سفارش تبلیغ
صبا ویژن
اى پسر آدم اندوه روز نیامده‏ات را بر روز آمده‏ات میفزا که اگر فردا از عمر تو ماند ، خدا روزى تو را در آن رساند . [نهج البلاغه]
Marketing Performance Measurement Ability and Firm Performance - پایگاه مقالات علمی مدیریت
  • پست الکترونیک
  • پارسی یار
  •  RSS 
  • بانک مقالات موضوع بندی شده
  • درباره مدیر پایگاه
  • Title: Marketing Performance Measurement Ability and Firm Performance
    Authors: O"Sullivan, Don., Abela, Andrew V
    Subject: Marketing & CRM
    Publish: 2007
    Status: full text
    Source: Journal of Marketing; Apr2007, Vol. 71 Issue 2, p79-93
    Preparation: Scientific Database Management Journal Articles www.SYSTEM.parsiblog.com
    Abstract: Marketing practitioners are under increasing pressure to demonstrate their contribution to firm performance. It has been widely argued that an inability to account for marketing"s contribution has undermined its standing within the firm. To respond to this pressure, marketers are investing in the development of performance measurement abilities, but to date, there have been no empirical studies of whether the ability to measure marketing performance has any actual effect on either firm performance or marketing"s stature. In this study of senior marketing managers in high-technology firms, the authors examine the effect of ability to measure marketing performance on firm performance, using both primary data collected from senior marketers and secondary data on firm profitability and stock returns. They also explore the effect of ability to measure marketing on marketing"s stature within the firm, which is operationalized as chief executive officer satisfaction with marketing. The empirical results indicate that the ability to measure marketing performance has a significant impact on firm performance, profitability, stock returns, and marketing"s stature within the firm.    --Download Article

    Introduction: The effective dissemination of new methods of assessing marketing productivity to the business community will be a major step toward raising marketing’s vitality in the firm and, more important, toward raising the performance of the firm itself” (Rust et al. 2004,p. 76). In response to the pressure on marketers to demonstrate their value to the firm, there have been several highprofilecalls for more research in the area of marketing performance measurement (MPM) and several conceptual andempirical research papers (e.g., Donthu, Hershberger, and Osomonbekov 2005; Lukas, Whitwell, and Doyle 2005;Rust et al. 2004). Furthermore, there have been regular calls for marketing practitioners to develop and enhance their ability to account for marketing’s contribution to firm performance (Ambler 2003; Bolton 2004). An assumption underlying these related academic and practitioner concerns is that developing and applying MPM ability leads to both greater status for marketing at the board level (see, e.g., Webster, Malter, and Ganesan 2005) and improved firm performance (Morgan, Clark, and Gooner 2002). However, to date, the relationship between MPM ability and either firm performance or marketing’s stature within the firm has not been demonstrated empirically.
    The primary purpose of this article is to test whether MPM ability contributes to actual firm performance or to marketing’s stature within the firm, which we operationalize as chief executive officer (CEO) satisfaction with marketing. A secondary purpose is to explore two potentially distinct aspects of MPM ability: the ability to measure performance across a range of marketing activities (e.g., advertising, trade promotion, direct mail) and the ability to assess marketing performance using a comprehensive set of metrics (e.g., financial, nonfinancial). We focus on firms in the high-technology sector. We chose high-tech firms because of the recognition that within this sector, marketing has been under intense pressure to demonstrate its contribution to firm performance. There are two primary reasons for this pressure. First, high-tech companies tend to have more of an engineering orientation than a marketing orientation, and thus top management tends to be more skeptical about the value of marketing (Davies and Brush 1997). Second, during the period we studied (early 2000s), the sector experienced the collapse of the “technology boom,” which led to sharply increased scrutiny of marketing activities (Mohr and Shooshtari 2003). We begin by reviewing the MPM literature and generating several testable hypotheses.


