سیستم هوش مصنوعی فازی در انتخاب سبک راهبرد‌‌‌های مادری در کسب‌و‌کار

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، واحد قزوین، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قزوین، ایران

2 استادیار، واحد قزوین، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قزوین، ایران

چکیده

نقش ‌شرکت‌های مادر یکی از ضرورت‌‌‌های مهم در پژوهش‌های مربوط به مدیریت راهبرد تبدیل شده است. نحوه تدوین راهبرد‌های مادری و استفاده از روش‌های نوین علمی تحلیل داده از مهم‌ترین خلاهای پژوهشی در‌این حوزه است. مساله اصلی در‌این پژوهش این است، چه متغیرهایی در انتخاب سبک راهبرد‌‌های مادری موثر است و چگونه می‌توان با طراحی یک مدل خبره تصمیم‌گیری، نوع سبک راهبرد مادری را انتخاب نمود. در این پژوهش با بررسی پژوهش‌های پیشین، متغیر‌های تاثیرگذار شناسایی و‌‌با استفاده از روش تصمیم‌گیری دلفی فازی پایش و با بهره‌گیری از سیستم خبره فازی، مدل‌سازی شد. خبرگان از ‌شرکت‌های مادر در حوزه گاز انتخاب و 27 شرکت مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفتند. نتایج پژوهش نشان داد، متغیرهای سطح ارزش‌آفرینی، عملکرد سازمانی، دوره عمر، توان رقابتی و فرهنگ سازمانی بیشترین تاثیر را در انتخاب سبک راهبرد‌های مادری دارند. بر اساس خروجی مدل بیشترین فراوانی داده‌ها مربوط به انتخاب سطح کنترل راهبرد و راهبرد کنترل عملیاتی است. لذا انتخاب این دو راهبرد با توجه به ماهیت ‌شرکت‌های مورد مطالعه در اولویت تصمیم‌گیری است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

By Fuzzy Artificial Intelligence System in Selection Parent Strategies in Business

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ebrahim Rayisie 1
  • Sadegh Abedi 2
  • Reza Ehteshamrasi 2
1 Student Phd, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad university, Qazvin
2 Assistant Professor, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad university, Qazvin
چکیده [English]

