فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی

فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی

تبیین عوامل موثر بر فعالیت اثربخش شرکت‌ها در شبکه کسب‌و‌کار

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 استادیار، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی و عضو پژوهشی پژوهشکده کردستان‌شناسی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران
2 فارغ التحصیل کارشناسی ارشد، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران
چکیده
استفاده از ارتباطات و فعالیت مؤثر در شبکه‌های کسب‌وکاری در محیط پر ‌رقابت برای همه‌ سازمان‌های تولیدی و خدماتی امری حیاتی است. عضویت در شبکه‌های کسب‌وکاری در این محیط رقابتی روزافزون فرصت‌های متنوعی پیش روی شرکت‌ها قرار می‌دهد. هدف پژوهش، تبیین و آزمون مجموعه عوامل مؤثر بر فعالیت اثربخش در شبکه کسب‌وکار در صنعت مواد غذایی ایران است. پژوهش از نظر هدف کاربردی و از لحاظ ماهیت جزء پژوهش‌های توصیفی است. مدیران ارشد و میانی شرکت‌های فعال در صنعت مواد غذایی جامعه آماری هستند. تعداد اعضای نمونه 205 نفر از مدیران ارشد و میانی شرکت‌های صنایع غذایی فعال در ایران است. برای جمع‌آوری داده‌ها از پرسشنامه استفاده شده است. در تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌های از تحلیل آماری، آمار استنباطی و مدل‌سازی معادلات ساختاری با استفاده از نرم‌افزار اسمارت پی.ال.اس استفاده شدند. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که از بین 8 عامل تسهیم منابع، چشم‌انداز مشترک، اعتماد، تعهد، انتخاب شرکا، فناوری اطلاعات، انعطاف‌پذیری شرکت و شایستگی شبکه دو عامل انعطاف‌پذیری شرکت و شایستگی شبکه بر فعالیت اثربخش شرکت‌ها در شبکه کسب‌وکار در ایران اثر معنادار مثبت دارند. شایستگی شبکه تأثیر بیشتری نسبت به انعطاف‌پذیری دارد. در مجموع می‌توان اظهار داشت انعطاف‌پذیری شرکت‌ها و شایستگی شبکه بر فعالیت اثربخش ‌آن‌ها در شبکه کسب‌وکار تأثیر معناداری دارند.
کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Explaining the factors affecting on activity of companies at the business network

نویسندگان English

Parviz Kafcheh 1
Leila Mansouri 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration & Kurdistan Studies Institute, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
2 MA graduated, Department of Business Administration, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
چکیده English

