بررسی اولویت و گونه شناسی چالش های موثر بر اکتساب فناوری در صنایع دفاعی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیئت‌علمی گروه نانوبیوتکنولوژی، دانشکده علوم زیستی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران.

2 دانش‌آموخته کارشناسی ارشد مهندسی مکانیک، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران.

چکیده

شناسایی و رفع چالش‌های پیش روی بنگاه­هایی که سعی در اکتساب فناوری دارند، نقش به‌سزایی در آینده­ آن‌ها ایفا می­نماید؛ بنابراین، تعیین چالش‌های دارای اولویت و اصلاح آن‌ها اهمیت فراوانی دارد. این موضوع در حوزه صنایع دفاعی به ­دلیل محدودیت‌ها و پیچیدگی‌های فناورانه ضرورت بیشتری دارد. گونه‌شناسی و تعیین اولویت چالش‌های مؤثر بر اکتساب فناوری‌های پیشرفته دفاعی، فرایند اکتساب را ارتقا می‌دهد. در پژوهش حاضر، ضمن استخراج چالش‌های اکتساب فناوری­های پیشرفته دفاعی باتکیه‌بر مرور پیشینه پژوهش و مصاحبه با خبرگان، میزان اثرگذاری و اثرپذیری متقابل چالش‌ها با استفاده از روش دیمتل فازی مشخص شد. سپس چالش‌های اکتساب فناوری براساس تأثیروتأثر و همچنین میزان مشارکت در عملکرد سیستمی رتبه ­بندی شدند و در­نهایت شبکه روابط علّی و معلولی آن‌ها ارائه شد. براساس یافته‌ها «ریسک‌های ناشی از روابط همکاری با سایر نهادها» و «مشکلات قانونی و حقوقی داخلی» به­ ترتیب بیشترین و کمترین تأثیرپذیری را دارند. از­سوی ­دیگر «تحریم‌های بین‌المللی» و «توافقات مالی، نحوه تعیین و میزان سهم شرکا از سود و ریسک موجود» نیز به­ترتیب تأثیرگذارترین و تأثیرپذیرترین چالش اکتساب فناوری‌های پیشرفته دفاعی می‌باشند. دستاوردهای پژوهش حاضر، زمینه‌ساز سیاست‌گذاری و تصمیم‌گیری مناسب در حوزه اکتساب فناوری دفاعی خواهد بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigation of Priority and Typology of challengs Affecting Technology Acquisition in Defense Industries

نویسندگان [English]

  • Aboulfazl Mirzapoor 1
  • Ali Rawfian 2
1 Faculty member of NanoBiotechnology Department, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
2 M.Sc. of Mechanical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Identifying the problems of the acquisition of technology plays a critical role in the future position of a firm. Therefore, analyzing the obstacles to the process of the  technology acquisition is very important. This issue is even more vital due to the technological market limitation and complexities in the field of the defense industry. Therefore, the prioritization of challenges improves the acquisition process. This research selects a mixed qualitative-quantitative method (based on literature review and the expert review for identifying the challenges of acquiring advanced defense technologies and then the fuzzy DEMATEL method to analyze them. In the next step, a network of causal relationships with different ranks is presented based on the degree of the influence and effects of technology acquisition. According to the results, "risks arising from the cooperation with other institutions" are the most, and "internal legal issues" are the least effected ranks. On the other hand, the international sanctions” are the most influential factors in the process of technology acquisition in the field of defense and "the financial agreements, the method to determine the shares of the partners and the agreed amounts and the exiting risks” are the least influential factors. These findings pave the way to design and implement  more salient policies and programs.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Prioritization
  • Technology Strategy
  • Technology acquisition
  • Fuzzy
  • DEMATEL
 
