تحلیل تخصیص فعالیت‌های شرکت‌های هواپیمایی در راهبرد هم‌رقابتی

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری، پردیس کیش، دانشگاه تهران، کیش، ایران

چکیده

هم‌رقابتی، راهبردی است که مورد توجه جدی دردنیا و ایران قرار گرفته است. بررسی پیشینه این حوزه در صنعت هوانوردی دو شکاف را آشکار می‌نماید، یکی در شرکت‌های هواپیمایی ایران پژوهشی در این مورد صورت نگرفته است و لازم است شرایط و راهبردها و پیامدهای هم‌رقابتی در این صنعت بررسی شود. دومین شکاف که در پیشینه داخلی و خارجی مشاهده شد این بود که در صورت قبول این استراتژی توسط سیاست‌گذاران صنعت، چگونه فعالیت‌ها در این صنعت را به رقابت و همکاری تخصیص دهیم؟ هدف این پژوهش به دنبال پاسخ‌گویی و پر کردن شکاف دوم پژوهش می‌باشد. این پژوهش از نظر هدف کاربردی و از نظر جمع‌آوری داده‌ها توصیفی می‌باشد   و با ابزار پرسشنامه، داده‌ها جمع‌آوری شده‌اند. در جهت پاسخ‌گویی به سوال اصلی پژوهش از روش دلفی فازی استفاده شد. در این پژوهش با روش نمونه‌گیری قضاوتی 16 خبره صنعت و دانشگاه انتخاب و در دو مرحله 36 فعالیت اصلی در شرکت‌های هواپیمایی به رقابت و همکاری تخصیص داده شد و اجماع خبرگان در مورد آن حاصل شد. با توجه به نتایج دلفی فازی بیشترین توافق خبرگان برای همکاری شرکت‌های هواپیمایی در فعالیت‌های هندلینگ، تحقیق و توسعه، تجهیز و نگهداری و انبار قطعات و بیشترین توافق برای رقابت بین شرکت‌های هواپیمایی در فعالیت‌های بازاریابی، برنامه مسافران کثیرالسفر، برنامه‌های تفریحی درون پرواز و کارکنان پروازی می‌باشد. راهبرد هم‌رقابتی راهبردی برد-برد برای شرکت‌های هواپیمایی می‌باشد. در مرحله اجرای این راهبرد باید مشخص کرد در چه فعالیت‌هایی باید همکاری و در چه فعالیت‌هایی باید رقابت بین شرکت‌های هواپیمایی صورت گیرد. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis of the allocation of activities in airline companies to coopetition strategy

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohsen Nazari 1
  • Mohammad Ali Shahhoseini 1
  • Saedeh Ghayourisales 2
1 Associate Professor, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 PhD Student, Kish campus, University of Tehran, Kish, Iran
چکیده [English]