Introduction
In today's highly competitive business environment, traditional markets have been totally changed and companies are not working separately anymore. Companies and organizations form very wide networks by having different relationships with other members of the network. Staying in business networks offers many opportunities to companies; therefore, the use of communication and having effective activity in business networks is vital for all manufacturing and services companies and organizations.  In this research, the set of factors affecting the effective activity in the business network in Iran's food industry has been exmined.
 Methodology
The current research is a descriptive and cross-section research. The population of this research are senior and middle managers of active companies in the food industry. The sample members are 205 senior and middle managers of active food industry companies in Iran. In this research, the library method was used to collect information and a questionnaire was used to collect information to test the hypotheses. Operational definitions (questions) found in previous researches including Miller et al. (2007), Sherer (2003), Ritter and Gemunden, (2003), Bryson et al. (2003) and Philip (2011) were used to design the questionnaire. This questionnaire, which is set with a five-point Likert scale, includes two sections of general and specialized questions. In the first part, general questions include 7 questions and the second part includes 52 specialized questions. Specialized questions numbered 1 to 7 examine sharing resources, questions 8 to 11 examine common vision, questions 12 to 15 examine trust, questions 16 and 17 examine commitment, questions 18 and 19 examine choosing partners, questions 20 and 21 examine information technology, questions 22 to 41 examine network competence, questions 42 to 44 examine company flexibility and questions 45 to 52 examine effective activities. In the analysis of the collected data, descriptive statistics and structural equation model were used in the inferential statistics section, and measurement model tests and structural model tests were performed by SMART PLS software.
Results and Discussion
The results of this study show that among the eight factors of resource sharing, common vision, trust, commitment, choice of partners, information technology, flexibility of the company, competence of the network, the last two factors affect the effective activity of companies in the business network of food industry in Iran. Based on the past researches, social capital factors such as trust and commitment enable participants to effectively act together in a business network. It seems that these factors are highly ignored by active companies in the food industry in Iran.
Conclusion
According to the findings, it could be concluded that the flexibility of the companies and the competence of the network have a significant effect on the effective activity of the companies in the business network. Flexibility is defined as the ability of a company to adapt itself to the circumstances or changes. The more agile a company is, the longer it can stay in a network. In other words, the more companies can increase their flexibility, the more effectively they will be able to operate in the business network. In fact, when the environmental conditions of a company are changing, its flexibility will greatly help the continuance of the company's activity in the network. Another definition of flexibility is to respond quickly to the needs of customers. The more companies try to increase their flexibility and respond to customers' needs more effectively and faster, the stronger their relationship with their customers will be and customers will be more loyal to that company. Therefore, it is suggested to the managers of the companies to take a more serious approach to the flexibility of their company so that they can take advantage of its benefits to continue operating in a business network. Network competence includes broad concepts. One of the dimensions of network competence is the tasks specific to a company's external relations with other network members. That means, to what extent a company has the ability to create and maintain relationships. Based on this, the more a company tries to create more and more stable relationships, the competence of the network in which it operates will be higher and as a result the company activity will be more effective. Another dimension of network competence is the tasks related to relationships within a company. It means the extent to which the management of a company strives for relations between employees within the company. The more the management of the company tries to resolve the conflicts between the employees and make these relationships stronger, the higher the competence of the network will be. Another dimension that defines the competence of the network is the level of technical and economic expertise of the active companies in the network. The more the companies can strengthen these specialties in their company, the more effective their activities will be. Therefore, it is recommended to companies to establish strong relationships with other members of the network, manage the relationships between their company's employees properly and also to raise the level of technical and economic expertise of their company so that they can significantly benefit from being a member of the network.
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Resource sharing
Common vision
Trust
Cmmitment
Partner selection
Information technology
Company flexibility
  1. Ali-Ahmadi, A., & Shams Iraqi, Sh. (2012). Information technology and its applications, Told Danesh Publications, Tehran (In Persian)
  2. Baker, W., Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. G. (1992). The network organization in theory and practice. Classics of Organization Theory, 8, 401.
  3. Bensaou, M., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). Configurations of interorganizational relationships: A comparison between US and Japanese automakers. Management science, 41(9), 1471-1492. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.41.9.1471.
  4. Bryson, J., Wood, P., & Keeble, D. (1993). Business networks, small firm flexibility and regional development in UK business services. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5(3), 265-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985629300000016.
  5. Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. (2011). On network theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1168-1181. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0641.
  6. Burt, R. S. (2001). Bandwidth and echo: Trust. Information, and Gossip in Social Networks, chapter in Networks and Markets: Contributions from Economics and Sociology (Casella, A. and JE Rauch (Edts.). Russell Sage Foundation.
  7. Cannon, J. P., & Homburg, C. (2001). Buyer–supplier relationships and customer firm costs. Journal of Marketing, 65(1), 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.1.29.18136.
  8. Castañer, X., & Oliveira, N. (2020). Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among organizations: Establishing the distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic literature review. Journal of Management, 46(6), 965-1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320901565.
  9. Corsaro, D., Ramos, C., Henneberg, S. C., & Naudé, P. (2012). The impact of network configurations on value constellations in business markets—The case of an innovation network. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.11.017.
  10. De Toni, A., & Tonchia, S. (2001). Performance measurement systems-models, characteristics and measures. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(1/2), 46-71. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110358459.
  11. Prahalad, C. K., Doz, Y., Bartlett, C. A., & Hedlund, G. (1990). Control, change and flexibility: The dilemma of transnational corporations. Managing the Global Firm, Routledge.