    Measurement and Performance
    A long-standing caricature of marketing practitioners is that they love to spend money and hate to assess the results of that spending (e.g., Adler 1967). Marketers’ inability to account for the function’s contribution to firm performance is recognized as a key factor that has led to marketing’s loss of stature within organizations (Kumar 2004; Lehmann 2004; Webster, Malter, and Ganesan 2005). This is reflected in increased demand for greater accountability (Doyle 2000; Morgan, Clark, and Gooner 2002; Rust et al. 2004). In addition, there have been several high-profile calls for more research in the area of MPM. Most notably, MPM topics have been consistently listed among the Marketing Science Institute’s (1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006) top priorities.
    Marketing performance measurement is the assessment of “the relationship between marketing activities and business performance” (Clark and Ambler 2001, p. 231). Because the problem in question is the inability to account for marketing activities, our specific interest is in marketing’s ability to assess this relationship. Given that the goal of MPM research is to demonstrate the value of the marketing activities, in line with the work of Rust and colleagues (2004), our focus is on marketing not as the “underlying products, pricing, or customer relationships” (Rust et al. 2004, p. 76) but rather as the “marketing activities” themselves, which we define as marketing communication, promotion, and other activities that represent the bulk of the typical marketing budget. Marketing performance measurement research can be divided into three research streams: measurement of marketing productivity (e.g., Morgan, Clark, and Gooner 2002; Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml 2004), identification of metrics in use (e.g., Barwise and Farley 2003; Winer 2000), and measurement of brand equity (e.g., Aaker and Jacobson 2001; Ailawadi, Lehmann, and Neslin 2002). Rust and colleagues (2004) build on the work of Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey (1998) to describe a “chain of marketing productivity” that extends from marketing activities to shareholder value. Marketing activities influence intermediate outcomes (customer thoughts, feelings, knowledge, and, ultimately, behavior), which in turn influence financial performance of the firm. The MPM research we cited examines how marketers can measure the relationships along the chain of marketing productivity; which metrics firms use or could use along this chain, particularly financial, nonfinancial, and market-based assets; and contextual factors, particularly the firm’s market orientation (e.g., Clark and Ambler 2001).
    Underlying all this work is the assumption that such measurement effort is beneficial to the firm and is not just a post hoc justification of marketers’ efforts—that improvements in marketing’s ability to account for its activities will actually raise the performance of the firm. In the face of senior management demands that marketers demonstrate their value, the desire for justification is understandable. However, overcoming the inability to account for the function’s contribution to firm performance requires that resources and management attention be expended on measurement efforts (Bonoma and Clark 1988). Incurring such cost assumes that the firm will benefit, and testing this assumption is the primary purpose of this article.

     

    Hypotheses
    We develop hypotheses based on a theoretical framework that links MPM ability to firm performance and CEO satisfaction with marketing. We begin by hypothesizing that MPM ability has an effect on actual firm performance. Sevin (1965) argues that the implementation of robust performance measures should result in greater marketing and firm performance. Several arguments that link MPM to improvements in marketing and firm performance have been advanced (see, e.g., Rust et al. 2004). First, anticipation of the scrutiny of marketing efforts will encourage greater attention to the activities that will be measured. The idea that “what gets measured gets done” is well founded in the management literature (see, e.g., Ouchi 1979) and is assumed within the MPM literature. Second, Webster, Malter, and Ganesan (2005) contend that marketing’s contribution to the achievement of strategic goals is underrepresented in firms that do not measure marketing performance and that the performance of such firms may suffer as a result. Third, it has been argued that MPM should lead to learning, which should enable improved marketing decisions and, consequently, performance (Morgan, Clark, and Gooner 2002). Fourth, MPM offers performance feedback, and performance feedback has consistently been found to influence both managerial attitudes and behavior (Audia, Locke, and Smith 2000; Curren, Folkes, and Steckel 1992; Greve 1998; Miller 1994). Finally, feedback relative to goals has been demonstrated to produce strong effects (e.g., Locke and Latham 1990). Thus:

     