Beltramino, N. S., García-Perez-de-Lema, D., & Valdez-Juárez, L. E. (2020). The structural capital, the innovation and the performance of the industrial SMEs. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(6), 913-945. https://doi.org/10.1108/jic-01-2019-0020
Baines, T. (2004). An integrated process for forming manufacturing technology acquisition decisions. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(5), 447−467. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570410532533
Chin, W. (2019). Technology, war and the state: Past, present and future. International Affairs, 95, 765–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiz106
Cui, A. S., Griffith, D. A., Cavusgil, S. T., & Dabic, M. (2006). The influence of market and cultural environmental factors on technology transfer between foreign mncs and local subsidiaries: A Croatian illustration. Journal of World Business, 41(2), 100-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2006.01.011
Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Del Giudice, M., Della Peruta, M. R., & Sindakis, S. (2017) An exploration of contemporary organizational artifacts and routines in a sustainable excellence context. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(1), 35-56. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2015-0366
Dixit, R., Singh, H., & Chinnam, R. B. (2020, March). Balancing pragmatism and values in business decision making. In 2020 IEEE Aerospace Conference (pp. 1-12). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO47225.2020.9172338
Davenport, S., Campbell-Hunt, C., & Solomon, J. (2003). The dynamics of technology strategy: An exploratory study. R&D Management, 33(5), 481-499. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00312
Dehghan Ashkezari, M. J., Miremadi, T., & Ramezanpour Nargesi, Gh. (2019). The assessment of international sanctions on photovoltaic innovation system of Iran [In Persian]. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 10(4), 63-76. https://jstp.nrisp.ac.ir/article_13020.html
Du, J., Wu, D., Lu, J., & Yu, H. (2013). Knowledge networks and technological capabilities of SMEs: The role of technology strategies and its implications for knowledge service intermediaries. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 21(2), 80-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2013.819248
Dubois, A. (2006). Organizing industrial activities across firm boundaries. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203029633
Ford, D. (1988). Develop your technology strategy. Long Range Planning, 21(5), 85-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(88)90109-4
Fakhari, H., Salmani, D., & Daraei, M. R. (2013). The impact of economic sanctions on the knowledge-based companies in Iran [In Persian]. Journal of Science & Technology Policy. 5(3), 1-17. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20080840.1392.5.3.2.4
Goodman, R. A., & Lawless, M. W. (1994). Technology and strategy: Conceptual models and diagnostics. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Grilli, L. (2014) High-tech entrepreneurship in Europe: A heuristic firm growth model and three “(un-) easy pieces” for policy-making. Industry and Innovation, 21(4), 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2014.939850
Gogus, O., & Boucher, T. O. (1998). Strong transitivity, rationality and weak monotonicity in fuzzy pairwise comparisons. Fuzzy Sets Systems, 94(1), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00184-4
Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1973). Perceptions of the world problematique: Communication procedure, communicating with those bearing collective responsibility.
Hung, S. W., & Tang, R. H. (2008). Factors affecting the choice of technology acquisition mode: An empirical analysis of the electronic firms of Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Technovation, 28(9), 551-563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.10.005
Howells, J., James, A. D., & Malik, K. (2004). Sourcing external technological knowledge: A decision support framework for firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(2-3), 143-154. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2004.003949
Hill, T. (2017). Manufacturing strategy: The strategic management of the manufacturing function. Macmillan International Higher Education.
João, R. (2021). Politics, power, and influence: Defense industries in the Post-Cold War. Social Sciences, 10(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10010010
Kurç, Ç., & Neuman, S. G. (2017). Defence industries in the 21st century: A comparative analysis. Defence Studies, 17(3), 219-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2017.1350105
Kang, K. H., Jo, G. S., & Kang, J. (2015). External technology acquisition: A double-edged sword. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 23(1), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2015.1010265
Kotabe, M., & Murray, J. Y. (2004). Global sourcing strategy and sustainable competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(1), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.08.004
Kale, P., & Puranam, P. (2004). Choosing equity stakes in technology-sourcing relationships: An integrative framework. California Management Review, 46(3), 77-99. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166222
Kumar, R., Krishnamoorthy, M., & Cardenez, M. (2004). Technology acquisition and innovation: An integrative approach for organizational success. In Second World Congress on POM. https://www.poms.org/archive/conferences/Meeting2004/POMS_CDDel/Browse%20This%20CD/PAPERS/002-0464.pdf
Lee, H., Lee, S., & Park, Y. (2009). Selection of technology acquisition mode using the analytic network process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49(5–6), 1274-1282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2008.08.010
Mannke, F. (2012). Fostering international technology transfer through climate technology networks between European and Latin American universities. Latin American Business Review, 13, 171–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10978526.2012.730018
McIvor, R. (2005). The outsourcing process: Strategies for evaluation and management. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511543425
Miremadi, T. (2014). Comprehensive explanation of the security concept. Scientific report of the research project commissioned by the Vice-Presidency for Science and Technology [In Persian]. Iran Research Organization for Scientific and Technology.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (2006). The core competence of the corporation. In D. Hahn & B. Taylor (Eds.),  Strategische unternehmungsplanung - strategische unternehmungsführung: Stand und Entwicklungstendenzen (pp. 275-292). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-30763-X_14
SIPRI (2021). SIPRI yearbook 2021: Armaments, disarmament and international security. Oxford University Press. https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2021
Seker, S., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2017). Application of fuzzy DEMATEL method for analyzing occupational risks on construction sites. Sustainability, 9(11), 2083. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112083
Tsai, J. M., Chang, C. C., & Hung, S. W.  (2018). Technology acquisition models for fast followers in high-technological markets: An empirical analysis of the LED industry. Technology Analysis Strategic Management, 30(2), 198-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2017.1297789
Wu, F., Li, H., Chu, L., & Sculli, D. (2005) An outsourcing decision model for sustaining long-term performance. International Journal of Production Research, 43(12), 2513-2535. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540500045717
Wie, T. K. (2005). The major channels of international technology transfer to Indonesia: An assessment. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 10(2), 214-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860500071493
 
  • تاریخ دریافت: 05 فروردین 1400
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 27 بهمن 1400
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 12 اسفند 1400
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار: 12 اسفند 1400