  12. Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., Scheer, L. K., & Li, N. (2008). Trust at different organizational levels. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 80-98. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.2.80.
  13. Farinda, A. G., & Kamarulzaman, Y. (2009). Building business networking: A proposed framework for Malaysian SMEs. International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol.5 N0. 2 March 2009 Pp. 151‐160
  14. Foley, P., & Green, H. (1989). Small business success. Paul Chapman.
  15. Fonfara, K., Ratajczak-Mrozek, M., & Leszczyński, G. (2018). Change in business relationships and networks: Concepts and business reality. Industrial Marketing Management, 70, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.09.016.
  16. Geringer, J. M. (1991). Strategic determinants of partner selection criteria in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 41-62.
  17. Grabher, G. (1993). The weakness of strong ties; the lock-in of regional development in Ruhr area. The embedded firm; on the socioeconomics of industrial networks, 255-277.
  18. Granovetter, M. (2018). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. In The sociology of economic life (pp. 22-45). Routledge.
  19. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
  20. Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 203-215. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3%3C203::AID-SMJ102%3E3.0.CO;2-K.
  21. Håkansson, H., & Ford, D. (2002). How should companies interact in business networks? Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 133-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00148-X.
  22. Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146-165. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.15281445.
  23. Ivanova-Gongne, M., & Torkkeli, L. (2018). No manager is an island: culture in sensemaking of business networking. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33(5), 638-650. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2016-0154
  24. Jarillo, J. C. (1988). On strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 9(1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090104.
  25. Kandemir, D., Yaprak, A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). Alliance orientation: conceptualization, measurement, and impact on market performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 324-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305285953.
  26. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335.
  27. Malecki, E. J., & Veldhoen, M. E. (1993). Network activities, information and competitiveness in small firms. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 75(3), 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.1993.11879656.
  28. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59. https://doi.org/10.5465/256727.
  29. Miller, N. J., Besser, T., & Malshe, A. (2007). Strategic networking among small businesses in small US communities. International Small Business Journal, 25(6), 631-665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242607082525.
  30. Mitchell, J. C. (Ed.). (1969). Social networks in urban situations: analyses of personal relationships in Central African towns. Manchester University Press.
  31. Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150205.
  32. Möller, K. K., & Halinen, A. (1999). Business relationships and networks: Managerial challenge of network era. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(5), 413-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00086-3.
  33. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314-328. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379202900303.
  34. Monczka, R. M., Petersen, K. J., Handfield, R. B., & Ragatz, G. L. (1998). Success factors in strategic supplier alliances: the buying company perspective. Decision Sciences, 29(3), 553-577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb01354.x.
  35. Muller, E., & Zenker, A. (2001). Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: the role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy, 30(9), 1501-1516. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00164-0.
  36. Nicholson, C. Y., Compeau, L. D., & Sethi, R. (2001). The role of interpersonal liking in building trust in long-term channel relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 3-15.
  37. Ojansivu, I., Hermes, J., & Laari-Salmela, S. (2020). Business relationships in the industrial network literature: Three approaches and their underlying assumptions. Industrial Marketing Management, 87, 181-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.11.016.
  38. Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 794-829. https://doi.org/10.5465/256759.
  39. Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., & Grewal, D. (2007). A comparative longitudinal analysis of theoretical perspectives of interorganizational relationship performance. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 172-194. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.4.172.
  40. Philip, M. (2011). Factors affecting business success of small & medium enterprises (SMEs). Amity Global Business Review, 6(1), 118-136.
  41. Rai, A., Borah, S., & Ramaprasad, A. (1996). Critical success factors for strategic alliances in the information technology industry: an empirical study. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 141-155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00848.x.
  42. Ratajczak-Mrozek, M. (2017). Interorganizational network embeddedness and performance of companies active on foreign markets. Central European Management Journal, 25(4), 144-157.
  43. Rindfleisch, A., & Moorman, C. (2001). The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances: A strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.1.18253.
  44. Ritter, T., & Gemünden, H. G. (2003). Network competence: Its impact on innovation success and its antecedents. Journal of Business Research, 56(9), 745-755. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00259-4.
  45. Ritter, T. (1999). The networking company: Antecedents for coping with relationships and networks effectively. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(5), 467-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00075-9.
  46. Saxton, T. (1997). The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 443-461. https://doi.org/10.5465/256890.
  47. Selnes, F., & Sallis, J. (2003). Promoting relationship learning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 80-95. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.3.80.18656.
  48. Sherer, S. A. (2003). Critical success factors for manufacturing networks as perceived by network coordinators. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(4), 325-345. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-627X.00086.
  49. Smirnova, M., Henneberg, S. C., Ashnai, B., Naudé, P., & Mouzas, S. (2011). Understanding the role of marketing–purchasing collaboration in industrial markets: The case of Russia. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(1), 54-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.09.010.
  50. Thorelli, H. B. (1986). Networks: between markets and hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal, 7(1), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250070105.
  51. Zaefarian, G., Thiesbrummel, C., Henneberg, S. C., & Naudé, P. (2017). Different recipes for success in business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 63, 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.12.006.
  52. Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. The art and science of entrepreneurship. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 3, 23-38.

  • تاریخ دریافت 06 خرداد 1402
  • تاریخ بازنگری 24 تیر 1402
  • تاریخ پذیرش 05 آذر 1402