multiple roles, including identifying opportunities, creating cooperation networks, and reducing information asymmetry, thereby enabling constructive interactions between firms. Studies suggest that the industrial sector's context and the specific characteristics of each industry significantly influence asymmetric technological cooperation processes. As a result, the expected functions of technology exchange intermediaries vary across different industries. However, a review of the existing literature reveals a gap in research on how the functions and operational models of these intermediaries differ across industries. This study aims to identify the essential functions of technology exchange intermediaries in various industries and examine their role-playing models in relation to the industrial context. To achieve this, three strategic industries—pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and oil, gas, and petrochemicals—were selected for in-depth analysis.



Method: This qualitative study employs a multiple case study approach. Data was collected through expert interviews and document analysis. Interviewees were chosen from technology transfer intermediaries and industry players in the three selected sectors. The sampling method used for selecting interview participants was snowball sampling. A total of 21 qualitative interviews were conducted with key industry stakeholders, and the data was analyzed using thematic analysis.



Results: In the pharmaceutical industry, the functions of demand stimulation and need identification are of lower priority compared to the other two industries due to the industry's structured demand landscape and the nature of its key players. In contrast, the agricultural and oil industries, characterized by a large number of diverse actors, place a higher priority on the functions of identifying needs and, in particular, aggregating small-scale demands. Furthermore, due to the agricultural sector’s traditional practices and the oil sector’s preference for purchasing foreign technologies, demand stimulation is a more critical function in these industries than in pharmaceuticals. Given the limited domestic market and the challenges of penetrating international markets, knowledge-based enterprises must verify the legitimacy and significance of demand. As a result, the function of assessing the realism of demand is crucial in all three industries. However, in the agriculture and oil industries, where end customers are predominantly domestic, this function holds even greater importance than in pharmaceuticals.



In the agricultural sector, technological projects tend to be less complex, allowing a single firm to develop the required product independently. However, in the pharmaceutical and oil industries, this is not the case. Pharmaceutical development often necessitates collaboration among multiple stakeholders, and technological projects in the oil industry tend to be highly complex. Consequently, in these two industries, the function of designing and managing large-scale, complex projects is of higher priority than in agriculture. Additionally, due to the knowledge-intensive nature of the pharmaceutical industry and its relatively small community, actors are typically well-acquainted with each other's capabilities and expertise. Moreover, pharmaceutical professionals, given their international engagements, are highly aware of cutting-edge technologies. As a result, the function of selecting appropriate technologies and partners is not a major concern in the pharmaceutical sector. Conversely, in agriculture and oil, where industry players tend to adopt traditional approaches and have less familiarity with frontier technologies, this function becomes more critical.



Across all industries studied, the functions of "cooperation management" and "assistance in market development" are universally important. However, regarding technology proofing, the pharmaceutical industry primarily requires support for obtaining regulatory approvals, such as those from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In contrast, in the oil and agriculture industries—especially among small-scale farmers—the high risk associated with adopting new technologies necessitates stronger technology assurance mechanisms from regulatory bodies.



Conclusion: Due to structural, technological, and contextual differences among industries, technological cooperation within each sector presents unique challenges. Consequently, technology exchange intermediaries must tailor their functions to align with the specific needs and contexts of each industry, thereby facilitating and accelerating technological collaboration. In other words, these intermediaries must specialize in certain domains and prioritize functions that hold greater significance in each respective industry. Furthermore, government support should be strategically directed toward high-priority functions within each industry, ensuring that intermediaries receive targeted and intelligent support to enhance their effectiveness.

Keywords

Main Subjects


اسدی‌فرد، رضا؛ خالدی، آرمان (۱۳۹۸). چالش‌های همکاری فناورانه نامتقارن شرکت‌های بزرگ با شرکت‌های کوچک فناوری‌محور نانو. سیاست علم و فناوری, ۱۲(۳), ۱۵–۳۰.https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.20080840.1398.12.3.2.9
خالدی، آرمان؛ اسدی‌فرد، رضا؛ میرزایی‌دورکی، سیدرضا (۱۴۰۳). کارکردهای واسطه‌های نوآوری در فرآیند همکاری‌های فناورانه بین بنگاه‌ها در ایران. سیاست علم و فناوری, ۱۷(۲), ۱۷–۳۱. https://doi.org/10.22034/jstp.2024.11678.1791
شریف‌زاده، ابوالقاسم؛ عبدالله‌زاده، غلام‌حسین؛ شریفی، مهنوش (۱۳۹۳). آسیب‌شناسی مدیریت تحقیقات و توسعه فناوری کشاورزی در چارچوب نظام نوآوری کشاورزی. اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی, ۲۸(۱), ۷۱–۸۲. https://doi.org/10.22067/jead2.v1391i6.27268   
صابر کهنه‌گورابی، محمدحسین؛ ایرانمنش، سیدحسین؛ جعفری، پریوش (۱۳۹۹). اولویت‌بندی عوامل تاثیرگذار بر نوآوری باز در شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان مبتنی بر کارآفرینی فناورانه نفت و گاز. فصلنامه پژوهش‌های سیاستگذاری و برنامه‌ریزی انرژی, ۶(۴), ۸۱–۱۲۳. http://epprjournal.ir/article-1-878-fa.html        
صحاف‌زاده، مهدی؛ باقری‌مقدم، ناصر؛ شهبازی، میثم (۱۴۰۱). تحلیل ساختاری و سیستمی نظام نوآوری صنعت نفت ایران. مطالعات راهبردی در صنعت نفت و انرژی, ۱۴(۵۴), ۱–۲۲. http://iieshrm.ir/article-1-1424-fa.html 
محقر، علی؛ اصلانی، علیرضا؛ ثقفی، فاطمه؛ ملکی، علی؛ خلیل، سجاد (۱۳۹۸). تحلیل نقش بازیگران حکمرانی بخش بالادستی صنعت نفت ایران در شکست‌های نظام نوآوری بخشی: مطالعه چند موردی. سیاستگذاری عمومی, ۵(۲), ۱۶۳–۱۸۴. https://doi.org/10.22059/ppolicy.2019.72280
 
