9th INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

THE PROCEEDINGS OF
9th INTERNATIONAL
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
New Directions in Sustainable Growth and Innovation
Strategies
June 27-29, 2013, Riga-Latvia
9th INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
New Directions in Sustainable Growth and Innovation Strategies
June 27-29, 2013
Riga, Latvia
Honorary Presidents
Orhan ŞAHİN (Ph.D.)
Marcis Auzinsh, (Ph.D.)
Nihat Küçüksavaş (Ph.D.)
Chairman
Erol EREN (Ph.D.)
Co-Chairs
Oya ERDİL (Ph.D.)
Ali AKDEMİR (Ph.D.)
Editor
Mehtap ÖZŞAHİN
ISBN
978-605-86554-0-9
Organizing Institutions
Gebze Institute of Technology
University of Latvia
Arel University
Printed in
Net K›rtasiye Tan. ve Matbaa San. Tic. Ltd. Sti.
Taksim Cad. Yo€urtçu Faik Sok. No: 3 Taksim Beyoglu/ISTANBUL
Tel: (0-212) 249 40 60 (Sertifika No. 13723)
Statements of facts or opinions appearing in Proceedings of the 9th International Strategic
Management Conference are solely those of the authors and do not imply endorsement by the
Organization Committee or publisher
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUSTAINABILITY AND GROWTH
Economic And Environmental Evaluation Via An Integrated Method Based On LCA And MCDA (FABIO DE
FELICE, FABRIZIO CAMPAGIORNI, ANTONELLA PETRILLO)
3
A Look At The EU Countries’ Carbon Dioxide Emissions And Turkey’s Sustainable Industrial Growth (SUDI
APAK, ERHAN ATAY)
13
The Strategic Role Of Infant Mortality In The Process Of Economic Growth: An Application For High Income
OECD Countries (ENGIN ERDOĞAN, MELIHA ENER, FEYZA ARICA)
21
Strategies Of Albanian Economy To Meet Economic Policies Of EU (TERIDA MEHILLI, FJONA ZENELI)
31
An Overview Of GDP And Internet Banking Relations In The EU Versus China (ERHAN ATAY, SUDI APAK)
41
New Patterns In Corporate Sustainable Growth?( JOHN PARM. ULHOI, HENNING MADSEN)
51
Development Of International Freight Transit In Latvia (ALDIS BULIS, ROBERTS ŠKAPARS)
61
The Impact Of Romania’s Eu Accession On The Foreign Direct Investments Location - A Manufacturing Sector
Analysis – (DANCIU ANIELA RALUCA, STRAT VASILE ALECSANDRU)
67
A Management Strategy Within Sustainable City Marketing Context: Cittaslow (ERCAN BALDEMIR, FUNDA
KAYA, TEZCAN KAŞMER ŞAHIN)
77
Analysis Of Iraq’s Pre-Import Inspection, Testing & Certification Program: An A’wot Analysis (ÖZGÜR ÖZMEN,
AHMET DEMIR, RAMAZAN TURAN, MIRAY CELEPLI)
87
The Link Between Unemployment Rate And Real Output In Eurozone: A Panel Error Correction Approach
(BÜLENT DOĞRU)
95
The Effect of Schooling Enrolment Rates on Economic Sustainability (FULYA TAŞEL, E. BEYZA BAYARÇELIK)
105
Power Perception Of Developing Countries In Their Sustainable Growth And Innovation Strategies (AHMET
UÇAKTÜRK, FAIK ÇELIK, HARUN DEMIRKAYA, TÜLAY UÇAKTÜRK)
113
Strategic Brand Management Based On Sustainable-Oriented View: An Evaluation In Turkish Home Appliance
Industry (T. SABRI ERDIL)
123
Enhancing Business Sustainability: Improving Business Policy’s Methodology By Managerial Principles’
Development (ROSTISLAV KOPITOV)
135
Natural Environment As A Strategic Issue For Firms: Theoretical Perspectives (KURTULUŞ YILMAZ GENÇ)
145
Effects Of Green Manufacturing And Eco-Innovation On Sustainability Performance (BÜLENT SEZEN, SIBEL
YILDIZ ÇANKAYA)
159
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND BUSINESS ETHICS
Daddy, What’s Next? The Effect Of Paternalist Leadership On Perceived Uncertainty in Organizations Which Had
Gone Through Merger Or Acquisition (FUNDA ÖZER, BİNALİ DOĞAN, CİHAN TINAZTEP)
171
The Role of Psychological Capital and Trust in Individual Performance and Job Satisfaction Relationship: A Test of
Multiple Mediation Model (M.GÖKHAN BITMIŞ, AZIZE ERGENELI)
181
A Study Of Motivational Factors Associated With Peer-To-Peer (P2P) File-Sharing (MEHPARE TOKAY ARGAN,
METİN ARGAN, ALPER OZER, HUSEYİN KOSE)
189
iii
An Exploratory Research On Strategic Planning In Public Institutions: Turkish Prime Ministry Disaster And
Emergency Management Presidency Case (EBRU CAYMAZ, FEHMI VOLKAN AKYON, FAHRI ERENEL)
199
Impact Of New Entry Strategic Technology On Frequency Words Analysis In Translation, Literature And InterCultural Communication (EDLIRA ÇERKEZI, QANI MUKA, EVIS ÇELO, ALBA DUMI)
205
An Investigation Of The Relationship Between Social Loafing And Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (HIMMET
KARADAL, MUHAMMET SAYGIN)
215
Perceived Managerial And Leadership Effectiveness Within Turkish Public Sector Hospitals (UĞUR YOZGAT,
SAFIYE ŞAHIN)
225
The Effect Of Organizational Culture On Organizational Image And Identity: Evidence From A Pharmaceutical
Company (DURSUN BINGÖL, İRGE ŞENER, EMIN ÇEVIK)
233
In The Strategic Sense, Evaluating Transactional And Relational Employee’s Expectations As A Reflection Of
Emotional Contract (SEYFI TOP)
243
Manager’s Roles And Profiles: Evidence From Bursa (NILÜFER RÜZGAR, MUSTAFA KURT)
253
A Research To Determine The Relationship Between Organizational Justice And Psychological Ownership Among
Non-Family Employees In A Family Business (CEREN GIDERLER ATALAY, DERYA ERGUN ÖZLER)
259
The Effects Of Individual Creativity And Organizational Climate On Innovativeness (HÜLYA
G.ÇEKMECELIOĞLU, AYŞE GÜNSEL)
269
The Moderating Role Of Locus Of Control On The Links Between Perceived Ethical Problem And Ethical Intentions
Of Marketing Managers In Turkey (VOLKAN ÖZBEK, ÜMIT ALNIAÇIK, M. EMIN AKKILIÇ, FATIH KOÇ)
277
Does Person-Organization Fit Moderate The Effects Of Affective Commitment And Job Satisfaction On Turnover
Intentions? (ESRA ALNIAÇIK, ÜMIT ALNIAÇIK, SERHAT ERAT, KÜLTIGIN AKÇİN)
285
Perceived Academic Code Of Ethics: A Research On Turkish Academics (MÜGE LEYLA YILDIZ, GÜLNUR İÇLİ,
A. ERCAN GEGEZ)
295
Business Ethics, Social Responsibility And Corporate Governance: Does Strategic Management Field Really Care
These Concepts? (EYÜP AYGÜN TAYŞIR, YENER PAZARCIK)
307
The Impact Of Corporate Social Responsibility, Service Quality And Customer- Company Identification On
Customers (ESRA ARIKAN, SEMA GÜNER)
317
The Relationship Between Organizational Silence And Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: A Survey Study In
The Province Of Erzurum, Turkey (ORHAN ÇINAR, FATIH KARCIOĞLU, ZIŞAN DUYGU ALIOĞULLARI)
329
Problem Solving Approach At Organizational Development Activities: A Research At Karabuk University
(ABDULLAH KARAKAYA, KASIM YILMAZ)
337
An Empirical Research On The Relationship Between Job Insecurity, Job Related Stress And Job Satisfaction In
Logistics Industry (MURAT YAŞLIOĞLU, ALI ÖZGÜR KARAGÜLLE, MUHTESEM BARAN)
349
Visionary or criminal: From profit through morality to socially sustainable entrepreneurship (NEIL E.
BÉCHERVAISE, COLIN G. BENJAMIN)
355
Professionalism as reputation capital: The moral imperative in the global financial crisis (JILLIAN DE ARAUGO,
RICHARD BEAL)
365
The Effects of Leadership and Market Orientation on Organizational Commitment (MEHTAP ÖZŞAHİN, CEMAL
ZEHİR, A.ZAFER ACAR)
375
MARKETING AND BRANDING STRATEGIES
Impact Of Intercultural Competence On Service Reliability And Customer Satisfaction In The Grocery Retailing
(ALI IHTIYAR FAUZIAH SH. AHMAD, MAS BAMBANG BAROTO)
iv
389
Charges On Parking In Shopping Malls: Evidence From Turkey (SERKAN DILEK, SEYFİ TOP)
399
Literature Review On Selection Criteria Of Store Location Based On Performance Measures (GÜLDEN TURHAN,
MEHMET AKALIN, CEMAL ZEHIR)
405
The Effects Of Self-Concept Connection, Partner Quality And Trust On Commitment In The Elderly Segment
(RECEP BAKI DENIZ, UĞUR YOZGAT)
415
Linking Strategic And Market Orientations To Organizational Performance: The Role Of Innovation In Private
Healthcare Organizations (GÜLTEKIN ALTUNTAŞ, FATIH SEMERCIÖZ, HANIFE EREGEZ)
423
Which dimensions affect private shopping e-customer loyalty?( BERIL DURMUŞ, YEŞIM ULUSU, ŞAKIR ERDEM)
431
The Effect Of Mobile Service Quality Dimensions On Customer Satisfaction (ALPER ÖZER, MEHPARE TOKAY
ARGAN, METIN ARGAN)
437
The Impact Of Social Capital On Managerial Reputation (ERDEM KIRKBESOGLU)
449
Analyzing The Brand Equity Of Turkish Airlines Services: Comparing The Japanese And Turkish Perspectives
(AYPAR USLU, BERIL DURMUŞ, BERNA KOBAK)
455
Word Of Mouth, Brand Loyalty, Acculturation And The Turkish Ethnic Minority Group In Germany (AYPAR USLU,
BERIL DURMUŞ, SINA TAŞDEMIR)
463
The Effect Of Social Media On Personal Branding Efforts Of Top Level Executives (İLKAY KARADUMAN)
471
University Brand Equity Dimensions In An Emerging Market: Implications For Developing Sustainable University
Brands (TANSES GÜLSOY)
479
Young Consumers’ Attitudes Toward American Products (SELIM SAID EREN)
489
Creating Commitment, Trust And Satisfaction For A Brand: What Are The Role Of Switching Costs In Mobile
Phone Market? (AZIZE ŞAHİN, HAKAN KİTAPÇI, CEMAL ZEHİR)
497
An Emerging Consumer Experience: Emotional Branding (ALI EKBER AKGÜN, İPEK KOÇOĞLU, SALIH ZEKI
İMAMOĞLU)
505
Innovation Orientation, Market Orientation And E-Loyalty: Evidence From Turkish E-Commerce Customers
(HANDE SINEM ERGÜN, ZEYNEP KABADAYI KUŞCU)
511
Analytical Approach To Neuromarketing As A Business Strategy (ASELA A. BURGOS-CAMPER, JOSÉ G.