IntroductionCoopetition strategy has attracted substantial attention in the last 30 years and the previous ten years in Iran. A survey of the history of this topic finds two gaps; one is that no research has been done on Iran in airlines. While the Sky Team, One World, and Star Alliance strategic alliances, a form of coopetition in the aviation industry, have more than 50% share of the global aviation market, and the largest airlines in the world are members of one of these alliances, in Iran there are 19 airlines. Moreover, some of these airlines have only two or three airplanes. In order to perform better and improve the satisfaction and experience of customers and other stakeholders, it is necessary to analyze the competitive strategy of the country's airlines. The second gap discovered in the local and global context was that if industry policymakers adopt a coopetition strategy, how can we allocate activities in this industry to competition and cooperation? This research tries to answer and fill the second gap in the research. This paper aims to determine with the fuzzy Delphi method in which activities companies should compete.
  Methodology: According to Saunders' research onion, this research is of the positivist type. The research approach is comparative. The type of research is single-method and quantitative. Furthermore, the research strategy is to conduct a survey. The data collection tool is a questionnaire. The data are descriptive, given that we had no part in their creation. Research is practical in terms of purpose. The research is cross-sectional in terms of time horizon. The data was collected in the spring of 2022. The quantitative technique used in this research is fuzzy Delphi. Dalkey and Helmer first presented the Delphi method in 1963. Delphi is a method to reach a consensus of opinions of a group, especially an expert group. In the first stage of Delphi, 36 activities were presented to 16 experts, and they were asked, based on their knowledge and experience, to state their opinion on whether companies should cooperate or compete with each other in each of the activities. The answer was in the range of 1 to 5. The closer the answer is to 1, it means that in the expert's opinion, competition in the activity in question is more appropriate. The closer to 5, the expert's opinion is on cooperation in that activity between airlines. According to the threshold number of 0.65 and more for cooperation and the threshold number of 0.35 and less to detect the competitiveness of the activity in the first phase of fuzzy Delphi, 21 activities were assigned, 15 of which were cooperation activities and 6 were competition activities, and there was no consensus among experts about 15 activities. which led to the second round of fuzzy Delphi. In the second phase questionnaire, 15 activities where there was no consensus among the experts regarding cooperation or competition in the first phase were again presented to them to get the opinions of the experts. It should be noted that in the second round, the information of the first round results of all the respondents and their first-round answers were presented to them to make a better decision. The statistical population includes six people with a doctorate and ten with a master's degree, all of whom have more than 15 years of experience and knowledge in the aviation industry.
   Results and Discussion: According to the results of the research based on fuzzy Delphi, the highest agreement of experts is to cooperate in the following activities. The research findings of domestic airline companies suggest that experts are most in agreement regarding cooperation in handling, research and development, equipment and maintenance, and storage of parts. At the same time, they are most in accord regarding competition between airlines in marketing activities, frequent passenger programs, in-flight entertainment, and crew flight. According to the two rounds of fuzzy Delphi in the activities of CIP, airport launch, preparation of uniforms, and information technology systems, there was no consensus of experts regarding cooperation or competition in these activities between airlines, and these activities need further investigation.
Conclusion: Coopetition is a win-win strategy for airlines, which, based on its application in international airlines, should be implemented by establishing a culture among airline policymakers. During the implementation phase of this plan, it should be indicated in which activities collaboration and rivalry amongst airlines should be encouraged. The fuzzy Delphi method creates the consensus of experts about cooperation and competition in each airline company's activities. In order to improve their performance and the satisfaction of customers and other stakeholders, we suggest that domestic airlines cooperate with domestic companies in the first stage and make strategic alliances next. Considering the changes in the ecosystem of the aviation industry, we recommend that the business model of the airline companies should be revised to meet the needs of the changing external environment and the ecosystem of this industry.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Coopetition
  • Win-win strategy
  • Information technology systems
  • Activity allocation
  1. Abbaspour, M., Gholipour, T., Nazari, M., & Sayare, J. (2021). A systematic review of competitive strategy studies in the transportation industry and providing a conceptual framework. Commercial Strategies, 18(17), 1-23. doi: 10.22070/cs.2022.16166.1230
  2. Bahmani, M., Pourzarandi, M., & Minoei, M. (2022). Factors affecting the forecast of stock returns; Using Delphi-fuzzy knowledge analysis and technique. Karafan Quarterly Scientific Journal, (), -. doi: 10.48301/kssa.2022.327544.1982. [In Persian]
  3. Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). Coopetition in business Networks to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial marketing management29(5), 411-426.
  4. Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges. Industrial marketing management43(2), 180-188.
  5. Bennett, et al., (2014). What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business horizons, 57(3), 311-317.
  6. Bonel, E., & Rocco, E. (2007). Coopeting to survive; surviving coopetition. International Studies of Management & Organization37(2), 70-96.
  7. Bonel, E., Pellizzari, P. and Rocco, E. (2008), "Coopetition and Complementarities: Modeling Coopetition Strategy and Its Risks at an Individual Partner Level", Management Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 189-205. https://doi.org/10.2753/JMR1536-5433060303
