تأثیر حافظه سازمانی بر عملکرد توسعه محصول جدید در شرکتهای دانشبنیان | ||
| کاوش‌های مدیریت بازرگانی | ||
| مقاله 8، دوره 11، شماره 22، اسفند 1398، صفحه 177-196 اصل مقاله (492.02 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/jbar.2020.1578 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| مهدی دهقانی سلطانی* 1؛ مریم مصباحی2 | ||
| 1استادیار گروه مدیریت دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد دانشگاه ولی عصر (عج) رفسنجان | ||
| 2استادیار گروه علوم اجتماعی و اقتصاد، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| امروزه ارائه بهترین عملکرد توسعه محصولات جدید، به اساسیترین دغدغه مدیران شرکتهای دانشبنیان مبدل شده و میکوشند تا با بهرهگیری از تکنیکهای مختلف، به عملکرد برتر دست یابند. حافظه سازمانی، بازنمای دانش و تجربه انباشته سازمانی است که میتواند پیامدهای مطلوب یا نامطلوبی برای عملکرد توسعه محصول جدید در بازارهای آشفته فناورانه به همراه داشته باشد. درک سازوکارها و عوامل زمینهای شکلدهنده نقش حافظه سازمانی اهمیت زیادی برای بهبود عملکرد توسعه محصول جدید دارد. در نتیجه هدف از پژوهش حاضر بررسی تأثیر حافظه سازمانی بر عملکرد توسعه محصول جدید با تبیین نقش میانجی دوسوتوانی سازمانی و نقش تعدیلگر آشفتگی فناورانه و نوآوری می‌باشد. جامعه آماری در این پژوهش شرکتهای دانش بنیان مستقر در پارک علم و فناوری دانشگاه تهران بود. برای به دست آوردن حجم نمونه از روش نمونهگیری تصادفی طبقهای و فرمول کوکران استفاده گردید و برای جمعآوری دادهها نیز پرسشنامه استاندارد بکار برده شد که روایی آن از طریق روایی صوری و پایایی آن نیز با آلفای کرونباخ محاسبه گردید. برای تجزیه و تحلیل دادهها از مدلسازی معادلات ساختاری و نرمافزار PLS استفاده شده است.یافتهها نشان میدهد که حافظه سازمانی به صورت مستقیم و غیر مستقیم (از طریق دوسوتوانی سازمانی) بر عملکرد توسعه محصول جدید تأثیر معناداری دارد و نوآوری سازمانی و آشفتگیهای فناورانه در رابطه بین حافظه سازمانی و دوسوتوانی سازمانی نقش تعدیلگر دارند. نتایج همچنین نشان میدهد که اکتشاف و بهرهبرداری به بهرهگیری بهتر از حافظه سازمانی با هدف افزایش عملکرد توسعه محصول جدید کمک کند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| حافظه سازمانی؛ عملکرد توسعه محصول جدید؛ دوسوتوانی سازمانی؛ آشفتگی فناورانه؛ نوآوری سازمانی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The impact of organizational memory on the development of new products in knowledge-based companies | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mahdi Dehghani Soltani1؛ Maryam Mesbahi2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor, In Management, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economic, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran | ||
| 2Assistant Professor, Department of Management, Economy and Accounting, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Nowadays, offering the best performance for the development of a new product has become the most important concern of the managers in knowledge-based companies. They try to achieve a superior performance by using different techniques. Organizational memory is a knowledge representation and an accumulated organizational experience that can have adverse or unfavorable consequences for the development of new products in turbulent technological markets. Understanding the mechanisms and underlying factors that shape the role of organizational memory is important to improve the performance of new product development. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of organizational memory on new product development performance in knowledge-based companies. The investigation is conducted by explaining the role of organizational ambidexterity, technological turbulence and organizational Innovation. The managers and vice presidents of the knowledge-based companies located in the science and technology parks of Tehran University constituted the research population. A random sampling method and Cochran formula were used to obtain the research sample. A standardized questionnaire was used as a tool for collecting the required data whose validity and reliability were examined through the content validity and Cronbach's alpha respectively. The PLS software and structural equation modeling were used for the data analysis. The findings show that organizational memory has a significant effect on the new product development performance through organizational ambidexterity, and organizational innovation and technological turbulence proved to have a moderating role in the relationship between organizational memory and organizational ambidexterity. The results also show that exploration and exploitation will help to better utilize organizational memory to increase the new product development performance. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Organizational memory, New product development Performance, Organizational ambidexterity, Technological turbulence, Organizational innovation | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
1- Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Byrne, J. C. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of unlearning in new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 73-88.
2- Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: from experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123-1137.
3- Argyris, C. (2003). A life full of learning. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1178-1192.
4- Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning, 43(1), 104-122.
5- Asadzadeh, A. (2018). The effect of corporate strategic roles on corporate parenting styles. Journal of Business management researches, 10(19), 233-251. (In Persian)
6- Awwad, A., & Akroush, M. N. (2016). New product development performance success measures: an exploratory research. EuroMed Journal of Business, 11(1), 2-29.
7- Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2005). Market orientation and the new product paradox. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(6), 483-502.
8- Balan, P., & Lindsay. N. (2010). Innovation capability and entrepreneurial orientation dimensions for Australian hotels: An empirical study. Research Report, Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism.
9- Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
10- Berghman, L., Matthyssens, P., Streukens, S., & Vandenbempt, K. (2013). Deliberate learning mechanisms for stimulating strategic innovation capacity. Long Range Planning, 46(1), 39-71.
11- Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287-298.
12- Booshehri, A., Bagheri, A., Tabaian, K., & Namvar, K. (2016). Role of absorptive capacity in ambidexterity (exploration and exploitatopn) improvement. Journal of Technology Development Management, 4(1), 77-96. (In Persian)
13- Burgelman, R. A., & Grove, A. S. (2007). Let chaos reign, then reign in chaos repeatedly: managing strategic dynamics for corporate longevity. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 965-979.
14- Camisón, C., & Villar-López, A. (2011). Non-technical innovation: organizationalmemory and learning capabilities as antecedent factors with effects on sustained competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8), 1294-1304.
15- Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796.
16- Carbonell, P., & Escudero, A. I. R. (2015). The negative effect of team’s prior experience and technological turbulence on new service development projects with customer involvement. European Journal of Marketing, 49(3/4), 278-301.
17- Choi, Y. R., & Phan, P. H. (2014). Exploration, exploitation, and growth through new product development: the moderating effects of firm age and environmental adversity. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 61(3), 428-437.
18- Dai, Y., Du, K., Byun, G., & Zhu, X. (2017). Ambidexterity in new ventures: The impact of new product development alliances and transactive memory systems. Journal of Business Research, 75, 77-85.
19- Dehghani Poudeh, H., Akhavan, P., Hoseini Sarkhosh, S.M. (2013). Enhancing new product development success based on open innovation approach: A case study of a research organization. Innovation Management Journal, 2(4), 45-68. (In Persian)
20- Droge, C., Calantone, R., & Harmancioglu, N. (2008). New product success: is it really controllable by managers in highly turbulent environments?. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 272-286.
21- Dunham, A., & Burt, C. (2014). Understanding employee knowledge: the development of an organizational memory scale. The Learning Organization, 21(2), 126-145.
22- Esmailpoor, M., Hoseini, S.Y., & Jafarpoor, Y. (2018). Identification of electronic commerce adaption barriers in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs): A case study of the active firms based in the industrial Town of Bushehr City. Journal of Business management researches, 10(19), 39-63. (In Persian)
23- Gibson, C.B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
24- Haghighi, M., Dehghani Soltani, M., & Farsizadeh, H. (2018). Explaining the role of organizational ambidexterity in the Impact of pro-innovation culture and organizational memory on new product development performance. Public Management Researches, 10(38), 197-223. (In Persian)
25- Hanvanich, S., Sivakumar, K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2006). The relationship of learning and memory with organizational performance: the moderating role of turbulence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 600-612.