VARGAS-HERNANDEZ)
519
The effects of customer and entrepreneurial orientations on individual service performance in banking sector
(CEMAL ZEHIR, A.ZAFER ACAR, NURHAN ÖZGENEL, MEHTAP ÖZŞAHİN)
527
Factors Affecting Repurchase Intention to Shop at the Same Website (SELIM AREN, MEVLÜDIYE GÜZEL, EBRU
KABADAYI, LÜTFIHAK ALPKAN)
537
INNOVATION STRATEGIES AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
System Dynamics Modelling Of A Knowledge Management Process: A Case Study In Turkish Airlines (SELIM
ZAIM, NIZAMETTIN BAYYURT, MEHVES TARIM, HALIL ZAIM, YUNUS GUC)
547
The Competitive Tension As A Moderator For Strategic Innovation (ERTAN GÜNDÜZ)
555
A Complex Approach To Evaluating The Innovation Strategy Of A Company To Determine Its Investment
Attractiveness(YURII А. ROLIK)
563
Features Of Innovative Applications In The Service Industry And Exploration Of Their Effect On Firm Efficiency
(İLGE KURT, NURGÜN KOMŞUOĞLU YILMAZ, İBRAHIM SARPER KARAKADILAR)
571
Strategic Flexibility, Environmental Dynamism, And Innovation Performance: An Empirical Study (AYŞE CİNGÖZ,
A. ASUMAN AKDOĞAN)
581
v
The Relationships Between Technological Investment, Firm Size, Firm Age And The Growth Rate Of Innovation
Performance (ORKUN YILDIZ, ÖZLEM ÇETINKAYA BOZKURT, ADNAN KALKAN, ALI AYCI)
587
Analysis Of The Behaviour Of Slovak Enterprises In The Context Of Low Innovation Performance (JANA VOLNÁ,
JÁN PAPULA)
597
A Model Proposal For Efficient Disaster Management: The Turkish Sample (EBRU CAYMAZ, FEHMI VOLKAN
AKYON, FAHRI ERENEL)
607
Exploring The Innovativeness And Market Orientation Through Mission And Vision Statements: The Case Of
Istanbul Stock Exchange Companies (AYKAN CANDEMIR, ALI ERHAN ZALLUHOĞLU)
615
The Role Of Innovation And Perceived Service Quality In Creating Customer Value: A Study On Employees Of A
Call Center Establishment (MUHSIN MURAT YAŞLIOĞLU, BURCU ÖZGE ÖZASLAN ÇALIŞKAN, ÖMER ŞAP)
625
Economic Evaluation Of The Film Industry In Terms Of Strategic Management Within The Scope Of The Creative
Innovative Industries: The Case Of Turkey (AHMET İNCEKARA, SEFER ŞENER, ELIF HAYKIR HOBIKOĞLU)
633
The Linkage Between Competitive Factors And Value Creation In Trade Centers (BURAK ÇAPRAZ, MEHMET
UFUK TUTAN)
643
The Contribution of Technological Change on EU’s Exports (ELISABETH T. PEREIRA, JOAO BENTO, JANIS
PRIEDE)
653
The Effect Of Service Orientation On Financial Performance: The Mediating Role Of Job Satisfaction And
Customer Satisfaction (SELIM SAID EREN, M.SULE EREN, GUNGOR HACIOGLU, NEVRIYE AYAS)
661
The Influence of Authentic Leadership on Creativity and Innovativeness (BÜŞRA MÜCELDILI, HALDUN TURAN,
OYA ERDIL)
669
HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
Analysis Of Antalya Tourism Cluster Perceived Performance With Structural Equation Model (PELIN ARSEZENOTAMIS, NEDIM YUZBASIOGLU)
679
The Relationship Between Employee Silence And Organizational Commitment In A Private Healthcare Company
(NEVIN DENIZ, ARAL NOYAN, ÖZNUR GÜLEN ERTOSUN)
687
Architectural Innovations Are Competitive Advantage For Hotels In Tourism Industry?: What Customers,
Managers And Employees Think About It?( HULUSI DOĞAN, OĞUZ NEBIOĞLU, OĞUZHAN AYDIN, İLKNUR
DOĞAN)
697
Decentralization In Health Services And Its Impacts: Swot Analysis Of Current Applications In Turkey (FADIME
ÇINAR, EROL EREN, HATUN MENDEŞ)
707
Innovative Approach To The Ethics In Health Care Organizations: Health Staff Perspective (FADIME ÇINAR,
EROL EREN)
713
Impacts Of Privatization Of Management Of Health Organizations On Public Health: Turkish Health Sector
Evaluation (FADIME ÇINAR, EROL EREN)
719
An innovative marketing information system: a management tool for South African tour operators (MARIUS
POTGIETER, JOHAN W DE JAGER, NEELS H VAN HEERDEN)
725
How Human Resource Operations Work In Higher Education Institutions?( HASAN ARSLAN, ALI AKDEMIR,
MEHMET DURDU KARSLI)
735
Innovation And Sustainable Growth Measurement In Hotel Industry: A Hierarchical Decision Making Model
(GIZEM GÜRELI GÖĞÜŞ, İBRAHIM SARPER KARAKADILAR, SINAN APAK)
743
Corporate Values On Strategic Planning Process: A Research About The Universities In Turkey (HIMMET
KARADAL, CEMILE ÇELIK, MUHAMMET SAYGIN)
753
vi
HUMAN RESOURCE STRATEGIES
Are Flexible Work Arrangements Attractive Enough For Knowledge-Intensive Businesses? (LUBICA BAJZIKOVA,
HELENA SAJGALIKOVA, EMIL WOJCAK, MICHAELA POLAKOVA)
763
The Impact Of HRM Capabilities On Innovation Mediated By Knowledge Management Capability (GÖNÜL KAYA
ÖZBAĞ, MURAT ESEN, DILEK ESEN)
775
An Application In Human Resources Management For Meeting Differentiation And Innovativeness Requirements Of
Business: Talent Management (SEFER GÜMÜŞ, SUDI APAK, HANDE GÜLNIHAL GÜMÜŞ, ZUHAL KURBAN)
785
Linking Competitive Rivalry To Internal Communication In Private Healthcare Organizations (GÜLTEKIN
ALTUNTAŞ, FATIH SEMERCIÖZ, ARAL NOYAN)
801
The Relationship Between Human Resource Management Practices And Organizational Commitment: A Field Study
(A. ASLAN ŞENDOĞDU, AYŞE KOCABACAK, ŞÜKRÜ GÜVEN)
811
Developing Core Competencies: Student Mobility Case (VILMANTĖ KUMPIKAITĖ, KĘSTUTIS DUOBA)
819
The Relationship Between Strategic Management, Institutionalization And Human Resource Management: A Survey
Study With Family Businesses Located In The Northeast Anatolia Sub Economic Region Of Turkey (ORHAN
ÇINAR, FATIH KARCIOĞLU)
827
Effects Of Talent Management On Organizational Trust: A Field Study (MEHMET ALTINOZ, DEMET
CAKIROGLU, SERDAR COP)
835
Social Media’s Role in Developing an Employees Sense of Belonging in the Work Place as an HRM Strategy (EROL
EREN, PELIN VARDARLIER)
843
Impacts Of Growth Strategies On Human Resources Policies (PELIN VARDARLIER, YALÇIN VURAL, ÖZGÜR
YILDIRIM, BURCU YILMAZTÜRK)
851
Using Job Resources And Job Demands In Predicting Burnout (MÜJDELEN YENER, ÖZGÜN COŞKUN)
859
FINANCE & BANKING
Approaches To Improving Asset Structure Management In Commercial Banks (SVETLANA SAKSONOVA)
869
Using Swot Analysis And Sem To Prioritize Strategies In Foreign Exchange Market In Iran (MOHAMMAD
SHARIATMADARI, AMIR HOMAYOUN SARFARAZ, PEGAH HEDAYAT, KIYAN VADOUDI)
877
Assessment And Analysis Strategies According To Space Matrix-Case Study: Petrochemical And Banking Industries
In Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE) (SAEED FALLAH TAFTI, ESMAEIL JALILI, LEILA YAHYAEIAN)
885
Organizational Learning On Coopetition Strategy: A Exploratory Research On A Turkish Private Banks Credit
Card Application (YUNUS DEMIREL, BURAK ARZOVA, KADIR ARDIÇ, TÜRKER BAŞ)
893
New Tendencies Of Management And Control Of Operational Risk In Financial Institutions (PJOTRS DOROGOVS,
IRINA SOLOVJOVA, ANDREJS ROMANOVS)
901
Ownership Effect On Bank’s Performance: Multi Criteria Decision Making Approaches On Foreign And Domestic
Turkish Banks (NIZAMETTIN BAYYURT)
909
SMALL BUSINESS STRATEGIES AND INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL
RELATIONS
Strategic Focus In Turkish SMEs: Emergent Or Deliberate Strategies? (ÖZLEM ÇETINKAYA BOZKURT, ADNAN
KALKAN)
919
Effects Of Support Programs On Corporate Strategies Of Small And Medium-Sized Enterprises (EBRU AYKAN,
SEMRA AKSOYLU, EBRU SÖNMEZ)
929
vii
Structuring Strategic Management With Ratio Analysis Method: A Case Study In The Transition To SME TFRS
Process (ALI HALICI, DENIZ UMUT ERHAN)
937
Evaluation Family Effects In The Context Of Power, Experience And Culture On The Business And Management In
The Family Firms (SEYFI TOP, ÖZLEM ATAN, ERCAN ÖGE)
945
A Research On The Problems Encountered In The Collaboration Between University And Industry (A. ASLAN
ŞENDOĞDU, AHMET DIKEN)
955
The Role Of Relationship-Specific Investments In Improving Performance: Multiple Mediating Effects Of
Opportunism And Cooperation (TUGBA GURCAYLILAR YENIDOGAN, SIBEL DUDEN, FULYA SARVAN)
963
Structural Effect Of Enterprises Open-Closed Innovation Models Tendencies In Product Output Process: A Study
On The Enterprises Located In The IMES Industrial Estate – Turkey Example (SEFER ŞENER, ELIF HAYKIR
HOBIKOĞLU)
973
STRATEGIC CHOICE, PERFORMANCE AND GOVERNANCE
The Relationship Between Diversification Strategy And Organizational Performance: A Research Intended For
Comparing Belgium And Turkey (İLKNUR TAŞTAN BOZ, İBRAHIM ANIL, İHSAN YIĞIT)
985
A research to determine the role of process of Turkey’s entry to European Union on the foreign direct investment
(İLHAN GÜLLÜ, NAZIFE ÖZGE KILIÇ, ÜNZILE KURT, FETTAH TURAN, HAMDI BAYRAM)
995
The Choice And Use Of Strategic Planning Tools And Techniques In Turkish SMEs According To Attitudes Of
Executives (ADNAN KALKAN, ÖZLEM ÇETINKAYA BOZKURT)
1003
Measuring And Evaluating Performance Within The Strategic Management Perspective: A Study On Performance
Measurement Of A Seafood Company (BURCUARACIOĞLU, ALI ERHANZALLUHOĞLU, CEMRE CANDEMIR)
1013
The Effects Of Management Information And ERP Systems On Strategic Knowledge Management And DecisionMaking (AHMET UÇAKTÜRK, MICHEL VILLARD)
1023
Evolution Of Management Controlling Framework: Literature Review (OLGA PAVLOVSKA, IRINA KUZMINAMERLINO)
1031
Management Of The Educational Environment: The Context In Which Strategic Decisions Are Made (YULIA
STUKALINA)
1039
Empirical Analysis Of Effects Of Country-Level Governance To Strength Of Investor Protection (CRISTINA BOŢAAVRAM)
1047
Linking Governance To Efficacy Of Corporate Boards: A Global Perspective (CRISTINA BOŢA-AVRAM)
1057
Strategy Formulating For Semi-Governmental Companies, Case Study: Railway Transportation In Qods Niroo
(AMIR HOMAYOUN SARFARAZ, MOHAMMAD SHARIATMADARI, PEGAH HEDAYAT, KIYAN VADOUDI)
1067
Relationship Between Balance Of Job Demands-Control And Shared Mission/Vision For Blue-Collar Employees
