نقشه‌برداری نظام‌مند از مطالعات شبکه‌های کسب‌وکار

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری

2 مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، شهید بهشتی. تهران. ایران.

3 دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

چکیده

شناسایی روندهای موجود و گرایش‌های کلی صاحب‌نظران در هر حوزه‌ای را باید یکی از نیازهای اساسی در دانش دانست. از طریق بررسی روندها می‌توان به نگاه جامعی در مطالعات گذشته دست یافت و مطالعات پیش رو را هدفمند‌تر کرد. شبکه‌های کسب‌وکار از جمله حوزه‌های مطالعاتی است که تلاش می‌کند تا گونه‌ای پیچیده از مبادله‌های تکرارشونده را مورد تجزیه‌وتحلیل قرار دهد. این مطالعه با طبقه‌بندی موضوعی پژوهش‌های صورت گرفته در حوزه شبکه‌های کسب‌وکار از روش نقشه‌برداری نظام‌مند و تحلیل هم‌واژگانی بهره گرفته است. جست‌وجوی این مطالعه بر اساس پایگاه‌های اسکوپوس و وب آف ساینس در بهمن 1399 بوده است. بر اساس روش نقشه‌بردازی نظام‌مند، در خلال سال‌های 1990 تا 2021 تعداد 431 مقاله برای تحلیل چکیده و واژگان کلیدی و 56 مقاله برای تحلیل کل متن انتخاب شده است. تحلیل هم واژگانی از طریق نرم‌افزار Vosviewer سه گروه اصلی از مطالعات را خوشه‌بندی کرد: رویکرد ساختاری، رویکرد فرهنگی و رویکرد رابطه‌ای. این سه رویکرد اصلی به تحلیل‌های شبکه کسب‌وکار شامل 11 دسته فرعی می‌شوند.  بیشتر مطالعات بر رویکرد ساختاری متمرکز بوده‌اند. روندهای جدید نشان از تغییر رویکرد تحلیل‌های شبکه کسب‌وکار به سمت رویکرد رابطه‌ای است که از سال 2017 به رویکرد مسلط در تحلیل شبکه‌های کسب‌وکار تبدیل شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Mapping Review in Business Network's Studies

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Parishani 1
  • Bahman Hajipour 2
  • Seyed Mahmood Hosseini 3
  • Gholamhossein Khorshii 3
1 Ph.d Student in Shahid beheshti University
2 Shahid beheshti university
3 shahid beheshti university
چکیده [English]