    H1: MPM ability positively influences firm performance. It has long been recognized that the marketing function typically plays a limited role in the process of strategy formulation (Anderson 1982; Day 1992; Webster 1992). Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey (1998) argue that an important reason for this is that marketers struggle to measure and communicate to top management the impact of marketing activities on firm performance. Lehmann (2004) and Webster, Malter, and Ganesan (2005) observe that marketing has the greatest influence and stature in firms in which there are clear measures of marketing’s contribution. Accordingly, H2: MPM ability is positively associated with CEO satisfaction with marketing.
    As we noted previously, although the primary purpose of this article is to test empirically whether MPM ability contributes to firm performance or to marketing’s stature within the firm, a secondary purpose is to explore the ability to measure performance across a range of marketing activities and the ability to assess marketing performance using a comprehensive set of metrics. Although the two aspects are clearly related in that they both contribute to a firm’s MPM ability, we hypothesize that they are distinct. For example, one firm may be able to measure the performance of its
    advertising or public relations (activities) only in terms of changes in awareness (nonfinancial metric), whereas nother firm may be able to measure them in terms of revenue change (financial metric) and against specific goals and
    competitor performance (benchmark metric) (Ambler 2003). The focus of the broader marketing accountability literature
    has been on the importance of the ability to measure disparate marketing activities (e.g., Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml
    2004; Webster, Malter, and Ganesan 2005). In addition, the discussion of MPM among practitioners has also
    tended to focus on the activities dimension (e.g., McMaster 2002). However, within the existing academic literature on
    MPM, the focus has tended to be on the metrics in use (e.g., Ambler, Kokkinaki, and Puntoni 2004; Barwise and Faley
    2003, 2004; Lages, Lages, and Lages 2005; Lukas, Whitwell, and Doyle 2005).
    We hypothesize that both the activities and the metrics aspects have separate but related effects on performance
    and CEO satisfaction. Because the activities aspect precedes the metrics aspect both theoretically and logically, we est the activities aspect first:
    H3: The ability to measure performance across the range of marketing activities a firm employs positively influences
    firm performance.
    H4: The ability to measure performance across the range of marketing activities a firm employs is positively associated with CEO satisfaction with marketing. As we noted previously, the identification of metrics in
    use is one of the main streams of MPM research (e.g., Ambler, Kokkinaki, and Puntoni 2004; Barwise and Farley
    2003, 2004; Lages, Lages, and Lages 2005; Lukas, Whitwell, and Doyle 2005). An assumption underlying this esearch stream is that choice of metrics matters.
    Researchers in this area have concluded that in their choice of metrics, firms should employ both financial and nonfinancial
    metrics (Clark 1999; Rust et al. 2004) and that they should compare these against goals and competitors
    (Ambler 2003). Thus, we expect that firms that follow this guidance and are able to assess marketing performance
    using a broad set of metrics (financial and nonfinancial, in relation to goals, and in relation to competitors) should outperform hose that lack this ability. It has previously been noted that the academic community’s focus on metrics in
    use has had little impact on practicing marketers (Clark 1999). Reflecting this, we are interested in isolating the impact of metrics ability on performance and CEO satisfaction beyond that which is accounted for by activities ability.
    Thus:
    H5: The ability to provide a comprehensive set of metrics positively influences firm performance.
    H6: The ability to provide a comprehensive set of metrics is positively associated with CEO satisfaction with marketing.
    Dashboards are a variation of a balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1992) and are used as a means to report
    key metrics to senior management from the array of information generated by corporate information systems (Paine
    2004; Wind 2005). Ambler (2003) describes a dashboard as a refined set of marketing performance data, usually presented together, which communicate an overview of strategic
    performance. Two important elements of dashboards are that they provide automated or (close to) real-time reporting
    (Iyer, Lee, and Venkatraman 2006; Wind 2005) and that they enable users to “drill down” to program-level details
    (Miller and Cioffi 2004). It has been noted that dashboards,
    which are increasingly popular among marketing practitioners,
    have received only limited attention in marketing research (Rogers 2003). Recently, Srivastava and Reibstein
    (2005) have called for more research on the role of dashboards in managing marketing productivity.
    Dashboards are viewed as a means by which information  can be summarized and readily communicated to senior decision makers (Srivastava and Reibstein 2005). It is argued that this distilling of data increases the perceived
    value and managerial use of information (Peyrot et al.
    2002), which in turn creates a closer link between marketing
    activities and firm goals (McGovern et al. 2004; Miller
    and Cioffi 2004). Therefore, the use of a marketing dashboard
    is hypothesized to act as a moderator in the relationships
    between ability to measure and performance and