(IŞIK ÇIÇEK)
1079
Ambidexterity and Firm Productivity Performance: The Mediating Effect of Organizational Learning Capacity
(HAKAN KİTAPÇI, VURAL ÇELİK)
1091
The Influence Of Internal Corporate Governance On Bank Performance - An Empirical Analysis For Romania
(VASILE DEDU, GHEORGHE CHITAN)
1099
The Impact of ERP Systems and Supply Chain Management Practices on Firm Performance: Case of Turkish
Companies (HUSEYIN INCE, SALIH ZEKI IMAMOGLU, HALIT KESKIN, ALI E. AKGUN, MEHMET NACI EFE)
1107
Evaluating the Core Capabilities for Strategic Outsourcing Decisions at Aviation Maintenance Industry (ÖZGÜR
DEMİRTAŞ)
1115
Public Debt, Democracy And Transition (ALESSIO L. LOKAR LUBICA BAJZIKOVA)
1125
viii
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
• Erol Eren (Chairman, Istanbul Arel University, Istanbul-Turkey)
• Oya Erdil (Co-Chair, Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
• Ali Akdemir (Co-Chair, Arel University, Istanbul-Turkey)
• J. Strickland III (The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama - USA)
• Asım Şen (Beykent University, Istanbul-Turkey)
• Asuman Akdoğan (Erciyes University, Kayseri-Turkey)
• Bella Butler (Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia)
• Cemal Zehir (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
• Dababrata N.Chowdhury (University Campus Suffolk , Ipswich UK
• Dzineta Dimante (University of Latvia, Latvia)
• Edward A. Ward (St. Cloud State University, USA)
• Erdal Aydin (Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale-Turkey)
• Esin Sadıkoğlu (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
• Irem Erdoğmuş (Marmara University, Istanbul-Turkey)
• Irge Sener (Cankaya University, Ankarar-Turkey)
• Jamaluddin H. Husain (Purdue University Calumet, USA)
• Janis Priede (University of Latvia,- Latvia)
• Lütfihak Alpkan (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
• Mehtap Özşahin (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
• Meral Elçi (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
• Mümin Ertürk (Arel University, Istanbul-Turkey)
• Richard Lynch (Middlesex University, London, UK)
• Selim Zaim (Marmara University, Istanbul-Turkey)
• Sonja Petrovic-Lazarevic (Monash University, Australia
• Tanses Gülsoy (Beykent University, Istanbul-Turkey)
• Uğur Yozgat (Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey)
• Zafer Acar (Okan University, Istanbul-Turkey)
• Zoltan Veres (Budapest Business School, Hungary)
ADVISORY BOARD & PEER-REVIEW COMMITTEE
• Asuman Akdoğan (Erciyes University, Kayseri-Turkey)
• J. Strickland III (The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama - USA)
• Zafer Acar (Okan University, İstanbul-Turkey)
• A.A. Bulgak (Concordia University-Canada)
• Aaron J. Shenhar (Stevens Institute of Technology-USA)
• Adem Öğüt (Selçuk University, Konya-Turkey)
• Adnan Çelik (Selçuk University,Konya-Turkey)
• Adnan Ceylan (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
• Ahmet Kesik, Ph.D., Associate Professor (President of Strategy Development Unit, Ministry of
Finance, Republic of Turkey)
• Alain Crochet (University of Sorbonne Nouvelle , Paris- France)
• Alan Garcia Lira (Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan-Mexico)
• Alastair J. Wright (Stenden University-Netherlands)
• Alba Robert Dumi (“ Ismail Qemali" Vlora university, Albania)
• Albert Schram (Maastricht University-Netherlands)
• Alexander Egorshin (The Nizhny Novgorod Institute of Management and Business, Russia)
• Alexi Danchey ( Fatih University, Istanbul, Turkey)
• Ali Akdemir (Arel University, Istanbul-Turkey)
• Ali Ekber Akgün (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
• Ali Halıcı (Baskent University, Ankara-Turkey)
• Alistair M Brown (Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia)
• Amar KJN Nayak (Xavier Institute of Management, Orrissa-India)
• Andrei Burenin (Irkutsk State University, Russia)
• Andrey Dashkov (Moscow State University, Russia)
• Antonio Minguez Vera (Universidad de Murcia, Spain)
ix
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
x
Anukrati Sharma (University of Kota, India)
Asım Erdilek (Case Western Reserve University-USA)
Asım Şen (St. John Fisher College, USA)
Atik Kulaklı (Beykent University, Turkey)
Atilla Dicle (Yeditepe University, İstanbul-Turkey)
Aurea Helena Puga Ribeiro (Fundacao Dom Cabral, Brazil)
Ayse Günsel (Kocaeli University, Kocaeli-Turkey)
Ayşen Hiç Gencer (Beykent University, Turkey)
Bahadır Akın (Selcuk University, Konya-Turkey)
Bahri Gökçebay (Kastamonu University-Turkey)
Bernd Martin (Duale Hochschule-Germany)
Beyza Kocapınar Bayarçelik (Yeditepe University, Turkey)
Bige Aşkun (Marmara University-Turkey)
Birol Bumin (Gazi University, Ankara-Turkey)
Borisas Melnikas (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania)
Branko Bucar (Pace University,USA)
Bülent Sezen (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
Canan Çetin (Marmara University, Istanbul-Turkey)
Celso ClaudioHildebrand Grisi (University of Sao Paulo-Brazil)
Cemal Zehir (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
Cengiz Yılmaz (Bogazici University, Istanbul-Turkey)
Cevat Gerni (Beykent University, İstanbul-Turkey)
Ceyhan Aldemir (Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir-Turkey)
Chien-Chung Nieh (Tamkang University, Taipei Country- Taiwan)
Con Korkofingas (Macquarie University,Sydney-Australia)
Dababrata N.Chowdhury (University Campus Suffolk , Ipswich UK)
Denizhan Kalkan (Yalova University, Turkey)
Dursun Bingöl (Atatürk University, Erzurum-Turkey)
Dzevad Sehic (Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of Sarajevo, Bosnia)
Dzineta Dimante (University of Latvia, Latvia)
Ebru Kabadayı (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
Erdoğan Koç (Balıkesir University, Turkey)
Erika Sumilo (University of Latvia of Riga - Latvia)
Ekrem Tatoglu (Bahçeşehir University, Istanbul-Turkey)
Enver Özkalp (Anadolu University, Eskişehir-Turkey)
Erdal Aydın (Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey)
Erkan Kabak (Beykent University, Turkey)
Erkut Altındağ (Beykent University, Turkey)
Ernst Neuland (Institute for Business Innovation-South Africa)
Erol Eren (Istanbul Arel University, Istanbul-Turkey))
Esin Can (Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul-Turkey)
Esin Sadıkoglu (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
Eyüp Aktepe (Gazi University, Ankara-Turkey)
Fahri Karakaya (University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth-USA)
Feyzullah Eroğlu (Pamukkale University,Denizli-Turkey)
Fuat Oktay (Turkish Airlines, Istanbul, Turkey )
Fulya Taşel (Maltepe University, Turkey)
Garry L. Adams (Auburn University, USA)
Gilbert Levine(Cornell University-USA)
Gökhan Özer (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
Gönül Budak (Dokuz Eylul University, İzmir-Turkey)
Gülden Turhan (Marmara University, Turkey)
Gülruh Gürbüz (Marmara University, Istanbul-Turkey)
Gültekin Yıldız (Sakarya University, Sakarya-Turkey)
Güneş Zeytinoğlu (Anadolu University, Eskişehir-Turkey)
Guram Chikovani (Free University, Tbilisi-Georgia)
Güran Yahyaoğlu (Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale-Turkey)
Gürcan Papatya (Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta-Turkey)
Güven Alpay (Boğaziçi University, İstanbul-Turkey)
Güven Murat (Karaelmas University, Zonguldak-Turkey)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hakan Kitapçı (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
Hakkı Eraslan (Düzce University, Turkey)
Halil Çivi (İnönü University, Malatya-Turkey)
Halil Zaim (Fatih University, Turkey)
Halim Kazan (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
Halis Kalmış (Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale-Turkey)
Halit Keskin (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
HA-Nguyen (Vietnam National University, Hanoi School of Business, Vietnam)
Hans Zwart (Stenden University-Netherlands)
Harun Demirkaya, (Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey)
Hasan İbicioğlu (Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta-Turkey)
Hayat Kabasakal (Boğaziçi University, İstanbul-Turkey
Hikmet Timur (Hacettepe University, Ankara-Turkey)
Hisao Fujimoto (Osaka University of Economics, Japon)
Howard Clayton (Auburn University, USA)1
Hüseyin İnce (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
Hüseyin Kanıbir (Balıkesir University, Turkey)/em>
Hüseyin Özgen (Çukurova University-Turkey)
Ibrahim Anıl (Marmara University, Turkey)
Inan Özalp (Anadolu University, Eskişehir-Turkey)
Irina Kuzmina-Merlino (Transport and Telecommunication Institute, Latvia)
Jamaluddin H. Husain (Purdue University, USA)
Janis Priede (University of Latvia, Latvia)
Jiri Mezulanik (Silesian University, Opava-Czech Republic)
JoAnn D. Hawkins, Howard Community College, Columbia, Maryland, USA
Joann D. Howkins (Howard Community College- Colombia)
Johan Hough (Stellenbosch University, South Africa)
Julie Barker Lebo (Ball State University-USA)
Julie Barker Lebo,( Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, US)
Jungwan Lee (Bang College of Business, Kazakhstan)
Kadir Varoğlu (Başkent University-Turkey)
Kamil Kozan (St. John Fisher College, USA)
Kathleen Marshall Park (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA)
Kenneth Holland (Ball State University-USA)
Kenneth Holland (Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA )
Lars Ehrengren (Stockholm University, Sweden)
Ljiljana Maurovic (University of Rijeka, Croatia)
Lonnie Strickland (The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama - USA)