Aim and Introduction. Business has taken on a new form in modern times. The diminishing role of geographical borders in the production and delivery of products and services along with the development of the Internet considered as the most important factors that distinguish the current business from traditional businesses. To know. By examining the trends, a comprehensive view of past studies obtained and the forthcoming studies made more targeted. Business networks are a field of study that seeks to analyze complex types of repetitive exchanges. Discussion on how to analyze networks can prepare Iranian businesses to enter into systematic collaborations within business networks.
Methodology. The main question of the research is what categories of research in the field of business networks have?  What is the process of changing the focus of studies in this field?
This study has used systematic mapping and phonological analysis method by thematically classifying the researches in the field of business networks. The research of this study based on Scopus and Web of Science databases in February 2016. Based on the systematic mapping method, between 1990 and 2021, 431 articles selected for abstract and keyword analysis and 56 articles selected for full text analysis. Vocabulary analysis through Vosviewer software clustered three main groups of studies: structural approach, cultural approach and relational approach. These three main approaches to business network analysis include 11 sub-categories. Most studies have focused on the structural approach.
Findings. The new trends show the change in the approach of business network analysis to the relational approach, which has become the dominant approach in business network analysis since 2017. Based on the keyword analysis used in these 431 articles, the most recent keywords used in business studies as follow: emerging markets, social networks, competitiveness, network processes, internationalization, values, dynamic capabilities, and interaction, respectively. In the next step of the study, a layer added to the analysis in order to take a closer look at the field of business network studies. As mentioned, three approaches to business network analysis identified in the next step, which included the relational approach, the structural approach, and the cultural approach. In this step, three repetitive keywords used in each approach selected as criteria to reduce the number of articles and increase their focus. The selected keywords for each cluster were as follows: Structural approach: competition, hierarchy, cooperation and small and medium enterprises; Cultural approach: internationalization, co-competitive and case study; Relationship approach: trust, commitment and change. By including these nine keywords in Vosviewer software, 56 articles obtained which were the basis of the final study reviews.
Discussion and conclusion. Reviews of previous articles based on titles, keywords and, if necessary, abstracts. At this stage, however, the entire text added to the reviews. The results of the analysis of these 56 articles have led to the categorization of the three main approaches into 11 sub-research topics. The least researched topic among 11 sub-categories of research is the effect of the number of relationships on the performance of business networks. The trend in the use of keywords, as well as the reference to network analysis approaches, both indicate a significant shift in the analysis of business networks. Since 2017, the dominant approach has changed to a relational approach. Keywords have also emphasized this. Of the top eight keywords in 2020, 5 are in the relational approach. This approach and related studies can be an attractive field for interested researchers. Companies now need to set up specific committees to analyze possible future collaborations, formally or informally. This committee can provide a good platform for the company by examining the suitability between possible options for future cooperation and the conditions required to enter it. One of the important suggestions for future research is the initial focus based on the theme analysis method and review of studies in this field based on the proposed framework. Using coding for the content of articles in this field can make the categories more accurate and the results clearer. Another study could be quantitative and based on the number of keywords used. The relationship between the performance of real networks in business and the approach of their managers to the network (among the three approaches introduced) can be another research suggestion.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • network
  • Business Network
  • Co-word Analysis
  • Mapping review
  1. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425 –455.
  2. Anderson, J., Håkansson, H., & Johanson, J. (1994). Dyadic business relationships within a business network context, Journal of Marketing, 58(October): 1–15.
  3. Anderson, R.C., & Reeb, D.M., (2003). Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from S&P 500, Journal of Finance 58, 1301–1328.
  4. Baraldi, E., Gressetvold, E., & Harrison, D. (2012). Resource interaction in inter-organizational networks: Foundations, comparison, and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 65(2), 266 –276.
  5. Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: the transnational solution, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  6. Bonner, J.M., Kim, D., & Cavusgil, S.T. (2005). Self-perceived strategic network identity and its effcts on market performance in alliance relationships, Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1371–1380.
  7. Buttice, V., Croce, A., & Ughetto, E. (2021).Network dynamics in business angel group investment decisions. Journal of Corporate Finance 66, 101812, In Press.
  8. Chalu, H., Juma, H., & Thomas, H., (2021) Business networks, regulation and local content in Tanzania's oil and gas sector. The extractive Industries and societies, In Press.
  9. Chatterje, S., & Matzler, K. (2018). Simple rules for a network efficiency business model: the case of vizio. California Management review, 42(4).
  10. Cisi, M., & Sansalvodore, F. (2019). Formalized business networks in SMEs and structural relations for their governance. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 15(2).
