مدیریت ریسک در فرایند بین المللی سازی شرکت : یادداشتی پیرامون مدل اوپسالا

This paper analytically and graphically examines the Uppsala model's risk formula (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977) in its two variables: commitment and uncertainty. The graphical treatment of the variables demonstrates the internationalization mechanism's consistency with the risk formula. In particular, commitment manipulation develops a risk management perspective to the model, wherein contingent uncertainty is a central concept. The main contribution consists in the composition of a set of hypotheses on the effects of risk contingencies on a firm's commitment behavior in different internationalization phases. A pertinent remark that emerges from this analytical exercise is the Uppsala model's contingent nature, which explains the differences in the pattern and pace of the internationalization process, as well as potential leapfrogging and market-exit moves.

Among the difficulties that a firm faces in its internationalization process, the lack of market knowledge stands for the most critical constraint (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977 and Johanson and Vahlne, 2009). In fact, according to the findings of the EU Observatory of European SMEs 2006/2007 survey, the lack of knowledge of foreign markets is the main obstacle to international expansion.3 However, and in spite of this lack of knowledge contingency, international business (IB) research has placed most of its attention on knowledge rather than on the lack thereof. This paper deals with an increasing challenge to international managers. More than a problem of knowledge acquisition (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977) and transfer between subsidiaries and headquarters (Doz & Prahalad, 1984), international managers are facing a paradox that has been ancestrally recognized among epistemology philosophers, such as Socrates and Plato. The more knowledge firms acquire, the greater their perception of the lack of knowledge. The knowledge perception gap has become wider, and continues to widen further with the advancement of global information platforms. In this lack of knowledge perception context, managers must make decisions based on consciously incomplete information sets. The amount of available information is such that logical, intuitive, and de-structured decision processes take place. In a fast-changing world, the time it takes to learn narrows to a fraction, forcing commitment decisions to be made based on the achievable knowledge within a massive lack of knowledge. In a globalized world, more important than to decide on the allocation of resources it is to decide on their contingent reallocation. Moreover, managers have to make those decisions attending a range of tangible and intangible commitments. This balance between knowledge and resource commitment in an incomplete, yet cognizant, knowledge context is now of central concern to international managers. Nonetheless, internationalization cannot be seen as the result of an optimization exercise between resource allocation and foreign market exploitation. Rather, it must be comprehended as the process outcome of adjustment to changes within a firm and the firm's environment. This contingency process view on a firm's international path introduces a risk management conceptualization that is embedded in the Uppsala model (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977 and Johanson and Vahlne, 1990). In fact, this model's nuclear assumption – the internationalization mechanism – is analytically supported by a formula that relates risk, commitment, and uncertainty. Interestingly, although the Uppsala model is widely cited and used, the risk formula does not seem to have been noted by researchers. It has neither been criticized nor used in internationalization analyses. Therefore, we assert that there is a need to explicate the risk conception in the Uppsala model and its implications. We discuss the frequent characterization of the Uppsala model as a risk reduction model contrasting this with the role of opportunity-seeking, which is stressed by its authors (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977 and Johanson and Vahlne, 2006). We also discuss the alleged deterministic nature of the model according to some researchers (Andersen, 1993 and Leonidou and Katsikeas, 1996), which contradicts the risk formula's contingency nature. Overall, the objective of this paper is to develop the risk management perspective that is implied and this risk perspective's implications for internationalization analysis. The following section is a short literature review, whereas the subsequent section analytically demonstrates the Uppsala model's risk formula. In Section 4, the risk management perspective of the model is presented and discussed. Section 5 presents a framework of commitment and knowledge balance with hypothesis formulation from the Uppsala model's basic assumptions. The conclusions in Section 6 underline the new perspective given to the Uppsala model and advance that conceptualization's potential in the strategic management field.

A central contribution of this paper is the graphical demonstration and analysis of the Uppsala model's risk formula. It is a conceptual demonstration that gives a new perspective for the Uppsala model. It shows how the risk level changes as a consequence of changes in uncertainty and commitment during the internationalization process of a firm. The risk concept used is regarded as the product between the market commitment and the probability of commitment failure due to uncertainty. This risk concept is consistent with the behavioral theory of decision-making (March & Shapira, 1987). Based on this analysis, we have formulated a risk management framework for balancing uncertainty and commitment. The application of this framework demonstrates the Uppsala model's non-deterministic character, as it makes it possible to outline asset leapfrogging and market exiting, explaining also that the “next step” does not necessarily mean a commitment with more tangible resources. To be precise, it shows the contingent nature of the model. It shows how the pace and pattern of a firm's internationalization process can evolve depending on the changing situations in regard to uncertainty and commitment. An important result of this study is the formulation of a set of hypotheses on decisions based on balancing knowledge and commitment. These hypotheses concern different situations in terms of knowledge accumulation and the extent of commitment, and specify how managerial decision-making can be expected to lead to different commitment decisions in terms of tangible and intangible commitments. They also specify how experiential knowledge and objective knowledge tend to lead to different commitment decisions and demonstrate the implications of the lack of knowledge. As we proposed in the introduction, the problem of today's internationalization is not primarily a problem of knowledge acquisition, but a problem of managing the lack of knowledge. We further suggest that research based on this study should focus on examining the hypotheses theoretically and empirically. Empirical research should apply the concepts of the hypotheses and test them on different sets of firms and in different situations. To conclude, we are convinced that this study has important managerial implications because it enhances the understanding of the complexities of the internationalization process. The risk management view of the Uppsala model advances a model where knowledge and commitment are balanced, prospecting a tool for managers to adjust the firm's risk level through different sorts of knowledge acquisition in an interplay between tangible and intangible commitment scaling. We are convinced that empirical validation of the proposed theory can be a powerful tool in developing strategies for firm internationalization. In particular, the findings can be a basis for strategic thinking on the internationalization of the firm.