تعداد نشریات | 29 |
تعداد شمارهها | 431 |
تعداد مقالات | 4,216 |
تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 6,796,811 |
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 5,043,868 |
بررسی تأثیر یادگیریمداری بر عملکرد محصول جدید: تبیین نقش واسط قابلیت دوسو توانی و چابکی سازمانی | ||
پژوهشنامه مدیریت اجرایی | ||
مقاله 8، دوره 11، شماره 21، شهریور 1398، صفحه 115-136 اصل مقاله (1.09 M) | ||
نوع مقاله: نوآوری(سیاستهای نوآوری، ظرفیت نوآوری، اکوسیستم نوآوری، نظام نوآوری، تحقیق و توسعه، . . . .) | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22080/jem.2020.17181.2993 | ||
نویسنده | ||
ایمان حکیمی* | ||
استادیار گروه مدیریت بازرگانی و مدیریت IT، دانشکده مدیریت، اقتصاد و حسابداری، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران | ||
تاریخ دریافت: 01 مهر 1398، تاریخ بازنگری: 12 دی 1398، تاریخ پذیرش: 03 اسفند 1398 | ||
چکیده | ||
علیرغم ضرورت یادگیریمداری در توسعه محصول جدید، مطالعات اندکی چگونگی این ارتباط را از طریق متغیرهای میانجی بالقوه بررسی کردهاند. لذا هدف از این مطالعه بررسی نقش میانجی قابلیت دوسو توانی و چابکی سازمانی در رابطه مذکور است. این پژوهش از نوع توصیفی- همبستگی و مبتنی بر مدلسازی معادلات ساختاری است که به روش میدانی اجرا گردیده است. جامعه آماری پژوهش، مدیران ارشد و بالاخص مدیران واحد تحقیق و توسعه شرکتهای دانش بنیان واقع در استان کرمان میباشد که 180 نفر از آنها به عنوان نمونه انتخاب گردید. ابزار مورد استفاده، پرسشنامه استاندارد میباشد که روایی و پایایی آن مورد تأیید قرار گرفت. برای تحلیل دادهها نیز از نرمافزارهای SPSS 19 و LISREL 8.8 استفاده شد. یافتهها نشان میدهد که یادگیریمداری به طور مثبت با قابلیت دوسو توان و چابکی سازمانی به ترتیب با ضرایب تأثیر 34/0 و 46/0 در ارتباط است. قابلیت دوسو توان و چابکی سازمانی نیز، به نوبه خود با ضرایب تأثیر 48/0 و 19/0 با عملکرد محصول جدید در ارتباط میباشند. در نهایت با توجه به عدم تأیید رابطه مستقیم بین یادگیریمداری و عملکرد محصول جدید، نتایج حاکی از تأیید نقش میانجی کامل قابلیتهای دوسو توانی و چابکی سازمانی در این ارتباط است. | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
یادگیریمداری؛ قابلیت دوسو توانی؛ چابکی سازمانی؛ توسعه محصول جدید؛ شرکتهای دانشبنیان | ||
عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
Investigating the Effect of Learning Orientation on New Product Performance: Explaining the Mediating Role of Ambidextrous Capability and Organizational Agility | ||
نویسندگان [English] | ||
Iman Hakimi | ||
Assistant professor, Payam e Noor University, Department of Management, Tehran, Iran | ||
چکیده [English] | ||
Despite the necessity of Learning orientation in new product development, few studies have examined how this relationship is mediated through potential mediating variables. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the mediating role of ambidextrous capability and organizational agility in the mentioned relationship. This research is a descriptive-correlational study and is based on structural equation modeling. The statistical population of the research is senior managers and especially research and development managers of knowledge-based companies located in Kerman province, of which 180 persons were selected as sample. The tool used is a standard questionnaire in which its validity and reliability were confirmed. SPSS 19 and LISREL 8.8 were also used for data analysis. The findings show that learning orientation is positively related to ambidextrous capability and organizational agility respectively with impact factors of 0.34 and 0.46. The ambidextrous capability and organizational agility also, in turn, are positive with impact coefficients of 0.48 and 0.19 are related to the performance of the new product. Finally, due to the lack of confirmation of the direct relationship between learning orientation and new product performance, the results confirm the full intermediary role of ambidextrous and organizational agility capabilities in this mentioned relationship. | ||
کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
Learning Orientation, Ambidextrous Capability, Organizational Agility, New Product Development, Knowledge Based Companies | ||
مراجع | ||