  8. Crick, J. M., Crick, D., & Chaudhry, S. (2022). The dark-side of coopetition: it’s not what you say, but the way that you do it. Journal of Strategic Marketing30(1), 22-44.
  9. Czakon, W., & Dana, L. P. (2013). Coopetition at work: How firms shaped the airline industry(No. hal-02050281)..
  10. Dagnino, G. B. (2009). Coopetition strategy: a new kind of interfirm dynamics for value creation. In Coopetition strategy, 45-63. Routledge..
  11. Fernandez, A. S., Chiambaretto, P., Le Roy, F., & Czakon, W. (Eds.). (2019). The Routledge companion to coopetition strategies. Abingdon: Routledge.
  12. Fowler, M. (2012). Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture: Pattern Enterpr Applica Arch. Addison-Wesley.
  13. Fowler, S.,(2012), New Peugeot 108 to be built with Toyota , Auto Express.
  14. Ghaderiabed, A., Nazari, M., Kamareh, M., & Heidari, A. (2021). Developing coopetition strategy conceptual model for ICT industry. Management Research in Iran, 22(4), 102-128. [In Persian]
  15. Gast, J., Filser, M., Gundolf, K., & Kraus, S. (2015). Coopetition research: towards a better understanding of past trends and future directions. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business24(4), 492-521.
  16. Gast, J., Gundolf, K., Harms, R., & Collado, E. M. (2019). Knowledge management and coopetition: how do cooperating competitors balance the needs to share and protect their knowledge?. Industrial marketing management77, 65-74.
  17. Jafarzadeh, M., Rezvani, M., Davari, A. (2019). Preparing framework for deployment of coopetition strategy in the internationalization of export-oriented clusters using interpretive structural modeling. Journal of International Business Administration, 2(4), 51-72. doi: 10.22034/jiba.2019.9801. [In Persian]
  18. kestekar, Sarsee, & Kalantary. (2022). Assessing the formation of cooperation strategy in the Golden Triangle of Iran Tourism Triangle. Journal of Urban Economics and Management, 9 (37), 19-38. [In Persian]
  19. Kossyva, D. I., Galanis, K. V., Sarri, K. K., & Georgopoulos, N. B. (2014). Adopting an information security management system in a co-opetition strategy context. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies 85(3), 215-228.
  20. Kossyva, D., Sarri, K., & Georgolpoulos, N. (2015). Co-opetition: A business strategy for SMEs in times of economic crisis. South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics12(1).
  21. Le Roy, F., & Sanou, F. H. (2014). Does coopetition strategy improve market performance? An empirical study in mobile phone industry. Journal of Economics & Management17, 64-92.
  22. Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Pan, X. (2006). Cross-functional “coopetition”: The simultaneous role of cooperation and competition within firms. Journal of marketing70(2), 67-80.
  23. Meena, A., Dhir, S., & Sushil, S. (2022). A review of coopetition and future research agenda. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 38(15). DOI: 10.1108/JBIM-09-2021-0414.
  24. Mohammad R., & Faqihi, A. (2022). Identify and rank the challenges of assessing the productivity of knowledge staff using fuzzy Delphi method and fuzzy hierarchical analysis method (Case study: knowledge-based companies). Management in Islamic University, 10 (22), 383-398. [In Persian]
  25. Nakanishi, Y. (2020). Interplay between coopetition and institutions: how Japanese airlines enhance bargaining power. Journal of Co-Operative Organization and Management8(2), 100120.
  26. Nazari, M., Kamareh, M., Heidari, A., & Ghaderiabed, A. (2019). Developing a conceptual model for competitive collaborative strategy in Iran telephone and mobile communications sector: a multi-case study. Journal of Business Management, 11(3), 525-542. doi: 10.22059/jibm.2018.258449.3064
  27. Nazari, M., ShaHosseini, M.A., & Ghayourisales, S. (2022). Presenting a coopetition model in  airlines, Journal of Business Management (in press). [In Persian]
  28. Peng, I. C., & Lu, H. A. (2022). Coopetition effects among global airline alliances for selected Asian airports. Journal of Air Transport Management101, 102193.
  29. Rashidi, Jazani, & Mobini, (2022). Determining policies to promote public trust in Iranian urban management organizations using the fuzzy Delphi method. Geographical Land, 19 (74),17-46. [In Persian]
  30. Ritala, P. (2012). Coopetition strategy–when is it successful? Empirical evidence on innovation and market performance. British Journal of management23(3), 307-324.
  31. Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2009). What's in it for me? Creating and appropriating value in innovation-related coopetition. Technovation29(12), 819-828.
  32. Ritala, P., Golnam, A., & Wegmann, A. (2014). Coopetition-based business models: The case of Amazon. com. Industrial marketing management43(2), 236-249.
  33. Roy, P., & Yami, S. (2009). Managing strategic innovation through coopetition. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business8(1), 61-73.
  34. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods forbusiness students. Essex: Prentice Hall: Financial Times.
  35. Schmidt, K. C. (2020). Strategic alliances as a form of coopetition and its impact on the performance of airlines: A Case Study analysis of Lufthansa, Finnair, and Alitalia.
  36. Soltani, M., Jafari, S., & Binandeh, R. (2016). Improving economic firms performance through co-opetition strategy. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 7(26), 23-46. [In Persian]
  37. Soltani, M., Kordnaeij, A., Irani, H., & Hasanbeygi, N. (2021). Presenting a model of factors affecting the coopetition formation and consequences: a mixed research. Journal of Business Management Perspective, 20(45), 39-64. doi: 10.29252/jbmp.2021.221103.1049. [In Persian]
  38. Talari, M., & Binandeh, A. (2020). Historical trend of coopetition and developing a comprehensive model of coopetition strategy under sanctions condition. Journal of Management Improvement, 14(1), 95-126. doi: 10.22034/jmi.2020.107069. [In Persian]
  39. Tehrani, M., Jafarinia, S., & Ghorbani, Y. (2022). The Identification of the Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Impact Management Through Meta-Synthesis and Fuzzy Delphi Methods. Organizational Culture Management, 20(3), 613-645 . [In Persian]
  40. Yami, S., & Nemeh, A. (2014). Organizing coopetition for innovation: The case of wireless telecommunication sector in Europe. Industrial Marketing Management43(2), 250-260.
  41. Yami, S., et al. (2010). Coopetition: winning strategies for the 21st century: Edward Elgar Publishing.