The role of parent companies has become one of the most important topics in research related to strategy management. How to formulate parent strategies and use new scientific methods of data analysis is one of the most important research gaps in this field. The main issue in this study is what variables are effective in choosing the style of parent strategies and how to design a type of parent strategy style by designing an expert decision-making model. In this study, by reviewing previous researches, effective variables were identified and monitored using fuzzy Delphi decision making method and modeling using fuzzy expert system. Experts selected from parent companies in the field of gas and 27 companies analyzed. The results show that the variables of value creation level, organizational performance, life expectancy, competitiveness and organizational culture have the greatest impact on the choice of parent strategies style. Based on the model output, the highest frequency of data related to the choice of strategy control level and operational control strategy. Therefore, the choice of these two strategies according of the companies under study is a priority in decision-making.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Strategy
  • Parent Organization
  • Fuzzy Systems
  • Artificial Intelligence
  1. Abdelkafi, N., & Tauscher, K. )2017(. Business models for sustainability from a system dynamics perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, 29(1), 120-155.
  2. Asadzadeh, A., & Rahman Seresht, H. (2015). Intelligent algorithm for parent
    companies and parenting in subsidiary management. Strategic management Studies. (In Persian).
  3. Antonio, L. (2016). Modeling corporate sustainability strategy. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 418-425.
  4. Babaei Zakilaki, M., Hosseinzadeh, M., Rahimpoor, M., & Ahmadizad, A. (2016). Identifying and analyzing barriers of strategy deployment. Strategic management Studies. (In Persian)
  5. Chenhall, R. H. (2003). Management control system design within its organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2-3), 127-168.
  6. Chan, R.C.S., & Park, H.D. (2016). How images and color in business plans influence venture investment-screening decisions. J. Bus. Ventur, 30(5), 732-748.
    7. Dossi, A., & Patelli, L. (2010). You learn from what you measure financial and
    nonfinancial performance measures in multinational companies. Long Range 23(4), 120-148.
  7. Federico, C., & Guido N. (2018). A dynamic business modelling approach to design and experiment new business ventures strategies. Long Range Planning, 14(1), 210-239.
  8. Ferreira, A., & Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management
    systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting
    Research
    , 20(4), 263 - 282.
  9. Francesco, C., Giorgio, C,., & Raffaele, O. (2020). The impact of corporate strategy on capital structure: evidence from Italian listed firms. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 76, 379-385.
  10. Forzelius, M., & Lundell, T. (2017). Developing a framework for management
    control systems in start-ups. Linköping University, Sweden.
  11. Groesser, S.N., & Jovy, N. (2016). Business model analysis using computational modeling: a strategy tool for exploration and decision-making. Manag. Control, 27(1), 61-88.
  12. Georg, H., Julia, K., David, C., Yen, Patrick, Chen, S., & Shu-Chiung, L. (2016). Aperformance measurement framework for service-oriented marketing. Total Quality Management, 27(12), 1373–1395.
  13. Goold, M., & Campbell, A. (1991). Brief case: from corporate strategy to parenting advantage. Long Range Planning, 24(1), 115-117.
  14. Jack. J., & Phillips, P. (2007). Accountability in human resource management. Improving Human Performance Series Books.
  15. Jagoda, A. (2014). The architecture of HR function in capital groups. The Report of Empirical Research, Economics & Sociology, 7(1), 61-71.
  16. Jialin, D., Tao, B., & Stephen, C., (2019). Integrating corporate social and corporate political strategies: Performance implications and institutional contingencies in China. Journal of Business Research. 98(5), 299-316.
  17. Kazmi, A. (2008). A proposed framework for strategy implementation in the Indian Context. Management Decision, 46(10), 1564-1581.
  18. Kopecka, N. (2015). The balance scorecard implementation, integrated approach and the quality of its measurement. Procedia Economics and Finance 25, 59 – 69.
  19. Khasheie, V., Mazloomi, N., & Shahriari, F. (2016). Improving performance,
    strategy deployment and organizational learning. Strategic management Studies (In
    Persian).
  20. Kraus, K., & Lind, J. (2010). The impact of the corporate balanced scorecard on
    corporate control: a research note. Management Accounting Research, 21.
  21. Kunisch, S., Menz, M., & Ambos, B. (2015). Changes at corporate headquarters:
    review, integration and future research. International Journal of Management
    Reviews
    , 17, 356–381.
  22. Liberatore ,M., Matthew J., & Miller, T. (2015). A framework for integrating activity- based costing and the balanced scorecard into the logistics strategy development and monitoring process. Journal of business Logistics, 19(2), 78-102.
  23. Lin, Y., Chung-Jen, C., & Bou-Wen. L. (2017). The influence of strategic control and operational control on new venture performance. Management Decision, 55(5).
  24. Lilia, D., & Jitka, Z. (2018). Integration of sustainable development at enterprise level. procedia engineering. 69, 686-695.
  25. Meer K. J., & Kamminga, P. (2015). Joint venture dynamics: The effects of
    decisions made within a parent company and the role of joint venture management
    control. Management Accounting Research, 26, 23–39.
  26. Bénet, N., Deville, A., & Naro, G. (2019). BSC inside a strategic management
    control package. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 32, 55-83.
  27. Pirali, A., Amini, M., Parhizgar, M.M., & Mobarakeh, A. (2019). Explaining the
    pattern of factors influencing strategies in organizations. Strategic management
    Studies. (In Persian)
  28. Pouya S., & Glenn Rowe, W. (2019). The role of corporate controls and business-level strategy in business unit performance. Journal of Strategy and Management. 21, 55-83
  29. Proctor, E. K., Powell, B. J., & McMillen, J. C. (2013). Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implementation Science, 8(139), 1–11.
  30. Reimer, M., Van D.S., & Heyden, M. (2016). Managers and management control
    systems in the strategy process. J Manag Control, 27, 121–127.
  31. Rouse, P., & Putterill, M. (2003). An integral framework for performance
    measurement. Management Decision, 41(8), 791-805.
  32. Saunders, M., Mann, R., & Smith, R. (2008). Implementing strategic initiatives: a framework of leading practices. International Journal of Operations & Production
    Management
    . 28, 11.
  33. Sophia, S., Kevin, B., & Herb S. (2015). The moderating effect of organizational life cycle stages on the association between the interactive and diagnostic approaches to using controls with organizational performance. Management Accounting Research. 26, 40-53.
  34. Siska, L. (2015). The concept of management control system (MCS) and it’s relation to performance measurement. Procedia Economics and Finance, 25, 141 –147.
    36. Tarek, R. H. (2020). Effects of corporate social responsibility towards stakeholders and environmental management on responsible innovation and competitiveness. Journal of Cleaner Production. 250, 90-117.
  35. Tessier, S., & Otley, D. (2012). A conceptual of simons’s lever of control
    framework. Management Accounting Research, 23, 171- 185.
  36. Ulrich, D., Younger. J., & Brockbank, W. (2008). The twenty-first-century HR
    organization. Human Resource Management, 47(4), 829–850.
  37. Van, A., & Eileen, C. (2002). Building better measurement. Industrial Management, 44(4), 28, 78-104.
  38. Buresová, V., & Dvoráková, L. (2015). The reference model of corporate
    performance management in the sustainability context. International Conference on
    Management, Leadership & Governance
    .
  39. Stehnei, M., Irtysheva, I., Khaustova, K., & Boiko, Y. (2017). Modeling of strategic control system in the context of sustainable development of enterprise. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 15(3), 210-239.