TEKNOLOJİ YÖNETİMİ YETENEĞİ VE STRATEJİ TİPİNİN FİRMA PERFORMANSINA ETKİSİ: İMALAT SEKTÖRÜNDE BİR İNCELEME

Year 2022, Issue: 48, 123 - 138, 01.01.2022

Elife Özer , Ünal Ay

https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.950254

Abstract

İşletme yönetimi alanında yüksek firma performansının belirleyicileri üzerinde geniş bir çalışma yelpazesi yürütülmektedir. Bu çalışma, örgütlerin çevreye uyum sağlamak için geliştirdikleri teknolojik yeteneklerin ve stratejilerin etkileri çerçevesinde yürütülmüştür. Dinamik yetenekler teorisine kapsamında gerçekleştirilen araştırmada ve teknoloji yönetimi yeteneği dinamik bir örgütsel yetenek olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Teknoloji ile ilgili yeteneklerin geliştirilmesinin stratejik hedefler doğrultusunda kaynakların tahsis edilmesini gerektirmesi, teknoloji yönetimi yeteneğinin firma performansı üzerindeki etkilerinin, firmaların strateji tercihi ile birlikte incelenmesi perspektifini doğurmuştur. Bu doğrultuda bu çalışma, teknoloji yönetimi faaliyetlerinin ve strateji tipinin firma performansını nasıl etkilediğini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Burada teknoloji yönetimi yeteneği, bir firmanın bir dizi faaliyeti gerçekleştirme düzeyi bağlamında ölçülmüştür. Firmaların stratejilerini sınıflandırmak için dört strateji tipolojisi kullanılmıştır. Adana ve Mersin’de faaliyet gösteren 119 imalat firmasından toplanan anket verilerine dayanan bulgular, teknoloji yönetimi yeteneğinin ve strateji tipinin firma performansı üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

Teknoloji yönetimi, Teknoloji yönetimi yeteneği, Strateji tipi, Firma performansı

THE EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY AND STRATEGY TYPOLOGY ON FIRM PERFORMANCE: A REVIEW IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR

Abstract

Despite its growing importance in the management field, a limited number of studies have empirically investigated technology management capabilities with strategies in the environmental adaptation context. In rapidly changing environmental conditions, companies need to develop technological skills to achieve a competitive advantage. As a dynamic capability, the development of technological capabilities requires allocating resources consistent with strategic goals. The present study, therefore, aims to examine how technology management capability and strategy type affect firm performance. Miles and Snow’s strategy typology was used to classify firms’ strategies. The results are drawn from a survey of 119 Turkish manufacturing companies. The research results contribute to the literature with empirical support on a significant effect of the technology management capability and strategy type on firm performance. Besides, the findings show a significant positive relationship between technology management capability and strategy types.

Keywords

Technology management, Technology management capability, Strategy typology, Firm performance