Lütfihak Alpkan (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
M. K. Sharma (Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla-India)
M. Şükrü Akdoğan (Erciyes University-Turkey)
Mahir Nakip (Ahmet Yesevi University-Kazakhstan)
Mahmut Özdevecioğlu (Melikşah University, Kayseri-Turkey)
Mahmut Paksoy (İstanbul Kültür University-Turkey)
Maria Klimikova (University of Economics in Bratislava-Slovakia)
Mariana Dodourova (University Of Hertfordshire, UK)
Marius Ungerer (Stellenbosch University, South Africa)
Maris Purgailis (University of Latvia of Riga - Latvia)
Margarita Dunska (University of Latvia of Riga - Latvia)
Mehmet Barca (Sakarya University, Sakarya-Turkey)
Mehmet Demirel (TUBITAK-Turkey)
Mehmet Sahin (Anadolu University, Eskisehir-Turkey)
Mehmet Şahin (Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey)
Mehmet Zor Kaya (Diyalog Avrasya, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova)
Metin UYAR (Trakya University, Turkey)
Muhammet Akdis (Ahmet Yesevi University-Kazakhstan)
Muhsin Halis (Gaziantep University, Gaziantep-Turkey)
Mümin Ertürk (Arel University, İstanbul-Turkey)
Münevver Çetin (Marmara University, İstanbul-Turkey)
Murat Kasimoglu (Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey)
xi
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
xii
Murat Kayalar (Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta-Turkey)
Musa Pınar (Valparaiso University, Indiana-USA)
Mustafa Aykaç (Kırklareli University-Turkey)
Mustafa Köksal (Kocaeli University, Kocaeli-Turkey)
Müjdelen Yener (Marmara University, Turkey)
Nazan Yelkikalan (Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale-Turkey)
Necdet Timur (Anadolu University, Eskisehir-Turkey)
Neil Bechervaise (Divine Word University, Madang - Papua New Guinea)
Nevin Deniz (Marmara University, Turkey)
Nevzat Demir (Fıratpen-Turkey)
Nigar Demircan Çakar (Düzce University, Turkey)
Nihan Yıldırım (Istanbul Technical University, Turkey)
Nizamettin Bayyurt (Fatih University, Turkey)
Nurhan Papatya (Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta-Turkey)
Nurullah Genç (Kocaeli University, Kocaeli-Turkey)
Orhan Elmacı (Dumlupınar University, Kütahya-Turkey)
Oya Erdil (Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli-Turkey)
Ömer Adil Atasoy (Osman Gazi University, Eskişehir-Turkey)
Ömer Torlak (Osman Gazi University, Eskişehir-Turkey)
Ömür Özmen (Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir-Turkey)
Özlem Özkanlı (Ankara University, Ankara-Turkey)
Patrick Bemelmans (Stenden University-Netherlands)
Paul Z. Jackson ( The Solutions Focus, St. Albans, UK)
Pauline Magee-Egan (St. John’s University, USA)
Peet Venter (University of South Africa, Pretoria-South Africa)
Pervez N. Ghauri (King’s College London-UK)
Radhi El-Mabuk (University of Northern Iowa-USA)
Recep Şener (Muğla University, Muğla-Turkey)
Refik Culpan (Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg-USA)
Refika Bakoğlu (Marmara University, İstanbul-Turkey)
Reşit Özkanca (Melikşah University-Turkey)
Rezan Tatlıdil (Ege University, İzmir-Turkey)
Richard Alan Nelson (Manship School of Mass Communication-USA)
Richard Lynch (Middlesex University, London-UK)
Rıdvan Karalar (Anadolu University, Eskişehir-Turkey)
Riza Atiq Abdullah (Universiti Ke Bangsaan-Malaysia)
Roberts Skapars (University of Latvia, Latvia)
Sabahat Bayrak (Pamukkale University, Denizli-Turkey)
Sadi Can Saruhan (Marmara University, İstanbul-Turkey)
Sefer Şener (İstanbul University, Istanbul-Turkey)
Selahattin Sarı (Beykent University, İstanbul-Turkey)
Selen Doğan (Niğde University, Niğde-Turkey)
Selim Aren (Gebze Institute of Technology, Turkey)
Selim Eren (Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey)
Selim Özdemir (Qafqaz University, Baku, Azerbaijan)
Selim Zaim (Marmara University, Turkey)
Senem Besler (Anadolu University, Turkey)
Sima Nart (Sakarya University, Turkey)
Şerafettin Sevim (Dumlupınar University, Kütahya-Turkey)
Sergei Mordovin (International Management Institute St. Petersburg, Russia)
Sevinç Köse (Celal Bayar University, Manisa-Turkey)
Şevki Özgener (Nevşehir University, Nevşehir-Turkey)
Şule Eren (Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey)
Shamsul Nahar Abdullah (Northen University of Malaysia,AmanMalasia)
Sharan L. Oswald (Auburn University, USA)
Shaukat Ali (University of Wolverhampton, Shropsire-Great Britain)
Sonja Petrovich Lazarevic (Monash University, Victoria-Australia)
Stanislav Poloucek (Silesian University, Opava-Czech Republic)
Stasys Vaitkevicius (Mykolas Romeris Universty-Lithuania)
Subodh Bhat (San Francisco State University,San Francisco - USA)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sudi Apak (Beykent University, Turkey)
Süleyman Türkel (Çağ University, Mersin - Turkey)
T. Diana A. De Macedo- Soares (Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
Tanses Gülsoy (Beykent University, İstanbul-Turkey)
Tatiana A. Burenina (State University of Management, Russia)
Tijen Harcar (İzmir University of Economics, Turkey)
Tuğba Karabulut (Istabul Commerce University, Turkey)
Tuna Taner (Celal Bayar University, Manisa-Turkey)
Uğur Yozgat (Marmara University, İstanbul-Turkey)
Ülkü Dicle (Yeditepe University, İstanbul-Turkey)
Ümit Alnıaçık (Kocaeli University, Turkey)
Ute Stoltenberg (University of Luneburg-Germany)
Viesturs Pauls Karnups (University of Latvia of Riga - Latvia)
V. Dolyatovskiy (The Rostow State University, Russia)
Victor Gnevko (St. Petersburg Institute of Management and Economics, Russia)
Vojtech Malatek (Silesian University, Opava-Czech Republic)
Warren J. Keegen (Pace University, USA)
Xavier Richet (University of Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3, France
Yasemin Arbak (Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir-Turkey)
Yener Pazarcık (Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale-Turkey)
Yonca Gürol (Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul-Turkey)
Yücel Acer (Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale-Turkey)
Zeyyat Hatipoglu (Dogus University, Istanbul-Turkey)
Zoltán Veres (Budapest Business School, Budapest, Hungary)
xiii
xiv
PREFACE
Dear Colleagues,
Welcome to the 9th International Strategic Management Conference in Riga, Latvia. On
behalf of the organizing committee of our conference, we would like to express our great
appreciation and honor to all of you from all around the world for sharing your valuable
work with us.
We have organized this 9th conference with the academic collaboration of Gebze Institute of
Technology University of Latvia and Istanbul Arel University. We have also enjoyed this year
again the cooperation of Elsevier and Emerald Group which have also participated to this
organization. I would like to thank to those who have contributed to the preparation and
publication to the conference in a successful manner.
The 9th International Strategic Management Conference received a total 188 extended
abstracts from 25 different countries. After carefully screening, 134 full papers were accepted
for the Conference. Among accepted papers, 10 papers were selected to be published in
Journal of Global Strategic Management.
Papers have been generally sent by academicians from Europe, The Balkan States, The
Middle East, Australia, Russia and the USA. The countries providing papers are as follows;
Albania, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malaysia, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russia, Spain,
Switzerland, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, United Kingdom, USA, and Turkey.
Unfortunately, some participants have been unable to attend the conference due to visa
problems. This year, we have two valuable keynote speakers. One of the well-known
academician from Purdue University, Calumet, USA, Prof. Dr. Jamaluddin Husain will
address you “On Micro-finance as a New Strategies in Establishment of Small Sized
Enterprises”. Second Keynote Speaker, well-known Professional Juris Binde (Ph.D)
President of Latvijas Mobilais Telephons, Latvia, will address you “On Leadership and
Strategy in Dynamic Business Environment”.
Dear colleagues and guests; Ladies and Gentlemen, with my sincere wish, I would like once
again to welcome you and enjoy with 9th International Strategic Management Conference.
Erol EREN, Ph.D.
Chairman of the Conference
xv
xvi
PREFACE
We are honored to welcome you to the 9th International Strategic Management Conference in
Riga/Latvia. This year’s theme is “New Directions in Sustainable Growth and Innovation
Strategies”.
We convened here, coming from different parts of the world, to discuss and explore for
international competition and cooperative strategies in sustainable development. We are
going to debate on different approaches and models in strategic management, industry
analyses, ethical issues, innovation and many other issues, not only economic and technology
point of view, but also addressing mainly the problems and issues of sustainable development.
Academicians from different countries submitted original papers for conference presentation
and for publication in the Proceedings Book. All competitive papers were subject to a peer
review. The results of these efforts produced 134 empirical, conceptual, and methodological
papers involving all functional areas of strategic management with a specific focus on
sustainability in growth and innovation strategies. I would like to express our appreciation to
the reviewers for reviewing the papers that were submitted to this conference. We also thank
to all those who submitted their work to be considered for presentation at the Conference.
