سفارش تبلیغ
صبا ویژن
بارالها ! اگر مرا به زنجیر کشی و عطای خود را در میان شاهدان از من بازداری، ... امیدم را ازتو نخواهم بُرید و چهره امیدوار به گذشتت را از تو نخواهم گرداند و محبّتت از قلبم بیرون نخواهد رفت . [امام سجّاد علیه السلام ـ در دعایش ـ]
Alternative Knowledge Strategies, Competitive Environment, and O - پایگاه مقالات علمی مدیریت
  • پست الکترونیک
  • پارسی یار
  •  RSS 
  • بانک مقالات موضوع بندی شده
  • درباره مدیر پایگاه
  • Title: Alternative Knowledge Strategies, Competitive Environment, and Organizational Performance in Small Manufacturing Firms
    Authors: Bierly, Paul E., Daly, Paula S
    Subject: Knowledge management
    Publish: 2007
    Status: full text
    Source: Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice; Jul2007, Vol. 31 Issue 4, p493-516
    Preparation: Scientific Database Management Journal Articles www.SYSTEM.parsiblog.com
    Abstract: This study examines the relationship between knowledge strategy (exploration or exploitation) and performance, and the possible moderating role of external environment variables. Results from a sample of small manufacturing firms indicate that exploration and exploitation are distinct and complementary constructs. The relationship between exploration and performance is linear and positive, while the relationship between exploitation and performance is concave, indicating that there is a point at which focusing on exploitation leads to reduced returns. Additionally, we find that the competitive environment moderates the relationship between exploitation and performance, such that exploitation has a stronger impact on performance in stable and high-tech environments than in dynamic and low-tech environments. Exploration also has a stronger impact on performance in high-tech environments than in low-tech environments.

    ---Download Article---

    Introduction
    According to a knowledge-based view of organizations, the principal function of a
    firm is the creation, integration, and application of knowledge (Conner & Prahalad, 1996;
    Grant, 1996; Nonaka, 1994; Spender, 1996). From this perspective, the essence of strategy,
    the development of sustainable competitive advantages, is the identification, development
    and application of key resources, and ultimately the resource most likely to lead
    to a sustainable competitive advantage is the firm’s unique knowledge base (Barney, 1991;
    Grant, 1996; Peteraf, 1993). This knowledge base is comprised of the firm’s intellectual
    capital, which can be defined as the tangible and intangible knowledge, experience, and
    skills of employees in an organization. The set of strategic choices addressing knowledge
    creation in an organization comprise the firm’s knowledge strategy, which provides the
    firm with guidelines for developing intellectual capital and therefore creating competitive
    advantage (Bierly & Chakrabarti, 1996; Zack, 1999). Two generic knowledge strategies
    identified by March (1991) are (1) exploration, whereby firms strive to develop capabilities
    to excel at the creation or acquisition of new knowledge, and (2) exploitation, where they
    develop capabilities to excel at the ability to leverage existing knowledge to rapidly create
    new organizational products and processes. Some researchers (Levinthal & March, 1993;
    March, 1991) have conceptualized exploration and exploitation as two distinct strategic
    options that involve trade-offs and require different organizational capabilities. However,
    an empirical study by Bierly and Chakrabarti (1996) determined that some large pharmaceutical
    firms have successfully pursued exploration and exploitation simultaneously.
    Knott (2002) has extended this concept and argues that exploration and exploitation are not
    substitutes at all, but are in fact complementary. Recent empirical studies have provided
    initial support for this argument (He &Wong, 2004; Helfat & Raubitschek, 2000).
    However, there are two large gaps in this literature stream on knowledge strategies.
    First, the focus of research on knowledge strategies to date has been on larger firms and
    has not addressed specific issues encountered by small- to medium-sized enterprises
    (SMEs) (Harrison & Leitch, 2005; Ravasi & Turati, 2005; Sadler-Smith, Spicer, &
    Chaston, 2001). This may be a major problem because SMEs are typically more resource
    constrained and have less organizational slack than large firms, and therefore face greater
    challenges in developing a knowledge base while managing the tensions and tradeoffs
    associated with exploration and exploitation. Additionally, smaller firms differ from larger
    firms in terms of their organizational structures, managerial styles, responses to the
    environment, and how they compete (Chen & Hambrick, 1995; Man, Lau, & Chan, 2002;
    Rangone, 1999). Large firms have competitive advantages based on their size because of
    increased market power, economies of scale, reduced costs of inputs, and more abundant
    resources for product development and advertising (Chen & Hambrick, 1995; Hambrick,
    MacMillan, & Day, 1982; Prescott, Kohli, & Venkatraman, 1986). SMEs must overcome
    size disadvantages by creating advantages in flexibility of production (Fiegenbaum &
    Karnani, 1991), speed of attack (Chen & Hambrick, 1995), niche strategies focusing on
    price and quality (Cooper, Willard, & Woo, 1986; Woo & Cooper, 1981), and disrupting
    the status quo through innovation (Acs & Audretsch, 1990; Covin & Covin, 1990;
    Rothwell & Zegveld, 1982).
    Asecond gap in the literature is that research on knowledge strategies has inexplicably
    failed to consider the environmental context of firms. A core concept of strategic management
    is that certain strategies are more effective in certain environments (Porter, 1980;
    Prescott, 1986). However, no research has been conducted that evaluates the success of
    different knowledge strategies in different environmental contexts. This is particularly
    important for SMEs, which are usually more vulnerable to external influences than larger
    firms since their competitive advantages tend to be less sustainable as the environment
    changes (Man et al., 2002). Clearly, studying the effects of the competitive environment
    on SMEs’ knowledge strategies and performance is required.
    Thus, the ives of this study are to examine the relationship between an SME’s
    knowledge strategy (exploration or exploitation) and performance, and the possible moderating
    role of external environment variables. More specifically, we intend (1) to determine
    if the knowledge strategies of exploration and exploitation are distinct constructs for
    SMEs; (2) to clarify whether exploration and exploitation are complementary and mutually
    reinforcing, or are substitutes; (3) to delineate the nature of the relationships between
    exploration and performance, and between exploitation and performance; and (4) to
    determine whether these relationships are moderated by industry factors such as dynamism
    and munificence.We tested our hypotheses on data collected from multiple respondents
    at 98 small and medium-sized manufacturing firms in a variety of industries.


