اثرات بازارگرایی، فرصت طلبی تکنولوژیکی و پذیرش کسب و کار الکترونیک بر عملکرد : تجزیه و تحلیل واسطه ای تعدیل شده
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|3792||2012||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 8750 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), Volume 20, Issue 2, May 2012, Pages 136–146
Understanding the effective adoption of technological innovations, such as e-business, is arguably one of the key challenges facing organizations. The literature indicates that the relationship between firm capabilities and firm performance is mediated by the effects of the adopted innovation (e.g., e-business). However, the complementarity effects of capabilities on the adoption of innovation have received little attention. Drawing on the Resource Based View, this paper examines the complementarity between two firm-specific capabilities [i.e., Market Orientation (MO) and Technological Opportunism (TO)] with regard to e-business adoption (EBA) as well as the mediating effect of EBA on the capability-performance relationship. A moderated mediation analysis revealed that the relationship between MO and EBA is moderated by TO and that EBA partially mediates the effects of MO and TO on firm performance. Implications for theory and practice are discussed regarding bundling capabilities and subsequent complementarity to increase causal ambiguity in order to increase both EBA and firm performance
Facilitating business processes through e-business technologies has been highlighted (e.g., Achrol and Kotler, 1999 and Rapp et al., 2008) as a critical challenge for all industries and all firms. In fact, the critical question is not whether firms should adopt e-business but how they should deploy e-business to obtain competitive advantage (Porter, 2001). Furthermore, due to the high failure rates in the adoption and implementation of high technological innovations (e.g., Mohr and Shooshtari, 2003), understanding the adoption of technological innovations, such as e-business, is arguably one of the key concerns and challenges in marketing practice (Hauser et al., 2006, McCole and Ramsey, 2005, Hernandez et al., 2009 and Trainor et al., 2011). The literature (e.g., Augusto and Coelho, 2009, Hurley and Hult, 1998, Hult et al., 2004, Montealegre, 2002, Narver et al., 2000, Rapp et al., 2008, Srinivasan et al., 2002, Tuominen et al., 2004 and Wu et al., 2003) indicates a positive relationship between firm capabilities and the adoption of innovation, including the adoption of e-business technologies. Furthermore, the mediating effects of adopting innovations on the relationship between firm-specific capabilities and firm performance have been examined. For example, Hult et al. (2004) show that innovativeness defined as the capacity to introduce new process, products or ideas, mediates the effects of firm capabilities such as market orientation and organizational learning on business performance. Whilst, Naidoo (2010) illustrates that marketing innovation mediates the market orientation and competitive advantage relationship. In the context of e-business adoption, Wu et al. (2003) discuss the mediating effects of e-business adoption between organizational learning, customer and competitor orientation and various firm performance outcomes. However, the complementarity between firm capabilities has received little attention and has been considered only with regards to variables such as firm performance (e.g., Menguc and Auh, 2006). Crucially, the complementarity between firm capabilities on a mediator (e.g., e-business adoption) of the capability-performance relationship has not been examined. A central tenet of the RBV is that firm capabilities interact with each other. That is, the value of a capability depends on other capabilities (Moorman and Slotegraaf, 1999) due partly to resource uniqueness attained from the reconfiguration and integration of existing capabilities, thereby giving rise to causal ambiguity and subsequently to sustainable competitive advantage (Powell et al., 2006). Consequently, managers are challenged to appropriately allocate resources and to build those capabilities (and address weaknesses) that will deliver value to customers manifesting in superior firm performance as measured by both market-based (e.g., market share, customer satisfaction, and customer retention) and financial-based outcomes (e.g., return on investment, shareholder wealth) (Sarkees, 2011 and Sirmon et al., 2011). Capabilities can complement each other, such that the interactions enhance firm performance more than the individual contribution of each capability. For example, Moorman and Slotegraaf (1999) in the new product development literature argue that effective product development is due to a firm possessing both product marketing and product technological capabilities and the resulting complementarity of both these capabilities. Therefore, when capabilities are complementary, a capability may be difficult to develop, not due to its own initial level but due to its complementarity with other capabilities (Dierickx and Cool, 1989). Essentially, complementarity is critical to the firm because the interaction effects of capabilities enhance both effectiveness and efficiency (Park and Zaltman, 1987 and Song et al., 2005), and makes imitation difficult due to causal ambiguity (Menguc and Auh, 2006). There have been calls in the literature (e.g., Moorman and Slotegraaf (1999); Song et al., 2005) for examining the complementary effects of marketing and technological capabilities as they are arguably two of the most important determinants of firm performance (Dutta et al., 1999). In the specific context of market orientation and technological opportunism, Srinivasan et al. (2002) call for research to investigate the complementarity of these two capabilities on various firm outcomes. However, in spite of the central importance accorded to complementary