    between ability to measure and CEO satisfaction.
    H7: The greater the use of a marketing dashboard, the more
    positively MPM will influence firm performance and
    CEO satisfaction.
    The study controls for firm size and firm age because
    both variables have previously been shown to affect performance
    (e.g., Ahuja and Lampert 2001; Miles, Covin, and
    Heeley 2000). In controlling for firm age, the study follows
    previous research on high-tech firms (e.g., Hill and Naroff
    1984). Firm age is accepted as influencing performance
    through the ability to learn in the customer relationship and
    on competitive advantage outcomes (Zahra, Ireland, and
    Hiltt 2000). We summarize the relationships outlined in this
    section in Figure 1.
    Method
    Sample and Procedure
    A survey of senior marketers in high-tech firms about MPM
    ability, CEO satisfaction with marketing, and aspects of
    firm performance produced the primary data for our
    research. We used the membership list of the CMO Council
    as the sample frame for our study. The CMO Council is a
    U.S.-based, not-for-profit organization for senior marketers
    in high-tech firms. The council’s membership is global,
    though at the time of study, it was heavily skewed toward
    North American firms. The membership list contains names
    and background information (title, firm, and contact details) or all members. We collected survey responses through an
    online, structured survey. We supplemented the primary
    data captured through the survey with secondary data on
    aspects of firm performance.
    The study sought responses from key informants.
    Because the CMO Council’s membership is limited to
    senior marketers, we included in the sample all members
    other than those who worked in marketing services
    providers, such as advertising agencies. We subsequently
    analyzed the responses to ensure that the respondents had
    senior marketing responsibilities (job title) before we
    included them in further analysis. The views of key informants
    are widely used within the marketing literature (see,e.g., Day and Nedungadi 1994; Moorman and Rust 1999;
    Narver and Slater 1990).
    Before constructing the questionnaire, we conducted
    preliminary in-depth interviews with 17 chief marketing
    officers (CMOs). These discussions focused on the interviewees’
    understanding of and motivations for measuring marketing
    performance. A strong functional orientation was
    apparent; interviewees were most interested in measuring the performance of the marketing function as opposed to
    the broader marketing performance of the firm. In addition,
    respondents were interested in assessing performance
    impact at the firm level. In short, MPM was viewed as an
    assessment of the marketing function’s contribution to firm
    performance. The interviews provided a basis for the development
    of our survey questionnaire.
    The questionnaire was divided into three sections that
    contained questions related to MPM ability, firm performance,
    and respondent profile. The questionnaire included
    a 15-item scale to quantify the ability to measure performance
    across a range of marketing activities and a 4-item
    scale to measure the ability to assess performance using a
    comprehensive set of metrics. These scales reflected the
    views captured from our interviews with CMOs and a
    review of the literature. To test for comprehension, relevance,
    and completeness, we pilot-tested the questionnaire
    with ten senior marketers from the CMO Council. Participants
    in the pilot phase were asked to identify any problems
    they encountered with the e-mail invitation, the content of
    the questionnaire, or the process of completing it online.
    Participants were also asked to evaluate the clarity of the
    questions and the response formats. No major difficulties
    were identified, though we clarified some of the response
    options and revised the questionnaire accordingly.
    The survey was administered online between February
    and March 2004. A total of 810 marketers received e-mail
    notification of the survey. This was followed 14 days later
    by a reminder e-mail to nonrespondents. Each e-mail contained
    an embedded link to the survey. We received 214
    usable response, for a response rate of 26.4%. This response
    rate was highly satisfactory given that rates ranging from
    12% to 20% are considered acceptable for cross-sectional
    samples (Churchill 1991). We tested for nonresponse bias
    using time-trend analysis (Armstrong and Overton 1977).
    We selected two subsamples from early and late respondents.
    Because these did not differ in terms of respondent
    profile or the variables of interest, we concluded that nonresponse
    bias was not a significant concern.
    We collected survey responses over a four-week period.
    After that time, we made the survey available through several
    additional channels, most notably a BusinessWeek
    research panel. This produced an additional 98 qualified
    respondents, for a total of 312 responses. Subsequent analysis
    of these additional 98 respondents indicated that they
    were not materially different from the first 214 respondents
    in terms of job title and sector. Furthermore, their responses
    to the key issues under consideration in the study were
    similar to those of the original 214 respondents. Consequently,
    we included them for further analysis. In total, we
    included 312 responses in subsequent analysis.
    The job titles of respondents represented the range of
    possible senior marketer titles: 17% were CMOs, 40% were
    vice presidents of marketing, and 15% were marketing