    knowledge Strategies
    A knowledge strategy can be viewed as a firm’s set of strategic choices regarding
    two knowledge domains: (1) the creation or acquisition of new knowledge (exploration),
    and (2) the ability to leverage existing knowledge to create new organizational
    products and processes (exploitation). The most crucial element of a firm’s knowledge
    strategy is resource allocation, more specifically, the degree to which the firm focuses
    its resources on either generating radically new knowledge or incrementally enhancing
    the existing knowledge base. In addressing these tradeoffs, March (1991) argued that
    the continuous and incremental exploitation of current knowledge maximizes profits
    in the short run, and the exploration of radically new knowledge is more likely to
    maximize long-term firm success. Pursuing a strategy of exploration entails higher costs
    and increased risk for a firm, but is more likely to lead to a sustainable competitive
    advantage. However, concentrating resources too heavily on exploration may prevent
    firms from reaping the benefits that come from developing these knowledge breakthroughs.
    Focusing on exploration tends to slow down the developing and the refining
    of skills and processes associated with the firm’s current competencies. A strong commitment
    to an exploitation strategy entails trade-offs as well. According to March
    (1991), organizations that focus on incremental knowledge gain may find themselves
    experts in areas that have become obsolete, getting better and better at things that
    customers no longer value.
    According to Levinthal and March (1993), few firms are successful at simultaneously
    developing both radical and incremental knowledge, primarily due to limited resources
    within the firm. Explicitly focusing on either exploration or exploitation as a means of
    enhancing the knowledge base generally implies not focusing on the other approach. As
    researchers (e.g., Hedlund, 1994; Schildt, Maula, & Keil, 2005; Volberda, 1996) have
    pointed out, focusing on radically new knowledge and focusing on incrementally enhancing
    a current knowledge base often require very different types of organizational cultures,
    capabilities, and structures. Once a firm creates a competence in either exploration or
    exploitation, it is usually more efficient for the firm to continue on that particular path
    (Levinthal & March, 1993).
    Additionally, researchers in the field of management of technology have discussed the
    difference between radical and incremental innovations (Damanpour, 1991; Dewar &
    Dutton, 1986; Ettlie, Bridges, & O’Keefe, 1984), which can be viewed as outputs of
    exploration and exploitation, respectively. Radical and incremental innovations usually
    require different organizational structures, processes, and cultures (Damanpour, 1991),
    and usually occur at different points of an industry’s evolution (Tushman & Anderson,
    1986). Specifically, the punctuated equilibrium model of change describes industry evolution
    as long periods of incremental innovation interrupted by brief periods of radical
    innovation (Romanelli & Tushman, 1994; Tushman & Anderson, 1986). Tushman and
    O’Reilly (1996) argued that firms should try to simultaneously excel at exploration
    and exploitation, and identified a few examples of firms that are successful at both the
    development of radically new knowledge and the exploitation of existing knowledge:
    Johnson and Johnson, Asea Brown Boveri, and Hewlett-Packard. They labeled these rare
    paradoxical companies that are successful at simultaneous exploration and exploitation as
    “ambidextrous organizations” (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Rather than typifying the
    firm that excels at either exploration or exploitation, these exceptional firms possess
    the seemingly contradictory skills and competencies of both, and have subcultures
    within the organization that support each approach. These firms can be characterized as
    being creative yet pragmatic, loose and tight, chaotic as well as efficient. They allow
    substantial freedom yet maintain control. These companies have complex organizational
    cultures and structures that not only accept conflict, but also use that conflict as an impetus
    in the knowledge-creation process. Flexible organizational forms (Volberda, 1996),
    modular organizational structures (Sanchez & Mahoney, 1996), and N-form organizations
    (Hedlund, 1994) have been proposed to manage such paradox within an organization,
    mostly by designing the organization to facilitate knowledge transfer and integration.
    Large companies seemingly have an advantage over small companies in succeeding as
    “ambidextrous” organizations because they typically have much broader access to the
    multitude of resources required to create a complex organizational structure, manage
    multiple subcultures, and sustain both exploration and exploitation capabilities within the
    firm.