All of us here worked very hard to make this conference a success. The conference could not
have been held without the diligent work of Professor Erol Eren, Chairman of the Conference
who made great effort to perfect all arrangements. Special thanks to him for his leadership
and execution of 2013 Conference. I want to extend special appreciation to Mehtap Özşahin
for her hard work and commitment to the conference development.
We hope that you will benefit from the Conference and enjoy your stay in this great land,
Riga.
Oya Erdil, Ph.D
Co-Chair of the Conference
xvii
xviii
PREFACE
That we have held such an international event called 9th International Strategic Management
Conference for the 9th time is very meaningful for us. More and more countries as well as
companies, NGOs and local administration have been giving importance to strategic
management to have long-term perspective and tackle the problems they can face.
The main reason of this approach and tendency of strategic management is that we have been
experiencing a world-wide economical crisis, basically, since 2007. It has also become the
main steering force behind several global political crises. Since that date, in many countries,
economic crises were followed by political ones. Many leaders of many countries had to
resign after the economic crises. This situation indicates that politics and economics have
been deeply affecting one another for last five years. In addition, political and economic
crises have been not only global but also structural .
Since crises have been structural and global, and since the topic of strategic management has
been global, we need strong policies of innovation, in order to manage them effectively. By
the concept of global we mean countries and states, not for profits, are interested in strategic
management as well as for profit organizations. Crises and their managing policies based on
innovation require such an approach. In this context, and in the framework of strategic
management, in order to fight crises and implement strategic management successfully, an
evaluation including various and alternative innovation policies
can be revealed and
summarized as follows*:
There are three types of innovation, some of which are focused on crises and each poses
different levels of risk: The first one, the “empowering innovations” can transform products
that historically were so complicated and expensive that only the rich had access to them. The
Model T of Ford was one of those. The personal computer was one of those. The smart phone
is this again. These kinds of innovations also create new jobs. The second type, which is
called “sustaining innovations”, make existing good products even better. They don’t create
new jobs. The third, which is called “efficiency innovations”, help us make the same products
cheaper, and they reduce jobs in the economy.
Over the recent years, executives and investors have stopped investing in empowering
innovations, because they pay off in five to eight years, and instead, invest in efficiency
innovations, which pay off in one or two years. We are awash in cash, and yet we continue to
invest as if capital was scarce. And so we’re not investing in the kind of innovations that
would create growth. In order to avoid for us from the crises, we need to invest in
empowering innovations primarily.
Efficiency innovation is really a lot about our business model. We often call it the productivity
loop, and it’s really operating with lower expenses, more efficiency, lowering prices for
customers and as a result having more customers, which allows for more efficiency.
*
for more information: Time Magazine Jan 2013, (online),The TİME at Davos debate :The rewards of
mastering innovation risk…
xix
We think that some companies have had two versions of a lot of empowering or disruptive
innovation. One has been in the area of sustainability. Another area of empowering or
disruptive innovation would be the area of e-commerce, using technology today.
We’re on the cusp of what is a major uptrend in innovation. Even the world of academia has
been very obsessed with this phenomenon of frugal innovation coming out of Asia. Even Apple
is facing the rise of companies like Samsung that are doing more for less.
What is going to happen is that we’re going to see cutting-edge innovation is required. That is
why we are not going to be able to get to our aspirations and visions by doing more for less.
We have to be able to do pioneering, cutting-edge innovation. That is why, first priority for
countries as well as companies must be empowering innovation like mentioned above in order
to tackle chaos and any sort of crises and bring innovative products and services to markets
in a way crisis management and innovation policies are integrated in strategic management.
Not only crises but also strategic management has been global, like we mentioned before. In
this context, at the levels of organization, companies, local administration and state, strategic
management must be prepared together with crisis management and innovation policies. At
this point, the main mention we are trying to lay out is that crisis management and innovation
policies must be integrated in strategic management...
For these reasons, the 9th International Strategic Management Conference has been
important and significant to hold in this theme, in Latvia. I am sure the presentations of the
9th International Strategic Management Conference are going to give significant
contributions to the perspective we mentioned above. Before ending my words I would like to
thank to Chair of Conference Prof.Dr. Erol Eren , Co-chair Prof.Dr. Oya Erdil and Dr.
Mehtap Ozşahin, for working very hard and effectively for this event. I would like also to
thank to participants and presenters for joining our event and presenting presentations.
Ali Akdemir, Ph.D.
Co-Chair of the Conference
xx
9th International Strategic Management Conference
The Relationships Between Technological Investment, Firm
Size, Firm Age and The Growth Rate of Innovational
Performance
Orkun Yildiza , Özlem Çetinkaya Bozkurtb, Adnan Kalkanc,Ali Aycid
a
Gazi University, Ankara, 06150, Turkey
Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur, 15300, Turkey
b,c
d
KOSGEB, Ankara, 06150, Turkey
Abstract
In many different sectors, firms -not only technical departments, but also organizational structures- have been under the
constant influence of technological improvements. The recent research in business literature shows that innovation and
technology tactics, strategies and management style are important elements for success of companies in the market
today. Earlier studies focus on the effects of these factors on firms’ financial profit, market share position, and also
success or problems of personal adaptation. Some argue that the firm age and structure are associated with the
uniqueness of innovations in firms and suggest that once small and medium firms (SME) succeed in innovation through
technological tactics, strategies and management directives, they can be easily imitated by their competitors. From this
point, the present study examines the relationships between technological investments, firm size, firm age and
innovation performance in Turkish firms which are in the technopolis at Middle East Technical and Hacettepe
University, based on the firms’ datasets and indicators in statistic methods.
Keywords: Technology strategies, Firm size, Firm age, Innovational performance
© 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the 9th International
Strategic Management Conference
Introduction
Traditional industrial economic and modern management studies show that the basic indicator of firm
performance is to stay in the market successfully (Audretsch, 1995; Caves, 1998; Klepper, 2002). In addition,
management studies emphasize the necessity of exiting the market as a part of life cycle strategies (Graebner and
Eisenhardt, 2004; Villalonga and McGahan,2005). Firms may exit business sector by either closing down or
selling out to another company. Firm characteristics such as mode of entry, firm age and size are important
aspects to be considered before making decisions (Cefis 2012). Additionally, firms should take into account the
competition level in their sector prior to strategic desicions. An increasing competition is affected by developing
structure of the global markets and division of labor today. A key point in the competitiveness of manufacturing
and service firms is innovation performance (Alvarez 2009). In this paper, we examine three dimensions of
innovation performance in relation to: a) firm size, b) firm age; and c) technological investments. It is highly
likely that these three factors shape the outcomes of innovation performance.
First and second of all, we claim that firm size and firm age play an important role in the innovative
performance of firms. An increasing amount of research has placed firm age and firm size in the center of
interest on management literature (Archibugi, 1995; Antonelli, 2004, 2006 and 2007; Branscomb, 2001; Brush &
Chaganti, 1998; Coccia, 2005; Damanpour, 2012; Edquist, 1999; Faucheux, 1998; Figueroa, 2000; Galende,
2006; Ganter; 2012; Gopalakrishnan, 1997; Halkos, 2007; Harrison, 2003; Hart, 2001; Hritonenko, 2010;
Kannebley, 2005; Kim, 2009; Levitas, 2006; Magnani, 2009; Molero, 1996; Nicholls & Nixon, 1995; Rogers,
2004; Rycroft, 2006 and 2007; Saha, 1998; Sherer, 2001; Shaffer, 2002; Tovar, 2011; Tyler, 2001; Zahra, 1999).
The competitive market environment has grown due to shorter product and technological life cycles. Under the
influence of these forces, firms have had to take innovative strategies since 1980s (Nijssen et al., 2001).Third
and last factor is technological investments in linking technology investments to the innovation performance of
firms. In the literature, technological investment is discussed as the element of a recombination process to
generate innovation. This point is an important part of the study. Since 1995, event studies about technological
587
investment have investigated and emphasized that technological investment provides many advantages for firms
in competitive markets (Adeoti, 2001; Apostolopoulos & Pramataris, 1997; Basole et al., 2013; Berghout et al.,
2011; Besson & Rowe, 2012; Caggese, 2012; Carlin et al., 2011; Roignant et al., 2011; Cragg et al., 2011;
Dawid et al., 2009; Dehning et al., 2004; Dimov & Milanov, 2010; Gatian et al., 1995; Ghosal & Reichert,
2009; Gomez & Vargas, 2012; Granados & Knoke, 2013; Holsapple & Wu, 2011; Huisman & Kort, 2003;
Inderst & Peitz, 2012; Jurison, 1996; Kim & Sanders, 2002; Kivijarvi & Saarinen, 1995; Konchitchki &
O'Leary, 2011; Kong & Kwok, 2007; Lang et al., 1996; Leahy & Montagna, 2012; Lee et al., 2011; Li, 2013;
Lim et al, 2011; Liu et al., 2011; Love et al., 2009; Love et al., 2011; Meng, 2008; Merali et al., 2012; Merlino,
2012; Mittal & Nault, 2009; Neuhausler, 2012; Nielsen, 2002; Nishihare & Fukushima, 2008; Petit &
Randachio, 2000; Pick & Azari, 2011; Power, 2013; Rai et al., 1997; Ramos et al., 2011; Renkema & Berghout,
1997; Shober & Gebauer, 2011; Smit & Trigeorgies, 2007; Teo et al., 2000; Wrzaczek & Kort, 2012). Event
studies deliver a strong thoretical foundation about technological investments for the present study. Although
these studies also provide reviews of different aspects of the technological investment and related incomes for
firms, this paper focuses on whether firms investment in technology effects their innovation performance
regardless of the distinction between the product innovation and process innovation.
Within the contexts of shorter product and technological life cycles, it is considered that innovation
cooperation activities are an crucial factor for being successful in industrial and information sectors. The
improved complexity of innovation processes, which are the backbone of competition in market, leads firms to
search beyond their own boundaries for valuable innovational knowledge and skills, and gain an advantagous
position against their competitors. It seems that event studies on relationships between factors such as firm age
and firm size and innovation performance have attracted relatively less attention in the literature. Those which
investigated the issue has not yielded consistent findings. Our study aims to contribute to the emergence of
literature that focuses on these two factors which are the backbones of firm structure, and their relationships with
innovational performance. Besides, we examine the relationship between technological investment and
innovational performance. We explore the factors influencing the innovation performance, which acquires
product and service package innovations, by using detailed datasets and observations. How relevant is
innovation performance to technological investment, firm size, and firm age? In quantitative terms, this question
is yet to be answered in the business literature. The aim of this study is to fill this major gap by examining the
roles of technological investment, firm size and firm age for innovation performance using a combination of
datasets and indications. Figure 1 illustrates an inter-connected model of the four elements.