    directors. Of the 27% who answered “other,” most were
    senior managers with titles such as president or vice president
    of sales and marketing. Respondent firms were drawn
    from a cross-section of information technology–related sectors:
    36% were software providers, 35% provided Internetrelated
    services, 3% provided components, 3% provided
    computer systems, and 3% provided networking products
    and services. Peripherals and integration accounted for 2%
    and 1%, respectively. Of the 17% that responded “other,”
    most were application service providers, information technology
    consulting services, or telecommunications-related
    products and services. Firm age varied greatly among respondents, and most (>90%) were headquartered in North
    America.
    Measurement1
    We calculated MPM ability as the simple average of a
    firm’s scores on the activities and metrics scales. We
    assessed MPM ability using a 15-item scale based on our
    in-depth exploratory interviews with CMOs. We recorded
    responses on a seven-point scale anchored by “poor” and
    “excellent.” These activities included above- and below-theline
    promotional activities as well as marketing planning
    and customer relationship management. As we noted previously,
    because the issue being addressed is marketers’
    inability to account for marketing activities, our specific
    interest here is in marketing’s ability to assess this relationship.
    Having an ability does not necessarily mean using it,
    but given the demands being placed on marketers in hightech
    firms at the time of this study to account for their contribution
    more effectively, it seems highly unlikely that any
    MPM ability would have remained latent. Therefore, we
    assume that any firm in our sample that had an MPM ability
    was indeed using it. Discussions with the CMO Council’s
    Steering Committee and interviews with 17 CMOs during
    the exploratory phase of our research indicated that this
    assumption was reasonable.
    In our study, metrics is a construct that consists of the
    summed responses to four questions. Again, we captured
    responses on a seven-point scale anchored by “poor” and
    “excellent.” Over the past 40 years, ranges of metrics have
    been proposed for MPM (for a review, see Clark 2001).
    These include both financial and nonfinancial measures.
    The inclusion of nonfinancial measures is considered an
    important progression because it helps provide a more complete
    deion of marketing’s contribution. Financial and
    nonfinancial measurement are two of the four aspects of
    metrics ability we considered. The other two aspects of
    metrics we assessed are related to benchmarking. Bonoma
    (1989) was one of the first researchers to argue for greater
    benchmarking of marketing performance. More recently,
    Vorhies and Morgan (2005) have demonstrated the impact
    of the benchmarking of marketing capabilities on firm performance.
    Consequently, we included the ability to benchmark
    against plan and against competitors in our understanding
    of metrics. The resultant scale was reliable (? =
    .83).
    Dependent measures. Our dependent measures were
    firm performance and CEO satisfaction with marketing. We
    assessed firm performance using both primary and secondary
    data. Primary data were provided through our survey
    of senior marketers. In the past, the most common measures
    of output in firm-level marketing performance studies
    have been profit, sales, market share, and cash flow
    (Bonoma and Clark 1988). Financial measures, such as
    sales and profit, continue to be the most important MPMs
    (Clark 2000; Kokkinaki and Ambler 1999). Several studies
    have suggested that managers balance profitability and sales
    growth (McKee, Varadarajan, and Pride 1989; Slater and
    Narver 1996), and others have considered market share a
    measure of firm performance (Jaworski and Kohli 1993).
    Accordingly, and in line with previous studies, we measured
    performance as the mean of a respondent’s rating for
    his or her firm’s sales growth, market share, and profitability
    performance relative to all other competitors. We captured
    responses on a five-point scale anchored by “very
    poor” and “outstanding.” We measured CEO satisfaction
    with marketing as the response to a single question. We captured
    responses on a five-point scale anchored by “excellent”
    and “poor.”
    Following the work of Rust, Moorman, and Dickson
    (2002), we captured secondary data on firm performance
    through two measures: return on assets (ROA) and stock
    returns. We calculated ROA as the firms’ overall ROA for
    the 12 months subsequent to our original study, as reported
    in COMPUSTAT. This time lag enabled us to determine the
    direction of causality between MPM and firm performance.
    Using data provided by the University of Chicago’s
    Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP), we measured
    stock returns as the firms’ size-adjusted stock returns
    for the 12 months subsequent to the original study. The
    CRSP provides data on stocks traded on each of the major
    U.S. stock exchanges: NYSE, AMEX, and NASDAQ. We
    calculated returns as the difference between an individual
    firm’s stock returns and the value-weighted average return
    for all firms in the same size decile of the sample firm in
    CRSP’s size decile portfolio for each month. Return data
    were adjusted for both stock dividends and splits for each
    firm by CRSP (Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml 2004). We calculated
    each firm’s return for the period, referred to as the
    holding period return, as follows:...      --Download Article



