Journal of Intelligent Marketing Management

Journal of Intelligent Marketing Management

Analyzing the reasons for the passivity of government policymaking in knowledge-based companies

Document Type : The scientific research paper

Authors
Pantea Zahrabi 1
Mohsen Ameri Shahrabi 2
Mohammad Hassan Nasimi 3
Ehsan Sadeh 2
Zain al-Abidin Amini Sabegh 1
1 Department of Public Administration, Sav.C., Islamic Azad University, Saveh , Iran.
2 Department of Mangement, NT.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Department of Accounting, BL.C., Islamic Azad University, Bandar Lengeh, Iran.
JABM.3.2.15564.3515410192
Abstract
Objective: Increased environmental competition and the emergence of new technologies in the market, which have provided many threats and opportunities for knowledge-based companies, have caused how to create the right policy for the growth and development of these companies to become the main concern of managers and policymakers in this field. Therefore, this study was conducted with the aim of analyzing the reasons for the passivity of government policymaking in knowledge-based companies.
Method: In this study, 97 conceptual codes were identified using 18 targeted semi-structured interviews with experts, elites, and managers in the Presidential Vice-President for Science, Technology, and Economy of Knowledge-Based Economy, and after removing and merging similar concepts, sentences and paragraphs related to the research topic were identified and extracted using the content analysis method with a qualitative approach. The concepts were coded at three levels of indicators, components, and main dimensions, and the initial model was designed. A focus group of 6 people from the university was used to validate and classify the factors.
Findings: Data analysis ultimately led to the identification of 47 indicators, 24 components, and 10 main dimensions and the formation of a theoretical model. The research findings include identifying factors affecting the policymaking of knowledge-based companies, which, based on the summary of experts' opinions, 10 dimensions have been used as the main foundations of the research. These dimensions include: 1- Infrastructure; 2- Conflicts between government agencies; 3- Pressure from private and trade organizations; 4- Creating cooperation networks with economic centers, universities, and international research centers; 5- Emerging changes and developments in the business environment; 6- Developing comprehensive guidance for policymaking of knowledge-based companies; 7- Cultural climate; 8- Economic actors; 9- Geographical and environmental requirements; 10- Key drivers of innovation.
Conclusion: The dimensions and components extracted from the research model are comparable to upstream documents, subject laws, and company laws, so following such a model can be a continuous improvement and development of knowledge-based companies.
Keywords
Policy-making
knowledge-based company
policy-making of knowledge-based companies
Subjects
ابراهیم پور، حبیب؛ هاشمی، سیدحامد؛ پناهی، مونا. (1403). الگوی آسیب شناسی خط مشی گذاری دولتی در حوزه دانش بنیان، فصلنامه حکمرانی و توسعه، 4(4)، 141105.
الیاسی، مهدی؛ صفردوست، عاطیه، محمد روضه سرا، مریم. (1397). بررسی نقش استراتژی نوآوری بر عملکرد نوآورانه سازمان‌ها (مورد مطالعه : شرکتهای دانش بنیان حوزه زیست فناوری)، اندیشۀ مدیریت راهبردی، 12(1)، 202183.
برخوردار، برنا؛ جهانگیری، علی، حسین گور، داوود.(1404). ارائه مدل ارز شیابی خطمشی حمایت از شرکت ها و مؤسسات دانش بنیان، فرآیند مدیریت توسعه، 1(131)، 12997.
سمیه، براموند؛ حکاک، محمد؛ سپهوند، رضا؛ اسماعیلی، محمودرضا. (1402). مدل خط مشی گذاری شرکت های دانش بنیان با رویکرد سنجش شجاعت سازمانی، خط مشی گذاری عمومی در مدیریت، 14(50)، 2915.
ذوالفقارزاده، محمدمهدی؛ هاجری، مهدی؛ افتخاری، حسین. (1395). نقش دیپلماسی علم و فناوری در بهبود چالش های شرکت های دانش بنیان، فصلنامه رشد فناوری، 12(48)، 101.
شریعت نژاد، علی.(1403) . شناسایی عوامل کلیدی موفقیت در رشد و توسعه شرکت های دانش بنیان بارویکرد سیاست گذاری و خط مشی گذاری مدیریتی با روش نقشه شناخت فازی، چشم انداز مدیریت بازرگانی، 22(56)، 11584.
صوفی، یوسف، میرابی، وحیدرضا، سرور، رحیم. (1403).  شناسایی عوامل موثر بر تجاری سازی محصولات شرکت های دانش بنیان مستقر در پارک علم و فناوری و مراکز رشد، فصلنامه ارزش آفرینی در مدیریت کسب و کار، 4(4)، 4224.
رزاززاده طوسی، نیکی؛ بذرافشان مقدم، مجتبی؛ یعقوبی، نورمحمد؛ حدادی،ابراهیم. (1400). شناسایی مؤلفه‌ها و زیرمؤلفه‌های الگوی پیشران‌های توسعه شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان (موردمطالعه شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان جنوب شرق کشور)، مدیریت بهره وری، 25(4)، 4923.   
فتحی، محمدرضا؛ کریمی، تورج، لطف اله زادگان، مهدی؛ خانکی،سمیرا. (1399). بررسی تاثیر زنجیره تامین دوسوتوان به عنوان قابلیت پویا برکاهش اختلالات و بهبود عملکرد صنعت قطعه سازی، علمی اندیشه آماده، 19(73)، 10281.
مروتی شریف آبادی، علی؛ عندلیب اردکانی، میرنژاد سیدعلی، جوهری نعیمی، فرزاد. (1398).طراحی مدل ارتقای دو‌سوتوانی زنجیره تأمین با رویکرد مدل‌سازی معادلات ساختاری (مورد مطالعه: صنعت فولاد استان یزد)،131(13)، 735.
نصری، اسماعیل. (1401).بررسی چالش ها و موانع پیشروی شرکت های دانش بنیان،  فصلنامه تخصصی مطالعات و پژوهش های اداری، 15، 5458.
Andrews, M. (2022). This is How to Think About and Achieve Public Policy Success. Retrieved from. Adebayo, T. S., & Ullah, S. (2023). Formulating sustainable development policies for China within the framework of socioeconomic conditions and government stability. Environmental Pollution, 328, 121673.
Breuer, A., Leininger, J., Malerba, D., & Tosun, J. (2023). Integrated policymaking: Institutional designs for implementing the sustainable development goals (SDGs). World Development, 170, 106317.
Brenton, S., Baekkeskov, E., & Hannah, A. (2023). Policy capacity: Evolving theory and missing links. Policy Studies, 44(3), 297315.
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287298.
 