resources and capabilities in creation and internal appropriation of economic rents, strategic theories of the firm have tended to under-emphasize their crucial integrative role in explaining competitive advantage (Stieglitz and Heine, 2007). Existing methodologies focus on separately measuring both sets of capabilities (their main effects), and usually neglect the synergies between these complementary capabilities (their interaction effects) which can play a crucial role in the innovation process and augment firm performance (Prasnikar et al., 2008). This paper applies the RBV to examine the complementarity effects of marketing and technological capabilities (i.e., MO and TO) on a potential mediator (i.e., EBA) of the capabilities-performance relationship. Market orientation is of central interest as it is the cornerstone of marketing strategy, and there remains an ongoing debate regarding its role in innovation (e.g., Hurley and Hult, 1998). Technological opportunism is of interest as it is a key factor in the EBA context given that it refers to sensing and responding to technological developments. To this end, the contribution that this paper makes is twofold: (1) It contributes to the RBV literature by examining whether firm capabilities have complementary effects on a potential mediator (i.e., e-business) of the capabilities-performance relationship, and; (2) It contributes to the market orientation literature by providing a moderation-mediation analysis of the effects of MO, TO, and EBA on firm performance.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
5.1. Theoretical implications There have been calls for the application of the RBV to marketing phenomena (Srivastava et al., 2001). The adoption of innovations is a cornerstone of marketing theory (Mohr and Shooshtari, 2003) and a core challenge for marketing practitioners (Hauser et al., 2006). This study applied the RBV to examine EBA. Furthermore, whilst the majority of studies have focused on deterministic pressures as antecedents to the adoption of innovations and thereby emphasize a reactive approach to strategy (Srinivasan et al., 2002), firm-specific capabilities were treated in this study as antecedents to the adoption of an innovation (i.e., EBA). Thereby, indicating a proactive approach to strategy (i.e., based on a firm’s internal capabilities as opposed to being reactive to competitor moves). Researchers all too often do not consider the interaction between firm capabilities, which is a significant oversight for two reasons. First, the interaction between firm capabilities is crucial because it can be regarded as an important source of causal ambiguity. Second, interactions are important as they affect issues of practice, theory and metatheory (Cronbach, 1987). Indeed, some scholars (e.g., Dutta et al., 1999) argue that the interaction of marketing and technological capabilities is the most important determinant of firm performance. There is evidence (e.g., Hult et al., 2004) that the effects of firm capabilities (e.g., market orientation and organizational learning) on firm performance are mediated by innovation. There is also evidence that firm capabilities (e.g., Song et al., 2005) have complimentary effects on firm performance. However, the key premise of this paper, which was supported by the findings, is that capabilities not only directly affect firm performance but also affect firm performance via their complementary effects on EBA, which is arguably a key mediator of the capabilities-performance relationship. Given that the mechanisms of mediation and moderation (e.g., moderated mediation) arguably enhance the causal ambiguity of firm capabilities, this study examined the complementarity between a marketing capability (i.e., MO) and a technological capability (i.e., TO) on a mediator (i.e., EBA) of the capability-performance relationship. The main findings of this study were as follows: (i) EBA partially mediates the effects of MO and TO on performance in that MO and TO have significant direct effects on performance; and (ii) the effects of MO on EBA are moderated by TO. More precisely, the relationship between MO and EBA is stronger for high levels of TO than for Low levels of TO. The findings show that the effects of MO on EBA are significant and positive for all three levels of TO thus revealing that MO is an important antecedent to EBA. However, the significant interaction between MO and TO indicates that the greater the extent to which TO is embedded in the organizational culture, the greater is its value as a facilitator of the MO-EBA relationship. Moreover, the complementarity between MO and TO provides one explanation as to why some firms are able to effectively adopt innovations, and thus improve firm performance by bundling multiple capabilities rather than emphasizing individual capabilities. As shown in Table 3, TO not only moderates the MO–EBA relationship but also has unique positive effect on firm performance over and above those of MO and EBA. This finding is not surprising as TO is a firm capability, in that it possesses idiosyncratic processes that are complex which makes it difficult to be transferred across firms, and therefore, is a source of competitive advantage. Furthermore, the findings indicate that EBA and firm performance are enhanced when MO is complemented with MO. The complementarity of MO and TO makes it difficult for competitors to engage in undoing or in reverse engineering. As a result, TO enhances the effects of MO on both EBA and consequently firm performance by increasing causal ambiguity, thereby, rendering imitation more difficult. There is a debate in the literature as to whether market orientation directly or indirectly affects firm performance (e.g., Cano et al., 2004 and Langerak, 2003). The findings contribute to the market orientation literature by supporting both views in that MO was shown to have both direct and indirect effects (via EBA) on firm performance. Furthermore, the significant relationship between MO and firm performance further reinforce the notion that MO is a firm specific capability that enhances firm performance. 