    روح الله تولّایی ::: یکشنبه 88/5/11::: ساعت 11:0 صبح
    نظر پژوهشگران:
    موضوع مقالات: Marketing & CRM

    ..::""بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم""::.. ««لکل شی‏ء زکاه و زکاه العلم نشره»» به جامع ترین پایگاه موضوعی مقالات علمی مدیریت خوش آمدید. این پایگاه دارای بیش از 4000 عضو پژوهشگر و دانشجوی مدیریت می باشد.

    > پایگاه مقالات علمی مدیریت<<
    Marketing Performance Measurement Ability and Firm Performance - پایگاه مقالات علمی مدیریت

    بانک موضوع بندی شده مقالات علمی مدیریت
    مدیریت دانش
    مدیریت راهبردی
    مدیریت کیفیت
    مدیریت اسلامی
    مدیریت جهادی
    مدیریت فنآوری اطلاعات
    مدیریت منابع انسانی
    مدیریت پروژه
    مدیریت بهره وری
    مدیریت بحران
    خلاقیت و نوآوری
    بازاریابی و CRM
    مدیریت زنجیره تامین
    مدیریت تولید و عملیات
    مهندسی ارزش
    مدیریت اقتصادی و مالی
    مدیریت مشارکتی
    مدیریت آموزشی
    مدیریت کارآفرینی
    مدیریت زمان
    مدیریت تغییر
    مدیریت بازرگانی
    مدیریت استعدادها
    مدیریت توسعه
    مدیریت ریسک
    آینده پژوهی
    ارزیابی عملکرد
    مبانی سازمان ومدیریت
    مفاهیم نوین در سازمانها
    حسابرسی و حسابداری
    تصمیم گیری و تصمیم سازی
    ساختار و معماری سازمانی
    جنبش نرم افزاری تولید علم
    تعالی و بالندگی سازمانی
    مدیریت شهری
    اقتصاد مهندسی
    توانمندسازی
    تئوری فازی
    انگیزش
    رهبری
    مهندسی مجدد
    مهندسی سیستم ها
    فرهنگ و جو سازمانی
    سازمانهای یادگیرنده
    شبکه های عصبی
    اخلاق در سازمان
    مدیریت فناوری
    مدیریت عملکرد
    مدیریت بومی
    مقالات ترجمه شده
    مقالات روح الله تولایی
    مورد کاوی
    مدیریت R & D
    مدیریت دولتی
    برنامه ریزی
    رفتار سازمانی
    مدیریت صنعتی
    بودجه بندی
    مدیریت خدمات
    تعاونی ها
    الگوبرداری
    مشاوره مدیریت
    طرح تجاری
    شرکتهای مادر
    برنامه ریزی
    قیمتگذاری
    هزینه یابی
    شبیه سازی
    سلامت اداری
    تجارت الکترونیک
    بنگاه های کوچک و متوسط
    مدیریت ایمنی و بهداشت
    تئوری پردازی درمدیریت
    خصوصی سازی
    هوش هیجانی
    سازمان ها چابک
    سازمانهای مجازی
    مدیریت فرهنگی
    مدیریت گردشگری
    عدالت سازمانی
    روش شناسی تحقیق
    پرسشنامه های مدیریتی
    مدیریت مذاکره
    آرشیو
    متن کامل جزوات درسی
    دانلود کتاب های مدیریت
    آدرس دانشگاههای جهان
    KnowledgeManagement
    Strategic Management
    Marketing