Abrishamkar, M. M., & Abdollahi, Y. A. (2016). The link between labor agility and new product innovation (case study: small, medium and large companies in the high technology industry). Business Management, 8(2), 245-258. (In Persian) Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. K. (2007). Modeling agility of supply chain. Industrial marketing management, 36(4), 443-457. Akgun, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Keskin, H., & Lynn, G. S. (2006). Transactive memory system in new product development teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(1), 95-111. Alavi, S., Arbabshirani, B., & Esfandiari, E. (2014). Investigating the Relationship between Organizational Learning and Innovation from a Dynamic System Viewpoint in Isfahan Engineering Research Center. Production & operations management, 5(1), 71-92. (In Persian) Aliahmadi, A., Fekri, R., & Fathian, M. (2009). Determining the factors influencing the agility of the new product development process using the principal components analysis method. Tomorrow Management, 8(21), 34-42. (In Persian) Assadinia, S., Kadile, V., Gölgeci, I., & Boso, N. (2019). The effects of learning orientation and marketing programme planning on export performance: Paradoxical moderating role of psychic distance. International Small Business Journal, 37(5), 423-449. Ayoub, H. F., & Abdallah, A. B. (2019). The effect of supply chain agility on export performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30(5), 821-839. Azar, A., & Pishdar, M. (2011). Identify and measure organizational agility indicators. Management Researches, 11(11), 5-20. (In Persian) Bahrai, M., Kiani, M., Fallahzadeh, H., Montazarolfaraj, R., & Mohammadzadeh, M. (2016). Relationship between organizational learning and organizational agility in teaching hospitals of Yazd. Health Management Strategies, 1(1), 71-80. (In Persian) Baker, W., & Sinkula, J. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 27(4), 411-427. Bai, W., Johanson, M., & Martín, O. (2019). Dual Business Relationships, Opportunity Knowledge, and New Product Development: A Study on Returnee Young Ventures. Journal of International Marketing, 27(3), 26-42. Baker, W., & Sinkula, J. (2007). Does market orientation facilitate balanced innovation programs? An organizational learning perspective. Product innovation management, 24(4), 316-334. Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796. Cegarra-Navarro, J., Soto-Acosta, P., & Wensley, A. (2016). Structured knowledge processes and firm performance: Role of organizational agility. Business Research, 69(5), 1544-1549. Chandrasekaran, A., Linderman, K., & Schroeder, R. (2012). Antecedents to ambidexterity competency in high technology organizations. Operations Management, 30(1-2), 134-151. Chen, J., Neubaum, D. O., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2015). The relationship between team autonomy and new product development performance under different levels of technological turbulence. Journal of Operations Management, 33, 83-96 Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S., Jin, J., Wang, L., & Chow, W. S. (2014). IT capability and organizational performance: the roles of business process agility and environmental factors. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(3), 326-342. Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization science, 7(5), 477-501. Ebrahimpour, H., Salarifar, M., & Asiaee, A. (2012). Relationship between agility capabilities and organizational performance. European Journal of Business and Management, 4(17), 186-95. Goswami, A. K., & Agrawal, R. K. (2019). Influence of ethical leadership on employee learning orientation: evidence from academics. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 33(3), 13-15. Harraf, A., Wanasika, I., Tate, K., & Talbott, K. (2015). Organizational agility. Applied Business Research, 31(2), 675-686. He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15(4), 481-494. Ho, M., & Wang, F. (2015). Unpacking knowledge transfer and learning paradoxes in international strategic alliances: Contextual differences matter. International Business Review, 24(2), 287-297. Huang, J. W., & Li, Y. H. (2017). The mediating role of ambidextrous capability in learning orientation and new product performance. Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(5), 613-624. Hughes, M., Martin, S. L., Morgan, R. E., & Robson, M. J. (2010). Realizing product-market advantage in high-technology international new ventures: The mediating role of ambidextrous innovation. Journal of International Marketing, 18(4), 1-21. Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial marketing management, 33(5), 429-438. Hussain, J., Shah, F., Rehman, W., & Khan, Y. (2018). Learning Orientation & Performance: Interaction Effect of Entrepreneurial Orientation. Pakistan Business Review, 19(4), 960-977. Jansen, J., Tempelar, M., Vanden Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: Mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization science, 20(4), 797-811. Kalmuk, G., & Acar, A. Z. (2015). The effect of quality orientation and learning orientation on firm performance. Research Journal of Business and Management, 2(4), 455-487. Khalilnejad, SH., & Daneshvar Deilami, M.R. (2018). The effect of learning strategies on new product development with moderating role of strategic orientation and cognitive capabilities. Strategic Management Researches, 24(69), 13-34. (In Persian) Mardani, M. R., Amirnejad, G., & Ahmadzadeh, A.R. (2018).The effect of organizational leadership on organizational agility with mediating role Organizational Learning. Social Development Quarterly, 13(2), 219-238. (In Persian) Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2010). Development and return on execution of product innovation capabilities: Role of organizational structure. Industrial marketing management, 39(5), 820-831. Nielsen, J. A., Mathiassen, L., & Hansen, A. M. (2018). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning: A Critical Application of the 4I Model. British Journal of Management, 29(4), 835-850. O'Cass, A., Heirati, N., & Ngo, L. V. (2014). Achieving new product success via the synchronization of exploration and exploitation across multiple levels and functional areas. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(5), 862-872. Ojha, D., Acharya, C., & Cooper, D. (2018). Transformational leadership and supply chain ambidexterity: Mediating role of supply chain organizational learning and moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Production Economics, 197, 215-231. O'Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338. Panda, S., & Rath, S. K. (2018). Information technology capability, knowledge management capability, and organizational agility: The role of environmental factors. Management & Organization, 1-27. Ravichandran, T. (2018). Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation capacity and organizational agility. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(1), 22-42. Rezaei, R., & Gharakhani, D. (2016). The effect of knowledge management on organizational performance by considering the mediating role of organizational agility. Development and Transformation Management, Special Letter, 93-104. (In Persian) Sattayaraksa, T., & Boon-itt, S. (2016). CEO transformational leadership and the new product development process: The mediating roles of organizational learning and innovation culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(6), 730-749. Setia, P., Sambamurthy, V., & Closs, D. (2008). Realizing business value of agile IT applications: antecedents in the supply chain networks, Information Technology and Management, 9(1), 5-19. Seyyed Ameri, M. H., Hadavi, S. F., & Sam Khaniyani, Y. (2017). The Relationship between Organizational Learning Capacity and Organizational Agility of Sports and Youth Departments with Moderating Role of Employment Status. Organizational Behavior Management Studies in Sport, 4(3), 109-118. (In Persian) Suliyanto, S., & Rahab, R. (2012). The role of market and learning orientation in improving innovativeness and performance of small and medium enterprises. Asian Social Science, 8(1), 134. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. Vaezi, R., & Sedagatpour, F. (2011). Study of E-Government and Agility in Tehran Registry. Management Studies in Development and Evolution, 22(67), 1-17. (In Persian) Wang, C. L. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 32(4), 635-657. Yannopoulos, P., Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2012). Achieving fit between learning & market orientation: Implications for new product performance. Product Innovation Management, 29(4), 531-545. Zitkiene, R., & Deksnys, M. (2018). Organizational Agility Conceptual Model. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 14(2), 115-129. | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 732 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 520 |