  11. Cottineau, C., & Arcaute, E. (2020). The nested structure of urban business clusters. Pllied Network Science 5(1), 131-157.
  12. Dicken, P. (2003). Global shift: reshaping the global economic map in the 21st century. Sage.
  13. Eckenhofer, E.M. (2011). Network management as a way to manage intellectual
    capital’, 12th European Conference on Knowledge Management – ECKM 2011, University of Passau, Passau.
  14. Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2011). Managing business relationships (3rd ed.). Chicester, UK: Wiley.
  15. Ge, B., Hisrich, R.D., & Dong, B. (2009). Networking, resource acquisition, and the
    performance of small and medium-sized enterprises: An empirical study of three
    major citis in China’, Managing Global Transitions, 7(3), 221–239.
  16. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. (1990). The multinational corporation as an inter-organizational network. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 603–625.
  17. Grant, M., & Bootht, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Journal Compilation, Health libraries group, Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108
  18. Guercini, S., & Medlin, C. (2020). A radical constructivist approach to boundaries in business network research. Industrial Marketing Management. In press.
  19. Håkansson, H., & Ford, D. (2002). How should companies interact in business networks? Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 133–139.
  20. Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1989). No business is an island. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 5(3), 187–200.
  21. Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165 –187.
  22. Johanson, J., & Mattsson, L.-G. (1985). Marketing investments and market investments in industrial networks. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2(2), 185–195.
  23. Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989 –2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 632 –659.
  24. Knoke, D., & Kuklinski, J. (1982). Network Analysis, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  25. Madzimure, J. (2019). The influence of strategic networks and logistics integration on firm performance among small and medium enterprises. The Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 11(1).
  26. Mele, C., Pels, J., & Storbacka, K. (2015). A holistic market conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 100–114.
  27. Michel, S., Saucède, F., Pardo, C., & Fenneteau, H. (2018). Business interaction and institutional work: When intermediaries make efforts to change their position. Industrial Marketing Management, 80, 266–279.
  28. Mitchell, J. (1969). The concept and use of social networks, in J. Mitchell (ed.) Social Networks in Urban Situations, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  29. Moller, K., Nenonen, S., & Storbavka, K. (2020). Networks, ecosystems, fields, market systems? Making sense of the business environment, Industrial Marketing Management, 90, 380-399
  30. Möller, K., & Halinen, A. (2018). IMP thinking and IMM: Co-creating value for business marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 69, 18–31.
  31. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  32. Nicolaou, N., & Birley, S. (2003). Academic networks in a trichotomies categorization of university spinouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 333 –359
  33. Ojansivu, I., Hermes, J., & Salmela, S. (2020). Business relationships in the industrial network literature: Three approaches and their underlying assumptions. Industrial Marketing Management. 32(1).
  34. Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., & Kuzniarz, L. (2015). Guidelines for conducting
    systematic mapping studies in software engineering: an update, Information and
    Software Technology, 64, 1 –18.
  35. Sebastián, G., Gallud, J., & Tesoriero, R. (2020). Code generation using model
    driven architecture: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Computer Languages,
    56, 1 -11.
  36. Semrau, T., & Werner, A. (2014). How exactly do network relationships pay off? The effects of network size and relationship quality on access to start-up resources.
    Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(3), 501 –525.
  37. Tan, J., Zhang, H., & Wang, L. (2015). Network closure or structural hole? The conditioning effects of network-level social capital on innovation performance.
    Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(5), 1189 –1212.
  38. Thorgren, S., Wincent, J., & Örtqvist, D. (2012). Unleashing synergies in strategic networks of SMEs: The influence of partner fit on corporate entrepreneurship.
    International Small Business Journal, 30(5), 453 –471
  39. Tiwana, A. (2008). Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 251 –272.
  40. Todeva, E. (2009). Business networks, Strategy and Structure. First edition, Routledge publication.
  41. Wahyuningrum, T., & Mustafa, K. (2017). A systematic mapping review of software quality measurement: research trends, model, and method. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering. 7(5), 2847-2854.
  42. Wang, C., Chung, L., & Henry, F. (2020). Business networking and innovation of Asian enterprises in Western countries: The moderation of institutional distance. Journal of industrial Marketing Management. 88, 152-162.
  43. Wang, M. C., Chen, P. C., & Fang, S. C. (2018). A critical view of knowledge networks and innovation performance: The mediation role of firms' knowledge integration capability. Journal of Business Research, 88, 222.
  44. Wellman, B., & Berkowitz, S. (1988). Social structures: a network approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  45. Williamson, O. (1981). The economics of organizations: the transaction cost approach, American Journal of Sociology, 87, 548–577.
  46. Wu, J., & Ang, S. H. (2020). Network complementariness in the international expansion of emerging market firms, journal of world business, 55, 32-43.
  47. Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. G. (2005). Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(9), 809 –825.
دوره 12، شماره 47
مهر 1400
صفحه 189-207
  • تاریخ دریافت: 26 اسفند 1399
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 21 اردیبهشت 1400
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 01 خرداد 1400
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار: 01 خرداد 1400