    >> عضویت در کانال تلگرام پایگاه <<


    >>جستجو در پایگاه<<

    >>اشتراک در خبرنامه پایگاه<<
     


    >> درباره مدیریت پایگاه <<
    Marketing Performance Measurement Ability and Firm Performance - پایگاه مقالات علمی مدیریت
    روح الله تولّایی
    ..::""بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم""::.. ««لکل شی‏ء زکات و زکات العلم نشره»» - دانش آموخته دکتری تخصصی مدیریت تولید و عملیات دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی و فارغ التحصیل فوق لیسانس رشته مدیریت صنعتی و معارف اسلامی دانشگاه امام صادق علیه السلام هستم. پس از سال ها پریشانی از " فقدان استراتژی کلان علمی" که خود مانع بزرگی سر راه بسیاری از تدابیر کلانِ بخشی محسوب می شد، هم اکنون با تدبیر حکیمانه مقام معظم رهبری چشم انداز 20 ساله جمهوری اسلامی ایران مبنای ارزشمندی است که بر اساس آن بتوان برای تعیین تکلیف بسیاری از تصمیمات و امور بر زمین مانده چاره اندیشی کرد. در ابتدای این چشم انداز آمده است : " ایران کشوری است با جایگاه اول علمی ، اقتصادی، ..." مشاهده می شود که کسب جایگاه نخست در حوزه های علم و دانش، آرمان مقدم کشورمان می باشد. این حقیقت، ضرورت هدایت دغدغه خاطرها و اراده ها و توانمندی ها به سوی کسب چنین جایگاهی را روشن می سازد. جهت دستیابی به این چشم انداز، برنامه ریزی ها، تصمیم گیری ها، تدارک ساز وکارهای متناسب و اولویت بندی آن ها، تعاملات و تقسیم کارها و ... جزء اصول و مبانی پیشرفت و توسعه تلقی می شوند. اولین گامی که جهت توسعه دادن مرزهای علم باید طی کرد، یادگیری حدود مرزهای علم می باشد. بر این اساس اینجانب به همراه تعدادی از دوستانم در دانشگاه امام صادق(ع) و دیگر دانشگاه ها جهت ایجاد یک حرکت علمی و ایفای نقش در جنبش نرم افزاری تولید علم بوسیله معرفی سرحد مرزهای علم و دانش ، اقدام به راه اندازی "پایگاه مقالات علمی مدیریت" نمودیم. هم اکنون این پایگاه بیش از 4200 عضو پژوهشگر و دانشجوی مدیریت دارد و مشتاق دریافت مقالات علمی مخاطبین فرهیخته خود می باشد. کلیه پژوهشگران ارجمند میتوانند جهت ارسال مقالات خود و یا مشاوره رایگان از طریق پست الکترونیک tavallaee.r@gmail.com مکاتبه نمایند.

    الکسا


    >>محاسبه اوقات شرعی ایران <<

    >>لینکهای پایگاه مقالات علمی مدیریت<<