26- Harvey, J. F. (2012). Managing organizational memory with intergenerational knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(3), 400-417.
27- Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997-1010.
28- He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494.
29- Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploration and exploitation within and between organizations: an empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15(1), 70-81.
30- Khasmafkan Nezam, M.H., Atafar, A., Nasresfahani, A., & Shahin, A. (2014). Areview on human capital, organizational learning capability and new product development performance efficiency in automobile industry. Public Management Researches, 7(25), 57-74. (In Persian)
31- Lee, K., Woo, H. G., & Joshi, K. (2017). Organizationalmemory and new product development performance: Investigating the role of organizational ambidexterity. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 120, 117-129.
32- Mahmoodzadeh, E., Bagheri, A., & Dehghan Pir, A. (2015). Effect of high technology factors on market performance of NPD. Journal of Technology Development Management, 3(2), 31-62. (In Persian)
33- Maleki, M.M., Karami, M., & Haghighi, M. (2018). The impact of consumers’ service encounter expectation on their service encounter perception in healthcare services. Journal of Business management researches, 10(19), 143-168. (In Persian)
34- March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
35- Maslach, D. (2016). Change and persistence with failed technological innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4), 714-723.
36- Mitic, S., Nikolic, M., Jankov, J., Vukonjanski, J., & Terek, E. (2017). The impact of information technologies on communication satisfaction and organizational learning in companies in Serbia. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 87-101.
37- Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 91-106.
38- Moradi, M., Ebrahimpoor, M., & Mombini, Y. (2014). Explaning organizational ambidexterity as a new concept in the management of knowledge based organizations. Roshd -e- Fanavari Journal of Science & Technology Parks and Inclubators, 10(40), 18-27. (In Persian)
39- Palm, K., & Lilja, J. (2017). Key enabling factors for organizational ambidexterity in the public sector. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 9(1), 2-20.
40- Parker, H., & Brey, Z. (2015). Collaboration costs and new product development performance. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1653-1656.
41- Piao, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2016). How exploitation impedes and impels exploration: theory and evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1431-1447.
42- Rashidaei, A.S., & Rezvani, H.R. (2014). An investigation of most important internal and external organizational factors effect on new product performance in food industries. Journal of New Marketing Research, 3(3), 39-58. (In Persian)
43- Sarmad, Z., Bazargan, A., & Hejazi, E. (2017). Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences. Tehran: Agah Publishing Institute. (In Persian)
44- Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Smith, D., Reams, R. & Hair, Jr J. F. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 105-115.
45- Tabatabainasab, S.M., & Ashrafiaghda, T. (2016). Surveying Influence of Tendency to Value Co-creation on Organizational Innovation and Learning (Case Study: Yazd Science Park). Biannual Peer Review Journal of Business Strategies, 13(7), 13-26. (In Persian)
46- Teece, D.J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
47- Turró, A., Urbano, D., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014). Culture and innovation: the moderating effect of cultural values on corporate entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 360-369.
48- Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57-91.
49- Wu, L., Liu, H., & Zhang, J. (2017). Bricolage effects on new-product development speed and creativity: The moderating role of technological turbulence. Journal of Business Research, 70, 127-135.
50- Yan, M., Yu, Y., & Dong, X. (2016). Contributive roles of multilevel organizational learning for the evolution of organizational ambidexterity. Information Technology & People, 29(3), 647-667.
51- Zahra, S.A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203.
52- Zhang, D., Linderman, K., & Schroeder, R. G. (2012). The moderating role of contextual factors on quality management practices. Journal of Operations Management, 30(1), 12-23.
53- Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339-351. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,130 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 799 |
||