Technological
Investment
Firm Age
Innovation
Performance
Firm Size
Figure 1. Theoretical framework and hypothesis
In the first section of the study, we review some studies about technological investment, firm size, firm age
and innovational performance in the information management literature in detail. Then, the second section
presents an analysis of firms’ datasets and indicators by the statistical methods. We investigate the links between
firms’ age, size and technological investment and innovation performance by analyzing the data. Lastly, in the
third section, results are discussed and suggested hypotheses are evaluated in the light of the findings.
Literature Review And Hypotheses
Technological Investment
The important role of technology in economic developments has been acknowledged many times so far. For
instance, Solow residual is mainly a measure of technological input into the production process, and investments
in technology have become a strategic issue in economic development. Several event studies emphasize the
benefits of such investments for countries’ economies. For example, in the study of objection, Adeoti (2012)
588
traces the link between investment in technology and export of firms. Casse (2012) argue that innovation and
technological progress have been continued by entrepreneurial firms, which are responsible of employment and
productivity growth in countries. Recently, new entrepreneurial firms’ creation or development based on
financial factors is highlighted by many academic studies. However, research on the effects of uncertainty and
risk factors on entrepreneurial investment decisions has remained relatively little. Firms’ investment on
technology is rather difficult to take into account concerning the benefits for the economy of a country.
Similarly, Keen (1991) points out that we are still at the learning stage for evaluation regarding the benefits of
technological investments. Since IT investments are evaluated by suitable time framework, the evaluation
process of IT infrastructure investments is much more difficult. In the literature, Hochstrasser and Griffiths’
survey is used by researchers for measuring it (Apostolopoulos & Pramataris, 1997).
Past studies examined firm’s investment in innovation in the case of uncertainty. The original model of this
condition belongs to Dixit and Pindyck (1994), who offered the Irreversible investment model, which is an
extension by the optimal investment strategy on oligopolistic market model. Following their work, Lambrecht
and Perrauding (1996) suggested that investment to threshold proves that there is a relationship between the
threshold for even-breaking and the monopolistic investment threshold. Claiming similar views, Nielsen (2001),
argued that the investment threshold makes the firm break even (p. 743). Many other empirical event studies
approach investment on uncertainty innovation. For example, Caggese’s (2012) study on 11,417 Italian
manufacturing firms uses new simulates model of entrepreneurial firm and derives testable predictions
concerning the relation between financial market relation, uncertainty, and the decisions to undertake risky
productivity – enhancing projects. This empirical analysis results show that investment on uncertainty innovation
projects prove a significant and large negative effects. Business cycle fluctuation and growth have been taken as
a negative effect by uncertainty innovation project results for entrepreneurial firms. David (2010) studied the
speed of technology adoption and the wage differential on total labour income in the home country by taking
into account the transition dynamics and using numerical dynamic optimization methods. The result of this study
demonstrates that firms’ activities in foreign countries may prove negative in the long term while competitors
benefit from their superior production and service technology. So, the productions of intellectual property rights
are of great importance for foreign direct investment firms. Schumpeter (1934) argues that innovation leads to
the emergence of winners and losers in the market. In competitive economy, innovation is a crucial process for
individuals and families’ rise or fall (Cefis, 2012: p. 795).
IT investments pose an interrelated effect on firm value. Thus, managers should be rethinking about
uncertainty innovation investments as the value of shareholders priority has been maximized by managements.
Process Oriented Approach and Productivity Paradox have been used to assess IT investments that contribute to
firms’ performance and value. Based on the important implications of firm value approach, we can understand
that many IT managers take into account of industry and company specific effects on IT investments,
competitive advantage, and its effect on firm value and investment risk (Dehning et al., 2005; p. 990).
Finally, some studies argue that the main factor is competition for taking risk of investment on uncertainty
innovation projects. This point is emphasized by Nielsen (2002), who suggests that the dominated strategic
effects always precipitate investments in noncompetition markets (p. 732). If firms expect profit from their
investments, they should seek to delay risky investments.
Firm Size and Firm Age
Barney (1991), Conner (1991) and Peteraf (1993) argue that physical, financial, human and technological
resources are the parts of organizations. According to Grant and Barney (1991), one of the most critical steps in
managing firms is taking the decision to use outsourching or internal resources which are improved as unique
resources. While resources are changed or renewed, firms grow in size and their organization structures are
reorganized by new managements. As technological decisions are an important part of reorganization, many
studies in the literature reviewed above have focused on the intensity of technological changes.
According to Garcia and Calantone (2002), firms’ innovation chracteristics and the degree of innovativeness
are well understood when they are classified in taxonomies. Durand (1992) states that to analyze the significance
of technological changes, one can benefit from four perspectives: a) technological input: technical novelty or
scientific merit; b) competence throughput: new requirements on the competencies, transilience; c) perception of
the market: market novelty, new functions proposed to customers; and d) strategic output: impact on the
competitive position of the firms (Coccia, 2005; p.119).
589
Strategic decisions effect technological changes. Although these changes do not directly aim to maximize and
improve the profit, they take it into account based on the product and market factor (David, 1975, 1985;
Antonelli, 2003). The locazination in multidimensional spaces matters theory consists of four reasons (Antonelli,
2004; p.258):
a) the bounded rationality effects agents’ structure. In the specific learning context, technological and
organizational innovation are only possible. b) It should be possible to flow advantage of communication among
complementary innovations by proximity in regional and space to other learning agents; c) the best possible
usage of existing inputs is choosen by irreversibility of fixed production factors limits the mobility in the
technical space and constraints agents; d) the most effective usage of locally abundant inputs of technologies
prefer to used by relative factor prices .
Innovational Performance
Inventions, technology and research consist of innovations. We can explain a variety of models of the
innovation process as the important factor in developing public policies for encouraging innovations as well as
for managing their creation. The differencies in innovative capacity in different socities can be explained by
these models to assess complementary assests and social capital (Kline, 2001; p. 15498). Entrepreneurship
researchers emphasize the importance of innovational performance for firm success in event studies (Chandler
and Hanks, 1994; Cooper Gascon, and Woo, 1994; Cooper and Artz, 1995; Mosakowski, 1993). This work
suggests that managers must consider the analysis of resources in strategy and performance relationships before
innovational decisions (Brush & Chaganti, 1998; p. 236 – 237). According to Sahal, technology has three the
main concepts (Coccia, 2005; p. 947): a) The neo-classical approach of technology in the form of production
function; b) the Pythagorean account of technology theory in the form of the chronologies of major innovations;
c) The other approach is the systems concept of technology. Certain measurable, functional characteristics of the
phenomenon under consideration are the best understood by this approach. Analysis of the three concepts and
results show that the system concept of technology is much more advantageous than the other two concepts.
Evidence supports the thesis underlying the system concept on which innovations based the development of
existing technology. The neo – classical indication of technology does not point out the measurement of
technological change. Also, Pythagorean has not a formulation of the production activity, too. However, the
system concept has both measurement technology change and framework of formulation of production activity.
The main effects of technological change according to the innovation degrees are as follows (Coccia, 2005; p.
122; Rogers, 1995):
 First-degree innovation (lightest): There are only marginal changes in relation to the overall
system (product, process, organization, etc.).
 Second-degree innovation (mild): The main effects are minor changes in product and process.
These innovations occur almost continuously within the economic system. They mainly affect the
firm that promotes them.
 Third-degree innovation: moderate.
Hypotheses
In this study, we suggest four hypotheses as follow:
H1: There is a relationship between Technological Investment and Innovation Performance.
H2: There is a relationship between Firm Size and Innovation Performance.
H3: There is a relationship between Firm Age and Innovation Performance.
The aim of the hypotheses is to understand the relationship between technological investment and innovation
performance in firms by using their datasets; to see how a possible change in firm size can affect the innovation
performance; to investigate firm age differences in relation to innovation performance and lastly, to demonstrate
the overall effect of all the dependent variables over innovation performance.
590
Methodology
Research Goals
In this survey, we aim to identify the relationships between the technological investment, firm size, firm age
and innovation performance for techno-polis firms in METU (Middle East Technical University) and Hacettepe
University, Turkey. The data will be collected through questionnaires distributed to the middle and senior firm
managers operating in firms in different industry at techno-polis of universities in Turkey between, and the
analysis will be conducted via correlation analyses on SPSS statistical packet program.
2.1. Sample and Data Collection
In this study, a field survey using questionnaires were conducted for analysis. Firms operating in various
sectors at techno-polis in Ankara were chosen as the research population. Randomly selected 30 firms were
taken as the sample of the research. The number of firms registered to techno-polis at METU and Hacettepe
University is 76 (population), which have been supported by KOSGEB, in Ankara 2013. The rate of randomly
selected sampling is 47% which is depending on ensure equality of firm size, age and technology investment
situation between firms. Analysis has been carried out using data which were obtained from the firms at technopolis by using a questionnaire form. The respondents were chosen from the middle and senior managers of firms.
Questionnaires were subjected to respondents by e-mail. Data obtained from those 30 questionnaires were
analyzed through the SPSS 15 statistical program and tested.
2.2. Analyses and Results
First the Descriptive Statistics test was applied to data in order to obtain descriptive information about firms.
The values obtained from the test are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for SMEs
Subjects
Descriptions
Nature of Firms
Size of Firms
Amount of Sales (* $1000)
Duration of Activity (years)
Existence of R&D Dep.
# of personnel in R&D Dep.
Sectors
Production
66.7%
1-5 employees
83.3%
1-50
33.3%
1-3
66.7%
Yes
100%
1-3
46.7%
Food
6.7%
Service
33.3%
6-10 employees
13.3%
51-150
10%
4-6
33.3%
No
4-7
46.7%
Industrial design
13.3%
Trade
26-30 employees
3.3%
151-200
3.3%
201-250
36.7%
+250
16.7%
8-11
6.6%
Industry
3.3%
Information Technology
33.3%
Other
43.3%
The questionnaire consisted of 25 items belonging to three sets of questions. The first set was about
descriptive information of firms. For a total of 8 items respondents were asked. The second set of questions
measured innovation performance. The scale was adapted from Glaister and Falshaw (1999), Dincer et al. (2006)
and Glaister et al. (2009). For a total of 9 items respondents were asked, on a seven-point scale rating from “1:
strongly disagree” to “7: strongly agree” to indicate the innovation performance of firms (Cronbach alpha =
.798). The third set of questions measured technological investments. The scale was adapted from Rigby and
Bilodeau (2011). For a total of 8 items respondents were asked, on a seven-point scale rating from “1: strongly
disagree” to “7: strongly agree” to indicate technological investments of firms (Cronbach alpha = .859). The
Cronbach’s alpha for all the data was .668 for reliability. Alpha coefficients obtained were accepted because they
were higher than 0.50, as defined by Bagozzi and Yi (1988), and 0.70 as defined by Nunnally (1978),
respectively.