Chang, A. (2022). A formal model of streetlevel bureaucracy. Rationality and Society, 34(1), 627.
Davis, S. Becoming a, (2009), knowledgebase business, International Journal of Technology Management, 14(3), 6073.
De Francesco, F., & Pattyn, V. (2021). Policy evaluation s tyles. In: M. Howlett & J. Tosun (Eds.) the Routledge Handbook of Policy S tyles. London: Routledge. Preprint Version.
Henderson, J. D. (2021). Entrepreneurial posture in communications: entrepreneurial orientation (EO) analysis in financial communications with computerassisted text analysis combined with EO custom dictionaries, natural language processing, and machine learning (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia). 14(2).114127.
Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2020). Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives: Cq Press.
Kumar, A., Choudhary, S., GarzaReyes, J. A., Kumar, V., Rehman Khan, S. A., & Mishra, N. (2023). Analysis of critical success factors for implementing industry 4.0 integrated circular supply chain–Moving towards sustainable operations. Production planning & control, 34(10), 984998.
Lukeš, M., Longo, M.C., & Zouhar, J. (2019). Do business incubators really enhance entrepreneurial growth? Evidence from a large sample of innovative Italian startups. Technovation, 82, 2534.
Laihonen, H., Kork, A. A., & Sinervo, L. M. (2024). Advancing public sector knowledge management: towards an understanding of knowledge formation in public administration. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 22(3), 223233.
Orgill, M., Marchal, B., Harris, B., & Gilson, L. (2024). Initiating systemic capacity development for leadership from the bottomup: a realist evaluation of a leadership innovation in a South African health district. Health Policy and Planning.
PadillaPérez, Y. Gaudin.(2013). Science, technology and innovation policies in small and developingeconomies: The case of Central America. Research Policy.11(10).115130.
Robertson, J., Pitt, L., & Ferreira, C. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and the public sector: A bibliographic analysis. SocioEconomic Planning Sciences, 72(4).111124.
SevillaBernardo, J., SanchezRobles, B., & HerradorAlcaide, T. C. (2022). Success factors of startups in research literature within the entrepreneurial ecosystem. administrative sciences, 12(3), 102.
Shahmoradi, G. A., Torabi, T., Radfar, R., & Cheraghali, M. H. (2024). Designing a model for determining the level of technological complexity of research and development activities in knowledgebased companies. International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications.
Samadi, M., Mirnezami, S. R., & Khargh, M. T. (2023). The impact of organizational capabilities on the international performance of knowledgebased firms. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(4), 100163.
 Sager, F., & Hinterleitner, M. (2022). The politics of policy implementation: a reassessment in more conflictual times. In Handbook on the Politics of Public Administration (pp. 102113): Edward Elgar Publishing.
Theocharis, S., & Tsihrintzis, G. A. (2023). Representation and Knowledge Management for the Benefit of eGovernment—Opportunities Through the Tools of the Semantic Web. In Semantic Knowledge Modelling via Open Linked Ontologies: Ontologies in EGovernance.115(18).125206.
Wagner, N., Velander, S., BiberFreudenberger, L., & Dietz, T. (2023). Effectiveness factors and impacts on policymaking of sciencepolicy interfaces in the environmental sustainability context. Environmental Science & Policy, 140(6), 5667.

  • Receive Date 31 March 2026
  • Revise Date 03 May 2026
  • Accept Date 10 June 2026