    Hypotheses
    The general argument made by many of the researchers mentioned previously is that
    choosing between exploration and exploitation necessitates trade-offs, and therefore the
    two strategies are substitutes, and thus, inversely correlated. According to this view, firms
    that develop competencies in exploitation are likely to focus more of their resources on
    further exploitation and less on exploration; likewise firms with competencies in exploration
    will find it more cost effective to focus on further exploration than to engage in
    exploitation (Levinthal & March, 1993). Basically, this view stresses the value of specialization
    and efficiency of learning. We challenge this argument, and choose to test an
    alternative perspective, proposed by Knott (2002), that exploration and exploitation are
    complements rather than substitutes. Firms that develop the capabilities necessary to
    foster exploration are also more likely to engage in exploitation, and vice versa. Even
    though there are difficulties in simultaneously pursuing exploration and exploitation (as
    described previously), there are also organizational systems and human resource practices
    that support both. More specifically, team-based structures, an organizational culture that
    values and promotes change, open communication channels, and human resource practices
    that promote creativity and innovation will help to sustain both exploration and
    exploitation (Bierly & Daly, 2002). Researchers who extol the trade-offs between exploration
    and exploitation fail to also adequately consider the synergies associated with the
    two knowledge strategies.
    A few recent studies have provided initial support of exploration and exploitation
    being complementary. The study most similar to ours is He and Wong (2004), who
    studied manufacturing firms in Singapore and Malaysia and determined that the interaction
    of exploration and exploitation is positively related to sales growth. Consistent
    with this perspective, Helfat and Raubitschek (2000) argue that successful exploitation
    (referred to as incremental learning) in the past can lead to and support exploration
    (referred to as step-function learning); and that current exploration promotes future
    exploitation. Similarly, Rothaermel and Deeds (2004), while analyzing alliances in biotechnology,
    illustrated that exploration and exploitation are related, such that exploration
    alliances increase products in development, which increases the propensity to use
    exploitation alliances. Anecdotal evidence that relatively large companies can successfully
    pursue exploration and exploitation is provided by Knott’s (2002) case study of
    Toyota, Ichijo’s (2002) study of General Electric, Holmqvist’s (2004) study of a Scandinavian
    software producer, and Helfat and Raubitschek’s (2000) studies of Sony,
    Canon, and NEC. Whether or not this is also true for SMEs has yet to be addressed in
    the literature...

    ---Download Article---



    روح الله تولّایی ::: یکشنبه 89/2/19::: ساعت 11:0 صبح
    نظر پژوهشگران:
    موضوع مقالات:

    ..::""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<<
    Alternative Knowledge Strategies, Competitive Environment, and O - 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 <<
    Alternative Knowledge Strategies, Competitive Environment, and O - 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<<