The number of data was 30. Therefore, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to measure the normality of the
data. According to the 5 percent significance level, the values of significance were greater than 0.05. As a result,
we could say that data were normally distributed.
Table 2. Test of Normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s Test Results)
Concepts
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Values
Sig.
Tecnological Investment
0.146
0.102
Innovation Performance
0.138
0.150
591
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value is 0.742 and Sig. is 0.000 in Bartlett’s test of sphericity for innovation
performance. This KMO value is greater than 0.50. Therefore, data set is suitable for factor analysis. The
cumulative percent in rotation sums of squared loadings is 81.696. According to this result, the one factor (with 4
items) resulted in factor analysis explained 81.696 percent of the total variance. All communalities values are
greater than 0.50. Moreover, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value is 0.772 and Sig. is 0.000 in Bartlett’s test of
sphericity for technological investment. This KMO value is greater than 0.50. Therefore, data set is suitable for
factor analysis. The cumulative percent in rotation sums of squared loadings is 85.719. According to this result,
the one factors (with 5 items) resulted in factor analysis explained 85.719 percent of the total variance. All
communalities values are greater than 0.50.
Table 3. Rotated Component Matrix
Factors
Technological Investment
Innovation Performance
Questions
TI7
TI8
TI6
TI5
TI4
IP4
IP6
IP3
IP5
1
0.939
0.939
0.889
0.858
0.711
2
0.887
0.856
0.845
0.845
The Pearson correlation was used to investigate the relationship between the Technological Investment,
Innovation Performance, Firm Size and Firm Age. The results (r = 0.689, ρ < 0.01) for technological investment
indicates that this variable significant correlate with innovation performance (Table 4). Firm age (r = 0.453, ρ <
0.05) has a significant correlation with technological investment.
Table 4. Pearson Correlation Results for Variables
Variables
TI
Technological Investment
IP
Innovation Performance
FS
Firm Size
FA
Firm Age
TI
1.000
.689**
.000
.124
.513
.453*
.012
IP
.689**
.000
1.000
.334
.072
.290
.120
FS
.124
.513
.334
,072
1.000
-.076
.692
FA
.453*
.012
.290
.120
-.076
.692
1.000
Pearson Correlation and Significance
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Regression analysis was used to determine the direction and strength of the relationship between
technological investment and innovation performance. The results indicate that technological investment
(parameter estimate 0.651, ρ value less than 0.01) has a strong positive relationship with innovation performance
(Table 5).
Table 5. Extract of Regression Results for Technological Investment and Innovation Performance
Model
TI
FS
FA
Constant
Technological Investment
Firm Size
Firm Age
Unstandardized Coefficients
B
Std.Error
-.386
.502
.651
.152
.266
.143
.030
.315
Standardized Coefficients
Beta
t
-.770
.651
4.286
.254
1.867
.014
.095
Sig. (ρ)
.448
.000
.073
.925
R2 = .538
F = 10.088
Dependent Variable “Innovation Performance”
As a result of findings, the equation considered as a mathematical model is given numerically below:
IP = .651 * TI
592
The results of multiple linear regression analyses belonging to innovation performance and technological
investment were shown schematically in a collective manner in Figure 2 below. The relationships accepted were
shown by arrows with thick lines.
Technological Investment
.453*
.689**
Innovation Performance
Firm Age
Figure 2. Conceptual Model Linking Human Capital, Social Capital, Financial Capital and Performance
The results regarding the hypotheses are shown in Table 6. Totally 3 hypotheses are ranked in the Table. With
regard to the results; Beta coefficiants (), Significance () and Accepted/Rejected (A/R) status are also given in
the Table. According to these results; 1 hypotheses was accepted at significance level of 0.01 and
Table 6. The Results Belonging to Hypotheses
No
H1
H2
H3
Hypothesis
There is a relationship between Technological Investment and Innovation Performance
There is a relationship between Firm Size and Innovation Performance
There is a relationship between Firm Age and Innovation Performance.
()
.689**
.334
.290
Sig. ()
.000
.072
.120
A/R
A
R
R
3. Conclusion
We have used the view to examine the relationships between innovation performance and technological
investment, firm size and firm age in firms operating in Ankara techno-polis, Turkey. The results shown on
Table 6 have showed that there is a relationship between technological investments and innovation performance
of firms. In addition, the findings have also showed that the relationship between technological investment and
innovation performance is strong. However, our analyses have also revealed that there are no relationships
between innovation performance between firm size and firm age.
REFERENCES
Adeoti, J. O. (2012). Technology-Related Factors As Determinants of Export Potential of Nigerian Manufacturing Firms. Structural Change
and Economic Dynamics J., Vol. 23, pp. 487-503.
Antonelli, C. (2004). Localized Product Innovation: The Role of Proximity in the Lancastrian Product Space. Information Eco. and Policy
J., Vol.16, pp. 255-274.
Antonelli, C. (2006). Localized Technological Change And Factor Markets: Constraints and Inducements To Innovation. Vol. 17, pp. 224247.
Antonelli, C. (2007). The System Dynamics Of Collective Knowledge: From Gradualism And Saltationism To Punctuated Change. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 62, pp. 215-236.
Archibugi, D., Evangelista, R. et al., (1995). Concentration, Firm Size and Innovation: Evidence From Innovation Costs. Technovation
Journal, Vol. 15(3), pp.153-163.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources And Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. of Man., Vol.17(1), pp. 99-120.
Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm Resources And Sustained Competitive Advantage . J. of Man., Vol. 17(1), pp. 99 - 120.
Basole , R. C. & Seuss, C. D. et al., (2013). IT Innovation Adoption By Enterprises: Knowledge Discovery Through Text Analytics.
Decision Support Systems J. Vol. 54, pp. 1044 – 1054.
Berghout, E. & Nijland, M. et al. (2011). Management Of Lifecycle Costs And Benefits: Lessons From Information Systems Practice.
Computers in Industry Asian J. of Psychiatry, Vol. 62, pp. 755 – 764.
Besson, P. & Rowe, F. (2012). Strategizing Information Systems-Enabled Organizational Transformation: A Transdisciplinary Review And
New Directions. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 21, pp. 103-124.
Branscomb, L. M. (2001). Technological Innovation. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 7, pp. 1549815502.
Brush, C. G. & Chaganti, R. (1998). Businesses Without Glamour? An Analysis Of Resources On Performance By Size And Age In Small
Service And Retail Firms. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 14, pp. 233-257.
593
Caggese, A. (2012). Entrepreneurial Risk, Investment,And Innovation, J. of Financial Eco., Vol. pp. 106, 287-307.
Carlin, B. L. Chowdhry, B. et al. (2011). Investment In Organization Capital. J. of Fin. Interm., Vol. 21. pp. 268-286.
Cefis, E. & Marsili, O. Going, going, gone. Exit Forms And The Innovative Capabilities Of Firms. Research Policy, Vol. 41, pp. 795 – 807.
Coccia, M. (2005), Technometrics: Origins, Historical Evolution And New Directions, Tech. Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 72, pp.
944-979.
Conner, K. R. 1991. A Historical Comparison Of Resource-Based Theory And Five Schools Of Thought Within Industrial Organization
Economics: Do We Have A New Theory Of The Firm? J. of Man., Vol.17(1). pp. 121-154.
Cragg, P. & Caldeira, M. et al. (2011). Organizational Information Systems Competences in SME. Infor. & Man., 48(8): 353-363.
Damanpour, F. & Aravind, D., (2012). Organizational Structure And Innovation Revisited: From Organic to Ambidextrous Structure.
Handbook of
Organizational Creativity, pp.483-512.
David, H. & Greiner, A. et al. (2009). Optimal Foreign Investment Dynamics In The Presence Of Technological Spillovers. J. of Economic
Dynamics & Control, Vol. 34, pp. 296-313.
David, H. & Greiner, A. et al. (2010). Optimal Foreign Investment Dynamics In The Presence Of Technological Spillovers. Journal of
Economic Dynamics & Control, Vol. 34. Pp. 296-313.
David, P.A., (1975). Technical Choice Innovation and Economic Growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Dehning, B. & Richardson, V. J. et al. (2004). IT Investments and Firm Value, Inf. & Man., Vol. 42, pp. 989-1008.
Dincer,O., Tatoğlu,E. & Glaister, K.W. (2006). The strategic planning process: Evidence from Turkish firms, Man. Research News, 29(4),
206-219.
Dimov, D. & Milanov, H. (2010). The Interplay Of Need And Opportunity In Venture Capital Investment Syndication. J. of Business
Venturing, Vol. 25, pp. 331-348.
Dixit, A.K., Pindyck, R.S., 1994. Investment Under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press.
Durand, T. (1992). Dual Technology Trees: Assessing the Intensity and Strategic Significance of Technology Change. Res. Policy, Vol. 21,
pp. 361-380.
Edquist, C. & Hommen, L., (1999). Systems of Innovation: Theory and Policy for the Demand Side. Technology In Society, Vol. 21, pp. 6379.
Faucheux, S. & Nicolai, I., (1998). Environmental Technological Change and Governance in Sustainable Development Policy. Ecological
Economics, Vol. 27, pp. 243-256.
Figueroa, E. & Conceiçao, P., (2000). Rethinking The Innovation Process In Large Organizations: A Case Study of 3M. J. of Eng. Tech.
Man., Vol. 17, pp. 93-109.
Galende, J., (2006). Analysis of Technological Innovation From Business Economics And Management. Technovation J. , Vol. 26, pp. 300311.
Ganter, A. & Hecker, A., (2012). Deciphering Antecedents of Organizational Innovation. Journal of Business Research, pp. 1-10.
Garcia, R. & Calantone, R. (2002). A Critical Look At Technological Innovation Typology and Innovativeness Terminology: A literature
review, J. Prod. Innov. Man. Vol.19, pp. 110-132.
Gatian, A. W. & Brown, R.M. et al. (1995). Organizational Innovativeness, Competitive Strategy and Investment Success. Vol. 4, pp. 43-59.
Ghosal, V. & Reichert, U. N. (2009). Investments in Modernization, Innovation and Gains in Productivity: Evidence From Firms in The
Global Paper Industry. Research Policy, Vol. 38, pp. 536 – 547.
Glaister, K.W. and Falshaw, R. (1999). StrategicPlanning: Still Going Strong? Long Range Planning, Vol.32, No.1, pp.107-116.
Glaister S, Smith JW, Roads: A Utility in Need of a Strategy, Oxford Rev. of Eco. Policy,2009, Vol.25, pp:368-390.
Gomez, J. & Vargas, P. (2012). Intangible Resources and Technology Adoption in Manufacturing Firms. Research Policy, Vol. 41, pp. 16071619.
Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F., (1997). A Review Economics, of Innovation Research in Sociology and Technology Management.
Inter.J. of Man. Science, Vol. 25, pp. 15-28.
Granados, F. J. & Knoke, D. (2013). Organizational Status Growth and Structure: An Alliance Network Analysis. Social Networks Journal.
Grant, R. (1991). A Resource-Based Perspective of Competitive Advantage. Calif.Man.Review, Vol.33,pp.114-135.
Halkos, G. E., & Tzeremes, N. G., (2007). Productivity Efficiency And Firm Size: An Empirical Analysis of Foreign Owned Companies.
InternationalBusiness Review, Vol. 16, pp. 713- 731.
Harrison, D; & Legendre, C., (2003). Technological Innovations, Organizational Change And Workplace Accident Prevention. Safety
Science, Vol. 41, pp. 319-338.
Hart, D. M., (2001). Antitrust And Technological Innovation In The US: Ideas, Institutions, Decisions, And İmpacts, 1890-2000. Research
Policy, Vol. 30, pp. 923 - 936.
Holsapple, C, W. & Wu, J. (2011). An Elusive Antecedent Of Superior Firm Performance: The Knowledge Management Factor. Decision
Support Systems J., Vol. 52. pp. 271-283.
Hritonenko, N., & Yatsenko, Y., (2010). Technological Innovations, Economic Renovation, And Anticipation Effects. J. of MathematicaL
Eco., Vol. 46, pp. 1064 -1078.
Huisman, K.J.M. & Kort, P.M. (2003). Strategic Investment in Technological Innovations. European J. of Op.Research, Vol. 144. pp. 209223.
594
Inderst, R. & Peitz,M. (2012). Network Investment, Accessand Competition. Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 36, pp. 407-418.
Jurison, J.(1996). Toward More Effective Man. IT Benefits. Strategic Inf. Sys. J., Vol. 5, pp. 263-274.
Kannebley, S., Porto, G. S., at al. (2005). Characteristics Of Brazilian İnnovative Firms: An Empirical Analysis Based On Pıntec - İndustrial
Research On Technological İnnovation. Research Policy, Vol. 34, pp. 872 – 893.
Kim, W. & Dong Lee, J., (2009). Measuring The Role Of Technology-Push And Demand-Pull İn The Dynamic Development Of The
Semiconductor İndustry: The Case Of The Global Dram Market. Journal of Applied Economics, Vol. 12, pp. 83 – 108.
Kim, Y.J. & Sanders, G.L. (2002). Strategic Actions In Information Technology İnvestment Based On Real Option Theory. Decision
Support Systems Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 1 – 11.
Kivijarvi, H. & Saarinen, T. (1995). Investment In Information Systems And The Financial Performance of the Firm. Information & Man.,
Vol. 28, pp. 143-163.
Kleinknecht, A., and P. Mohnen (2002). Innovation And Firm Performance. Econometric explorations of survey data, Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave.
Konchitchki, Y. & O'Leary, D.E. (2011). Event Study Methodologies In Information Systems Research. International J. of Accounting
Information Sys., Vol. 12, pp. 99 -115.
Kong, J. J. & Kwok, Y.K. (2007). Real Options In Strategic Investment Games Between Two Asymmetric Firms. European J. of
Op.Research, Vol. 181, pp. 967-985.
Lambrecht, B., Perraudin, W., 1999. Real Options and Preemption Under Incomplete Information. Birbeck College, London, Working paper.
Lang, L. & Ofek, E. et al., (1996). Leverage, Investment, And Firm Growth. J. of Financial Eco., Vol. 40, pp. 3-29.
Leahy,D. & Montagna, C.(2012). Strategic Investment aInternational Outsourcing in Unionised Oligopoly. Labour Economics,Vol. 19, pp.
260-269.
Lee, J. & Palekar, U.S. et al., (2011). Supply chain efficiency and security: Coordination For Collaborative Investment in Technology.
European J. of Operational Research, Vol. 210, pp. 568 – 578.
Levitas, E. F. & Mcfadyen, M. A. At el., 2006. Survival And The Introduction Of New Technology: A Patent Analysis in The Integrated
Circuit Industry. J. Eng. Technol. Man., Vol. 23, pp. 182-201.
Li, C.Y. (2013). Persuasive Messages On Information System Acceptance: A Theoretical Extension Of Elaboration Likelihood Model And
Social İnfluence Theory. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 264-275.
Lim, J. H. & Stratopoulos, T. C. et al., (2011). Role of It Executives in The Firm’s Ability to Achieve Competitive Advantage Through It
Capability. International J. of Accounting Information Systems. Vol . 13, pp. 21-40.
Liu,D. & Ji, Y. et al., (2011). Knowledge Sharing And Investment Decisions in Information Security. Decision Support Sys. J., Vol.52,
pp.95-107.
Love, J. H. & Roper, S. et al., (2009). Innovation, Ownership and Profitability. International J. of Industrial Organization, Vol. 27, pp. 424434.
Love, J. H. & Roper, S. et al., (2011). Openness, Knowledge, Innovation & Growth in UK Business Services. Research Policy, V.40,
pp.1438-1452.
Magnani, E., (2009). How Does Technological Innovation And Diffusion Affect Inter-Industry Workers’ Mobility?. Structural Change and
Economic Dynamics Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 16 – 37.
Meng, R. (2008). A Patent Race In A Real Options Setting: Investment Strategy, Valuation, Capm Beta, And Return Volatility. Journal of
Economic Dynamics & Control, Vol. 32, pp. 3192 – 3217.
Merali, Y. & Papadopoulos, T. et al., (2012). Information Systems Strategy: Past, Present, Future?. J. of Strategic Inf. Sys., Vol. 21, pp. 125153.
Merlino, L. P. (2012). Discrimination, Technology And Unemployment. Labour Economics J., Vol. 19, pp. 557-567.
Mittal, N. & Nault, B.R. (2009). Investments in Information Technology: Indirect Effects and Information Technology Intensity.
Information Systems Research, Vol. 20, pp. 140 – 154.
Molero, J. & Buesa, M., (1996). Patterns Of Technological Change Among Spanish Innovative Firms: The Case Of The Madrid Region.
Research Policy, Vol. 25, pp. 647 – 663.
Neuhausler, P. (2012). The Use Of Patents And Informal Appropriation Mechanisms—Differences Between Sectors And Among
Companies. Technovation Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 681 – 693.
Nicholls - Nixon, C. L. (1995). Responding To Technological Change: Why Some Firms Doand Others Die. The Journal of High
Technology Management Research, Vol. 6, pp. 1 – 16.
Nielsen, M.J. (2002). Competition And Irreversible Investments. Int. J. of Ind. Organization, Vol. 20, pp. 731-743.
Nijssen, E., Van Reekum, R., Hulshoff, H., 2001. Gathering And Using Information For The Selection Of Technology Partners.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol.67 (2), pp. 221–237.
Nishihare, M. & Fukushima, M. (2007). Evaluation Of Firm’s Loss Due To Incomplete Information In Real Investment Decision. European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 188, pp. 569 – 585.
Peteraf, M. 1993. The Cornerstones Of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View. Strategic Man. J., Vol. 14 (3), pp. 179-191.
Petit, M. N. & Randachio, F.S. (2000). Endogenous R&D And Foreign Direct Investment In International Oligopolies. International Journal
of Industrial Organization, Vol. 18, pp. 339 – 367.
595
Pick, J. B. & Azari, R. (2011). A Global Model Of Technological Utilization Based On Governmental, Business-Investment, Social, And
Economic Factors. Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 28, pp. 49 – 83.
Power, L. (2013). The Missing Link: Technology, İnvestment, And Productivity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 80, pp. 300 –
313.
Rai, A. & Patnayakuni, R. et al., (1997). Technology Investment and Business Performance. Jounal of Communications of the Acm, Vol.
40, pp. 89 – 97.
Ramos, E. & Acedo, F. et al., (2011). Internationalisation Speed And Technological Patterns: A Panel Data Study On Spanish SMEs.
Technovation Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 560 – 572.
Renkema, T. J. M. & Berghout, E. W. (1997). Methodologies For İnformation Systems İnvestment Evaluation At The Proposal Stage: A
Comparative Review. Information and Software Technology. Vol. 39, pp. 1 – 13.
Rigby, D. & Bilodeau, B. (2011). Management Tools and Trends 2011. Bain Company, pp. 1-13.
Rogers, E.M. The Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, 1995.
Rogers, M. (2004). Networks, Firm Size and Innovation. Small Business Economic, Vol. 22, pp. 141-153.
Roignant, B. G. & Flath, C. M. et al. (2011). Strategic Investment Under Uncertainty: A Synthesis. European J.of Operational Research,
V.215, pp. 639-650.
Rycroft, R. W. (2006). Time And Technological Innovation: Implications For Public Policy. Technology in Society, Vol. 28, pp. 281- 301.
Rycroft, R. W. (2007). Does Cooperation Absorb Complexity? Innovation Networks And The Speed And Spread Of Complex
Technological Innovation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 74, pp. 565-578.
Saha, A., (1998). Technological Innovation And Western Values. Technology In Society, Vol. 20, pp. 499 – 520.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard Economic Studies, Cambridge, MA.
Shaffer, S., (2002). Firm Size And Economic Growth. Economics Letters, Vol. 76, pp. 195 – 203.
Sherer, F.M., (2001). Innovation & Technological Change, Economics of. Inter.Encyclopedia of the Soc. & Behavioral Sciences, pp.75307536.
Shober, F. & Gebauer, J. (2011). How Much To Spend On Flexibility? Determining The Value Of Information System Flexibility. Journal of
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 51, pp. 638 – 647.
Smit, H.T.J. & Trigeorgies, L. (2007). Strategic Options And Games In Analysing Dynamic Technology Investments. Long Range Planning,
Vol. 40, pp. 84 – 114.
Teo, T.S.H. & Wong, P.H. et al., (2000). Information Technology (It) İnvestment And The Role Of A Firm: An Exploratory Study.
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 20, pp. 269 – 286.
Tovar,B., Ramos – Real, F.J. at el. (2011). Firm Size And Productivity. Evidence From The Electricity Distribution Industry In Brazil.
Energy Policy, Vol. 39, pp. 826 – 833.
Tyler, B.B., (2001). The Complementarity Of Cooperative And Technological Competencies: A Resource - Based Perspective. J. Eng.
Technol. Man.Vol . 18, pp. 1 – 27.
Wrzaczek,S. & Kort,P.M.(2012). Anticipation in Innovative Investment under Oligopolistic Competition.The J. of Automatica, V.48,
pp.2812-2823.
Zahra, S. & Sisodia, R. At el., (1999). Exploiting The Dynamic Links Between Competitive And Technology Strategies. European Man. J.,
V. 17. pp. 183-203.
596