5.2. Managerial implications There are three major implications of the findings for practitioners. First, the findings highlight the importance of an emphasis on the creation and development of an internal firm environment (i.e., firm capabilities) which supports and encourages the adoption of e-business technologies. Specifically, firms intending to adopt e-business technologies need to develop capabilities such as MO and TO beforehand because these firm capabilities drive EBA. Capabilities are the reflection of the evolutionary process of deliberate firm-specific investments, including investments of financial and managerial resources (Ethiraj et al., 2005). The development and maintenance of firm capabilities, such as MO and TO, requires considerable investments by the firm (Teece et al., 1997) but is worthwhile because these capabilities improve firm performance both directly and indirectly through EBA. Furthermore, firms should invest in capabilities, such as MO and TO, which involve tacit knowledge and complex inter-relationships among requisite knowledge and skills because these facilitate causal ambiguity, and thus also facilitate sustainable competitive advantage (Reed and DeFillippi, 1990). Second, managers need to carefully consider the type of capability-mix in order to increase the effects of the capabilities for the firm. The findings show that high levels of MO when combined with low levels of TO can prevent firms from realizing the full benefits of MO. The complementary nature of the MO and TO relationship suggests that managers should not only invest in multiple capabilities for the firm but should also carefully consider the level of investment for each capability. Furthermore, it is crucial for firms to develop processes that complement the information obtained from sensing and responding to customers (MO) with the information obtained from sensing and responding to technology (TO). This is because complementarity between these variables seems relevant to strategic decisions with regards to the adoption of e-business technologies. The findings from this study, however, are relatively simple in that they advocate a “high-high” approach to MO and TO. Nevertheless, this study is in some ways a first cut at a can of worms (cf. Wernerfelt, 1984) and future research may reveal that some firm capabilities have, for example, cross-over interactions. We believe opportunities exist for future studies to examine this “high-high” approach in other contexts to aid generalizability relating to firm investments in different capabilities. Third, the manner in which market orientation and e-business adoption are conceptualized has implications for practice. Whilst market orientation has traditionally been viewed as being responsive (i.e., understanding customer expressed needs), MO highlights the importance of understanding the latent needs of customers. This approach encourages organizations to adopt a holistic view of market orientation that includes proactively understanding the latent needs of customers. Additionally, e-business was conceptualised as comprising internal administration, order-taking, communication and procurement which differs from measuring e-business as a unitary construct (Srinivasan et al., 2002). This approach encourages organisations to view e-business as a complex and pervasive technology and thus avoids the limitations that are inherent in construing e-business as a unitary construct. 5.3. Limitations of the study Some limitations of this study need to be mentioned. Firstly, the data for all of the variables were obtained via a common method from a single source and this method may bias the relationships between these variables. A single-factor test was conducted on all of the items to examine whether the majority of the covariance between the items could be attributed to common source/method variance. The results from this analysis revealed that the first factor accounted for 36.2% of the variance in the items thus indicating that common source/method variance does not explain the majority of the variance in the items. Second, there are other firm capabilities that may affect the adoption of e-business. These include entrepreneurial orientation (Hult et al., 2004), technological orientation (Gatignon and Xuereb 1997), and organisational innovativeness (Deshpande et al., 1993). Therefore, future studies may include these firm capabilities in a model of innovation adoption. Third, it is arguably the case that the nature of the product (i.e., those product and services targeted at tech-savvy consumers) may render firms marketing these types of products naturally inclined to adopt e-business. Furthermore, some industries, particularly service oriented industries, such as the software industry, are dependent on e-business technologies. On the other hand, it is possible that e-business adoption is not necessarily beneficial in all circumstances for all firms such as in markets where consumers may not value, or are not aware of, e-business technologies, or cannot access e-business technologies. Finally, this study does not analyze the differences in the nature of the product or the industry and under which specific industry/market circumstances e-business adoption is beneficial. Therefore, future studies can aim to understand the effects of product and industry characteristics on the adoption of e-business technologies as well as factors that influence the benefits of adopting e-business. Notwithstanding these limitations, this paper contributes to both market orientation and resource based view theories, specifically on the complementarity of firm capabilities and its effects on the adoption of innovation and firm performance.