Ansari, A., & Dornberger, U. (2020). How do intermediary organizations support SMEs to enhance their absorptive capacity? VNU Journal of Economics and Business, 36(5). https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1108/vnueab.4456
Asadifard, R., & Khaledi, A. (2019). Challenges of asymmetric technological collaboration between large companies and nanotechnology startups. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(3), 15–30. [In Persian] https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.20080840.1398.12.3.2.9     
Audretsch, D., & Belitski, M. (2020). The limits to collaboration across four of the most innovative UK industries. British Journal of Management, 31(4), 830–855. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12353
Batterink, M. H., Wubben, E. F., Klerkx, L., & Omta, S. (2010). Orchestrating innovation networks: The case of innovation brokers in the agri‑food sector. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(1), 47–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620903220512          
Bessant, J., & Rush, H. (1995). Building bridges for innovation: The role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy, 24(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(93)00751-E        
Diestre, L., & Rajagopalan, N. (2012). Are all “sharks” dangerous? New biotechnology ventures and partner selection in R&D alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 33(10), 1115–1134. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1978
Faghih, N., Sarreshtehdari, L. & Bonyadi, E. The rates of safe and hazardous entrepreneurial activities: introducing the lower and upper limits of entrepreneurship risks. J Glob Entrepr Res 11, 347–359 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40497-021-00291-0
Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140505
Hagedoorn, J., & Narula, R. (1996). Choosing organizational modes of strategic technology partnering: International and sectoral differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490135
Horne, M. (2008). Honest brokers: Brokering innovation in public services. London: Innovation Unit.
Hossain, M. (2012). Performance and potential of open innovation intermediaries. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41, 754–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1053         
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
Kanda, W., González, P. d., Hjelm, O., & Bienkowska, D. (2015). A function of innovation systems approach for analysing the roles of intermediaries in eco‑innovation. Global Cleaner Production and Sustainable Consumption Conference, Sitge, 1–4 November.
Katzy, B., Turgut, E., Holzmann, T., & Sailer, K. (2013). Innovation intermediaries: A process view on open innovation coordination. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(3), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.764982      
Khaledi, A., Asadifard, R., & Mirzaei Douraki, R. (2024). The functions of innovation intermediaries in inter‑firm technological collaborations in Iran. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 17(2), 17–31. [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.22034/jstp.2024.11678.1791       
Kilelu, W., Klerks, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2011). Beyond knowledge brokerage: An exploratory study of innovation intermediaries in an evolving smallholder agricultural system in Kenya. Working Paper Series. https://doi.org/10.1080/19474199.2011.593859      
Kivimaa, P. (2014). Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions. Research Policy, 43(8), 1370–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.007       
Klerkx, L., Hall, A., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: Are innovation brokers the answer? International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 8(5–6), 409–438. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.2009.032643        
Liu, X., Shou, Y., & Xie, Y. (2013). The role of intermediary organizations in enhancing the innovation capability of MSMEs: Evidence from a Chinese case. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 21 (suppl. 2), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2013.819246      
Mohaghar, A., Aslani, A., Saghafi, F., Maleki, A., & Khalili, S. (2019). Analyzing the petroleum sector governance players' role in sectoral innovation system failures: a multi‑case study of Iran’s petroleum sector. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 5(2), 163–184. [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.22059/ppolicy.2019.72280       
Ngongoni, C. (2021). The role of innovation intermediaries in developing healthcare innovation ecosystems: Value co‑creation through platforms. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University. http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/109814  
Perrons, R. (2014). How innovation and R&D happen in the upstream oil & gas industry: Insights from a global survey. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 124, 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.09.027   
Petersen, I.-H., Kruss, G., McGrath, S., & Gastrow
 Obschonka, M., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2012). Entrepreneurship from a developmental science perspective. Editorial for the Special Issue “Entrepreneurial development: Person and context.” International Journal of Developmental Science, 6, 107115. doi:10.3233/DEV- 2012-12105