References

• Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A resource-based Perspective on Information Technology Capability and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation. MIS Quarterly, 169-196.
• Cetindamar, D., Phaal, R., and Probert, D. (2009). Understanding Technology Management as a Dynamic Capability: A Framework for Technology Management Activities. Technovation, 29(4), 237-246.
• Conant, J. S., Mokwa, M. P., and Varadarajan, P. R. (1990). Strategic Types, Distinctive Marketing Competencies and Organizational Performance: A Multiple Measures‐based Study. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 365-383.
• Dess, G. G. (1987). Consensus on Strategy Formulation and Organizational Performance: Competitors in a Fragmented Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 8(3), 259-277.
• Dvir, D., Segev, E., and Shenhar, A. (1993). Technology's Varying Impact on the Success of Strategic Business Units Within the Miles and Snow Typology. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 155-161.
• Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Ferreira, J., Coelho, A., & Moutinho, L. (2020). Dynamic Capabilities, Creativity and Innovation Capability and Their Impact on Competitive Advantage and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation. Technovation, 92, 102061.
• Gibbons, P. T., and O'connor, T. O. N. Y. (2003). Strategic Posture, Technology Strategy and Performance Among Small Firms. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 11(02), 131-146.
• Gillespie, D. F., and Mileti, D. S. (1977). Technology and the Study of Organizations: An Overview and Appraisal. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 7-16.
• Gnjidić, V. (2014). Researching the Dynamics of Miles and Snow's Strategic Typology. Management-Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 19(1), 93-117.
• Gregory, M. J. (1995).Technology Management: A Process Approach. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 209(5), 347-356
• Gudanowska, A. E. (2017). Modern Research Trends within Technology Management in the Light of Selected Publications. Procedia Engineering, 182, 247-254.
• Gupta, A., Chen, I. J., and Chiang, D. (1997). Determining Organizational Structure Choices in Advanced Manufacturing Technology Management. Omega, 25(5), 511-521.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. L. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (Vol. 7). Essex: Pearson New International.
• Hambrick, D. C. (1983). High Profit Strategies in Mature Capital Goods Industries: A Contingency Approach. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 687-707.
• Hansen, G. S., and Wernerfelt, B. (1989). Determinants of Firm Performance: The Relative Importance of Economic and Organizational Factors. Strategic Management Journal, 10(5), 399-411.
• Itami, H. and Numagami, T. (1992). Dynamic interaction between strategy and technology. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S2), 119-135.
• Lin, F. J. and Lai, C. (2020). Key Factors Affecting Technological Capabilities in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in Taiwan. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17, 1-13.
• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
• McCann, J. E. (1991). Patterns of growth, competitive technology, and financial strategies in young ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(3), 189-208.
• Meyer, A. D. (1982). Adapting to Environmental jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 515-537.
• Miles, R. E., and C. C. Snow. (1978) Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D. and Coleman, H. J. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546-562.
• Morrison, R. D. (2020). Technology Management in Central American Maquilas. Global Journal of Business Disciplines, 4(1), 76.
• Naktiyok, A. and Karabey, C. N. (2007). Işletmelerin Maddi Olmayan Kaynaklari ve Çevresel Olumsuzluk Algilari ile Stratejik Yönelimleri Arasindaki Ilişki. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 62(04), 203-225.
• National Research Council. (1987). Management of Technology: The Hidden Competitive Advantage. National Academy Press.
• Nazeer, N., Rasiah, R. and Furuoka, F. (2021). Technology Transfer, Technological Capability, Absorptive Capacity and Firm Performance: An Investigation of the Textile and Clothing Firms in Pakistan. Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies, 58(1), 99-124.
• Parnell, J., & Brady, M. (2019). Capabilities, Strategies and Firm Performance in the United Kingdom. Journal of Strategy and Management, 12(1), 153-172.
• Pelser, T. G., and Prinsloo, J. J. (2014). Technology Management and the link with Technology Strategy and Company Performance. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 10(2).
• Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: FreePress.
• Porter, M. E. (1985). Technology and Competitive Advantage. The Journal of Business Strategy, 5(3), 60.
• Powell, T. C. (1992). Organizational Alignment as Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2), 119-134.
• Powell, T. C., and Dent‐Micallef, A. (1997). Information Technology as Competitive Advantage: The Role of Human, Business, and Technology Resources. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 375-405.
• Price, J. L. (1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. International Journal of Manpower, 18(4/5/6), 305-558.
• Protogerou, A., Caloghirou, Y., and Lioukas, S. (2011). Dynamic Capabilities and Their Indirect Impact on Firm Performance. Industrial and Corporate Change, dtr049.
• Rush, H., Bessant, J. and Hobday, M. (2007). Assessing the Technological Capabilities of Firms: Developing a Policy Tool. R&D Management, 37(3), 221-236.
• Schendel, D., and Hofer, C. W. (Eds.). (1979). Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning. Little, Brown.
• Segev, E. (1987). Strategy, Strategy Making, and Performance— An Empirical Investigation. Management Science, 33(2), 258-269.
• Snow, C. C., and Hrebiniak, L. G. (1980). Strategy, Distinctive Competence, and Organizational Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 317-336.
• Spanos, Y. E., and Lioukas, S. (2001). An Examination into the Causal Logic of Rent Generation: Contrasting Porter's Competitive Strategy Framework and the Resource‐Based Perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 22(10), 907-934.
• Tippins, M. J., and Sohi, R. S. (2003). IT Competency and Firm Performance: is Organizational Learning a Missing Link?. Strategic Management Journal, 24(8), 745-761.
• Tuncay, A., and Çilingir, F. C. (2013). Technology Management Capability Assessment an Empirical Study in Izmir Turkey for Model Development. European International Journal of Science and Technology, 2(8), 176-187.
• Xiao, L., and Dasgupta, S. (2009). The Effects of Dynamic it Capability and Organizational Culture on Firm Performance: An Empirical Study. ICIS 2009 Proceedings, 170.
• Ünsal, E. (2009). Dinamik bir Yetenek Olarak Teknoloji Yönetimi: Teknoloji Yönetimi Yeteneği. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 167-189.
• Unsal, E. (2010). Teknoloji Yönetimi Yeteneği. Unpublished PhD Thesis (in Turkish), Kara Harp Okulu, Ankara, Turkey.
• Unsal, E., and Cetindamar, D. (2015). Technology Management Capability: Definition, European International Journal of Science and Technology, 4(2), 181–196.
• Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of Business Performance in Strategy Research: A Comparison of Approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 801-814.
• Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
• Wu, F., Yeniyurt, S., Kim, D., ve Cavusgil, S.T. (2006). The Impact of Information Technology on Supply Chain Capabilities and Firm Performance: A Resource-Based View. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(4), 493-504. (http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.05.003)
• Zahra, S. A. (1995). Corporate Entrepreneurship and Financial Performance: The Case of Management Leveraged Buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(3), 225-247.
• Zahra, S. A. (1996). Governance, Ownership, and Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Moderating Impact of Industry Technological Opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1713-1735.
• Zahra, S. A., and Covin, J. G. (1993). Business Strategy, Technology Policy and Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 14(6), 451-478.
• Zahra, S. A., and Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual Influences on the Corporate Entrepreneurship-Performance Relationship: A Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43-58.